House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Ind)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
May I start, Mr Speaker, by saying it is an honour to be the first Member at the Dispatch Box to congratulate you on taking the Chair? You will not have an easy task, but I am confident that with your technical expertise and your long experience and good humour, you will do an absolutely superb job.
The UK has consistently opposed Turkish military action in Syria. We condemned it with our European partners and we are concerned about the impact it will have on stability, on the humanitarian crisis and also on the counter-Daesh effort.
Ian Austin
Mr Speaker, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating you on your election yesterday. It is fantastic to see you in the Chair.
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Abandoning the Kurds, who led the fight against IS, has seen over 10,000 refugees fleeing to Iraqi Kurdistan on top of the 1.5 million displaced people it is already generously caring for, so will he increase humanitarian work and the Kurdistan region’s ability to defend itself against Daesh? Does he agree that this has also strengthened Iran and its proxy terror arming Hezbollah, and that Israel, the middle east’s only democracy, must be protected from that threat?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman; he has followed this subject for a long period and has experience and insight. We are worried, and our main concerns are around the humanitarian situation and the stability of northern Syria. Notwithstanding the removal of Daesh leader al-Baghdadi, which we welcome, we are worried about the medium-term impact on counter-Daesh strategy in the region. So while we welcome the ceasefire brokered by Vice-President Mike Pence in relation to northern Syria, we are also seeing an accommodation between the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian regime and indeed Presidents Erdoğan and Putin, and that is counter both to our counter-terrorism efforts but also to the humanitarian plight that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises.
Kerry McCarthy
May I add my congratulations to you, Mr Speaker?
Save the Children has identified around 60 British children who are stranded in north-east Syria. The Government have said that we owe them a duty of care. No matter what their parents may have done, these are innocent children, and some are now malnourished and some are suffering from life-threatening illnesses. What are the Government doing to ensure that those British children are repatriated?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady is right to say that the first responsibility is of course with any parent or prospective parent who would take their children out to a conflict zone. We have made it clear that we are willing to repatriate unaccompanied UK minors or orphans where is no risk to UK security. We would consider carefully individual requests for consular support more generally and subject to national security considerations, but of course the UK has no consular presence in Syria from which to provide assistance, and that makes it very difficult to help, but we respond on a case-by-case basis.
Dominic Raab
We talk to all the parties and players involved. Obviously there is an important NATO component. The US withdrawal of troops is, of course, a matter for them, but we note that a small residual number of troops are going to be left for counter-Daesh operations. We support the deconfliction mechanism that is in place to try to ensure that the airspace can be correctly and properly policed.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
It is an honour, Mr Speaker, to be the first Back Bencher to be called from the Government Benches during your Speakership. I made my remarks about your predecessor a matter of formal record, and I hope I can now get called, which would be agreeable.
On this very serious issue, having recently been to the region may I urge my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to engage with the local leadership there when they make themselves available at ministerial level? On the conduct of the Turkish military operation, there is now pretty incontrovertible evidence that white phosphorus has been used as a weapon against civilians, if not other chemical weapons, either by the Turks or by their Syrian auxiliary allies. This is a matter of immense seriousness; will the United Kingdom Government now hold Turkey and her allies to account?
Dominic Raab
Your tenure and leadership, Mr Speaker, are already producing changes on the Back Benches, which are hugely welcome. My hon. Friend is right to be concerned that we ensure we are engaged with key figures on the ground in northern Syria. In relation to white phosphorus, we are very concerned by the reports—which have not yet been fully verified, as we have said—and we want to see a swift and thorough investigation by the UN Commission of Investigation. That is what we are pressing for.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Before the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), stands up, may I be the first London MP to welcome you to your place, Mr Speaker? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what international discussions are occurring with the Turkish Government in order to ensure a long-lasting peace?
Dominic Raab
I have spoken to the Turkish Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister spoke to President Erdoğan on 12 and 20 October, and we have made it clear that we are not willing to see demographic changes on the ground that would alter the balance in northern Syria. We are concerned about the humanitarian situation. It is welcome that the ceasefire is broadly holding, but we now need to see measures for a credible medium-term approach that allows us to continue to press our overarching aim to see Daesh defeated in the region and that is also fair and just in relation to the humanitarian crisis, particularly to those who have been displaced or lost their homes.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
On behalf of the Scottish National party, may I be the first Scottish MP to welcome you to your place, Mr Speaker? On 16 October, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the UK was failing to attend meetings to discuss the situation in Syria, not least the increase in migration and the refugee crisis. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what possible benefits there can be from failing to attend these meetings? What are the foreign policy implications of this, and will he change his mind about non-attendance?
Dominic Raab
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are in close contact with all our bilateral partners, that we engage with our EU partners and that we have raised this situation in the UN Security Council. I have discussed it at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and the UK will be attending the next ministerial meeting of the Global Coalition against Daesh on 14 November in Washington.
Stephen Gethins
I am glad to hear that. The Brexit Secretary told us that the UK would only attend meetings of the EU Council where there was
“a significant national interest in the outcome of discussions, such as on security”.
The situation in Syria strikes me as something that affects security as well as foreign policy, so I ask the Foreign Secretary again: will he change his mind, given that there are 27 key partners in there? It is increasingly striking that there are no benefits from leaving the European Union, but even worse, could it be that we have a Government so blinded and dogmatic over their commitment to turn away from Europe and embrace Trump that they will not even bother to turn up for these meetings? Does he not agree that this is having security and foreign policy implications right now?
Dominic Raab
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think the blinkered prejudice is all on his own side. I have attended EU Gymnichs before the meetings with Foreign Ministers, because when we have security issues of course we want to engage with our EU partners. The reality is that we will continue to do that once we have left the EU, because we want to be strong European neighbours and allies as well as giving effect to the referendum in this country.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
As the first woman to speak, may I also congratulate you on your new job, Mr Speaker? The UK is home to world-class universities, cultural institutions and major sporting events that are known throughout the world and that help to promote our values and build relationships. We will keep investing in our soft power assets, including the British Council, the BBC World Service and Chevening scholarships, and engaging with partners as part of our role as a positive influence in the world.
Eddie Hughes
I thank the Minister for that answer, Mr Speaker, but more importantly I thank you, because I believe that our soft power overseas has already been enhanced as a result of your appointment to the Chair. May I ask the Minister what we will do with this newly enhanced soft power to speak up for persecuted Christians around the world?
Mrs Wheeler
Congratulations from the west midlands as well, Mr Speaker: everybody is congratulating you.
We actively use our influence to speak up for persecuted Christians and individuals of all faiths or beliefs at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the UN, among other bodies. Throughout our diplomatic network, we lobby Governments for changes in laws and practices and raise individual cases of persecution in countries recently including Egypt, Indonesia and Sudan. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), the PM’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief is working very hard as well.
Michael Fabricant
Last summer, the Red Arrows went to North America on an 11-week deployment and I happened, by sheer coincidence, to be in Chicago with the Mayor of the West Midlands. There we were, walking along the esplanade and we saw the Red Arrows on display with around a million Chicagoans cheering the Royal Air Force, which was great. That is a great example of soft power, but when does my hon. Friend think that a soft power strategy might be published?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend, with his great links to the west midlands and the Mayor of the West Midlands, all congratulating the Speaker on his new position. Of course, this was a great example of global Britain going forward. We are all incredibly proud of the Red Arrows and they are a great example of soft power. When the Red Arrows were out there, the engineers and the pilots ran STEM––science, technology, engineering and maths––workshops in schools throughout their route, which was an excellent opportunity to showcase our soft power. To put my hon. Friend’s mind at rest, yes, we will introduce a strategy for soft power once we have won the general election and come back.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
No soft soap from me, Mr Speaker. The fact of the matter is that I have known you since you came into the House. I am really pleased that you are in the Chair and we at least have a northern voice. It is Lancastrian rather than Yorkshire, but it is nice to have a regional accent. It is very nice to see your dad up in the Gallery, another old friend and colleague of ours. It is a very happy occasion for the Hoyles.
Now I am turning into angry mode. Will the Minister define what is soft power and what is hard power? Is what the Russians did to us in the last election, and possibly during the referendum, soft or hard power, what are we going to do about it and when are the Government going to publish this report that they are trying to hide from the public?
Mrs Wheeler
I am always concerned about the health of the hon. Gentleman; far be it from me to suggest that that was theatrics. To answer his question, soft power is one of the best values of the UK as a nation, in that we are out there with our embassies, trade envoys and cultural attachés and our British Council work. All that is absolutely excellent, as is the World Service that we help pay for. As regards Russia, the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous parliamentarian and I believe that an urgent question on the matter has been agreed by the Speaker, the first he has agreed in his time as Speaker. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman hangs around, he will get the answers that he is looking for.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, I am delighted to join the congratulations on your election yesterday on behalf of the people of Liverpool.
An important element of soft power is our commitment to international development. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's commitment to that, including the 0.7% aid commitment and the continuation of the Department for International Development as a stand-alone independent Government Department?
Mrs Wheeler
It is a pleasure to take a question from the hon. Gentleman, who has been unbelievably good as Chairman of his Select Committee. He is standing down and, honestly, we will miss him. To answer his question, absolutely: 0.7% is writ large. We are very proud that this is the Government that brought that in and put it on a statutory basis. As regards keeping DFID going after the election, let us get through the election.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
As the first born and bred Lancastrian to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, may I also congratulate you and wish you well in your role? Last night, the director of the British Museum, Hartwig Fischer, came to dinner at the House of Commons. I wonder whether the Minister will join me in putting on the record our appreciation of the museum’s work. Not only is it an extraordinary lending institution of artefacts around the world, but its work in Iraq, for example, where the British Museum trains men and women archaeologists, is doing so much to preserve and protect sites that have been destroyed by Daesh and others in recent years. If the Government are looking for an envoy for anything, I am going to be free. [Laughter.]
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my right hon. Friend for that wonderful question. I am delighted to include the British Museum’s work as another area of soft power for the great UK and for global Britain everywhere. My right hon. Friend is standing down and will be greatly missed not only here but in the middle east, where his expertise and humanity are respected by everybody.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
As the first Bury Member of Parliament to speak, may I congratulate you on your fantastic achievement, Mr Speaker? Following yesterday’s decision, which was based on merit, you have been able to bring a great sense of unity to the House.
Turning to soft power, what are the Government doing to make it clear to the Indian Government that we have extremely serious concerns about human rights abuses in Kashmir? What will the Government do to promote the concept of self-determination for the Kashmiri people? Time and again before elections, people on the Front Benches make commitments to promote self-determination, yet Governments have repeatedly failed to do anything about the issue when it comes to using soft power in international institutions.
Mrs Wheeler
That was a serious question, and it behoves me to give a serious answer. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Indian Foreign Secretary about the matter, raising our concerns about humanitarian issues, particularly in Kashmir. As for the election and commitments regarding an independent Kashmir, the matter should be sorted out on a bilateral basis between the two countries.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
NATO is the cornerstone of UK and Euro-Atlantic defence and security and has been for over 70 years. On 12 October I addressed the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where I reiterated how NATO allies must work together towards our shared values and to uphold peace and the international rule of law.
Daniel Kawczynski
When we finally leave the European Union in January, there will be six key strategic countries that are committed to the defence of our continent but are not members of the EU. Will my right hon. Friend commit to work with them and others across the continent to ensure that NATO remains the supreme defence posture, rather than the EU army proposed by Mr Verhofstadt and others?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is a stalwart defender, supporter and champion of NATO and will know that we continue to meet our 2% defence spending target. We contribute to every NATO mission, including leading the Enhanced Forward Presence battlegroup in Estonia. We also lead the Joint Expeditionary Force of up to nine NATO allies and partners, and we do not want that to be undermined by anything done within the EU. Indeed, we want to keep EU, US and North American solidarity as strong as possible.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Labour Front-Bench team, may I welcome you to your new role, Mr Speaker? A vital part of co-operation with our NATO allies is defending ourselves against Russian attempts to interfere with our democracy. To that end, what possible reason can the Government have to delay the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee report until after the general election? What on earth do they have to hide?
Dominic Raab
The right hon. Lady will know, as she has been in her post for quite a while now, that ISC reports go through a number of stages of clearance and other processes between the ISC and the Government. The reports often contain sensitive information, and I know that she would want to see the integrity of such information protected. The reports have to go through that process before they are published, and it usually takes several weeks to complete.
Dominic Raab
The recent average, just to respond to the hon. Gentleman, is six weeks. This report was only submitted on 17 October, so it has been handled correctly.
Emily Thornberry
I am surprised that the Secretary of State could answer with a straight face.
On a related issue, I ask the Foreign Secretary a simple yes or no question pursuant to my letter to him on Friday. Does Mr Cummings have unredacted access to top-secret intelligence and unrestricted access to top-secret meetings relating to NATO, Russia, Ukraine and Syria—yes or no?
Dominic Raab
I thank the right hon. Lady for her letter. As she knows, the Government and Ministers do not comment on security clearance, but the insinuation in her letter that No. 10 is somehow in the grip of a Kremlin mole is frankly ridiculous, even by the standards of the loony left. What is troubling is that the leader of the Labour party sided with the Kremlin when it denied responsibility for the nerve agent attack in Salisbury in 2018—one more reason why this Labour party, under this leader, can never be trusted with Britain’s security.
Mr Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
The question is about NATO. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the biggest fault lines in NATO at the moment is the fact that the largest partner is spending 4% of its GDP on defence, whereas no one else is spending much above 2%? Does he agree it is time for the UK to show a lead and commit to spending 3% of our GDP on defence in the next decade?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to the work my right hon. Friend did as Foreign Secretary. We are committed to and, indeed, are meeting our 2% commitment. Not all NATO members are, and we therefore continue to sympathise with the concerns of the US in that regard and encourage others to meet the commitment. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look fondly and with interest at his suggestion of a 3% commitment.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The Foreign Office has done everything it properly can to clear the path so that justice can be done for the family of Harry Dunn in this tragic case.
Tom Brake
I start by congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your election. I know that you will want to defend the rights of this House against any rogue Executive.
I extend my deepest sympathies to Harry Dunn’s family. Are the Government exploring routes to extradite the driver? Do they think they are likely to be successful, given that President Trump’s notes, which were caught on camera, appear to confirm that she will never return?
Dominic Raab
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be slightly confused about the process. A criminal investigation is being conducted by Northamptonshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service. There is no question of any extradition process, let alone of what any Government might do about it, until the CPS has taken its charging decision.
From the Foreign Office’s point of view, this is a deeply tragic case. We have expressed our disappointment and called for a review of the immunity question. It should be waived, and we have cleared, as best and as properly as we can, all obstacles to justice being done. It is now properly a matter for the police and the CPS, including in relation to any extradition matters that follow.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The family and friends of Harry Dunn have been let down in the most appalling way, not just by the lack of justice for their son but by the complete lack of answers from the Government to questions that they and we have raised. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State one more simple question that any mourning family would want answered? Can he tell me how long Harry had to wait between being knocked off his motorbike and the arrival of an ambulance?
Dominic Raab
Like the right hon. Lady, we feel a huge amount of sympathy for the family, who are very distraught. We are doing everything we can to clear the path to an investigation. I do not know the answer to her question, but I gently say to her that on all these matters, particularly on something so sensitive, we should all proceed and talk about it responsibly.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister for Africa (Andrew Stephenson)
As a fellow Lancastrian MP, may I add my congratulations to you, Mr Speaker?
The UK has a strong history of protecting human rights and promoting our values globally. We do that through a mixture of bilateral and multilateral engagement and by working with and supporting civil society and others promoting respect for British values and democracy. The rule of law and human rights are and will remain a core part of our international diplomacy.
Liz Twist
It is hard to talk about human rights when one of the most flagrant breaches of those rights, the genocidal violence against the Rohingya people by the Myanmar military, remains completely unpunished. What are the latest plans to seek the referral of Myanmar to the International Criminal Court?
Andrew Stephenson
The UK has committed to finding a sustainable solution to the Rohingya crisis. We will continue to work in Myanmar and Bangladesh to ensure safe and dignified returns, and ensure that they are all voluntary. Through the European Union, we imposed sanctions on 14 individuals responsible for human rights violations during the 2017 Rohingya crisis. We will continue to work with the United Nations, the EU and other international actors to hold to account those responsible for these appalling atrocities.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
May I add the tributes of Kent to your speakership, Mr Speaker? May I also personally pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has spoken up on human rights issues in this House for 30 years and has not tired of arguing for people around the world whose rights are challenged? May I also thank her for what she has done over the past two years, when she has been on the Foreign Affairs Committee and been an amazing friend, counsel and adviser? The last report that she has played her part in is on the human rights of this country and how democracies can defend themselves against autocratic influence from around the world. Does the Minister agree that there is much more we can do to defend academic freedoms in this country from Chinese influence and democratic freedoms from Russian influence?
Andrew Stephenson
The UK has a long tradition of protecting human rights domestically and fulfilling our international human rights obligations, but, as my hon. Friend the Chair of the FAC has just said, there are concerns about academic freedoms, particularly given the influence of China, and Russian interference. Those two issues are serious and I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pays close attention to them.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Yesterday’s Human Rights Watch report on Saudi Arabia revealed mass arrests of women’s rights activists in the past year and alleged that many of them had been sexually assaulted, whipped and tortured in detention. Does the Minister still think the Prime Minister was right to describe Crown Prince Salman two years ago as “a remarkable young man”?
Andrew Stephenson
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains a Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights priority country, particularly because of its use of the death penalty and its restrictions of women’s rights, freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief. We have raised human rights concerns repeatedly with the Government of Saudi Arabia, with this most recently having been done by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Fabian Hamilton
The true answer is that when it comes to Mohammed bin Salman, this Government are all too willing to look the other way. Can the Minister explain how it was possible that in July the Department for International Trade illegally authorised licences for exports of arms to the royal Saudi land forces, a full 41 days after the Foreign Office was told that those forces were operating inside Yemen?
Andrew Stephenson
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the International Trade Secretary apologised for any export licences that were issued in error. We are carefully considering the implications of the judgment for decision making, and we will not grant any new licences for export to Saudi Arabia, or any other coalition partners, of any items that might be used in the conflict in Yemen.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Mr Speaker, may I join all colleagues around the House in congratulating you on your elevation to Speaker of the House?
The key human right is article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights and people being able to practise their religion openly and freely. May I pay a huge tribute to the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), for commissioning the Truro review of the persecution of Christians and the current Foreign Secretary for all the work that he and his team are doing in taking forward that review? Recommendation 10 requested the Foreign Secretary write to key organisations such as the British Council, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and Wilton Park, so may I thank him for writing that within 24 hours? Will he review this in 12 months to see how they are doing in taking forward freedom of religion and belief as part of that?
Andrew Stephenson
May I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work he does and his recent appointment as the Prime Minister’s envoy for freedom of religion or belief? As he says, huge numbers of Christians around the world are being persecuted—it is currently estimated that 125 million Christians experience high or extreme levels of persecution. The Government have accepted all the recommendations from the bishop’s report, but my hon. Friend’s suggestion of a review is a good idea.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Andrew Stephenson
I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for her years of service to the House, particularly her years of service on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and for always keeping a laser-like focus on such issues. As she will be aware, we operate one of the most robust export control regimes in the world and take our licensing obligations seriously. When mistakes are made, things are investigated. As the Secretary of State for International Trade has said, the Government have apologised for the fact that export licences were issued in error, and we are investigating what happened.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
May I be the first Sussex Member of Parliament to be called in your Speakership to congratulate you on your election to the Chair, Mr Speaker? In that county, I am privileged to represent probably the largest number of Chagos islanders anywhere in the world. I have no doubt about UK sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory; however, human rights have been neglected ever since the Wilson Administration forcibly evicted the Chagos islanders from their homeland in the late 1960s. Will the Minister assure me that, as we go forward, Chagos islands human rights will be better respected in terms of a right of return and nationality issues?
Andrew Stephenson
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for always doing all he can to speak up for his constituents. The United Kingdom Government have expressed sincere regret over this issue; however, in November 2016, the UK Government announced that the resettlement of Chagossians would not be supported on the grounds of feasibility, defence or security interests. The UK Government continue to the work with Chagossian communities to design a support package worth approximately £40 million, the intent of which is to support Chagossians here in the United Kingdom.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Africa (Andrew Stephenson)
Our consular staff help more than 20,000 British people abroad every year, and we constantly strive to improve support, with more online services, updated information and specialist staff.
Chi Onwurah
As a Geordie, may I say what a pleasure it is to hear your northern tones bring order to our proceedings, Mr Speaker?
My constituent Christine Scott was falsely arrested and imprisoned in Ghana. She is disabled, with severe mobility issues, yet the sum total of her consular support during the 16 months of her ordeal was a list of lawyers. She remains deeply traumatised, but the Minister has yet to respond to my inquiry. His Department has suffered cuts of 30% since 2010 and now fights for funding with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development—a situation that the Foreign Affairs Committee said was “unsustainable”—so what is he doing to ensure that the first priority of consular services is to support citizens like Christine and not to cut costs?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I have seen her letter, and I will be responding to it later today. I am also happy to meet her. The details of this case are rather more complex than she has suggested to the House. I also gently suggest—[Interruption.] Wait until we have a meeting. I would rather discuss the full details of the case. If she looks specifically at Africa, she will see that we are opening five new missions there and recruiting hundreds more staff. Our consular services are first-rate across the globe. We are enhancing the network. We should be supporting our consular staff in the incredible work that they do. They are being not cut, but totally supported by this Government in their work with British citizens across the globe.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you might be from the wrong side of the Pennines, but it is a delight to see you in the Chair and for impartiality to be returned to that office.
As we continue to expand our consular network overseas, may I urge the Minister to look at the proposal that I recently wrote to the Prime Minister about with regard to a permanent consular post in Atlantic Canada, not only to support the very many Brits who travel there every year but to make better use of our trading relationship post Brexit?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He did tireless work as the trade envoy to Canada, and I know that it is a country very close to his heart. I will certainly look at his suggestion, but, as I say, we have enhanced our network around the globe. We are always looking for new opportunities to support British nationals. In 2018-19, we provided support to 22,607 new consular cases, with satisfaction ratings of more than 80% reported from the people whom we helped around the globe.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
In Belfast, they might say, “Good on you, auld hand,” Mr Speaker, but we are delighted with your elevation.
The Minister knows that I will not go into details about this case because of its sensitive nature, but I want to pay tribute to him: my constituent is now home from Cameroon and in the arms of his family. They are incredibly grateful to him for the work that he has done and to Sir Simon McDonald, Chris Ribbands, Sharon Gannery, the deputy commissioner, and Amina Begum Ali for all their tremendous work. There is a family full of love and joy in my constituency where they did not think that that would happen, so I thank him.
Andrew Stephenson
May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tireless work that he does for his constituency and for the family in question? We are not always able to resolve cases as satisfactorily as we have resolved this one, but we will always try everything that we can to help British citizens in trouble abroad.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I, too, welcome you to your place, Mr Speaker. My constituents, Julie Pearson and Kirsty Maxwell, died abroad. They were taken far too soon in suspicious circumstances. I have asked questions of two Prime Ministers and met several Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers, and I could not get them the help that they needed, so I set up an all-party group on consular services and deaths abroad. Sixty families gave evidence in hours of harrowing experiences. Ninety two recommendations were made. It is clear that there is a cultural problem stemming from lack of funding. The officers who are trying to help these families abroad do not have the resources or training. Will the Minister read my report and, most of all, will he apologise to the families that we have met across all our constituencies who have been let down by the FCO?
Andrew Stephenson
I am reading the hon. Lady’s report, and, unfortunately, I find it rather one-sided. I know that my predecessor agreed to meet the all-party group, but the meeting never took place because a date was never arranged. That was not because my predecessor did not try to get that arranged. I have agreed with the hon. Lady to meet the APPG, but, again, that meeting has never happened, so rather than publishing one-sided reports, I wish that she and the members of that APPG actually worked with the Foreign Office, which has some incredible staff, dealing with some very serious incidents across the world. Last year, there were 4,000 deaths of British nationals overseas. We will always look at what more we can do and implement many of the Victims’ Commissioner’s recommendations and work with other non-governmental organisations to improve our service for people who die abroad. I only wish that we could have a more constructive approach from the all-party group.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Llongyfarchiadau, Mr Speaker—congratulations. May I be the first to say that to you in Welsh?
I thank the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa for the efforts he has made on behalf of my constituent Luke Symons, who is held captive by the Houthis in Yemen, where no consular services are available—for obvious reasons. I urge the FCO not to take its eye off the ball during the election period, and to continue all efforts to get his release.
Andrew Stephenson
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa is doing everything he can for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. Providing consular assistance in Yemen is, of course, far from straightforward, but we will continue to keep up the pressure and to do everything we can.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
May I say how delighted I am to have a rugby league fanatic in the Chair, Mr Speaker?
Can the Minister update me on my constituent Aras Amiri? What urgent action is being taken in Tehran for this woman, who is a British Council employee? Tragically, her family here are heartbroken because they have not had an update on what is happening with her desperate case, following her imprisonment on false charges.
Andrew Stephenson
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will speak to the Iranian Foreign Minister later today. The treatment of British Iranians particularly is of grave concern. We repeatedly raise our concerns with the Iranian authorities, including through the Prime Minister, who raised this matter directly with President Rouhani during the United Nations General Assembly.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Since the last oral questions, I visited the US to reaffirm our commitment to strengthening the special relationship. I spoke to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, affirming our leading role in NATO and our commitment to it. Above all, I am focused on supporting the Prime Minister in getting Brexit done so that this country can move forward as an open, outward-looking country with global reach and global ambition.
Liz Twist
I missed my chance earlier to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your appointment, so may I take the opportunity to do so now?
Chinese state media yesterday urged the Hong Kong Government to take a tougher line against what it called “wanton violence” in the city. Will the Minister contact both his Chinese and Hong Kong counterparts, and say to them both that what is needed is a return to dialogue and democratic norms, not an even tougher line being taken against the demonstrators?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady’s point is one with which Members across the House would agree. We remain seriously concerned about the situation in Hong Kong and the recent violent clashes between protesters and the police. We condemn the minority of hardcore violent protesters, but also continue fully to support the right to peaceful protest. As the hon. Lady says, that ought to be a stepping stone to political dialogue, particularly with the forthcoming local elections on 24 November in mind.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Dominic Raab
As I mentioned in my response to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), the local elections on 24 November will be an important milestone to see whether there can be a de-escalation of tensions in Hong Kong, and a path towards political dialogue and engagement that is consistent with the joint declaration and one country, two systems. I share my right hon. Friend’s concern about the barring of Joshua Wong because standing for election is a fundamental right enshrined in Hong Kong’s Basic Law, which itself reflects the one country, two systems model. We continue to make our concerns known to our Chinese partners.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
As a fellow Lancastrian, Mr Speaker, may I welcome you to your new role?
Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the ongoing industrial dispute between Interserve and the Public and Commercial Services Union members working as support staff in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Is he aware of the repeated security breaches in the last six months through Interserve bringing on site contractors without appropriate clearance?
Dominic Raab
We are of course aware of the dispute, and want to see it resolved as swiftly as possible. I am not aware of the security breaches to which the hon. Lady refers, but I will look into them and respond to her by letter.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (Dr Andrew Murrison)
May I, Mr Speaker, extend my felicitations from Wiltshire on your advancement? I feel absolutely certain that my Wiltshire colleagues would join me in that.
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. He is aware that we do of course proscribe the military element of Hamas, and we have a policy of non-engagement with Hamas in its entirety. Until Hamas sets its face against violence, accepts the Quartet principles and engages with the political process, it will be outside the tent.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his new appointment as an adviser at the Home Office on counter-extremism and counter-terrorism—a role that I know he will perform very effectively.
We do not comment on operational matters, as the hon. Gentleman will know. We welcome the removal of Baghdadi, but there is a much broader counter-Daesh strategy that we need to pursue. We need to keep all our partners together—which is why, frankly, some of the latent anti-Americanism that is preached by Opposition Front Benchers is deeply unhelpful.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Google turns around over £10 billion in the UK, making a typical profit margin of 22%, so it should pay about £420 million in corporation tax, yet it pays only about £70 million due to profit shifting. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to press for international action to end this kind of disgraceful tax avoidance?
Andrew Stephenson
The UK is a world leader on tax compliance, with one of the lowest tax gaps in the world. The UK was a major sponsor of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project and has adopted many of the recommendations. The Government also introduced the diverted profits tax, which came into effect on 1 April 2015 and counters the contrived arrangements used by some multinationals to divert profits from the UK.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Ind)
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman has been a stalwart champion of human rights and has indeed taken a very close interest in foreign policy in relation to this region. He asks what we have done. As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), said earlier, fundamentally the issue of Kashmir needs to be resolved between the two parties, but we never duck the issue of human rights in any country. I have raised the issue of human rights in Saudi Arabia with the Saudi Foreign Minister and, particularly in relation to detentions, blackouts and internet blockages, with the Indian Foreign Minister. We will continue to do that because it is absolutely important. Even with some of our closest partners, we need to be able to have those candid conversations.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
In the eight years since I was first appointed the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to nations in south-east Asia and elected chair of the all-party China group, trade and investment in that region has increased sharply—as have challenges to our values in some areas. May I therefore thank officials at the Foreign Office and the Department for International Trade who balance these responsibilities so well? May I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s first visit abroad to the ASEAN summit in Bangkok? Does he agree that we should do all we can to participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and deepen our role with the nations of ASEAN?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to all my hon. Friend’s tireless efforts and work. The Asia-Pacific region covered by the trans-Pacific trade agreement and ASEAN is a hugely important relationship for us. They are growth markets of the future, and we have perhaps not invested in partners there as much as we could have. While ensuring that we remain strong trading partners and allies with our European partners, leaving the EU allows us to invest more and with renewed vigour and enthusiasm in that critical region. That will bring dividends in jobs, free trade and advantages for consumers at home, and it also allows us to project our influence and soft power, as we have been discussing in this House.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I know at first hand from my time working on human rights in war crimes and for human rights NGO Liberty how important the work of Human Rights Watch is. We want to see that continue, and of course we support it in general terms. We discuss a whole range of issues with our Israeli partners. The Israeli Supreme Court has a strong record of independence and has held the Executive to account on many occasions. It is important that we respect the separation of powers there as well.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Warmest congratulations to you from Worcestershire, Mr Speaker.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned the transatlantic relationship in his opening remarks. We have not had a UK ambassador in Washington for four months. Can he update the House on when he expects that appointment to be made, and can he also rule out appointing Mr Nigel Farage to such a position?
Dominic Raab
Our embassy in the US does a terrific job on a whole range of issues, from trade to security co-operation. I have been out there twice since my appointment, and I know how much commitment and hard work they put in. We are taking our time, to ensure that we get the appointment of the next ambassador right, and I think my hon. Friend need not lose any sleep over the prospect of it being Mr Farage.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I suppose I am the first person to congratulate you twice, Mr Speaker.
Can the Foreign Secretary tell us how the UK’s standing as a soft power superpower is enhanced by its continuing refusal to comply with the UN General Assembly resolution that it should withdraw its colonial administration from the Chagos islands by 22 November this year?
Dominic Raab
We contribute to soft power in all sorts of ways, from our entrepreneurs and our world-beating innovators to the popularity of the arts and the English language overseas. The hon. Gentleman raises the specific issue of the British Indian Ocean Territory. We have no doubt about our sovereignty in that regard. It has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814; Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the territory. We were disappointed that what was effectively a bilateral dispute was referred to the International Court of Justice and the UN General Assembly. The point of principle is that that circumvents the basic tenet that the ICJ should not consider bilateral disputes without the consent of both parties.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Congratulations, Mr Speaker.
In the light of the Foreign Secretary’s rather dismissive response to his predecessor on defence spending, is he aware that the Defence Committee, on which four parties are represented, has recommended 3% of GDP as a realistic medium-term goal? Does he accept that 2% of GDP on defence is a minimum? It is a floor, not a ceiling.
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to all the work that my right hon. Friend has done in this House on security over the years. I certainly hope that I was not dismissive. We have just had one comprehensive spending review. There are competing bids going to the Chancellor on a whole range of issues, but he makes an important point. We are committed, as a stalwart NATO ally, to 2%, and we will certainly consider the report that he referred to as we consider the next CSR.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Following on from the Secretary of State’s previous response, it is three months today since the draconian illegal blockade in Kashmir began. Thousands continue to be arrested without any due process. There are food shortages and medicine shortages, and persecution, oppression and injustice continue, yet the UK Government remain silent. The United Nations Security Council remains silent, and the international community remain silent. The sons and daughters of Kashmir are asking a simple question: does a Kashmiri child not feel the same pain as any other child? Does a Kashmiri child not bleed in the same way as any other child? Is a Kashmiri child’s death not worth the same as any other child’s death? Why is the world silent?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I understand the passion with which he raises this issue. Of course we feel for the suffering of anyone in Kashmir, and we certainly have not been quiet on this issue. I have raised it with the Indian Foreign Minister, and we have discussed it with our partners. It has been discussed in international forums more widely, so I can reassure him and his constituents on both sides that we continually raise and will continue to raise these matters with the Indian Government. Equally, the wider issue of Kashmir, as has already been said in the Chamber, is a bilateral dispute that we feel—and, indeed, the UN Secretary Council resolutions and the international community have said—ought to be resolved bilaterally. We would certainly encourage and want to facilitate all those efforts to achieve that solution.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Given the events of the last few years, I am not sure whether it is congratulations or commiserations I should offer you, Mr Speaker, but I certainly express my pleasure at your appointment.
When we return from the election and this House sits after the election campaign, it will be midwinter in northern Syria and 60 British children will be living in tents there. May I again ask the Foreign Secretary to revise, as a matter of urgency, our policy on their return?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend, and we certainly share his concerns about the humanitarian situation. I have already made clear the UK’s policy on unaccompanied minors and orphans: we are willing to see them repatriated. We will consider wider requests for consular support more generally, subject to national security concerns. The real challenge we have is that we do not have a consular presence in Syria, and accessing the children—or anyone else of UK nationality for that matter—is very difficult, but we do respond to all cases on a case-by-case basis.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Questions are now over, but may I tell anyone standing that their name will be down for next time as a matter of urgency? Let us get the priorities working correctly.
Points of Order
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. In the remaining hours before purdah, what steps are available to the House to require the Secretary of State for Transport to publish the Oakervee review of High Speed 2? Whistleblowers have revealed that this is one of the great public scandals, I believe, of our generation, and it has led to parliamentarians making decisions based on entirely false information about the development of the scheme. May I seek this guidance from you, Mr Speaker: in the remaining hours before purdah, what can we do to get this report published?
Mr Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has done the right thing: he has put it on the record, and I hope those on the Government Front Bench are listening and may come back about that while we still have time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ever mindful that this Parliament is coming to an end very shortly, may I ask what we can do in this House to ensure that something happens about the persecution of Christians? The number of countries where Christians suffer because of their faith rose from 128 in 2015 to 144 a year later. The very survival of Christianity as a living religion is in doubt. What can be done by the Foreign Secretary before purdah to make sure something happens right away?
Mr Speaker
I finished questions earlier, but you have certainly put that point on the record.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask your advice about what may happen during the parliamentary Dissolution? I am particularly concerned about how I may raise the case of Mr Benjamin Williams from my constituency. A wheelchair-bound young man with degenerative spine disease, he has had great difficulty getting the services he needs from Shepherds Bush Housing Group, which seems to have been obstructive in every respect in relation to leaks, the fact that his windows do not close and other matters. Can you give me some advice about how I can raise this issue further, particularly to make sure that he gets the support he needs prior to Christmas?
Mr Speaker
You are quite right to raise such an issue on behalf of a constituent, but we can still write to Ministers during that period. I think you need to make sure you get your letter off today, but I do hope they have already been listening.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As Chairman of Ways and Means, you were assiduous in your defence of Members’ rights and Members’ security. As the general election begins, we are hearing reports that candidates in part of the United Kingdom are pulling out due to threats of violence. Will you assure the House that you are liaising with police forces across all parts of this United Kingdom —Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England—because some communities seem to think that violence is the way to ensure that their opponents do not stand against them?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. A letter will be going out to Members of the House who are standing for re-election, to reassure them about what measures are in place. I gave evidence to Lord Bew on his report. I will not go into the details now, but what I will say is that all police forces are well aware that all candidates matter, and support will be given to them.
Intelligence and Security Committee Report on Russia
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his refusal to give clearance to the report on Russia by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)
As the first Member who has no particular hook on which to hang their congratulations to you, Mr Speaker, may I in any event, and rather gratuitously, welcome you to the Chair?
I would like to answer my right hon. and learned Friend’s question regarding publication of the ISC’s report on Russia. The ISC provides invaluable scrutiny and oversight of the work of the intelligence community to Parliament, so I am grateful to it for conducting this timely inquiry into our work on Russia. Russia’s reckless behaviour in Salisbury and Amesbury shows that, now more than ever, we cannot afford to be complacent about the Russian threat.
Because the ISC deals with matters of national security and intelligence, its reports always contain sensitive information, so it is entirely right that they go through an intensive security review before publication. This report is one of a number of ISC reports that the Government are currently considering. The current length of time that this report has been with the Government is not unusual, as this has averaged around six weeks for reports published in recent years, and three to four weeks for a response to be forthcoming from the Government.
For example, the details of the counter-terrorism review following the attacks and the 2017-18 annual report were sent together to No. 10 on 12 October 2018. We were asked to respond 10 days later on 26 October. We responded on 8 November, and then the checked, proofread report was published on 22 November. Similarly, the details of the detainees report were sent to No. 10 on 10 May 2018. Again, the ISC asked for a response within 10 working days on 24 May. We responded on 30 May, and then the checked, proofread report was published on 12 June. In both cases, the process took approximately six weeks, because by law it is imperative that the process is thorough.
In accordance with the Justice and Security Act 2013, the impact of releasing sensitive information must be carefully considered by the Prime Minister on the advice of civil servants. We cannot rush the process and risk undermining our national security. There is no set timeline within the memorandum of understanding with the Committee for the Government to clear such reports for publication, and under the same memorandum there is no set timeline for a response, nor is such a deadline set in the governing legislation.
I want to assure the House that the Committee is well informed of this process, which is continuing along standard parameters that apply before every publication. Once the process has been completed, we will continue to keep all relevant parties and the House informed.
Mr Grieve
Mr Speaker, may I once again warmly congratulate you on your election?
The Intelligence and Security Committee operates on a completely non-partisan basis to try to put information into the public domain in the national interest. This report was completed in March of this year after many months of work. There then began a process of correction and redaction needed to get it published, and that process, which involved the agencies and the Cabinet Office, was completed by early October, when the agencies and the national security secretariat indicated that they were happy that the published form would not damage any operational capabilities of the agencies. That is why, on 17 October, the report was sent to the Prime Minister for final confirmation.
It is a long-standing agreement that the Prime Minister will endeavour to respond within 10 days. The Minister has indicated that there have been instances where further delay has crept in, but my secretariat tells me that it is unprecedented that we should have had no response at all explaining why any further delay is required in this case. The report has to be laid before Parliament when it is sitting. If it is not laid before Parliament ceases to sit this evening, it will not be capable of being laid until the Committee is reformed. In 2017, that took nearly six months.
I ask the Minister, how is it that the Prime Minister has claimed, through the No. 10 spokesman, that there must be further delays for consultation about national security, when the agencies themselves indicated publicly this morning, in response to journalistic inquiries, that publication will not prejudice the discharge of their functions? So for what purpose is the Prime Minister still considering it? It certainly cannot be the risk to national security, as the agencies themselves have said that there is none.
Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister does not have carte blanche to alter our reports or remove material from them, and that, if he wishes to exercise a veto over publication, he must give the Committee a credible explanation as to why he is doing so? Will he also explain why No. 10 spokesmen insisted that no publication should take place because weeks of further interdepartmental consultations were needed, when, I have to say to the Minister, this explanation was plainly bogus? Finally, will he explain why No. 10 spokesmen suggested that parts of the report had been leaked by the Committee, when it is plainly obvious to anybody who looks at the journalistic speculations that they have not? Would he now like to take the opportunity of withdrawing that particular slur, which came from No. 10?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his questions and for his tone. I simply reiterate the points I made in my statement. It is not unusual for the review of ISC reports to take some time. The average turnaround time is six weeks. The average response to the Committee is anywhere between three and four weeks. It is not as if the Prime Minister has not had one or two other things to do over the past several weeks, notably obtaining a good deal for Britain on withdrawing from the European Union. It is not unusual that the turnaround time is what it is.
The Prime Minister has very specific and particular responsibilities, under the Justice and Security Act 2013, to be sure that any information that ISC reports may contain is properly checked and, if appropriate, redacted. The Prime Minister takes that responsibility very seriously indeed, because the reports that issue from the ISC are important. They carry weight and therefore they must be properly looked at. That is what No. 10 is doing. That is what the Prime Minister is doing by referring to his officials for advice, which is his right and responsibility.
As to leaks, we see quite a few of those and we deplore them all. I certainly would not want anybody to believe that what is in a leak, particularly if it appears on the front pages of certain newspapers, is believable.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) for securing it and for all his efforts?
I can only echo the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the utterly unjustifiable, unprecedented and clearly politically motivated reasons for delaying the publication of the report until after the election. This is not at the request of the intelligence agencies. There are no foreign powers we have to consult, which was the reason for the delay of the rendition report. This is nothing less than an attempt to suppress the truth from the public and from Parliament, and it is an affront to our democracy.
We are bound to ask: what is Downing Street so worried about? Why would it not welcome an official report on attempted Russian interference in the 2016 referendum, whether that was successful or otherwise? I fear it is because it realises that the report will lead to other questions about the links between Russia and Brexit, and with the current leadership of the Tory party, that risk derailing its election campaign. There are questions about the relationship between the FSB-linked Sergey Nalobin and his “good friend”, the current Prime Minister. There are questions about the Prime Minister’s chief aide, Dominic Cummings, his relationship with Oxford academic Norman Stone, the mysterious three years that he spent in post-communist Russia aged just 23, and the relationships that he allegedly forged with individuals such as Vladislav Surkov, the key figure behind Vladimir Putin’s throne. And there are questions about the amount of money flowing into Conservative coffers from Russian émigrés, about the sources of money that paid for the Brexit campaign, and about the dubious activities of Conservative Friends of Russia.
If the Minister is going to dismiss all that as conspiracy theories or smears and say that it has nothing to do with the delay of the report, I say back to him: prove it. Publish this report and let us see for ourselves. Otherwise, there is only question: what have you got to hide?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for giving us a run-down of her interest in smears and conspiracy theories. She wonders where Professor Stone was in the 1980s—I rather wonder where the Leader of the Opposition was in the 1980s and, for that matter, in the 1990s, the 2000s and quite recently. It is rather rich for her to suggest that somehow the Conservative party and this Government are linked to Russian disinformation, given the way that her party leadership has acted and the responsibility that her party leadership has had down the years for being hand in hand with its Russian friends.
In respect of the right hon. Lady’s question about publication, the Government and the Prime Minister have a responsibility under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to look properly at the report, and that is what he is doing. The turnaround time for this report is not unusual. The response time to the Committee is not unusual. The CT attacks report and the detainee report took some time to turn around. I understand why the right hon. Lady may wish—for party political purposes in this febrile time, as the House of Commons is about to dissolve—to make the points that she has, but they are entirely refutable. I believe, personally, that they are reprehensible, and I wish that she would withdraw the imputation about the good name of the Conservative party and this Government.
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
I declare an interest as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I absolutely support what our Chairman said. This is a question of principle as much as anything else. I will not go into the details of what the report is about—there have been a lot of foxes let loose by the media—but I have this question to put to the Minister, and I feel sorry for him that he has been landed with having to answer this, rather than perhaps someone from the Cabinet Office. As far as the Committee is concerned, this report has been cleared by the intelligence and security agencies. It has been cleared by the Cabinet Office, and the civil servants and officials saw no reason whatsoever why it should not have been published. Will the Minister therefore tell the House—I do not want to hear all that repetition again—why the Prime Minister is not going to allow this report to be released and published in this Parliament?
Christopher Pincher
Before I answer his question, I would like to say farewell to my right hon. Friend, who has been a steadfast Member of this House and a doughty champion of defence and security issues, both here and on the ISC. He asks a straightforward question. I will give him the straightforward answer. The Prime Minister has a responsibility under the 2013 Act to properly and carefully adjudicate upon the report before him, and that is what he is doing, but it takes some time.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). He and I disagree on a wide range of issues, but his fairness and scrupulousness in holding to account both his own Government and others, such as me, is a credit to the entire House.
The Russian Government’s greatest victims are their own people, with human rights abuses, and human rights and democracy activists, opposition groups and minorities targeted. I spent several years working in the former Soviet Union, and we in the Foreign Affairs Committee have visited as well, and I pay tribute to the bravery of those who campaign for fairness, the rule of law and democracy in that country. Surely the greatest riposte we can make, and the greatest support we can give those campaigners, is to show that democracy, openness and transparency in the UK are something to look up to. I fear that in this case they are not.
I hope the Minister is embarrassed by what he has just heard from the members of the ISC. Their questions were damning, and I am not surprised he did not answer them. Given the threat Russia poses to elections, and given that his Government have wanted an election for months, why is this not a priority? Brexit has taught us that this Government like to hide unhelpful reports—lots of them—so prove me wrong and publish the report.
Christopher Pincher
The Government are prepared to be robust and transparent with respect to Russia—look at the way we carefully collated, assessed, scrutinised and presented the evidence of the Kremlin’s involvement in the attacks in Salisbury and Amesbury, and at the way we built an international alliance that responded to that threat. We are perfectly prepared to be robust and transparent with respect to Russia.
The hon. Gentleman asked about evidence of Russia’s involvement in our elections. There is no evidence of any successful Russian involvement in the British electoral cycle. I would ask him to be careful, thoughtful and considerate at this febrile time, as the House dissolves before the general election, and to allow the Prime Minister his right and his duty to assess what is in the report. Then we can produce a report in good time.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
When the Minister talked about the ISC, he referred to the Justice and Security Act 2013—the latest Act that crystallised the practical approach to the running of the ISC in the years since it was created by the Intelligence Services Act 1994. That Act created an arrangement for the Committee that balanced national security with the right to scrutiny and redaction and the right of the Prime Minister to approve the report before it is released. It rested on balance and on both sides—the House and the Government—treating the other side fairly. That is what is missing here. By not releasing the report, all the Minister does is create a vacuum for the paranoid fantasies we have heard from the Opposition to fill.
Christopher Pincher
As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, though he will appreciate that I cannot be responsible for the paranoid fantasies of Opposition Members. I can only say that the report was received by the Government on 17 October. It is not unusual for such reports to take six weeks to turn around or for a Government response to take anywhere between three and four weeks. Given the circumstances—given all the other things going on—I am not surprised the report is taking a little time to turn around. That does not mean it is being suppressed or withheld in any way; it simply means it is being properly considered.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—and congratulations.
As a Labour member of the ISC, I support the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the Chair of the Committee, and share his concerns. The security services have cleared our report, the Cabinet Office has cleared our report, and we have made recommendations to the Prime Minister. Since receiving the report, has the Prime Minister read it, and has he submitted any redactions? I do not need to know what they are, but has he read it and has he submitted redactions? If not, why does he not publish today?
Christopher Pincher
A report such as this—a sensitive report that is 50 pages long—requires careful consideration. As I said, it was submitted on 17 October and is being reviewed by all the relevant senior officials within government and at No. 10. The Committee will be informed of that process, and when the Prime Minister has concluded that the report is publishable, he will publish it.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Are the Government not entitled not to be bullied into accelerating the release of important national security reports? Would it not be a dangerous precedent to establish that the Committee can come to the House and bully the Government into releasing such an important and sensitive report?
Christopher Pincher
I do not think the Government are being bullied. Certainly we are not prepared to be bullied. We want to make sure the report is given proper and careful consideration and that any further changes to or questions of it can be addressed. Then a properly balanced report can be published.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—it has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
We all in the House will know from our email inboxes that one of the challenges facing our current politics is that people watch too much Netflix and so are convinced that there are many conspiracies. That said, given that, as ISC members have said, many foxes have been set loose—reports about Sergey Nalobin, about Dominic Cumming’s security clearance, about Alexander Temerko’s friendship with the Prime Minister, about the use of the Lycamobile offices; given that the security agencies say they are happy to see the report, which the Government have had since March, published; given the cross-party support for it to be published; and given that Earl Howe in the House of Lords yesterday said it is the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone who needs to publish it, does the Minister recognise that the best way to kill the conspiracy theories is to put it out in the open? Former Prime Ministers have told us that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Why has this Prime Minister closed the blinds?
Christopher Pincher
The best way to avoid conspiracy theories is for people not to peddle them, and the hon. Lady just made a valiant effort in so doing. I have explained why it is taking some time to consider the report. We will consider it carefully and make sure it is a robust report, and then it will be published in due course.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I would certainly welcome a debate on covert and malign foreign interference —not only any attempts on our side but why Seumas Milne always seems to peddle the Kremlin’s line and the links between senior people around the leader of the Labour party and pro-Russian groups in Ukraine and elsewhere. There would be a lot of interesting debate there.
My question to the Minister is a broader one. Does he agree that the best way to minimise the chances of malign and covert interference in our electoral system is through the introduction of a foreign agents registration Act? The US introduced one against covert Nazi influence in 1938 and the Australians produced a foreign influence transparency scheme just last year. I will be working with the Henry Jackson Society to produce a potential template Bill. Would the Minister be interested in discussing it with me should we both be re-elected in December?
Christopher Pincher
I am always interested to hear the ideas and read the reports of my hon. Friend. I would certainly be interested to see the work that parliamentary draftsmen may have to undertake in defining a foreign agent. Foreign agents tend to keep themselves rather quiet, it seems to me, so identifying them may be a challenge; but I am always interested to see what my hon. Friend has to offer. If we are both re-elected—and I wish him well in that enterprise—then of course, on the other side, we will talk.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Welcome, Mr Speaker.
Given the gaps and inaccuracies in his account of the three years that he spent in Russia, why was Dominic Cummings inexplicably granted the highest developed vetting status, yet is routinely denied access to secret intelligence? What damage is this unprecedented arrangement doing to our vital security arrangements with our Five Eyes partners?
Christopher Pincher
I am not going to comment on individual public servants. All I would say is that in asking the question that he asks, the right hon. Gentleman appears to be less a Member of Parliament than a walk-on member of a show like “24”.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
In my time on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I have built up a healthy respect for the way in which we conduct parliamentary scrutiny of our secret intelligence agencies. Indeed, other Parliaments from around the world come to see how we do it. There is much in the report that I would love to be able to talk about here, and I would love to address some of the more eccentric conspiracy theories that we have heard peddled here, but it comes down to this. We have a highly respected system of parliamentary oversight which is trusted across the House. Does my right hon. Friend not feel that in the absence of this report’s publication, we have created a climate which has allowed some quite bizarre conspiracy theories to be peddled, and that it would be much better to publish what has been written in the way in which the Committee produced it?
Christopher Pincher
Let me also bid farewell to my right hon. Friend, who has been a fine Member of Parliament for Newbury over the last 18 years. We will miss him: we will miss his intelligence, his care and his consideration. He wonders whether, by acting in a different way, we would reduce the propensity towards conspiracy theories. I suspect that the answer is no. I think that those conspiracy theories would find their way into the light in any event, thanks to some Opposition Members.
All I can do is to repeat what I have already said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). This report requires careful consideration. It requires the Prime Minister to do his duty by the Justice and Security Act, and that is what he will do.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)
Many congratulations from these Benches on your election, Mr Speaker.
There are serious questions to be answered. I say to Members on that side of the House that it is perfectly legitimate for Members on this side of the House to ask the questions that we are asking. Our job is to scrutinise what the Government are doing. Clearly there are serious questions to be answered in relation to the role of Mr Dominic Cummings, one of the most senior officials in Government. Perhaps the answers will allay our concerns, but we deserve to hear those answers.
I have to say that the Minister’s response today has been utterly shameful. Let me ask him this. Is he denying that, if the shoe was on the other foot and he was at the Opposition Dispatch Box, he would be asking for the report to be published, as we are?
Christopher Pincher
The job of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise legislation and reports and not to fantasise about them, which is what I think all too many Opposition Members are doing. The Government have a duty to scrutinise properly the report that was presented to them by the ISC on 17 October. The Prime Minister has a duty to ask searching questions about the report, and to satisfy himself that nothing in it breaches our security privileges and the national security of the country. When that job is done, and not before, the report will be published.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Is it not the case that there is no conspiracy and no cover-up, and that this is just a manifestation of a considered bureaucratic process? May I draw the Minister’s attention to some comments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has made over the past 24 hours? As a matter of courtesy, I informed his office that I would be making these comments. To the media, he said, “I can think of no good reason why the ISC report is not being published.” While my right hon. and learned Friend is indeed very learned, the fact that he does not know of a reason does not necessarily mean that there is not a reason. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that.
Christopher Pincher
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has every right to ask questions and make comments in the media. That is his duty as a Member of Parliament, and his right as the Chairman of the ISC. However, it is the duty of the Prime Minister, with his officials, to consider the report properly. That is what he is doing, and until that job is done properly the report should not be published—and the turnaround for publication is not unusual.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Congratulations, Mr Speaker.
The Minister says that the process that he is going through at the moment is not unusual, and the secretariat of the ISC says that it is unprecedented. Both cannot be right. Will the Minister take account of the fact that the secretariat, the Cabinet Office, the whole civil service and the security agencies have all said that no problem of national security is involved? Surely he must conclude that if this is not a matter of national security, the reason why the report is not being published is political. Will he take my advice and publish, or be damned?
Christopher Pincher
The timelines for the submission of the report, relative to the timelines of submissions of previous reports, speak for themselves. The CT attacks report took about six weeks to turn around, with four weeks between its submission and a response from the Government, and the detainees report took about three weeks from the point of submission to the point of response. Such timelines are not unusual, and, although I am sure that they were made in absolute good faith, I do not recognise the comments of the ISC secretariat. The timelines speak for themselves.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The Minister is entirely right to say that scrutiny dispels fantasy, and this is one of those moments when I feel that scrutiny would be entirely appropriate to dispel that fantasy. There can be few Members like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), or, indeed, many other members of the ISC, who were all personally chosen by the Prime Minister for their judgment, their character and their wisdom. Would it not be appropriate—at a moment when the country is focused on the most important democratic event that we will hold for, certainly, a number of years—for the information that is needed for us to judge its legitimacy to be put before the House, so that people can see the fantasy that some are claiming, and this can all go away?
Christopher Pincher
I do not question the probity of those who have compiled this report, and I certainly recognise the wisdom of my hon. Friend, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee. I therefore think it unfortunate that some in the House have chosen to question the probity of Government officials and the wisdom of the Prime Minister in properly scrutinising an important report that has been laid before him. As I have said, that report went to No. 10 on 17 October. It will be properly scrutinised, but that set of considerations has not been concluded yet.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
May I add my congratulations, Mr Speaker?
I have a very simple question for the Minister. There is clearly unease about the delay in the report’s publication. Will the Minister confirm that it is not being withheld in the interests of the Conservative party?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Congratulations on your election as well from me, Mr Speaker.
The Minister, sent by the Prime Minister so that he can avoid scrutiny himself, says that the length of time that the report has been with the Government is not unusual, but will he acknowledge that the report itself is unusual because it is about interference in elections and we are just about to embark on a general election? So if the Government continue to block it after the security services have cleared it, that can only be either because they do not take the ISC Committee seriously or because they have something to hide, and can the Minister clarify which of those two it is?
Christopher Pincher
That was another of those questions: there we go again with a little light fantasising. The Committee has produced a serious report—
Christopher Pincher
The right hon. Lady from a sedentary position accuses me of sneering. I think that is pretty rich, I have to say, but I will press on as politely as I possibly can to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on her question.
It is not unusual for time to be taken to consider serious reports. This is a serious report and it should be considered in a timely way. In the meantime, I would say to the hon. Lady that there is no evidence to suggest that Russia or the Kremlin has successfully engaged in interference in our electoral processes; if she believes that there is, please bring that information forward, but we have seen none.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I be helpful to the Minister? I listened to your speech yesterday, Mr Speaker, and you will note that this urgent question goes to the heart of our proceedings: this is an all-party report, the Government are not publishing it, they should publish it, and there is all-party support for it to be published. Only a few minutes ago we had the Foreign Secretary here, and he could have stayed to make a statement. This is a very important issue. I want to fight this election on health, employment, jobs and all those other important things. If we do not stop this issue now, it will run and run, almost like a Watergate thing, throughout the campaign, so please publish the report now and let’s get on with the general election on the real issues.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: let’s fight the election on the real issues—on migration issues, on health, on education, on our stance on Brexit. Let’s get out there and do it, and let’s stop stirring the pot on this non-issue.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate you on your election, Mr Speaker.
Does the Minister accept and understand that the report has been cleared, and failure to publish today will mean, as a number of Members across the House have said, that almost every day for the next five weeks this will permeate the campaign? That can and should be avoided by publication today.
Christopher Pincher
I suspect that the campaign, like most campaigns, will focus on domestic issues. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be fighting very hard in his constituency on matters that concern his constituents, and I suspect this will be one of them.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Congratulations on your election, Mr Speaker.
I have noted that two or three times the Minister has said that there has been no successful penetration into the British electoral system. Does that imply that there has been unsuccessful penetration into the electoral system, and is that one of the reasons why the report has not been published?
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman I think might have now spoken for the last time in this Chamber and we wish him well in whatever he does next. Maybe, like Tony Benn, he will retire from the House of Commons and go into real politics; we shall see. He asked whether there are examples of unsuccessful interference in British politics, and the way that the Kremlin has behaved is clear; we have seen examples overseas of attempts at electoral interference, and of attempts at fake news and disinformation, most recently in Georgia. What I would say is that we have robust systems in place in this country to defend ourselves against such attacks, and that is why I say that such attacks have not been successful.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
We know that there was overseas interference in the US presidential election and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in its disinformation report last year called for an independent inquiry based on evidence that we produced to the Government. That request to the Government was rejected, and is not the problem that this decision to withhold this report is part of a course of conduct by this Government to refuse to look at whether there has been the level of interference that many in the country believe?
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman also may be leaving the Commons very soon, and I wish him well in his future path. He asked a reasonable question because disinformation tactics continue to evolve and therefore we must always be on our guard. The “Online Harms” White Paper that the Government produced commits us to introducing a duty of care on online companies to tackle a wide range of online harms, and they include limiting the spread of disinformation. With respect to the election in the United States, of course lots of comments have been made and suggestions and allegations have been heard. I am not going to comment on the US election; all I can say is that I think the US has as robust a system as we do.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (LD)
I welcome you to your new post, Mr Speaker.
Further to the previous question, I am not in the business of peddling conspiracy theories, but I do look at credible sources and was disturbed by the release of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report last month that did find Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which makes the release of this report all the more important, all the more relevant and all the more imperative as we embark on the democratic process of an election in our country. Can the Minister confirm this today: has the Prime Minister read the report?
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the actions of the Kremlin in states abroad. I have said that we have evidence from around the world of activity that is malign and malicious. I believe that we here in the UK have a robust set of systems in place to defend ourselves. We will look closely at the report that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and his Committee have submitted to the Government. It is going through the No. 10 process and at the end of that rigorous review process we will see the report.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Congratulations on your election, Mr Speaker.
We have heard from several Members of the ISC this afternoon, including three sitting behind the Minister, and all have highlighted that every security agency required to do so has signed off this report, as has the Cabinet Office. The unprecedented delay is due to the Prime Minister. Is that because the Prime Minister is acting in the unprecedented fashion of subjugating national security to personal and political interests and his loyalty to Dominic Cummings, a man already found to be in contempt of Parliament?
Christopher Pincher
The short answer is no. The report has to go through a proper and rigorous process of scrutiny. It was submitted to the Government on 17 October. The time being taken to scrutinise it is not unusual; to say it is unprecedented is not accurate. Other reports—other sensitive reports, and complicated reports—have taken between four and six weeks to turn around; this important and sensitive report is no different.
Mr Speaker
Last, but certainly not least, representing the safest seat in the country I call Stephen Timms.
Stephen Timms
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and many congratulations to you.
The Committee Chair reminds us that if the Prime Minister is unable to respond within 10 days he is required to provide an explanation for that failure. He has not provided an explanation, which, we understand, is unprecedented. Why has the Prime Minister not complied with the requirement placed upon him?
Christopher Pincher
It is because there is no requirement. The memorandum of understanding with the Committee is clear about the rules: there is no set timeline for a response and there is no set deadline in the governing legislation. The Prime Minister has a duty under the 2013 Act to look carefully and considerately at such reports. That is what No. 10 is doing, that is what the Prime Minister will do, and when that work is completed the report will be published.
Thomas Cook Customers
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrea Leadsom)
May I first sincerely congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your new role? I also wish all hon. and right hon. Members who are retiring today every success for their future.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s actions to support customers of Thomas Cook. As the House knows, Thomas Cook entered into insolvency proceedings on 23 September. This has been a hugely worrying time for the employees of Thomas Cook and its customers, and the Government have done, and continue to do, all they can to support them. This has included the biggest peacetime repatriation effort ever seen in the UK, with around 140,000 people successfully flown home thanks to the efforts of the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and his Department, and to the Civil Aviation Authority. In the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, we have set up a cross-Government taskforce alongside local stakeholders to support employees and supply chains.
I am sorry to have to inform the House, however, that the official receiver has recently brought to my attention further impacts of Thomas Cook’s insolvency, which I wish to share with the House today. There is an important outstanding matter relating to personal injury claims against Thomas Cook companies, impacting customers who have suffered life-changing injuries, illness or loss of life while on Thomas Cook holidays. Thomas Cook took out insurance cover only for the very largest personal injury claims. For agreed claims below this figure, up to a high aggregate amount, the company decided to self-insure through a provision in its accounts. As Thomas Cook has entered liquidation without ensuring any protection for pending claims, the vast majority of claimants who are not covered by the insurance, including customers who have suffered serious injuries and loss of life, will be treated as unsecured creditors. This means that it is uncertain whether they will receive any of the compensation they would ordinarily have received against their claims. This raises a potentially unacceptable prospect for some Thomas Cook customers, who face significant financial hardship through no fault of their own where Thomas Cook should rightly have provided support. They are customers who have already suffered life-changing injuries or illness and who may face financial hardship as a result of a long-term loss of earnings or significant long-term care needs. This is an extraordinary situation that should never have arisen.
The Government cannot and will not step into the shoes of Thomas Cook, but we intend to develop proposals for a statutory compensation scheme. Any scheme must strike a responsible balance between the moral duty to respond to those in the most serious financial need and our responsibility to the taxpayer. Accordingly, it will be a capped fund that is sufficient to ensure support for those customers facing the most serious hardship as a result of injuries or illness for which UK-based Thomas Cook companies would have been liable. We will develop the scheme to ensure that only genuine claims are provided with support. The scheme will not consider routine claims covering short-term problems. After the election, we intend urgently to bring forward the legislation necessary to establish such a scheme, and I am sure that any new Government would wish to do likewise.
I have also written to the official receiver to ask him to take this serious matter into account as part of his investigation into the conduct of Thomas Cook’s directors relating to the insolvency. I am sure the House will agree that it was important to act quickly today to give reassurance to those individuals and families who would otherwise be left with unfunded serious long-term needs or other financial hardship as a result of injuries or illness sustained abroad, for which Thomas Cook would have been liable. The House will have the opportunity to consider the matter in more detail in the new Parliament.
I want to make it clear to all businesses that the Thomas Cook approach was unacceptable, and that we will take steps to require suitable arrangements to be in place to ensure that this cannot be repeated. I have asked BEIS officials urgently to bring forward proposals for speedy action in the new Parliament. I am grateful to the official receiver for bringing this matter to my attention, and for all his efforts in this case. It is critical that we act to provide support to those who, through no fault of their own, have been severely impacted by the collapse of Thomas Cook. I commend this statement to the House.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
As your next-door-but-one constituency neighbour, Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your election?
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. She is right to raise these matters today, because they raise serious questions that will need far more attention in the new Parliament, whichever Minister is at the Dispatch Box. I also have some questions today to take this forward.
In her statement, the Secretary of State mentioned a “high aggregate amount”. Can she tell us more about what that is? On the question about audit, to which I will return shortly, will she tell us why no regulation was in place to ensure that this serious weakness did not materialise? I should also like to put on record my thanks to all those involved in bringing 140,000 holiday- makers home.
We welcome the fact that the online services have now been bought, and that shops in the constituencies of Members across the House are being reopened by Hays Travel, but why oh why did Thomas Cook have to close first, and why were the opportunities that were given to the shops and online services not given to the airline? Intervention to ensure the retention of those viable parts of the business would have been a major step towards addressing the serious weaknesses that the Secretary of State identified in her statement. The Government were told at the time that parts of the business were successful, and Hays Travel clearly agreed because it bought the shops. There is also value in the brand, which is why the online business has been recovered. Could the airline have been saved, as the ones in Germany and Scandinavia were, if the liquidation had been delayed?
Why did the Government not listen to those calling for intervention? Why did they not take a stake in the company, so that the shops and digital business could have been transferred while still trading and so that other parts of the business could have been saved? Let us remember that the Turkish and Spanish Governments wanted to step in. They saw the potential value, but our Government did not. Had our Government intervened, the hardship to which the Secretary of State rightly referred could have been identified and possibly avoided. Does she regret her failure to speak to the company and to intervene to protect the jobs and rights of workers? Had the company continued trading, with the Government holding a stake, the rights of workers would have been protected. It is good news that staff will now have jobs with Hays Travel, but will they be paid for the time since Thomas Cook closed? Will their rights from their years of service be protected? Are staff being TUPE-ed over, or not?
What can the Secretary of State tell us about her response to the warnings about auditor conflicts of interest? She mentioned audit responsibility and potential failure in her statement. Auditing conflicts of interest have been repeatedly identified at Carillion, at BHS, in the banks and now at Thomas Cook. Has she read the excellent report from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and what is her response to its recommendations, including its calls for a new regulator and for the audit profession to be proactive rather than reactive? Why is the Secretary of State so resistant to change? The Competition and Markets Authority wants action; why does not she?
What action is the Secretary of State taking to address the scandalous payment of bonuses to executives who have profited at the expense of workers and customers and who presumably have direct responsibility for the appalling hardship to which she has referred? Analysis by Unite and Syndex shows that £188 million in bridging loans would have prevented the liquidation. That would have allowed profitable parts of the business to be sold while still trading, and for workers’ rights to be protected. This would have supported the wider economy and communities, too.
The Government should be a partner of business, not stand apart from it. That means intervening and providing support where intervention stands a chance of succeeding. The more evidence emerges about the Thomas Cook collapse, the more it appears that the case for intervention was there to be made. If they would not intervene at Thomas Cook, exactly when would the Government intervene?
If the Secretary of State wants to avoid hardship for those covered by insurance, she needs to change her approach and her attitude to intervention. When she referred to a drop in the ocean in responding to a question from the shadow Business Secretary, she demonstrated that she did not agree with her predecessor, who said that reforms were needed to ensure a strong level of consumer protection and value for money for the taxpayer. He was right, was he not?
The Secretary of State said that the Thomas Cook approach was unacceptable and that support must be given to those severely impacted by its closure through no fault of their own. I agree, but the Government have failed Thomas Cook. They sat back and let it fold. Only proper reforms will make sure that catastrophic failures of this type do not happen again.
Andrea Leadsom
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the Government’s efforts, particularly on the repatriation of customers stranded overseas and, of course, in the work, which I know through chairing the Government taskforce, to try to ensure that we get the best possible arrangements for Thomas Cook staff. He asks why the Government did not bail out Thomas Cook. He will be aware that, according to court reports, there was about £1.9 billion of debt on Thomas Cook’s balance sheet. It did approach Government looking for a loan facility of up to £250 million, but it is clear that, had the Government put that significant sum of taxpayers’ money into Thomas Cook, we would have ended up in the same position as we are in today. We would have had to repatriate those customers. We would have to have done exactly as we have done, but the taxpayer would have been £250 million worse off, so it was not an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money. It is very sad that Thomas Cook went bust, but it is not right that Government should just bail out every business. Businesses need to stand on their own two feet.
The hon. Gentleman made some very important points about regulation. I can tell him that I wrote to the Financial Reporting Council asking it to prioritise as a matter of urgency consideration of an investigation into the audit of Thomas Cook’s 2018 accounts, as well as the conduct of its directors. He asked why the Government did not foresee this.
It was never envisaged that a UK tour operator would fail to insure itself fully to cover claims for personal accident or fail to ensure that it had ring fenced the funds to meet those liabilities so that they were safe if the company got into difficulty. The company has a legal obligation to cover personal injury claims arising from package holidays abroad, and that is why I have asked the official receiver to investigate, in particular, this aspect of the conduct of Thomas Cook’s directors.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position who the auditors were. They were EY, and they will be investigated by the official receiver.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) asked how the Insolvency Service supported Thomas Cook employees. It has received over 8,000 claims for unpaid liabilities from former employees and has paid out over £41 million so far to claimants for arrears in pay, compensatory notice pay, holiday pay accrued, holiday pay not taken, notice worked not paid and redundancy pay. The Insolvency Service continues to work to offer, for example, the services of BUPA’s employee assistance programme and the Centre for Crisis Psychology to Thomas Cook employees as a particular request that came from the taskforce. The Government continue to do everything possible to support those affected and we are delighted that Hays has taken over the shops, providing jobs for well over 2,000 of those who lost their jobs under Thomas Cook.
Finally, I am very keen on the BEIS Committee’s report into audit. As I made clear when I appeared before it, I will bring forward fundamental changes to audit. I expect that to be in the first quarter of next year. I am very interested to read its report and, as I also made clear, I want to see Donald Brydon’s report, which I believe he expects to provide to Government by the end of this year.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I congratulate you on your own gallant and good-humoured campaign to be Speaker?
I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on being so proactive in responding to this shocking discovery that Thomas Cook did not properly insure so many people against injury while being on a Thomas Cook holiday. Am I right in thinking that there would have been no way in which this would have come out but for the collapse of the company? If it turns out to be the case that the company was not breaking any existing rules, regulations or laws by behaving in this totally irresponsible and inhumane way, will it be possible to make a change in the law to ensure that this can never happen again?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of the fact that it felt important to raise this before the House prior to Dissolution. He is absolutely right. In doing so, we seek to provide some sort of reassurance to those who have been profoundly impacted by accidents and illnesses overseas on Thomas Cook holidays. He asked whether there could have been any legitimate expectation that this might have happened. That is not the case. It was never anticipated that a business such as Thomas Cook would not have adequately provided for such claims that were known to them. I am putting on notice today that any future Government––I am sure that the Opposition spokesman has made similar a commitment––will wish to resolve this to ensure that it cannot happen again. BEIS officials will work over the next few weeks to bring forward proposals on how to ensure that this cannot be repeated.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I share the Secretary of State’s surprise and horror that Thomas Cook was operating without the necessary insurance. Many of my constituents and, indeed, I myself travelled with Thomas Cook unknowing. We all assume that the safeguards that we see with travel companies through the Association of British Travel Agents and so on ensure that we are travelling safely and that we are protected. Will the Secretary of State assure us that there will be safeguards to ensure not just that we investigate what went wrong at Thomas Cook, but that all travel companies, or anyone offering travel in this country, is properly insured?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady gives me the opportunity to say this again: I call on all similar travel and tour operators to ensure that they covered this and that they have not got a similar arrangement to the one that Thomas Cook had. I can assure her that BEIS officials during the next few weeks will bring forward proposals for ensuring that this does not happen again
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What the Secretary of State has told us this afternoon is shocking. Can she assure the House that there will be no similar shocks in relation to Thomas Cook’s public liability and employer liability insurance?
Andrea Leadsom
There are certain types of public liability and employers’ liability that are required to be insured by law, and there is no expectation that any business would not have provided that kind of insurance. Officials are looking carefully to satisfy themselves, as they do as a routine matter, but I say again in this particular instance, it was a great surprise and shock to see that there was an attempt at self-insurance with no proper provision made for these types of claims.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I have had several people in my office absolutely devastated because the hard-earned holiday that they had saved for has been cancelled. They are asking me when they will have their money back. They have to wait months, by which time their holiday options will have changed. Could the Secretary of State outline what she believes to be the absolute time limit for refunds for holidays and how that will be achieved?
Andrea Leadsom
It has been a difficult time for all those affected whether they were customers on holiday, customers who had paid for a holiday but not yet taken it, or employees and those in the supply chain. The Government have sought to tackle all those issues as far as we are able to do so. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the ATOL scheme is designed to provide refunds and repatriation costs that arise from a failure of a company such as Thomas Cook. Many of those who have suffered financial loss will be able to claim through ATOL or, indeed, through a credit card provider if their holiday has not yet been taken.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her personal energy, commitment and skill in chairing the Government taskforce on the collapse of Thomas Cook. I agree with both Front-Bench spokespeople that the directors did not comport themselves well before, during or after the collapse. With 2.8 million passengers taken out of the equation at Manchester airport, with the huge repatriation event, and with employees still employed on temporary contracts trying to close the company, will she join me in thanking the workers who remain after losing their jobs and the trade union reps at Unite and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, who have worked so hard to represent them so ably?
Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the taskforce and join him in thanking all those who have played their part. People from right across Government, from trade unions and from local enterprise partnerships and so on have all sought to find new work. The Department for Work and Pensions rapid action taskforce has been helping people write CVs, and there has been mental health support and so on. It is a great shame and a huge pity to see this long-standing brand collapse, but I am sure we are all glad that its name will survive perhaps as an online travel company. I join the hon. Gentleman in wishing our very best to all those who lost their jobs in finding new work in a similar sector.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. This is clearly a combination of shocking system failure and a failure by the company, but I am unclear whether the Secretary of State thinks that the law has been broken here. If it turns out that the law has been broken by executives, who may well have been taking large bonuses at the time, will she reassure us that the Government will be seeking some redress?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I have written to the Official Receiver today asking him to take carefully into account in his review the behaviour of directors in the run-up to the insolvency of Thomas Cook and to consider whether this further appearance of failure on their part should require further action with regard to his statutory duties. This will be thoroughly investigated, and if there is wrongdoing, the Official Receiver has the ability to claw back bonuses and, of course, to take further steps through the Insolvency Act 1986.
Points of Order
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair. My point of order, which I gave notice of to the Speaker’s Office, relates to the written statement on shale gas that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy put out yesterday. It said a lot about the past but very little about the immediate future. The Government were forced to introduce a so-called moratorium on fracking at the weekend because of the tremors that affected my constituents in Blackpool in August, with the Oil and Gas Authority subsequently saying that they were unacceptable.
However, in a Radio 4 interview and in that statement, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has rather hedged her bets, undermining that promise. The Government have not provided any response to the National Audit Office report that talked about the real problems of decommissioning, which should be taking place at Cuadrilla’s site on Preston New Road as we speak. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you received any information about whether the Government are going to answer those big questions? The Secretary of State is in the Chamber, so she may like to respond now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He will be well aware that the making of a written statement is perfectly in order, so I can make no criticism of it from the Chair. I cannot give him answers to his questions, but he has taken the opportunity to alert the House and the Treasury Bench to his concerns. Of course, there are other ways in which he would normally be able to take forward his inquiries, but I do appreciate that this is the last day on which he can do so. He has done his best.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ministers have been in the media today talking about the issue of the 2,250 autistic people and people with learning disabilities detained in mental health in-patient units. In the press and on broadcast media, Ministers have talked about demanding reviews of all those people who were detained, but in today’s written statement on the training of staff working with autistic people and people with learning disabilities there is no mention of what Ministers talked about in the media. We have therefore not had the chance to question Ministers on it, nor have we had a chance to talk about the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Last week, the Committee described the horrific reality of hospital in-patient units, with its report stating that
“we are inflicting terrible suffering on those detained in mental health hospitals and causing anguish to their distraught families.”
I have raised the case of Bethany, an 18-year-old autistic woman who was locked in a cell in a secure unit in Wales many miles from her home. This morning, her father said the following in response to the Care Minister, talking about those reviews of the 2,250 people like Bethany—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Is the hon. Lady almost finished? This is a very long point of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Given the sensitive nature of the hon. Lady’s point of order, I will allow her to finish it, but let us not create a precedent.
Barbara Keeley
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Care Minister has been around the media but has not been here to talk about the reviews, and Bethany’s father said the following in response:
“We have had review after review after review. We need action, not reviews.”
In the light of the extensive coverage in the press and broadcast media, have you had an indication from Health Ministers that they plan to come to the House to make an oral statement and answer questions?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The straight answer to the hon. Lady’s eventual question is that I have had no such notice, but I get the impression that what the hon. Lady really wanted to do is to raise this matter in the Chamber to bring it to the attention of Ministers. We are about to have a general debate during which any Member can raise a wide range of points, so the solution for the hon. Lady is immediately available to her—as soon as we are finished with the Bill that we are about to discuss.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Further to the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps through your good offices, I can ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who is still here, about not only the fracking that affects my hon. Friend’s constituency, but whether planning applications for fracking will be withdrawn as a result of the Government’s moratorium. If I could get that on the record, I would be extremely grateful because the matter also affects my constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is not really making a point of order, and he really ought to come back and make that point during the debate.
Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 5th November 2019
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I invite the Minister to move Second Reading, I must announce Mr Speaker’s decision on certification for the purposes of Standing Order No. 83J “Certification of bills etc. as relating exclusively to England or England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence”. On the basis of material put before him, I must inform the House that in Mr Speaker’s opinion the Bill does not meet the criteria required for certification under that Standing Order.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Julian Smith)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It has been seven years since the Northern Ireland Executive established an independent inquiry into historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland. Today’s legislation is based on an inquiry and report, undertaken by Sir Anthony Hart, that occupied 223 days of hearings. The Hart report investigated 22 institutions, but it identified a further 65 institutions that came within its terms of reference. The draft legislation was subject to a 16-week consultation process in Northern Ireland.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Right across this House, and right across Northern Ireland, there will be a very warm welcome for the Government bringing forward this legislation to get it on the statute book before Dissolution. I thank everybody involved in this House, the Secretary of State and, most importantly, the campaigners for the day we have now reached.
Julian Smith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for all that he and his party have done to help to deliver this Bill.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The House is clearly united on seeing justice and doing right by those who have been abused and who have waiting too long for recognition and a form of restitution. I thank the Government for prioritising this Bill and for getting it through before Dissolution.
I particularly want to mention some of those with whom I have worked closely: Gerry McCann and others from the Rosetta Trust; Margaret McGuckin, who is in the Gallery and who has been working on this since 2008; and Anne Hunter, who is also in the Gallery and whose sister, Sadie, died at Nazareth House in 1974. Although we celebrate the Bill, it is bittersweet for those who were abused, physically and otherwise, and who cannot be here today to see the conclusion of something for which we have worked very hard.
Julian Smith
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will return to some of those examples, but the fact that so many survivors and victims have died is one of the tragedies of this period.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am enormously grateful for the priority the Secretary of State has given to this issue. He has shown real compassion for the victims of historical institutional abuse. In his opening remarks, he rightly mentioned the long inquiry held by Judge Hart, who did an enormous amount to give a voice to the victims of historical institutional abuse.
May I encourage the Secretary of State, after this Bill receives Royal Assent later today, to ensure that a copy of the Act and a copy of today’s Hansard are sent to Judge Hart’s widow? It is a great sadness to us all, and particularly to his family and to the victims who met him, that he did not live long enough to see this day. It would be a fitting tribute to have the Act and a copy of Hansard sent to his widow.
Julian Smith
The hon. Lady makes a very positive and sensible suggestion, and I am happy to do that. We spoke to Lady Hart last night, and Sir Anthony was, I think, perplexed by the slowness of us all to get this done. I will follow up as the hon. Lady suggests.
The draft legislation was subject to a 16-week consultation process in Northern Ireland, and the Bill was drafted by the Northern Ireland civil service at the request of, and based on a consensus reached by, all six of the main Northern Ireland political parties.
The inquiry’s report was published in January 2017, the same month as the collapse of the Executive, so the Executive never considered the report and it was not laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is why, in July, the Government committed to introducing legislation by the end of the year, if the Executive were not restored, and it is why this was one of the first Bills in the Queen’s Speech.
This is the first Bill of its kind in the United Kingdom, with the results of inquiries in England and Wales and in Scotland yet to be completed. I hope this Bill will give some comfort and hope to victims of child abuse across our country.
Following the election announcement a week ago, there has been significant worry and concern from victims about how the Bill might progress. I thank the Prime Minister and Government business managers for facilitating the Bill today, and I thank Opposition business managers and Opposition spokesmen and women for coming to agreement and for working with us to ensure this Bill passes through both Houses before the election.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
It is the true mark of the House that, when it comes to dealing with the most vulnerable in our society—those who suffered for a long time and who have waited a long time for justice—this House rises to the occasion. That sets an example we might send back home to Northern Ireland in calling for all the political parties to come together, to get back to Stormont and to get back to working on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Julian Smith
I could not agree more.
I thank my colleague Lord Duncan of Springbank, Lord Hain and other noble lords and baronesses for their work in the other place last week. Many Members in the Chamber today have played a role in making today’s debate happen, particularly DUP Members, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the Chairman and members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and many, many more.
The desire and push from Northern Ireland has been significant. On Sunday night, a number of members of the Government received a letter from a Catholic priest who represents the diocese of Down and Connor, which was the location of two of the children’s homes at the centre of the inquiry. He said that it is
“a matter of deep personal shame for me and for the Diocese that both homes were found by the Inquiry to have fundamentally failed the children in their care, enabling regimes of horrific and systemic emotional, physical and sexual abuse of children, as well as neglect. In the period before the Inquiry, I came to know some of the former residents of these homes and publicly supported them in their calls for justice and an Inquiry. Over the years of the Inquiry and since, I have watched as those who led this campaign and the hundreds of former children in care who took part in the Inquiry relived the horrors of their time in these institutions and the abuse they suffered there. As children, they arrived at these homes frightened, disorientated and with the simple hope of every child that the adults in their lives would respond to them with affection, understanding, tenderness and care. Instead, they were met so often with hard-hearted coldness, harsh regimes of sterile adult routine and lovelessness, as well as indescribable sexual and physical abuse. It is difficult to overstate the suffering that the former residents of these homes have endured and continue to endure as a result of their experience.”
On the final day of one of the most divided Parliaments in British political history, we can say, hand on heart, that we have all come together, worked together and pulled together to deliver this Bill.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It would be wrong if we did not pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his efforts to deliver this Bill. This has not been easy to achieve, and I know all the work done behind the scenes by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), my party’s leader in Westminster, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), our Chief Whip, and others to cajole and get this over the line. It is a fitting tribute to the Secretary of State, on this last day of Parliament, that the Bill will come into law. On behalf of the victims, their groups and people like Marty, Margaret and Gerry who contact us regularly, I thank the Secretary of State.
Julian Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. He was at his most tenacious over the weekend in trying to make this happen.
There are many more people to thank. Unfortunately, Sir Anthony Hart, who led the inquiry, passed away earlier this year, but through his widow, Lady Mary Hart, I thank him and his team for their tireless work. I thank the other inquiry members, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland civil service, Northern Ireland Office civil servants, the Executive Office, the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties and my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). They have all played an important part in getting to today.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that sometimes in this House there is a feeling that Northern Ireland gets neglected or is a sideshow, but this measure today shows that the Government and Opposition knew that this was a hugely crucial issue to the people of Northern Ireland and that getting it to the House today and through this procedure is a mark of this House’s responsibility and care for Northern Ireland?
Julian Smith
The hon. Lady is right on that. I hope that if we can get this through this afternoon, we will be able to toast success for not only the Bill and the victims, but Northern Ireland itself.
This legislation will provide the necessary legal framework to deliver two of the key recommendations from the historical institutional abuse report. The first is a historical institutional abuse redress board, to administer a publicly funded compensation scheme for victims in Northern Ireland. This will be a multidisciplinary panel of one judicial member and two health and social care professionals. There are estimated to be more than 5,000 people who could apply for redress. No matter what country they live in, I urge all victims and survivors to apply: whether you are part of a victims group or whether you have lived with their abuse silently for years, please make use of this redress scheme in this Bill.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State is right to indicate just how important that progress is today. In outlining the steps that victims will take—those from my constituency in Kincora boys’ home, and others from right across Northern Ireland and beyond—and in asking them to apply without delay, will he give us some sense of the timescales associated with the process? When we get Royal Assent for this legislation, how quickly will the panel be established and be in place not only to receive but to consider those applications for redress?
Julian Smith
I will come on shortly to deal with that question. The second part of this Bill creates a statutory commissioner for survivors of institutional childhood abuse for Northern Ireland, who will act as an advocate for victims and survivors and support them in applying to the redress board. Whether in fighting for support services or in ensuring that payments are made as quickly and as fully as possible, the commissioner will play a key role in delivering for victims.
Jim Shannon
It is important not only that we have the commissioner in place, but that the moneys available for compensation will range from £10,000 to £80,000. I wish to make the point about the De La Salle Brothers and what happened in my constituency at Rubane House, outside Kircubbin, where institutional abuse, both physical and sexual, against some young boys took place over a period. Those young people are adults now but they are traumatised. How will the trauma, and the physical and emotional effect it has upon them, be taken into consideration whenever they apply to the commissioner for help?
Julian Smith
I hope that one of the commissioner’s focuses will to be look at the services to support those who come forward. That will require money and organisation, but it will be a key part of the role for whoever takes on the position of commissioner.
I have just been asked about this, so let me say that one of the key concerns of parliamentarians and victims’ groups alike is the swift payment for victims and survivors after the passing of this legislation. Victims have already waited too long for redress, and as we have heard, many have died doing so. Our thoughts are with their families. Clause 14 contains provisions that allow the redress board to pay an initial acknowledgement payment of £10,000 to eligible victims before the full determination of the total compensation is payable. Clause 7 allows the redress board to take a flexible case-management approach to claims to ensure that those who are elderly or in severe ill health are considered as a priority. Those in greatest need of redress will get their payment more quickly. Clause 6 allows claims to be made on behalf of a deceased person by their spouse or children.
Other key aspects of the Bill that are important to victims and survivors include provisions that allow the redress board to convene oral hearings, but in a way that should not create an unnecessary delay for those cases in which oral evidence is not required; the ability of the redress board to determine the rate of compensation based on a number of factors, including the duration of stay in an institution; and the ability of the commissioner for survivors of institutional child abuse for Northern Ireland to make representations to any person, including to the redress board. I also wish to confirm to the House that my Department is working closely with the Northern Ireland civil service and David Sterling to ensure that there is adequate resource and capacity for this redress scheme, so that it can get going as urgently as possible.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I am pleased to hear about the possibility of streamlining this process. Is there any indication that any of these payments will be made within this current financial year, irrespective of the bureaucracy of the hearings that have to take place? I am talking about the interim payment of the £10,000.
Julian Smith
We have begun a project management team between the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland civil service. I know that David Sterling and the Executive Office have spent time this week looking at how things can be accelerated, but I wish both to acknowledge the need to move quickly and to recognise the fact that this will take a bit of time. We need to get this legislation through, and then we need to get on with how we can press forward with this.
I want to pay tribute to the victims groups that I have engaged with over these past few months and that have engaged with my predecessors and other political leaders: Survivors North West, Survivors Together, the Rosetta Trust, and SAVIA—Survivors and Victims of Institutional Abuse. They have campaigned on behalf of the people they represent with strength and dignity. Many victims are old and ill. They have not only had their childhood and lives blighted, but they have had to wait, year after year, for the child abuse and what happened to them to be recognised.
At each meeting with the victims groups at Stormont House, I noticed that Jon McCourt from Survivors North West had a small battered copy of the Hart report laid on the table in front of him. There was huge hope and trust in that copy of the report that there might finally be acknowledgement of what he and his friends had had done to them as children. Jon has held that copy of the report close, gripping it tightly for three long years, meeting politician after politician, civil servant after civil servant—anyone who could make a difference in getting redress. The battered cover of Jon’s report, once blue, has now faded. That report contains the grimmest details of the twisted blows laid on the hope and innocence of the children taken into care in Northern Ireland at different times over much of the 20th century. It details how the Kincora hostel in Belfast was completely captured by three child abusers for the same number of decades, leaving them free to anally rape and masturbate at will those boys they were meant to protect.
The report details the impact of the child migrant scheme to Australia. Witness HIA 324 describes his experiences in his statement, as follows:
“My life in institutions has had a profound impact on me. I have always wondered what it would be like to have had a family—a mother and father and brothers and sisters. I never got the chance to find out because I was sent to Australia. We were exported to Australia like little baby convicts. It is hard to understand why they did it… I still cannot get over the fact that I was taken away from a family I never got the chance to know. I was treated like an object, taken from one place to another… I have a nightmare every night of my life. I relive my past and am happy when daylight comes.”
HIA 324 was born in 1938 and was 75 when he spoke those words to the inquiries team in Perth in 2013, but he died before he could sign his statement.
The Hart report highlights how the congregations that supported the four Sisters of Nazareth homes were well aware of the physical and emotional abuse happening in those homes, but did nothing to stop it. The report details how the Sisters of Nazareth would regularly conceal or ignore the presence of the sisters or brothers of those children in their care, hiding them from them. The report details the assault of girls in Nazareth House, with one case in which a girl had her head banged against white tiles for not washing properly. She recalled that there was blood all over the white tiles, and she suffered hearing problems afterwards.
The report details how the Norbertine Order, and then diocese after diocese, failed to stop Father Smyth, a known abuser, from travelling the length and breadth of Northern Ireland and Ireland, abusing hundreds of children. The report confirmed that at Rubane House, boys were sexually abused throughout the four decades that the home operated. It was not just sexual abuse; page after page of the report details the bullying, the use of Jeyes fluid and the confidence attacks on menstruating girls and on young children who wet their beds. The report outlines failure after failure by statutory authorities and the Government to ask the right questions, to show basic levels of care, or to follow up on the condition of those children sent thousands of miles away to Australia.
The Bill, which we hope to pass today, cannot undo the acts perpetrated on the victims, and it does not extend to the other areas of the UK that are currently being addressed by the child abuse inquiry here in London and a similar inquiry in Scotland, but it will show to Northern Ireland victims that action has been taken, and I hope that in a short time similar action can be taken, through legislation, for the rest of the UK.
I started off by thanking the number of colleagues who have helped to get this Bill delivered today, those who have worked on the Hart report and those who have worked to support this legislation, but this is not our Bill; it is the Bill of the victims and survivors, and of their representatives, some of whom are present today. For anyone involved at whatever stage, it has been a humbling experience to work with Northern Ireland victims and survivors who suffered child abuse while in care. The resilience and humanity of the victims should drive us all in our daily responsibility to every child, whether through our families, our work, our responsibilities or our communities.
Victims were let down not just by the perpetrators and institutions, but by the Churches, councils and Governments who were meant to look after them—standing by, ignoring, not checking, turning a blind eye. People knew at the time. The De La Salle Order set down guidelines for the physical layout of its buildings to ensure that behaviour could be observed at all times—for example, on how windows should be placed in doors to ensure clear sight of what was going on in rooms:
“The Brother Director shall be careful that the parlour doors have glazed panels without curtains in such a manner that the interior may be easily seen.”
The ultimate legacy of the Northern Ireland victims and all child abuse victims, from the Hart report and from the Bill, must be for us all to ensure that we do everything within our power to protect children.
“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”
Child abuse victims never had their full childhood and were then held hostage by the experiences that they had throughout their lives. I hope that the Bill goes some way towards providing Northern Ireland victims with redress, and for other victims throughout our country, I hope that their time for redress will come very soon. I commend the Bill to the House.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I have to say that this is not an easy day to be in the House—it is not an easy time to hear the Secretary of State’s words—and I pay wholehearted tribute to him for quite simply one of the most powerful speeches I have ever heard in my 22 years on these Benches. He spoke from the heart and he spoke from a deep humanity. We have to pay tribute to him for those words, which were extraordinary and remarkable. Please God, may they provide a grain of comfort to some people who have suffered for so long.
It is also appropriate that we mention Sir Anthony Hart, who did an extraordinary amount of work. We must pay credit to him. I also pay credit to the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is present. She dedicated a huge amount of energy to this issue, as did her team and the Secretary of State’s team. I also pay credit to the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland civil service for the amount of work that has been done. How painful and agonising it must have been for them to have had to work in these circumstances. For me, to read the words is almost unimaginable, yet those to whom they refer are suffering a hundred times more than any of us could ever be.
As the Secretary of State said, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister agreed the terms of reference back on 31 May 2012; however, the inquiry goes back nearly 100 years, to 1922. Who can even begin to imagine the cavalcade of agony that has passed in those 100 years? Who can imagine those children whose bodies were broken, but whose hearts and spirits were also broken—who suffered in a way that, please God, we will never, ever have to contemplate again? When the Secretary of State quoted from St Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, it made me think about what the victims thought as children. What did those children think of the adult world—the place of safety that they were being taken to? What did those children think? As adults, did they have any trust, faith or belief in the base humanity, having faced that?
Today, we are undertaking a unique piece of legislation. There has never been a Bill like this on the Floor of the House—it has never happened in this way before. It is absolutely right and appropriate that we take extraordinary, unusual steps, because this is such an extraordinary occasion. We must place on record, here and now, our determination that this will never, ever happen again. Every one of us, be we lay, be religious, be we politicians—whomsoever we be, anyone of us who has any contact with children’s services must make absolutely sure and swear in our heart of hearts that we will never, ever walk by on the other side of the road. We should never, ever be those people who turned a blind eye, as we heard in the agonising statement from the priest that was read out earlier.
We cannot make it right—we cannot repair those broken hearts and broken bodies—but by doing what we will today, by offering some form of redress, some form of compensation, we will hopefully allow closure. We will hopefully be able to say that this House has heard. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) spoke magnificently earlier about the way the House has risen. When we think of some of the activities that take place in this House, today’s statement shows in sharp relief some of the things that happen here that are less noble—that are often ignoble. Today, the House has risen to a higher standard. It is entirely appropriate that is on this occasion that we have risen.
There are many questions still to be asked. This is still a draining emotional occasion. We should pay tribute, once and for all, to the right hon. Secretary of State for the footwork he has shown. It is unheard of for legislation to come through in this way. As recently as last week, we heard that the Whips Office would not allow it and it was not going to happen, yet somehow, with the involvement of the Government, the Opposition, officials, civil servants and even the palace, the Bill has come to the House and will go through.
Let us thank Brendan McAllister, the interim advocate, for the work that he has done. Let us follow up on some of the interventions that have been made already by right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland parties, and let us take the opportunity to say that this is one of the rare occasions when the House comes together, regardless of our party and of any form of religious, political or social affiliation. We are as one in this House in swearing that this cannot happen again, this must not happen again and the victims must get redress, must get compensation, must get respect and, please God, must get closure on this.
The behaviour of politicians of all parties and of all communities in Northern Ireland has been exemplary. I know how difficult it is. I have met victims groups, as has the Secretary of State. To sit in a room opposite someone describing the most appalling nightmare—a nightmare that is hard for any human being to envisage—is an experience that none of us came into politics to undergo, yet it is right that we came into politics to resolve this horror and this agony. I cannot say enough about how impressed I was by the victims groups that I met. Their courage and bravery is astounding. I hope—I know—that all Members in this House feel the same way and say with one voice how much respect we have for them.
I hope that some of the technical questions that were asked earlier by right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland can be addressed. The question of the speed of the recompense payments is, of course, an issue to be resolved. It would be marvellous if some indication could be given to the victims before Christmas—it would be wonderful if they at least had some idea about what was happening. In addition, we would like to know when the staff will be in place for the redress board. It is important to say that we have to establish the bureaucracy, if it has not already been established.
I noticed that no additional resources were allocated in the recent Budget. Does that mean that they will actually come within the next financial year? Following the question from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), will they come from this year’s budget, or will there be some additional funding mechanism? Those are technical questions. In some ways, they are almost otiose in the context of what we have heard today. Technical questions, compensation and redress are important, but the single most important thing that we in this House do today is to pay credit and tribute to the victims, to their families and to their relatives, and to say that politics in the past may have let them down, but today, politics and this House will not let them down. We will respect them, we will cherish them and we will do everything—everything—we can to ensure that they finally receive the redress that they so deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is very sad that the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) is leaving the House after today. I think that everyone present will agree with me that his last speech in this Chamber will be remembered as one of his best.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, what a privilege it is to have you in the Chair for this debate? I know that you have such humanity and that you will be touched by this debate and all that you have heard. I know, too, that you will be pleased that you were chairing this particular debate.
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his incredibly moving and powerful speech. I congratulate him on our being here today. I also join you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everyone in this House in saying that the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) made one of his finest speeches. It is his last speech, which is a great shame to so many of us who know just how he has worked for his constituents, for the people of Northern Ireland as a shadow Minister, and also for this House, because he is a true parliamentarian and will be desperately missed.
We stand here today just before we go into an election. We are going into an election because politics is broken, yet here we can prove that it is not broken. Here, we can prove that we can come together and do something. We can deliver something that is right for people who have been through the most agonising, dreadful experiences— experiences that no person, and particularly no child, should ever suffer. We have a chance to make that right today. I trust and know that we will come together, that we will pass this Bill and that, by this evening, this Bill will have Royal Assent, and then we can get on with delivering redress for those victims. They need it, they deserve it, and it needs to happen as soon as possible.
One of the privileges of the job that I used to do, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does now, and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and others have done, is to realise that, very often, we are in the presence of people who have suffered the most incredible, dreadful experiences. Northern Ireland is like no other part of the United Kingdom for having put people through experiences that no one should ever have to go through. I, as Secretary of State, spent time listening to people who had been through horrendous experiences in the troubles and who had been treated in a way that nobody should be treated, and listening to people who were victims of historical institutional abuse. As Secretary of State, or any Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, one cannot fail to be touched by that and to be determined to do everything possible to help those victims. I was absolutely determined that we should do that, and I am so proud that we have got here today, but it had to be done in a way that was sustainable and robust. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could just wave a magic wand and make it all right. We have to go through the proper processes, because we must make sure that this redress scheme and the measures that are put in place will be robust, will not be challenged and will be delivered—and delivered as quickly as possible for the victims.
That is why it was a matter of the most enormous regret that the Hart report was delivered at the point that the Executive collapsed. Had the Executive not collapsed, we would have had ministerial direction to know what Ministers thought of the recommendations. We would have had something to work with. In fact, had the Executive been there, they could have delivered interim payments without the need for primary legislation. They could have delivered so many of these things so much sooner, but they were unable to do so, which is why we had to go through a long consultation process that victims felt was delaying matters and making them worse. It was not doing so; it was there to give a robust legal framework so that we could deliver this scheme.
I want to pay tribute, as my right hon. Friend did, to the six parties. Earlier this year, when we were starting on a talks process, we got all the parties from Northern Ireland in one room and used that opportunity to get them to talk about this matter, so that we could have a united position from them. Although we may still not have an Executive, it will be those politicians and those parties that will have to administer this scheme as Ministers. Therefore, it was absolutely right that it was they who helped to draft this legislation. If that had not been done, and we had used the normal primary legislation route in this place, it would have taken far, far longer, which would have meant that victims had to wait longer.
I have to say to the parties in Northern Ireland that this really needs to be a wake-up call. Yes, we are putting this Bill through here today—I know the hurdles that my right hon. Friend has had to go over and how he has had to jump over obstacles and everything else to get this Bill here today. I know full well what he has come up against, trying to get matters such as this through the collective responsibility of Government, but he should not have had to do that, because there are politicians in Northern Ireland who are elected to do this work. This needs to be the wake-up call. They should put their differences aside. I know that they want to go back into Government and do the right thing by the people of Northern Ireland. This is their opportunity. Please, I say to them, do the right thing for those people.
Finally, I just want to talk about the victims, many of whom I can see today. I know that we should not refer to those in the Gallery, but I will, because those victims are there. I had the honour and privilege of meeting them. I sat through meetings in which they told me about their experiences. There is nothing more humbling than listening to people telling you what they have been through—especially when it is something that they should never have had to go through. This is a Bill for them. This is something that we are delivering in this broken Parliament for people for whom we should be standing up. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this Bill and I will wholeheartedly support it here today.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I am so very glad that we are here today and that we are getting to the final stage of this process. It has been a battle throughout, not least for the many victims and survivors of this terrible abuse. It has even been a battle just to get this legislation through the House today, and I pay tribute to everybody who has worked incredibly hard to get us to this point. My colleagues and I, other parties, the victims and others across Northern Ireland have lobbied incredibly hard to get this legislation through, and I am really grateful and glad that we have been able to achieve that. At times we expressed frustration and anger that these provisions were potentially not going to go through the House, but the Secretary of State did his best and succeeded, and we see the evidence of that today. This Bill will go through the House in exceptional circumstances, with so many people across so many different elements of the system having worked to make this happen, and I am so very glad—not for us, but for the victims and survivors of this dreadful abuse.
I am glad that those who have suffered through this process will be able to see the genuine care and empathy of all Members who have spoken on the issue thus far. The Secretary of State made a wonderful speech that was very much from the heart, and we could see that. I hope that the victims and survivors get some comfort from the fact that many people care deeply about this issue. I also pay tribute to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). Once again, he made a beautiful and poignant speech that was truly from the heart. That will be picked up, heard and listened to by the victims and survivors, and I hope that it gives them some comfort.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The victims are very grateful for and conscious of the Bill’s progress today, and we hope that it will proceed apace. In addition, though, some have said to me that they are appreciative of and grateful for the empathy, support, sympathy and solidarity with them from across the community, as well as the concrete steps being taken today. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Emma Little Pengelly
I absolutely agree with all that my hon. Friend has said.
I am so glad that this legislation for the victims and survivors of abuse is one of the last things that this House will have achieved in this Parliament. This is a Parliament that has been dominated by a small number of big issues, and we know very well what those are; I am not even going to say the word. Yet I know that Members from every single party right across this House and the elected representatives in Northern Ireland get into politics because they want to make change on these types of issues. They want to make changes on education, health and public services, and to address great wrongs and injustices. It is such a good thing that we are ending this Parliament on such an issue, and that the many hundreds and thousands of people who suffered appalling abuse, as the Secretary of State outlined, will finally get the last piece of this process: redress. But redress will not be closure. It will never undo the dreadful wrongs that happened to all those children in those settings.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady was instrumental in setting up the inquiry from the beginning. Let me make a point to her that always struck me when I was in the Home Office dealing with these matters for England and Wales, which is that to call this historical abuse is absolutely wrong. It is not historical; it is current and present. It is with the victims every single day.
Emma Little Pengelly
Absolutely. I was involved in this process right from the start, seven years ago. I pay tribute to the right hon. Peter Robinson and the late Martin McGuinness, because I was present at the meeting when the victims and survivors came in and told us of the terrible, terrible experiences they went through, and both those men were genuinely moved. Who could not be moved by hearing those personal experiences and the terrible wrongs? But both of those men were very moved, and they worked together, and tasked me and some others to go away and try to drive this work forward. Throughout those seven years, civil servants at all levels, the late Judge Hart and all those who gave support and help were really motivated to get through the process and to do so swiftly, because they had heard the terrible things that had happened and had seen the injustice that they wanted to address.
I have to say that I am angry that it has taken this long to get to this point of redress. The inquiry was unusual in that the timeframe was put down in legislation. The late Judge Hart made it absolutely clear that, yes, he would request the extension that he was allowed by the legislation, but he would also meet the timeframes set out, so we always knew when the inquiry was going to report, because he made that clear. I and others made representations to those who pulled down the Assembly, asking them not to do so in order to allow the report to come forward, and I am genuinely angry that it happened. I am angry that we have had to wait for those years for the victims and survivors to get the redress they deserve and that we knew was coming.
But today is not a day about recriminations. In fact, this has been a good example of how the political parties can work together and the difference that they can make—not, perhaps, on the bigger issues that will always be challenging, but on these types of significant issues that are so meaningful to people’s lives.
I pay tribute to all the victims and survivors, who have been on this journey right from the start, including Margaret, Kate, Gerry and Jon McCourt, all of whom have been mentioned in this debate. They have done incredible work because they have represented not just themselves, but the many thousands of victims across Northern Ireland—in fact, across the world—who perhaps could not step forward. They were brave enough to do so no matter how difficult it was, and it must have been incredibly difficult for them to tell their own stories again and again and again to try to get the inquiry and the justice they deserved.
I have been involved in this process for seven years, so it is really good to see it come to an end today, but the victims and survivors have been involved for decades and decades before that. As I have said in the House many times, many of these children came from very challenging and difficult circumstances, and what they needed was love, protection and support. But when we read the report and listen to their experiences, we know that what they got was cruelty, depravity and harshness. That is appalling. Right from that very first meeting with Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson, those who were in the room were absolutely struck that the right thing to do was to try to get justice for the victims. There is very broad consensus on that in every political party and right across this House.
I pay tribute to all the victims and survivors. This is not the end of their journey. They will continue with all the pain and suffering—the legacy of what happened to them. I hope that this redress and financial support—and what it symbolises—will be of some comfort, as well as a recognition of their hard and incredible work to stand up and address the terrible, terrible wrong that was done to them and many thousands of other children.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It would be a good idea for others to look at the last two pages of the historical institutional abuse inquiry report, which is available at hiainquiry.org. In those pages, Sir Anthony Hart—to whom tributes have properly been paid—set out the six points that he thought were the most important. It is now two years after he had hoped that the compensation payments would be made. Let us also remember the survivors who were over the age of 18 —people who he was not able to look at. I think there is unfinished business in this part of our kingdom. We have to remember that there will be further reports on the rest of the United Kingdom to come in time.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
When the Secretary of State made his poignant remarks to the House today, he quoted from Corinthians on the views and perspective of a child—what children see. The beginning of that chapter says that faith is so powerful that it can move mountains, but without charity, compassion and love, it is nothing. This House today, through the actions of this Government that have been brought here, has demonstrated that through compassion it has been able to move bureaucratic mountains. It has been able to move those things that stood in the way, and it is not as nothing; today this House is something. It has done something incredibly powerful and incredibly important for victims across Northern Ireland, those here on the mainland, and, indeed, those who are located across the world as a result of the abuse that took place in these locations in Northern Ireland.
It is important that the Secretary of State is able to set out, and this legislation sets out, the schedule of when moneys will be paid, because that is a practical issue. It is also important that we make sure that help is given to the victims groups going forward from now on, because they have been brought to the top of the mountain. Today is, if I can use the word appropriately, an exciting day in that they have now achieved this, but there will then be the cliff edge of what happens next. Those victims groups will have to be wrapped in compassion, charity, help and assistance so that they can then move to the next phase of this, because it is not going to end very quickly. There will probably now be a process put in place, and it is important that practical help is given to take the groups through that to make sure that they can get the other end of this as quickly and expeditiously as possible. I hope that we will see that. I hope that we mark this very poignant and historic day with an appropriate mark of respect and an appropriate celebration that this House is not as nothing; it has achieved something today.
Julian Smith
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to come back on a few points that I was asked about. Before I do, may I thank my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office? No Secretary of State could ask for better colleagues than the two on either side of me at the Dispatch Box today, who have also played an incredible part in trying to move this Bill forward.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) raised the issue of the financing of the scheme and the timetable. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, officials in the Executive Office are already working on the implementation programme. They aim to make shadow board appointments to work on policies, procedures and standards so that the board can start considering claims as soon as practicable after it is officially launched. Officials in the Executive Office are also working hard to ensure that the consideration of claims can begin as soon as practicable after the Bill becomes law, and exploring the possibility of opening up applications in advance of the establishment of the board. Obviously, we will all want to do whatever we can. In particular, the Government will do whatever we can to make sure that we play our part in moving things forward as quickly as possible.
The funding for the scheme comes from the block grant, but clearly we will be making sure that we do everything we can to support the Executive Office.
Gavin Robinson
On the points about process, the Secretary of State is injecting a bit of positivity and we hope that this will progress quickly. On 6 December, he is mandated to lay reports under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018. Given that we are going to have to do that process anyhow, could a line on progress updates and the processes that follow be inserted in the Bill?
Julian Smith
I will do whatever I can, within the constraints of the purdah period, to update right hon. and hon. Members and the public.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) referred to the fact that this legislation is the most robust basis for the redress scheme and the commissioner. That is worth reiterating. It would not be on as sound a footing if we had not got what we hoped to get today, so she is absolutely right. She is also right to point to the fact that hopefully after the election we can get the Executive and the Assembly going, because that is the best place to do all NI legislation.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) was very clear about how productive the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive had been around the time of the Hart report, and on other issues. That period gives us all hope that we will get back to a position where we will restore the Executive and the Assembly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) made an extremely valid point. It is something I was worrying about last night as I re-read parts of the report. There are many, many people of different ages—people who may not have been in care but may have been abused in other settings—who will no doubt be the subject of reports going forward.
I thank all colleagues for all their kind remarks, and again pay tribute to the victims groups who are sitting here today. They may have missed their current flights, but we have arranged for them to be able to go later. I hope we will all be able to celebrate with them shortly.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Motion made and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 63(2), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—(Maggie Throup.)
Bill considered in Committee.
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Julian Smith
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
That was, I think, one of the shortest Committee stages in this Parliament’s history. Having been Government Chief Whip, I only wish that another policy area of this Government could have been covered so quickly.
As has been said during the course of this debate, in powerful speeches from Members across the House, this is a day for victims—the victims from Northern Ireland who are in the Public Gallery today, the victims from Northern Ireland who are sitting at home, and all victims of child abuse who have yet to have redress and a full acknowledgment of what they went through. I am extremely grateful to the House for all the support and for all the civil service support, and I think this is a very fitting way to finish this Parliament.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Let me join the Secretary of State in applauding the fact that the House has seen fit to move the Bill so swiftly through the House today. I want to place on record our thanks to my colleague Lord Hain and Lord Duncan, the Minister involved, because they were instrumental in ensuring that this House had the opportunity to move things forward.
I want to say to those with us today who are victims, representing many other victims, that this Bill would have been necessary had there only been one victim of this kind of abuse. We know that many thousands suffered—thousands more than will come under the ambit of the scheme, because many of them have already died, and we cannot offer anything by way of recognition or compensation to those people. But today we are saying to those who are with us that we recognise what took place, and it is a matter of real and profound shame to every one of us in this country. It is also a matter of anger, and we should use that anger to ensure that we are determined to do everything we can to insist that this cannot be the pattern for the future. We know that sexual abuse will take place in Northern Ireland and in the whole of the United Kingdom. This should impel us to do everything we can to protect our young people and those who are victims, because we have to learn the lessons of the past.
That is the triumph for those who have been through this campaign. They have campaigned for themselves and those they represent, but they have also campaigned on a much wider basis—they have campaigned for decency and justice for people across this land of ours. The real emotion that was rightly expressed by the Secretary of State, by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and by others is not just about empathy. It is because we profoundly believe in the need to ensure that there is justice for those who have campaigned and those they campaigned for and, in the end, to set a different moral tone around this issue for the future. This is a good Bill, and I thank all our colleagues for making it possible to pass it today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The Secretary of State referred to the fact that the Bill went through Committee very quickly; I do not think I have ever chaired such a quick Committee. That indicates the unity in the House around this Bill, and I know that if it were not for the special circumstances we are in, many more Members would have wanted to be here to show their support.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—(Maggie Throup.)
Valedictory Debate
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the last time that you will be able to call me. It was a great privilege working with you when we were doing opposite jobs, as Chief Whip and Opposition Chief Whip.
I first saw inside the House of Commons in about 1972. In 1970, Cannock elected a Conservative Member of Parliament, Patrick Cormack, with one of the biggest swings in the country in that general election. Like any new Member of Parliament, he went round the local schools and invited us to come down to the House of Commons to have a tour. I came down in about 1972, and I remember it well. I was overwhelmed by the atmosphere, the beauty of the place and the history of the building—so much so that I remember saying to one of my best friends at the time, John Beresford, “I’ve decided what I want to do in life.” He said, “What’s that, Patrick?” and I said, “I want to come back to the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament.” I will always remember him saying to me, “If I was you, I’d keep that a secret.” It was not the kind of place that a comprehensive schoolboy from Cannock would end up.
Leaving school at 16, I became involved in the youth wing of the Conservative party, and I fought my first general election in Wolverhampton South East in 1983. It was a great campaign but an unsuccessful one, when the Conservative party overall was doing incredibly well. I made several unsuccessful attempts at winning other seats, and I began to think that my friend John was right. But as we all know in politics, things happen suddenly. All of a sudden, a by-election was called in West Derbyshire, and I was selected as the candidate, when Matthew Parris, who has been a lifelong friend since then, decided to pursue a career in TV.
I would like to pay tribute to the officers of the West Derbyshire Conservative association in those days, particularly Geoffrey Roberts, who is sadly no longer with us, but his wife Josie still lives in Bakewell. They took a bit of a gamble in 1986, selecting a 28-year-old who was hardly a typical Tory—somebody who left school at 16, had not been to university and had gone through 12 months of a coal strike. With our successful campaign in that by-election, and with my charm and personality, I managed to take a very safe Conservative seat with a majority of 15,500 to one with a majority of 100 votes.
I came into the House of Commons on 13 May. My mother came down, and my pregnant wife was with me, and we were invited to have tea with the then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher. My mother was not overwhelmed at all by meeting Mrs Thatcher. She had never met a senior politician of any description. We met her in the Prime Minister’s office here in the House of Commons, and within a few minutes, it was almost as if I did not exist. My mother and Mrs Thatcher were talking away like two old fishwives. After 30 minutes, a note came in for the Prime Minister saying that she had to go to her next meeting. She looked at my mother and said, “I’m very sorry, but I have to go to my next meeting.” I will always remember my mother tapping her on the knee and saying, “Yes, my dear, you are busy, aren’t you?” to which Mrs Thatcher said, “Well, I am today. It’s just one of those days.”
That is how I came to represent one of the most beautiful constituencies in England. It is a constituency dominated, to a great degree, by the Peak District national park. The Peak district is within an hour’s drive of 60% of the UK population, and some weekends it feels like they all come. The Peak District national park is a very important part of our country. Obviously it has strict planning rules and regulations, but I want to see people living in the national park and not priced out of it. We must bear that in mind.
We have a number of important market towns in Derbyshire Dales, not least Wirksworth, Ashbourne, Bakewell and Matlock. They are thriving market towns, but at the moment their high streets are under tremendous pressure. I do hope that the new Government will think very carefully about how they can support our market towns and our high streets—that is incredibly important—and avoid putting extra unnecessary costs on them, or if costs are put on business, make sure they are across the board, including for the internet companies, which at the moment do not quite share their full burden.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
It has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve in this House with my right hon. Friend, but will he give the House a pledge that he will not write his memoirs, or if he changes his mind and does decide to write his memoirs, that he will make no reference at all to what happens in the Whips Office? Does he agree with me that whipping, like stripping, is best done in private?
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I agree partly with what my right hon. Friend says. If he does not mind, I shall say something in a few moments about the Whips Office that may or may not get his approval, but let us see.
Less than a year after I entered the House of Commons, we faced a general election. I have to say that it was an unusual election as far as West Derbyshire was concerned because two parties got what they wanted. My Liberal opponent had posters up and down the constituency saying, “100 more votes this time”. I am very glad that he got his extra 100 votes, and I was even more pleased that I got an extra 10,000. Let us leave that to the side, but we should be careful what we wish for.
In 1989, I was invited by Margaret Thatcher to join her Government, and I went as a junior Minister to the then Department of Transport. One of the first issues that landed in the area I was responsible for, within a few weeks of my being at the Department, was the terrible Marchioness disaster on the Thames. As we have done in the previous debate, dealing with people who have suffered such tragedies is one of the more difficult parts of life in government, as it is when, as Members of Parliament, we have people who are hit by tragic circumstances and incidents that often cause the loss of life and the like. I think most Members of Parliament go out of their way to do whatever they can to help.
I served in several Departments before John Major appointed me to the Whips Office in 1995. I spent 17 years there, becoming one of the most long-serving and perhaps, as far as my party is concerned, long-suffering Whips. When David Cameron became leader of the Conservative party in 2005, he made me the Opposition Chief Whip, and then he made me the Chief Whip in the coalition Government in 2010. There, I was really ably assisted by John Randall, who is now in the other place, as my Deputy Chief Whip—really a man of great and outstanding ability and high principle—and by the right Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I see in his place the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who was also in the Whips Office.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I have to say that I never dreamed for one minute that I would ever serve under the right hon. Gentleman in any capacity in this place, but I found myself doing so and I found myself enjoying it and respecting his leadership, so I thank him for that.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think, with the problems we inherited, that there was a lot the coalition Government did of which we can rightly be proud.
I was Chief Whip for a considerable time, and I have to say that I was greatly assisted at the time by two people in the Whips Office to whom I want to refer—Sir Roy Stone and Mark Kelly. Roy Stone is basically the usual channels, as you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is true that there have been only four people to hold the position of principal private secretary to the Chief Whip in the last 100 years, and Roy himself has been doing it since November 2000. The House, the Government and the Opposition have a great servant in Roy, and I really want to say a big thank you to him for the work he does. I think he would say that there is never a dull moment in what he does.
I would like to say a few things about the Whips Office, which I think is quite often misunderstood both inside and outside this place. Contrary to some of the wilder stories, it is the personnel department of any parliamentary party, dealing with a wide range of issues both personal and political.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)
In my experience, I always saw the Whips Office as a human resources department, but with the “human” bit taken out.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
Well, everybody is allowed to have their views. All I can say to my right hon. Friend is that she ought to have to deal with some of the people the Whips Office has to deal with.
I would like to say something to all people who come into this House of Commons. Whatever they think about the Whips Office and about the party system, very few people would get into this House on their own ability; they get here only because they belong to a major political party or a political party, and I think that is sometimes forgotten by them when they get here.
In 2012, David Cameron gave me the option of becoming Secretary of State for Transport. As Chief Whip, I was aware of the offer just a little time in advance of the reshuffle, so I had time to reflect on it. It was a big step to move from the back office of politics to the front office, or to the frontline, as it so often seemed, particularly in those first few weeks at the Department for Transport, where I had of course started as a junior Minister some time before.
I remember very well, Madam Deputy Speaker, you coming to me on that Monday afternoon, when I knew what was going to happen to me, and you told me that the Opposition day debate on Wednesday was going to be on rail fares. I did try to say to you that I did not think this was a very good idea and could you not find a different subject to take on. The next morning you realised why I might have suggested that, but as usual you stuck to your guns, and I found myself responding to such a debate that week.
I found my four years at the Department for Transport one of the most fascinating periods that I spent in government, and it was a huge privilege to be the Secretary of State and head of a major Department such as that.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I would just like to put on record that during the right hon. Gentleman’s spell as Secretary of State for Transport, a company—it will be unnamed—came to me in desperate straits over a problem that involved the Department for Transport and other countries, and it would have gone out of business within 10 days had it not been resolved. I took it to the right hon. Gentleman, we had a discussion, he did what was necessary and that company was saved, with about 120 jobs, and I would just like that to go on the record.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I said, it was an incredibly rewarding period.
Within a few days or weeks of being there, I found myself having to phone Richard Branson to explain why his company was going to keep the franchise for the west coast main line, although he had previously been told that Virgin had lost it; that conversation I remember well. I would like to say at this point that it is fair to say that people such as Richard Branson and Brian Souter have done more for rail passengers in this country than many Secretaries of State, and they have improved our railways in a very dramatic way. I hope that, whatever plans come in the manifestos, we do not lose the involvement of the private sector in the railways. They have transformed our railways, and I think that is partly as a result of the private investment we have seen.
I would like to take this opportunity, if I may, to pay tribute to some of the superb civil servants who supported me in my role. Among them, in my private office were Mark Reach and Rupert Hetherington, as well as Philip Rutnam, who was the permanent secretary for all the time that I was there, while Phil West was my principal private secretary for the entire four years I was at the Department. I had excellent special advisers—another often misunderstood role—in Ben Mascall, Simon Burton and Tim Smith, as well as a constituent of mine, Julian Glover, who knew more about the railways than anybody I have come across and would give me the history and everything else. He has written and had published not so long ago a book on Thomas Telford, “Man of Iron”, and it is great authoritative writing. People like them who bring outside expertise straight into the political arena are really very important.
I was encouraged by the unswerving support of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, who were both great infrastructure enthusiasts—so much so that one of my problems as Transport Secretary was that, when visiting a construction site, I was always third in line to get a hi-vis jacket and a hard hat. In 2015 I was reappointed by the Prime Minister. I remember him saying, “Patrick, you’ve been going up and down the country promising all these schemes.” I pointed out that I had only done so after he had promised them in the first place, and that it would have been difficult to row back on promises made by the Prime Minister.
Talking about infrastructure, one of the fascinating aspects of returning to the Department where I began my ministerial career was that I could appreciate fully just how long and difficult these major projects are. Crossrail is a good example. When I was first in the Department, in 1989, I remember the then Secretary of State saying, “We’re going to build Crossrail.” It is now being built. It has been delayed and gone over budget, but it will make a tremendous difference to London once it is finished.
That brings me to High Speed 2. HS2 is not about speed; it is about capacity. It is about building a modern railway that is fit for our times and for a modern country. I could spend a long time talking about HS2, but I think that might try the patience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington), which I do not want to do. I accept the problems that he and his constituents face as a result of HS2, and those concerns must be listened to. However, I will find it ironic if I can take a high-speed train from London to Brussels or Paris, but not to Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds. It is absolutely essential that we increase our capacity.
As we prepare to leave the European Union, I well recall the Cabinet meeting on the Saturday morning after David Cameron had returned from the negotiations —given that he has written about this in his book, I can now break the rule not to speak about Cabinet discussions. I said in that meeting, “I would love to live in Utopia, but the trouble is that I would wake up and find that the EU was still there.” We have to be realistic about what we want from Europe. We are leaving the European Union, and it is right that we do so—we said that we would be bound by the result of the referendum, and I strongly believe that—but it is the European Union that we are leaving, not Europe. We must make sure that we get a good trading relationship with the rest of Europe as quickly as possible.
I will still be living in Derbyshire Dales. I shall miss tremendously being its Member of Parliament and being at the centre of things there. I am sure that I will still enjoy the company of so many good people, but it will be a different relationship. After 33 years, it is time to move on.
One of my greatest supporters and helpers has been my wife. It is fair to say that she has always been my strongest supporter in public—in private, she has often told me the truth, and I have been the better for it. I first entered the House in a by-election, and it was chaotic; after six weeks of campaigning, I arrived here in the thick of it. I decided only last week not to seek re-election, and I have to say that my departure feels the same. One of the best pieces of advice that my wife ever gave me was when she was helping me with a speech that I was preparing. After typing it up, she looked at me and said, “Patrick, I’ve never known you to make too short a speech.” On that note, I want to end by thanking everyone, including all the officers and staff, for their help.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I rise to make my final contribution after more than 36 years in this House. As I said when I announced that I was standing down, it has been the honour of my life to represent Rother Valley, a constituency that I first moved to at the age of eight, when my father, a Durham miner, moved to the south Yorkshire coalfields.
Having been elected in 1983, my baptism came very shortly after, when 4,500 miners went on strike for 12 months. With the Orgreave coke works in my constituency, I was kept on my toes. That was followed by three years as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Leader of the Opposition. I learned quite a lot of things that I will not be sharing this afternoon—I am not even tempted to talk about the Whips Office, as the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) has just done.
The major work that I have done in the House is with Select Committees. When I was first elected, I served on the Energy Committee, and then for a short time, I was a member of the Environment Committee. I chaired the Health Committee for five years, from 2005 to 2010. One of the earliest things that Committee did was to secure a free vote in the House on bringing in a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places. Some people said at the time that it would be the end of the world as we knew it, but now people say that it is the most popular piece of public health legislation that the House has ever introduced. I spent eight years chairing the Committee on Standards, until September last year. We did not have quite as great a result as we did with the smoking ban, but my intention all along was to ensure that this place was better thought of by the people outside who elect and send us here. I think that to some extent we were moving along quite nicely on that, until something happened in 2016 that seems to have knocked us back quite a bit. Select Committee work is something that I have enjoyed.
With regard to local achievements, clearly there are many, but the main achievement that I and my staff have had over many years is dealing with individual casework, for the people who come along and need help, perhaps because they have been unable to communicate their concerns. I have always said that I have been a voice for the voiceless in Rother Valley, speaking up on their behalf. Another thing I have been involved with in the constituency is coalfield regeneration. The advanced manufacturing park is now in the Rotherham constituency, but it used to be in Rother Valley when it was first put in by a Labour Government. It shows that we are recognised as having some of the finest manufacturing anywhere in the world. That came out of the old Orgreave coke works and the coalmine site. Such developments have transformed parts of south Yorkshire, and my voice and that of the Government were there for that on many occasions.
Finally, I want to say a few words of thanks to some individuals. For the last eight general elections, my friend and colleague Alan Goy has been my political agent. All Members will know how important it is to have a good relationship with their political agent. I also want to thank the staff who have supported me during my tenure. I will thank, in particular, my current staff, Sheena Woolley, Jacquie Falvey and Natalie Robinson, who support me in the constituency, and Kate Edwards and Michael Denoual, who work here in Parliament.
As the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales said, your wife is a massive support in this job. Sadly, I lost my first wife Carol in 2008, but Andree, who I married a few years ago, has been a pillar of support. It would be difficult for anybody to do this job without that type of support at home.
I do not want to turn this into a full-scale Oscars speech, so I will end by thanking the people of Rother Valley, who I have been honoured to represent. Whoever wins the seat at the election, I hope that they will feel the same satisfaction representing it that I have felt for many years.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I am grateful to have an opportunity to take part in this debate and to pay tribute to so many colleagues who are moving on. It is a particular honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin). Indeed, it was a telephone call from him that first heralded my appointment as a Minister. I could hear the deep reluctance in his voice, verging on disbelief, as he announced that the Prime Minister had appointed me. He then had a moment of fun at my expense when he told me—he obviously knew me very well—that I was off to the Ministry of Agriculture, before revealing that I was in fact going to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In fact, things went from bad to worse after that phone call, because my sole contribution, apart from irritating the Chief Whip during my first five years in this place while on the Opposition Benches, was to write a blog in which, with the oncoming age of austerity, I recommended that the first thing we should do as a Government was to get rid of Government cars. Straight after my right hon. Friend put down the phone, my new private secretary at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport rang me—I felt tremendously important— and said, “Minister, would you like to come into the Department?” I said that, yes, of course I would. They said, “Minister, shall we send your car?” I paused for a moment. I thought of myself, as I have always been in this place, as a man of great principle and then said, “Yes, please send a car.” [Laughter.] Two minutes later, there was another phone call: “Minister, the Secretary of State has read your blog and he has cancelled your car.” I never had a car for the six years that I was in the Department.
My right hon. Friend’s speech also reminded me of my own glittering political career in this place. I have always wanted to do the Queen’s Speech address, so that I can recount to the House some of my great political successes. Standing in 1997 in Bristol East, I managed to turn a 5,000 Labour majority into a 17,000 Labour majority. Then, when I was selected to succeed Robert Jackson in the seat of Wantage, he and I worked hand in glove together for three years—father and son, Laurel and Hardy—with never a moment apart. After working with me for those three years, Robert Jackson turned around and defected to the Labour party.
I was lucky enough to succeed Robert Jackson in 2005 to become the Member of Parliament for Wantage and Didcot, and it is a tremendous privilege. I rechristened the constituency Wantage and Didcot, although I can never get that past the Boundary Commission. Didcot is the largest town in the constituency, which also includes Wantage, Faringdon and Wallingford. I sensed from my right hon. Friend’s speech that all of us in this House believe that we represent the best constituency in the country. The great advantage of Wantage is that it literally does have everything, from an ancient white horse to a 21st century space cluster with 90 start-up companies. It has Europe’s leading business park, Milton Park, a technology business park with life sciences, the European Space Agency, the Satellite Applications Catapult, Williams Formula 1, farming, small businesses and a huge sense of community. I think the one thing we all learn in this place as Members of Parliament, if we did not learn it beforehand, is the tremendous power of community and social organisations in our constituencies. Again and again, we know the tremendous amount of work that volunteers do in every part of society in our constituencies to make things happen and to make them work, often with very little thanks or recognition.
My constituency—I hope this does not sound arrogant or come out in the wrong way—suffers in different ways from other constituencies, in that it suffers from the problems of success. The issues that come across my desk relate to economic success: concern about the growing number of houses and whether there is adequate infrastructure, such as roads and schools, to support it. There are other important issues, such as reopening a provincial railway station, Grove station, to provide better commuting for all my constituents, and sorting out the problems at Wantage community hospital. The biggest issue that faces us is how to cope with the impact of economic success in this area.
I just want to touch on two other topics before I sit down. I probably should not bring up Brexit—we were all having such a lovely time before I did—but I just want to put on record, as someone who has got into a bit of trouble on this issue, what happened. I supported the Prime Minister’s position when he first became Prime Minister, to leave with a deal; otherwise we would leave with no deal. Funnily enough, I thought the no-deal threat was better aimed at this Parliament, rather than at Europe. It was only the out-of-the-blue Prorogation that made me feel that Parliament should have a moment where it put in an insurance policy to ensure that we did get a deal, but once a deal came back I was very happy to support it. I was happy to support the programme motion, and I hope that if the Prime Minister comes back with a majority, he brings the deal back and rams it through. I would certainly support him in that. I am not a remainer or a remoaner; I am a leaver-with-a-dealer. I hope that that is what can happen after the election.
Although I lost the Whip, I am a fan and an admirer of the Prime Minister. I have known him for many years. Generally, every single political prediction I make is wrong, but I did predict two years ago that he would become Prime Minister. I also said that, looking at his record as Mayor of London, he would make a fine Prime Minister. I think he will. As I look at my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), I can see him nodding in agreement.
Mr Vaizey
The final issue I want to raise in my speech is that, despite the then Chief Whip’s concerns, I was lucky enough to serve for six years as Minister with responsibility for the arts, telecommunications and technology. The telecoms part of the brief was a complete accident. It came to us when we were in opposition, because the then telecoms spokesman was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). When it was pointed out that he did not even own a mobile phone, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) rather deftly stole the policy and took it over to DCMS. When I got that Department, the then Prime Minister had such faith in me that he tried to take the telecoms brief away from me and give it to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). Thankfully, he was married to a woman who was the chief executive of a telecoms company at the time, so I held on to that fantastic brief, as well as that of the creative industries of film, television, advertising and video games. I just want to say two things about those two areas.
First, the arts are tremendously important. We have the most incredible arts ecology. That is a terrible word to use for such a beautiful subject, but we have the most incredible museums and arts institutions in this country. I think it really is only in this place that they are not appreciated. When I go abroad, people marvel at our museums and how we support the arts in this country. If only we could have a system similar to the system we have for international development, where the arts have a guaranteed budget—not 0.7%, but bigger than it is at the moment—we would get so much more from them. We already get such a tremendous amount.
On the creative industries, we perhaps like to mock luvvies but that is completely wrong. One of the reasons we have not dipped into recession in the past couple of quarters is the contribution made by the British film industry. I told the then Prime Minister that he had as much right to appear on the set of James Bond as at a widget factory, because it was making a massive economic contribution to our country.
On technology, we are the leaders of Europe in technology investment, start-ups and technology companies. As we move towards delivering Brexit, I urge all policy makers in this House, when Parliament returns, to look at technology as one of the key areas that will drive the 21st century post-European Union British economy.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
When I see the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), I always recall my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) talking about seeing him in his nappies when he was young. Seeing again how young he obviously is, I am very sorry that he is leaving the House. One thing we have in common is the arts. A lot of Members spend their evenings in the very wonderful part of my constituency with the Southbank centre, the National Theatre and so on.
Kate Hoey
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that he has to be re-elected, of course, but he is not retiring. [Interruption.] Now I am very unclear whether he is retiring or just putting himself forward for re-election—fine.
Like the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), who spoke first in the debate, I came in at a by-election in 1989. I will not go through my whole history, but I just point out that it is very different being a Member of Parliament who is literally five minutes away from their constituency. He was my constituent in Kennington for a very long time and he took a great interest in many of the community events; I am very grateful for that. Coming in as a new Member in that by-election back in 1989 was very different: we had no television covering the house, no mobile phones, no emails, no 24-hour news—it all sounds wonderful now. Members who come in now probably do not really understand how different it was 30 years ago.
Some of the improvements have been wonderful. For example, I waited for an office for a very long time. All the things that are now done for new Members did not happen then and we were very much left to find our own way. I should also say that I do not like some of the changes. I am very pleased that we have a new Speaker who will be extremely fair and show the kindness—quite honestly, I am not a hypocrite—that the previous Speaker did not show to Members, and I hope that the new Parliament will realise that some changes from the so-called modernisation do not necessarily change the standard of the debate in this place or the way that people behave. I think we need to look at that very carefully, and I hope that the new Speaker will do so. There is not just the question of clapping. Practically every tradition in this House has been introduced over the years for a reason. I remember being one of those people who came in and immediately said, “Why are we wasting so much time in the Division Lobbies? Why are we not getting through right away? Why are we not able to not vote in a different way?” However, I would not dream of voting to get rid of the Division Lobbies now, because it is such a useful time to talk to people from both sides of the House—if someone is not always voting with their party, as I have not been a few times—and to see Members from our own party. I spent most evenings going over to Vauxhall to community meetings, friends groups and tenants associations, so I did not have the luxury of being able to stay around in the House and have lots of nice meals, with the wonderful catering staff and wonderful food. We need to be careful about modernising this place so much that it is treated in a way that loses the absolute value of history that we have in this place.
One part of my life that will be very unhappy about me leaving is my wonderful, old, traditional, original Mini, because it literally knows its way from the House of Commons over Westminster bridge and back over Lambeth bridge. Some days I would do the journey perhaps two or three times, so my Mini will get a great rest when I leave, and it will not know what has hit it now that it will not be doing that journey.
I want to say a couple of very important thank yous. This place is made up of people who work so hard for us all and who very often do not get the thanks and tributes. I thank all the members of Royal Mail, for example—the postmen and women who have delivered our mail and have been so kind over the years. I thank Yiannis in the Travel Office, who has been fantastic. Most importantly for me, as someone who came in and was not in any way computer-savvy—I still do not really like technology—one person in the Digital Service, Balj Rai, has been just wonderful. He knows exactly how to be patient with someone like me, and I thank him.
Finally, I want to thank my personal staff. I have had Kathy Duffy working for me for 26 years—I must not get emotional; this is silly. I have had Max Freedman for 15 years; Lara Nicholson for 11 years; Ada During for six years; and my wonderful paralegal Ashleah Skinner, who has done a brilliant job, for four years. They have all made my life here so much better. I also thank all my constituents who have sent me such wonderful letters and shown kindness. I will not miss many of my party political activists, but I will miss my constituents, my community organisers and the people who really wanted to work with me to make Vauxhall a better place. One thing I said when I came in here was that my country would always come before my party—and it still does.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I was first elected to this place as the first Conservative for 25 years to sit for the constituency of Darlington in the north-east of England. I have never forgotten that particular weekend. I set off on a train on the Sunday afternoon down to London and the buffet bar was closed. Somebody must have told the steward that the new MP for Darlington was on the train—I had been on television a bit—and he suddenly appeared with a tray of tea and toast and said, “We can’t have the new MP for Darlington going off hungry to take on his responsibilities.” He then stood there, shook his head and said, “Mind you, what hope have you got with all those Tories?”
Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), who made the most splendid speech today, I had the privilege of serving—perhaps unusually—four Prime Ministers. I first served Margaret Thatcher as her Schools Minister and then John Major in the same capacity. With my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), we set up the first proper independent inspection service of our schools, Ofsted, and we ensured that school exam results were published and available to parents. It is extraordinary to think now that the exam results of individual schools were locked away in the director of education’s safe and that parents were not trusted with that information.
I later had the equally unusual experience of working as deputy to two Liberal Secretaries of State, in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Energy and Climate Change. Not only was that interesting, but it turned out to be quite a constructive experience. When the history of the coalition Government is written, perhaps we will see some of the benefits of that working together.
That period had a rather unusual ending. The day after the 2015 election, around lunchtime, I was called by David Cameron and reappointed as Secretary of State for Defence. As I was leaving the Cabinet table, he said the Secretary of State for Industry had handed in his resignation and the permanent secretary wanted somebody to be in charge for a couple of days while the rest of the Cabinet was assembled, so for a few hours I was Secretary of State for Industry. As I was picking up my papers, he added, “The Secretary of State for Energy has also handed in his resignation”, so I said, “Fine, I’ll have a look at that as well”. Then, as I was leaving, he said, “And the Secretary of State for Scotland has resigned”. So for a day or two I held those four portfolios together.
I then had the most enormous privilege of all: working with our servicemen and women at the Ministry of Defence for three and a half years, leading them in the campaign against Daesh, resisting the challenge of a resurgent Russia and playing an important role in NATO. There can be no greater privilege than serving in that Department with the many willing and brave servicemen and women who have committed themselves to the service of our country. I want to put on the record my thanks to them all.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I would just like to thank my right hon. Friend for all he did in that role, particularly the way he kept Members of Parliament on both sides of the House so well briefed. When the history books are written, they will show how seriously he—together with his colleagues in the armed forces and his ministerial colleagues—took that incredibly important role. I thank him for that.
Sir Michael Fallon
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. It seemed to me incredibly important to keep the confidence of the House, having won its support back in 2015 for airstrikes in Iraq and then for their extension to Syria. Of course, that we were able to keep that confidence was down in no small part to the precision of our pilots and their skill in difficult conditions in minimising civilian casualties.
My successor will inherit a thriving and prosperous constituency. My constituents enjoy a good quality of life, remarkably low unemployment, a wide choice of schooling, frequent rail connections to the capital and the protection of the green belt—over 90% of my constituency is green belt—but there is still work to be done, including on the regeneration of Swanley, one of the other towns in my constituency, especially through new investment and the promise of a fast link service from Maidstone and Otford through Swanley to the city of London.
We also need to ensure that boys in my constituency have access to grammar school places. Whether you like it or not, Kent offers an 11-plus system, but Sevenoaks was the only district in Kent that did not have any grammar school places. I was delighted that after a 15-year campaign we managed to establish a girls’ school annexe, which has been open now for a couple of years, but we still need to ensure provision for boys’ grammar school places alongside it. We also need to continue to preserve our green-belt protections in Sevenoaks. The Government’s unrealistic housing targets will put pressure on that green belt, though I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are conscious of the need to balance the demand for new housing with our commitments to protect the green belt.
I hope that this election campaign will not ignore some of the longer-term challenges our country faces. We have spent an awful lot of time—perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly—debating the withdrawal agreement. In the end, that agreement only dealt with Ireland, our payments into the EU budget and the rights of EU citizens; we have not started yet on the major negotiation that really matters for business and jobs in my constituency, which is our future trading relationship, and I fear we have not yet started to explain to our electors some of the trade-offs that will inevitably be involved as we come to deal with the challenge to agriculture, financial services, the aerospace and automotive industries and our fisheries, and accommodating their legitimate right and desire to trade freely with the European continent with the views of our partners.
We will have to quickly put in place the security partnership that has long been promised in various documents the Government have issued—I fear we have spoken far too little about this—and make sure there is no cliff edge at the end of January or February in the policing and judicial arrangements that our constituents expect and in the way our agencies work with other agencies across the European continent to deal with terrorism and organised crime. We will also need to work with our former partners in the EU to continue to uphold the rules-based international order. We do not debate foreign affairs nearly enough in this House. When I first entered Parliament, in the ’80s, we had much more regular debates on international affairs.
We are dealing with a resurgent Russia that is in breach of many international conventions, whether on nuclear arms, chemical weapons or the protection of sovereignty under the Helsinki accords. We are dealing with a very ambitious China that is flouting the law of the sea convention, which it has signed, and continues to steal—there is no other word for it—the world’s intellectual property. And we are dealing with a mercantilist United States that is degrading the World Trade Organisation and slapping sanctions even on its friends in pursuit of a policy of “America first”. When it comes to holding the rules-based international system together, there really is a role for the leadership among the western nations, and particularly for our own nation here in the United Kingdom.
Let me end by thanking all those who have helped me so much over the last 31 years, particularly the staff in my office.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
I am not able to contribute with a speech, but—with some licence from you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for enabling me to intervene and express my strong personal view that he was one of the most effective and competent Ministers with whom it was ever my pleasure to serve. I think that that view is widely held on this side of the House.
Perhaps, through my right hon. Friend, I can express my personal thanks to the people whom I need to thank, not least my parliamentary staff, Jamie, Rosie, Ann Taggart and, in particular, Jill Brown, who is a parliamentary institution of her own. She came into this place in 1974, with my dad, and continues to go the extra yard on behalf of constituents, and for that she will always have my gratitude. Again, I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for letting me intervene.
Sir Michael Fallon
I am very grateful too, for the opportunity to allow my right hon. Friend to put that on record. I am only sorry that he cannot do so more formally.
Let me finally echo the thanks expressed by others to the Clerks and the staff of the House, and, in particular, single out the staff of the Library. They are, perhaps, a dignified part of our constitution, but they are almost certainly one of the most effective parts, and we owe them a very great deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I wanted to allow others to go first, but thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was elected in the middle of a miners’ strike, in 1984, to the seat held at one time by Keir Hardie, the first leader of the Labour party. When he was the MP, it was called Merthyr and Aberdare, although people often leave out “Aberdare”. I am afraid it is quite likely that when the boundary commissioners get to work, my constituency will disappear altogether, but fortunately they have not got to work yet, and while there is still a Cynon Valley, I am very proud to have represented it from 1984 until today.
I am standing down at this election with a heavy heart, especially as there is so much that I would still like to do. I have a long shopping list, and I have not completed the shopping. I do hope that other people will carry on and shop on my behalf, because these are all issues for which I think we can all campaign.
One of the things that I am proud of is that when Tower colliery, in my constituency, was going to be shut by a previous Administration, I managed to sit down the pit for 27 hours. The Government of the day argued that the pit was uneconomic, but we kept it open for a further 10 years as a result of some of my efforts. The men who worked there, and the people in the community, were very pleased that that happened. I do not think that I have ever recovered after spending 27 hours down the pit.
When I was a journalist, before I became a politician, one of the things for which I campaigned was compensation for miners, and for those with pneumoconiosis in particular. I am very pleased that when Tony Blair came into government I was able to advance that cause far more; in fact, I reminded him every single week that miners’ compensation should be arranged much faster than it was, because miners were dying without getting the money. So I am very pleased we did that.
I was also concerned about coalfield regeneration, and one of the issues I am still concerned about is the reclamation of some land that was used for industrial purposes. The land in question covers 150 acres, and is a prime flatland at the bottom of a valley; there are not many valleys with so much flatland. On that site there was a Phurnacite plant that produced smokeless fuel, and when I was first elected it was one of the worst industrial polluters in the whole of Britain. We managed to get it shut down. Then there was a battle to get the toxic waste—tonnes and tonnes of it—taken away from the site and taken elsewhere. They wanted to bury it on site; I asked where else that was done and they said, “Nowhere,” and I said, “It’s not going to be done here.” So that toxic waste was taken away.
I am pleased that with the help of the present Secretary of State for Wales we are working on greening the site, because the people there have lived with the dirt and dust for all these years and they cannot use that land, even though there are two lakes there and wildlife is returning: there are swans and kingfishers, and there is foliage that was never there before. The people in that area really should be able to enjoy recreation on those lakes and on that land, instead of having to push themselves under a fence in order to get on to it. I am pleased that we are in the middle of working on that, and I would like to have seen that work completed.
I worked too on the north Wales child abuse cases, because children were abused in my constituency. One of my most harrowing memories is listening to the survivors of child abuse, some of whose lives never returned to normal. I hope all the child abuse cases are concluded fairly rapidly.
I feel strongly about improvements in the health service, because I think I am the only person still alive who was on the royal commission on the national health service, the only one there has ever been. I remember our chairman, Sir Alec Merrison, saying at the time that unlike other royal commissions, our report would not gather dust. It did gather dust and continues to gather dust, however, but some of its recommendations are so worthwhile that I commend them to the present Administration.
When I lost my husband seven years ago I had arguments with the health authority in Wales—it is a continuing argument—and I am grateful that David Cameron had the foresight, if I may say so, to ask me to run an inquiry into complaints in the NHS in England. I would like to have done the same thing in Wales, because I was very pleased to be able to do that, and pleased that all our recommendations were accepted. More cross-party work on such issues, which we all care about and all want to see improved, would be valuable.
I speak Welsh—rwy’n siarad Cymraeg. I took my oath in Welsh and English, and I hope that one day it will be possible for Welsh to be a language used as a matter of daily life in this place as well. In the European Parliament, of which I was previously a Member, we managed to get substantial sums of money to assist the Welsh language there. I was very pleased that when I first got there in 1979 Barbara Castle was our first leader. You learned a few tricks from Barbara Castle. The first was that you got on with the other nationalities, if you could. Barbara never did, actually. I remember the leader of the German Socialists turning round to her one day and saying, “Barbara, you’re not in your national Parliament now.” That did not stop her. I do not think she ever got round to the idea of being in the EU, but I was pleased and proud to be there. I learned a lot of things, including how to vote electronically, which, after yesterday’s experience is perhaps something that will be sold to other Members. It certainly speeds things up.
There are other reasons why I was pleased that I went there first, before I came here. I have to say that it was a cultural shock for me to come here, because I had not realised how delusional people here were. I will tell you why. It was because we gave the impression that we did everything better than everybody else, when in fact there were many examples of other countries doing things better than we did, and I was pleased to have had the opportunity of experiencing that.
I was sacked by two party leaders—[Interruption.] Not for incompetence! First, I was sacked by Neil Kinnock for voting against the defence estimates. Then I was sacked by Tony Blair for going to Iraq at a particular time, which is particularly ironic. I then became the special envoy on human rights to Iraq. I have to say that I do not have quite the same fond memories of the Whips Office as some colleagues on the other side.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
As the right hon. Lady knows, she and I came into Parliament on the same day—I think it was 3 May 1984—both in by-elections. I simply want to say what a pleasure it has been to be in the House with her all that time.
Ann Clwyd
Thank you very much. Yes, I remember our first few days here. If you come in in a by-election, it is always more difficult to assimilate. I am glad that my hon. Friend is still here. I have not always agreed with him, as he well knows, but I respect him for his diligence and persistence, because those are two things that a Member of Parliament needs to do: to be diligent and persistent, and not to give up.
One of the things I have been keen on is the promotion and protection of international human rights, and I have given my long-standing support to people in other countries, in the middle east, Turkey, Cambodia and East Timor. We always have arguments in this place about the arms trade, and I do hope that we are ultra-careful in future about who we sell arms to. One sadness for me is that we did not manage to get a report out in the last Session of Parliament on arms sales to Saudi Arabia. A sustained and strategic use of the parliamentary mandate and platform is therefore crucial to furthering causes and ensuring that the Government of the day are being properly scrutinised. Parliamentary questions and debates are important, and I found out that I have spoken in debates in the House 2,200 times. That is a useless fact, but somebody produced it today.
A friend of mine in the House of Lords, Baroness Quin, phoned me a short time ago. She was in the European Parliament with me, and she reminded me of various things. She and I were in Senegal for a women’s rights conference—I do not know how many years ago—and suddenly there was a phone call for Joyce Quin to say that Captain Kent Kirk had landed on the coastline of her constituency to protest about fishing rights. Joyce was getting phone calls all the time from her constituents, who had no idea she was in Senegal. Of course, very often our constituents did not realise that part of our work was travelling to other countries and contributing to debates there.
I have been committed to cross-party scrutiny through my long-term engagement with the International Development Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Committee on Arms Export Controls. I have also chaired the all-party parliamentary human rights group for many years, which has allowed me to work with colleagues from all over the world from across the political spectrum to raise awareness of serious human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law, as well as giving victims a voice and supporting them in getting reform and redress. Human rights is thereby depoliticised, as it should be. Some colleagues have also worked on the executive of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I have supported the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. We do not talk enough in this place about the IPU, particularly the British group, which enables me and fellow BGIPU members to communicate concerns, including human rights, when countries sometimes have to be called out. We build greater consensus on big issues and crises facing the world, such as climate change, international development, poverty alleviation and the refugee crisis. I pay tribute to the staff and secretariat of the IPU and highlight the work of its committee on the human rights of parliamentarians, which I have chaired several times and of which I was a long-time member. My vision for the Cynon Valley, the UK and the international community is unfinished business, a lot of it, as far as I am concerned.
Most of all, I thank people in the House for their friendship, comradeship and support. I mean all sections of the House, particularly the doorkeepers, because when I was hobbling around on my new knee, I had great assistance from them. In fact, I got quite to rely on them. They gave me every help and they still do, even when I say “No, I'm all right now, thank you. I can get to the back row now, so you do not need to help me any more.” Particularly to all my colleagues and friends, I want to say that this has been a great place for building friendships. I thank you all and I am very sorry to be leaving you all.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I want to ensure that everybody gets a fair crack of the whip, so if colleagues could stick to about eight minutes, we can get everybody in and they would all have equal time.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)
As long as nobody heckles me, I am sure I will absolutely be able to stay to time.
I want to start by saying a massive thank you to, first of all, my office team, who are up in the Gallery. They have done an absolutely incredible job for so many Members here over many, many years. I have to point out particularly the long-suffering Kate and Nikki. Without their assistance and support and that of the rest of the team that I have got with me today, I would never have been able to do any of the rest of the things that I have been able to achieve for my community in this place.
Other Members have explained what it was like for them when they first entered the House. For me in 2005, winning back Putney from the Labour party was quite big news, and I found myself in the middle of a media storm from minute one of my time as an MP.
Michael Howard came down the next day to, as I thought, congratulate the brilliant team at Putney Conservatives who had helped me with that amazing victory. I stayed up all night organising his visit as the great leader, and he promptly turned up and resigned right by my side. Perhaps the best legacy from the few months that he had left in his role in 2005 was that he got back together a parliamentary party that had been in opposition for quite some time. He had us talk through different policy areas, and we discovered that, other than arguing about Europe, we had much more in common than that which divided us.
My time in this House has obviously been the greatest privilege of my life. I did not plan to be an MP, but I did it because I think people matter. I hope that I have always been a strong voice for people in Putney on the issues they care about, and I have simply sought to take their priorities and make them mine. My campaigning on Heathrow was perhaps an early indicator to the Whips and my party that I would stand my ground on local issues that matter to my community. I started my time here doing that, and I like to think that I have finished my time here doing that not only on Brexit, on which speaking up for local communities is crucial, but on a whole range of other issues, such as air pollution, quality of life, aircraft noise, and improving our transport. We were able to modernise Putney station and get improvements to Southfields station, and the lifts at both stations now mean that the whole public can access local public transport. I am particularly proud of those things, and I was on the case for getting a lift at East Putney station, and I very much hope that my successor will do the same.
I tirelessly campaigned on serious issues such as youth crime and policing. In fact, my very first Westminster Hall debate was on youth and youth crime, but I am sorry to say that things have not moved on as much as perhaps they should have done in the intervening 14 years, and this House still debates the very issues that I was debating as an incoming MP.
I want to reflect on the hugely important role that community groups and residents associations have played in my local community. Brilliant charities such as Regenerate, which works on the Alton estate in Roehampton, play an amazing role in inspiring young people to make more of their lives. There is the brilliant Putney Society—the ultimate residents association in Putney—and then, of course, there are incredible residents associations in Southfields, such as Southfields Grid, Southfields Triangle, and Sutherland Grove Conservation Area. All those organisations bring our community together and make it what it is, and I am so proud and delighted that I have been able to work with them for so many years.
I have had probably more roles than most in this House. I started my time in government in the Treasury team with the then MP for Tatton, George Osborne, carrying out an emergency Budget to ensure that this country’s finances did not go the way of Greece’s, and I have reflected on that as we have debated what a no-deal Brexit might mean for us. I quickly discovered as a Minister that I had the ability to make a difference way beyond even perhaps what people might have thought my brief was, so I got stuck into looking at the tolls on the Humber bridge, and I was delighted that I was able to get them reduced. I ended up with a beer temporarily named after me in that part of the country, and that meant a lot to me because I watched the Humber bridge open as I grew up. I was delighted to be able to make a change that meant that it can be a successful piece of infrastructure that joins two wonderful communities, rather than dividing them.
From there I moved on to the Department for Transport, where I had to make sure that transport enabled the 2012 Olympics and did not get in the way of them being the triumph they were. I worked with the then Mayor of London, who went on to do other things, including becoming Prime Minister. I am proud of that work, because hopefully we made the Olympics accessible to millions of people who did not have to worry about being suddenly stranded.
From there my journey took me to the Department for International Development, which often operates out of the sight of our country. I could not be more proud of the truly world-class team in the Department. We worked hand in hand with the Ministry of Defence on Ebola, and we did pioneering work to bring education to children caught up by the terrible crisis in Syria. We took a decision in DFID that we would do our level best to make sure those children grew up educated and able to read and write. So much of the Department’s work happens out of sight of the British public, but the British public should be rightly proud of that work, which stretches beyond that to girls’ education and responding to humanitarian emergencies such as Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. I am truly honoured to have had so much time in that Department.
After that, my final Cabinet role was perhaps my dream role: Secretary of State for Education and—perfect—Minister for Women and Equalities. I was the first LGBT woman in Cabinet and, of course, the first Secretary of State for Education to be educated at their local comprehensive school, and I am only too happy to have those two firsts and to have put something back into a school system that built me into being able to do anything with my life and to achieve what I have achieved.
It was brilliant to be able to work with the most inspiring teachers I could have ever hoped to meet. It is a fantastic profession, and I would say to anyone who is thinking about what to do to make a difference with their life that they should go into teaching, because that is where they can shape the future. It was a privilege to be able to work with people in that profession, and it is one of the reasons why I focused so much on their continued professional development.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am very concerned and upset about my right hon. Friend’s departure, not least because somebody else will have to bring the jelly babies for us at Prime Minister’s Question Time. She has spoken at length about her extraordinary contribution to this House and to her community, but she has not yet mentioned one of her greatest legacies and interests, which I know she will continue outside this House, and that is her complete and utter obsession with social mobility. We all desperately want more to happen on that score in this country.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is quite right, and he brings me on to why I am here today as a Member who is departing the House. I have served my community and my country in Parliament for 14 years, but the mission that drives me more than any other is social mobility. It has characterised my life, and it is crucial to the future of our country and to making it a country in which there is equality of opportunity so that everybody gets the chance, and indeed the right, to use their talents. Part of the solution to delivering that is in government and in Parliament, of course, but the other part of the solution is surely outside this place. Working with businesses and organisations is part of how we will get opportunities to more young people. Through the social mobility pledge, I will be continuing to work on social mobility and, indeed, scaling it up.
When I look to the horizon and where our country’s journey is going next, I recognise, understand and agree that this House will rightly remain obsessed with Brexit, but there will be a time after that. I want to make a constructive and positive contribution to social mobility, and I want to make sure that, when we get to that point, I am able to show that businesses are part of the solution for getting more opportunities to more young people. We must reflect on that and build on it further.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to give my final speech in the House. I stress that, notwithstanding the difficulties of the politics and the role of Parliament at this moment, my reasons for standing down are essentially personal. I have been here for 19 years, but it does not seem a minute since I gave my maiden speech. My enthusiasm for politics is undiminished and my commitment to the values that have always driven my political activity is still there. However, my birth certificate and the fact that last year I had to have a second hip replacement are timely reminders that we cannot always take it for granted that we will have time available to do everything else that we want to do in life that, unfortunately, being here precludes us from doing. I have therefore made the decision to move on.
Before I talk about more general issues, I would like to express a few thanks, as other Members have done. First, I wish to thank my constituency and its electors for re-electing me six times. I am a strong pro-Europe remainer. My constituency voted 70% for Brexit, but their undiminished support for me is both a reflection of the broadness of the views they have on many things and perhaps a salutary warning to the Prime Minister on his election strategy. I have been privileged to represent a genuinely multicultural constituency, one that is heavily industrialised. Behind those often unprepossessing facades, there are small businesses that are at the cutting edge of our manufacturing technology and drive the revival in our civil aviation and motor industries, which has made us the pride of the world and contributed a huge amount to our economy.
I wish to thank my family. I want to start by thanking my wife Jill for her unstinting support. As the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said, such support is always there in public but it is often slightly more critical in private. Her support has always been valuable. I thank my stepson Danny, who always found me a complete embarrassment when he was a teenager. He is now a trade union organiser and a councillor to boot. I also want to thank my party for backing me all these years and the Co-operative party for its backing, too. I had a long spell as a Co-operative party organiser, and I have always been strongly committed to co-operative and mutual values. I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity it gave me to work for the party and the backing it has given me here. In addition—not finally—I wish to thank Councillor Lorraine Ashman and Councillor Maria Crompton, who have been my assistants in West Bromwich for 19 and 18 years respectively. They are brilliant and their expertise is fantastic, and I know that, with the work they have done here for me, they have changed the lives of many individual electors in the constituency. I would like that recognised.
I said that my birth certificate told me it was time to go. That caused me to look back, and I realised that I have contested 10 parliamentary, one euro and five local government elections. I first worked in the 1964 election as a student Labour activist. I recall heckling Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Peter Walker, the father of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker)—I keep reminding him of that—and Jeremy Thorpe. I will come on to more about him in a moment. I first contested a parliamentary election when I was just 24, in South Worcestershire, against a character that older Members may remember, Sir Gerald Nabarro. I went on to contest Nantwich a couple of times in the 1974 elections, and then the Wirral by-election. That brings me to what is possibly a unique niche I have in political history: I have contested two by-elections nearly 25 years apart and both on the retirement of the Speaker. It was Selwyn Lloyd in 1976 and, of course, Betty Boothroyd in West Bromwich West in 2000. I have to say that I remember the West Bromwich election a lot more fondly than the Wirral one, because 1976 was not a good year for Labour. It was even worse for the Liberals, though, because it was the height of Jeremy Thorpe’s problems. I remember exchanging pleasantries with him over a loudspeaker when he came to speak for the Liberal candidate during the campaign. I think I halved the Liberal vote and doubled the Tory vote. A week later, Harold Wilson resigned; I have always felt a bit guilty that I was perhaps personally responsible.
When I first contested an election at 24 years old, I thought I would get into Parliament as a fairly young man, but unfortunately I ran into a couple of problems. First, I have always been fundamentally committed to Europe, and at that time, in the late ’70s and early ’80s, the Labour party was fundamentally opposed to it. Secondly, I was always a multilateralist at a time when the Labour party was committed to unilateralism. I realised that my parliamentary prospects were evaporating in front of me. However, I was then lucky to be employed by the Co-operative party. That movement gave me the opportunity to continue in politics, albeit in another capacity, to be my own person and to promote my own values and ideals, notwithstanding the fact that I could not do it in Parliament.
I remember an interesting occasion in 1981, during the big deputy leadership contest between Benn, Healey and Silkin. I was rung up and asked to go to Liverpool, Wavertree to speak on behalf of Denis Healey. Now, in common parlance, in political terms that is a bit of a hospital pass. The debate was dominated by Derek Hatton and the Militant Tendency. I was debating a representative for Tony Benn and a certain person by the name of Doug Hoyle, father of the current Speaker. I remember that my powers of oratory and persuasion enabled me to get exactly no votes—there were 12 abstentions.
I am running out of time so will move on and make a couple of quick observations. It has been an immense privilege to work here. I have seen how Parliament has become more powerful vis-à-vis the Government. My five years as Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee was one of the most rewarding things I have done, and I want to see the powers of Select Committees enhanced, because they not only hold the Government to account but give the Government the insight into just how their policies are playing out on the ground, without the—shall we say—translation that comes from the layers of civil servants who advise their Ministers. Select Committees are a tremendous enhancement and a really valuable part of Parliament.
I wish to thank everybody. Despite the sharp and confrontational exchanges that take place, there is an underlying comradeship and community feeling among those here that I have always found valuable. I wish my successor and everybody who comes after me all the best with the difficult decisions they are going to have to make. I will still be out there, campaigning to promote the values I have always promoted. Thank you, everybody.
Sir David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)
I will be the frank with the House: it will be a great wrench to leave this place after 27 years. You know what they say, Madam Deputy Speaker: folks are often kindest when they know you are on your way out, and there have been occasions in the past week since I announced my intention to step down when I have felt that I have been granted the privilege of attending my own funeral oration without the need to arrive in a hearse.
This afternoon, I wish to say a few brief words of thanks and to offer an expression of some hopes for the future of this place.
My chief thanks must go to my constituents in Aylesbury who have returned me as their Member of Parliament in seven successive general elections. I have to say that, when I was first selected and then elected, I was somewhat taken aback to read and research the tremendous history of my predecessors from John Hampden to Benjamin Disraeli, but prime among whom was John Wilkes, that great champion of press freedom. His first term in Parliament was as the Member for Aylesbury, but it was said of him by Edward Gibbon that he was a
“thorough profligate in principle as in practice … His life stained with every vice and his conversation full of blasphemy and bawdy.”
I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would always ensure that none of us here these days conspired to follow John Wilkes’ example in that respect.
Despite the stereotype that I think does exist in parts of the country about leafy Buckinghamshire and quaint market towns, Aylesbury is a very diverse community. The town itself is one of the fastest growing urban centres anywhere in the United Kingdom, and although I will not cross swords with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) on the subject HS2, I will say that with residential growth need to go road and rail infrastructure and infrastructure that actually serves the local residents rather than infra- structure that bypasses them entirely.
Alongside that vibrant, very diverse town—a town where in individual estates, such as Southcourt and Quarrendon, one finds in microcosm all the urban problems and challenges with which Members of the House who represent inner urban seats will be familiar—is one of the most glorious stretches of countryside of the Chilterns and the Vale of Aylesbury. There is the extra piquancy, as the Member for Aylesbury and, at different times, either representing or being very close to Chequers, of being able to pick up—usually within about a week of whichever Prime Minister has been visiting particular shops or beauty salons or hairdressers—exactly what the Head of the Government at any particular time has been doing at the weekend.
It is a constituency, which, like our country, has changed a lot in the past quarter of a century. That was somehow summed up for me by my final constituency engagement on Saturday evening. It took place in the deepest rural part of my constituency at Radnage village hall. The hall was packed for a fundraising dinner to aid Nepal, and was presided over and inspired by Navin Gurung, the Gurkha landlord of the pub in the next village of Stokenchurch. Somehow, what summed up the evening for me was the spectacle at one moment of a Nepali traditional dancer performing her dance in front of a table containing the familiar range of bottles for the forthcoming raffle, behind which was the millennium mosaic for the village of Radnage, depicting red kites flying over the Chilterns and the beech woodlands and horse riders and hikers crossing the fields. Somehow, that image spoke to me volumes about my constituency and about our country—a country that can be at ease with itself in its modern diversity, where it is possible for people to feel that they are citizens of somewhere, and that they are rooted in a particular place and a particular heritage, but are also open to embrace and to learn from the experience and the traditions of others who also make up our country.
As well as thanking my constituents, I want also to thank the staff of the House, as others have done. I learned, particularly as Leader of the House from 2017, how much we owe to all our staff. All of us as Members know of the service that is given to us by the Library staff, the Doorkeepers and Badge Messengers, the Clerks—the Clerks from whom I learned so much in particular about drafting and parliamentary tactics during my 11 years on the Opposition Front Bench—and the catering staff, particularly the staff of the Members’ Tea Room, who somehow always manage to remain calm and cheerful despite the pressure that we on these Green Benches often put them under.
My final point is about the future of this place. We speak often about restoration and renewal, and I think we need to look beyond just the restoration and renewal of the fabric and the services—important though I believe that to be—to the restoration and renewal of the culture of the House of Commons. For what is the purpose of this place? If it is anything, it is surely to provide the forum in which the passions, fierce controversies and conflicting opinions in our country are represented, reflected and resolved in debate and votes—both in the Chamber and in Committee.
I believe that the conventions that we seek to stick to here—the rules of unparliamentary language, the fact that we refer to each other by constituency rather than name, and even the rather murky understandings that govern the relationships between Government and Opposition usual channels—are all important in trying to provide a culture within which very fierce political disagreements can be expressed in a form that is civil and democratic, and actually shows to ourselves and to those we represent that we can and should resolve such differences democratically through debate, not out in the streets. And that involves respect between people of different parties.
I was told soon after I came here the old story of the new bright young thruster taking his place on the Benches beside an experienced elder colleague. The young man said, as the Opposition Benches filled up on the other side of the Chamber, “Ah, I see that the enemy is here in strength”, to which his senior colleague replied, “Young man, those are your political opponents; your enemies you will find on the Benches beside and behind you.”
I believe that the House of Commons at its best recognises that there can be the most serious and principled disagreement about both values and policies, but which does not see such political differences as tantamount to our opponent somehow being wicked or lacking in integrity. I think and hope that the next Parliament will make a deliberate effort to avoid the language of “traitors”, “betrayal”, “vermin” and “enemies of the people.” To overcome some of the ills that beset politics in this country at the moment will take more than an effort by Members of this House—there will be things to be done by editors and internet service providers as well. However, a start can and should be made here, and that needs to start with a recognition on all sides that restoring and renewing the reputation and standing of this place begins when Members on both sides—leaders and Members of all parties—manage to find a way again in which we can express vehemently our support for or opposition to the particular policies that we debate, while at the same time respecting the integrity and fundamental good motives of our opponents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am afraid that we now have to have a time limit of eight minutes.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I very much endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington) about the nature of our political discourse and the importance of treating each other with courtesy and respect.
The right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) talked about the truths that he was told by his wife in private and the very own special relationship that he had with his wife. I want to start by thanking my partner for life, my wife Mary, and our two sons Archie and Ned for the support that they have given me throughout the 18-plus years I have been in this place. There is no doubt that the work that we do here takes its toll on our families and our loved ones. We always have to remember that and acknowledge the enormous sacrifices that loved ones make as we try to do our work here.
I also want to thank my amazing parliamentary staff, in my constituency and in Parliament, who have shown such loyalty and dedication to me over so many years. I thank the Lib Dem party activists in North Norfolk who have shown me enormous loyalty throughout the time that I have fought there. I have spent 29 years campaigning in North Norfolk because it took me 11 years to beat that lot over there to win my seat the first place. So many people have stuck with me through that period, and I am enormously grateful for it.
I thank the teams that have supported me in my role as Chair of the Science and Technology Committee and during the time that I was privileged enough to be a Minister of State in the Department of Health. Everyone will understand that, as a Liberal, I did not imagine for one minute that I would become a Minister, and then suddenly I found myself responsible for something that I cared a lot about in the Department of Health. It was the most invigorating time of my professional life, but it was made possible by amazing people who showed great dedication and commitment in supporting me through that journey.
It has been an enormous privilege to represent the Liberal tradition in this Parliament over an 18-year period, but it has also been a particular privilege to represent the people of North Norfolk. Over that period, one builds up a special bond with the people one represents. They have shown me enormous kindness and generosity of spirit, even when not voting for me, and I have appreciated that.
One of the things that has concerned me and has been an enduring thought throughout this wonderful period in Parliament is the people who come to see me with stories of how they feel that they have been ignored by faceless bureaucracies. Too often, our public organisations do not treat ordinary people with respect—do not listen to them. I have always felt that my job was to give a voice to people who have no voice and always to fight for those people. We face a profound challenge in how we get public organisations to be more responsive to ordinary people. I am always left thinking that the articulate middle classes will find their way through to achieve a result, but what about the people who do not have an articulate voice and are not able to fight the system? It is our job to make sure that we represent them individually but also try to change the system so that they are not ignored as they too often are at present.
I do not want to spend any of my time talking about things that I have done here. I just want to reflect on three causes that I have cared a lot about, continue to care a lot about, and will continue to pursue outside this place. First, there is mental health. We too often treat people as second-class citizens. We trample over their human rights, locking them up when they do not need to be locked up, shunting them around the country and using force against them. I have had the case of a teenager in North Norfolk who had to wait a year for treatment, had her treatment stopped halfway through because she hit the arbitrary age of 18, had to wait another nine months for adult services to support her, and is now told that she has to wait three years for an autism assessment. We treat people like this appallingly. We are letting down someone at the formative stage of their life in a way that will have lifelong consequences for them. The support that we provide to children and young people with mental health difficulties too often falls way short. There is still a massive challenge for us to pursue to ensure that we provide better support, to stop the deterioration of health in the first place and to provide support through periods of crisis.
The second cause is reform of our drug laws. It is an unpopular cause in this place, but out there in the country there is now support—majority support—for sensible, evidence-based reform. I argue again that we need to legalise and regulate the sale of cannabis, so that we can protect our young people better. In the states of the United States that have legalised cannabis, use by high school-age teenagers has gone down. We leave teenagers open to the most dangerous, most potent forms of drugs, bought on the streets in this very city. We do not protect our young people with the prohibitionist approach that we take, and it is high time that we reformed those laws.
The final area that I want to touch on is assisted dying. Out there in the country, there is vast support for reform, yet this House continues to resist the case for it. So many other countries have recognised that it is time to give the right to an individual, not the state, to determine when they should end their life when they face a terminal illness. Surely, it is our right to decide, not the state’s. We leave families in an invidious position of not knowing whether they will be prosecuted if they help a loved one to end their life. This is not acceptable. It is not the hallmark of a civilised society.
Let me end my comments by saying that I have found the past three years extraordinarily difficult. This debate on Brexit is one where, unless we are in one or other of the extreme tribes, we find ourselves quite isolated. I have felt for a long time that we ought to be trying to find ways to achieve common ground and compromising to find a way forward. I feel passionately that there have not been enough people in our country trying to find ways to bring our country back together again and to heal the wounds, which have become very dangerous. I think we are playing with fire if we carry on in this way. As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury said, this country has a wonderful, diverse community that comes together in solidarity, but we have allowed ourselves to become divided. Now is the time to start bringing this country back together again.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
A man walks into my surgery in Bury. I can see from his address that he comes from one of the poorest parts of the town—a council estate. He sits down, and I ask what his problem is. He says, “My front door has been broken for six weeks, and the council has done nothing about it.” I have a Labour council. I pick up my pen; this is something a young Tory MP can get involved in. “Tell me,” I said, “how does your front door come to broken?” He said, “Mr Burt, it was broken down by the police during a raid.” I put my pen down; there is more to this than meets the eye. I say to him, “What’s this got to do with the council?” He says, “It’s obvious. The police must have told the council, and if the council had told me, I’d have held the door open, and it wouldn’t have had to be broken down.” I look at him and say sternly, Mr So and So, “you must tell me: did the police find anything during their raid?” He looks all round the empty room and whispers, “Not what they were looking for, Mr Burt.”
It is a privilege to speak in this debate and follow some fine speeches. I associate myself with the support of the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for the British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union, which I also had the joy of chairing and which does fantastic work. I associate myself with the remarks from my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington) about how Parliament should develop, the threats we face and what we will go on to do. They have been fine speeches all round.
It is 36 years since my maiden speech extolled the virtues of my home town of Bury and 32 years as an MP, so it is time to wrap up. I am grateful to The House magazine for giving me an extra 1,000 words this week to express a number of thanks, and I refer the House to my remarks therein; it covers a lot of my thank yous. I want to add one thank you to Chaplain Rose, who has done wonderful work and whose last engagement in the House will be as the vicar for the marriage of my son in the chapel fairly soon. We are really grateful for that. Rose has been wonderful to us all, and we love her and wish her well.
I have been exceptionally fortunate to represent first my home town and then North East Bedfordshire, where my wife and I settled post an election reverse in 1997, courtesy of T. Blair. As always with an MP’s thanks, mine are directed to those who elected me to eight terms in all—still, in my view, the highest honour and privilege of any citizen—and I say to all who have helped in those campaigns over the years, such as my chairmen in both associations, agents, canvassers and leaflet droppers, thank you to all.
My thanks to a family who supported me throughout: a father who, at a sprightly 97, still watches my appearances, and to a mum who always believed in me and watches from somewhere else now. In recent years, my mother—bless her—took to calling me “Your Excellency” when I came back from my frequent trips abroad. My thanks to my very long-suffering staff—currently, Sam, Amanda, Mandy and Katherine—and to all who have given way beyond their allotted hours to me and my constituents, I say thank you.
My thanks to a Young Conservative chairman in Hornsey who threw some leaflets at me during the Greater London Council elections in 1981, thinking that I was a Labour plant, because no Conservatives turned up in Haringey in those days, and that I would not return. However, I did return, and she became not just my wife, but my partner here, and a doughty defender of those spouses who did the same. She is a much-loved participant in the Christian community and the national prayer breakfast and a trainer and supporter of women in politics at home and abroad. To Eve, my children and granddaughter, the biggest of all thank yous.
I served not just my constituencies, but the Government over 11 years in six different roles for three Prime Ministers, and I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Ken Baker under another—Margaret Thatcher. To those who gave me those roles, I say thank you, and to all those in the private offices and all who worked with me at home and abroad—in the Department of Social Security, the Department of Health, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development —my deep appreciation of your public service and commitment to Ministers, regardless of our party or our ability.
From the touch on the lips of a deafblind man making out what I was saying to seeing a young optometrist use genius to measure a disturbed child’s sight, and from a refugee family in the humblest of homes in the desert to signing the arms trade treaty for my country at the UN—and being opened up to the wonders of north Africa and the middle east—I thank all those who have supported me during a lifetime of experience. I only hope that I gave back to Her Majesty’s Government something of what they gave me.
Like many of us, I am asked if I would recommend anyone to take up politics these days. My answer, I find, is rooted in being asked the same question in schools, when I have to say that the moment I begin to explain why I do the job, I find that I have exactly the same enthusiasm as I first had. When I became an MP in 1983, apartheid ruled in South Africa and the iron curtain divided Europe and the world, so who says things do not change?
I came into politics because I am a child of the ’60s. I was excited by the space programme, when it seemed we could achieve anything and the world came together, and stopped and held its breath as man stood on the moon. I had grown up with a sense of security and gratitude that my generation was spared war in Europe, which was so graphically presented in regular documentaries such as “All Our Yesterdays”. Then Soviet tanks rolled into Prague, and I learned of Alexander Dubček and Jan Palach. Here was my Europe under attack. I joined the Conservative party as a 15-year-old, when Ted Heath was leader, with his passion for Europe born out of his wartime experiences.
When I became an MP, I spent many years as a friend of those in the German Christian Democratic Union, hearing them talk about removing the inner German frontier, which seemed implausible, and sharing their enthusiasm when the wall fell, as well as being an election monitor in Berlin for the first free elections and seeing free nations—sovereign nations, just like the United Kingdom always has been—joining the EU for peace, their defence and security.
I hope colleagues will therefore forgive me when I say that the gradual but never dishonest movement of my party towards Euroscepticism and then a determination to leave the EU has hurt me more than I can possibly describe. However, that is not the reason why I am leaving. I have a chance to take all that I have been privileged to learn and experience here into new areas and to leave with friendships with colleagues and opponents—they are often the same people—still intact and in good shape, and wishing my party and the Prime Minister well for the future.
Let me therefore leave with the following requests. First, be kind to one another. Kindness is an underrated virtue. No one understands an MP’s role except us and those close to us, so if we do not help each other, no one else will. Make sure that MPs and Ministers have a serious development programme, not just an induction. Secondly, I have a couple of local matters to raise. I ask the Leader of the House please to ensure that the A1 is moved eastward from its current position, to save Sandy, and that trains do not keep skipping Arlesey station. Thirdly, I have a national request. After the inquiry, please make sure that the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, whose tie I am wearing today, receive justice for all that they have endured, as their sadly dwindling number contained some of the most decent people I have ever met. Perhaps the legislation that went through just before this debate is a measure of what could be done to help them.
In my maiden speech, I referred to Mrs Thatcher’s Government as having received much, and of us much was expected. The same applies to us all: where I have not lived up to it, forgive me; where I have, I thank those who helped me achieve it; and for what I am going to do, wish me luck. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the new Speaker and all colleagues the best of luck.
Am I still idealistic? Oh, I do hope so. Somewhere beyond the barricades, there is a world I long to see. We all want to see that world; we are just going to be working for it in different places.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
May I begin by apologising, Madam Deputy Speaker, because there has been so much Northern Irish business over the past week that I have made my farewell speech 15 times? I am now known as the Dame Nellie Melba of west London. If anyone wishes to say any nice things about me, please let them not feel constrained by the fact that they have been said a few times already.
I leave this House with great sadness. I have to say that what tipped me over the edge was a text message from the Argyle surgery in my constituency, inviting me to attend an end of life seminar. I thought, “Maybe my time has come.” Having listened this afternoon to right hon. and hon. Members describe their glittering careers—this great cavalcade and cornucopia of achievement—I am now looking back over my years in the House with a certain sadness.
I came into the House as one of Blair’s babes in 1997. I was immediately appointed to the Broadcasting Committee, along with the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), and we decided to set ourselves the task of ending broadcasting of the House of Commons. I was swiftly removed from the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman was knighted—I make no comment on that.
I was then made Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is a marvellous man. Unfortunately, I chose to vote against my Government on the part privatisation of the NHS and so had to step down. However, I was rescued from the ignominy and the outer darkness when I was made PPS to Hazel Blears, who is an amazing, wonderful woman. Sadly, I had to vote against my Government on the renewal of Trident and so once again fell into silence and desuetude. However, Tony Blair, a man of sound Christian principles, knowing that God loves a sinner who repents, gave me another chance. The fact that every time I appear in the Chamber my Whip has to sit next to me reveals that, sadly, not everyone believes me. I was then appointed to be PPS to the then right hon. Member for Tooting in the Department for Transport. Sadly, High Speed 2 was going to be run through my constituency, like a great steel snake slamming through the suburbs, so I felt it necessary once again to resign.
Quite clearly I have achieved very little, but one thing that I have achieved is a knowledge and understanding of this place, and a recognition that structure is a function of purpose. It is so easy to be intoxicated by the beauty of this place. When I was first elected, Tony Blair set up something called the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee—because, frankly, most of us needed modernising. After a few months, the members of that Committee had gone completely native and were saying, “No, this is how things have always been done.” He then had to set up a modernisation of the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee committee. After four weeks, our Committee reported. We then installed a tights machine in the corridor just outside Annie’s Bar—what else could we possibly have done?
I think of this building as the corporeal embodiment of the ship of state. This is a great, glorious galleon sailing across storm-tossed oceans. We have the sketch writers—Crace, Letts and people like that—up in the rigging. We have the galley, with our marvellous cooks who bring us steak and kidney pudding and duff on a regular basis. Not mentioned in all the tributes to the House staff are the Doorkeepers. They are wonderful people. The Library—amazing people. I must visit it one day. The Admission Order Office. If only they would tell me where it was, I would go there. And there are so many other incredible things. The bar has not been mentioned. In my day, there was more than one. The Strangers’ Bar! What more welcoming sight could there be than that cheerful face behind the bar, with the cheerful comment, “The usual, Mr Pound? But not all at once, I trust?” It is wonderful.
We have a firm hand on the wheel—it is marvellous to see, Madam Deputy Speaker. The captain for most of my parliamentary career was, of course, Tony Blair. He had a slightly tempestuous relationship with the first mate, or the purser, the man responsible for the purse strings. It was not so much like Aubrey and Maturin; it was more like Captain Bligh and Fletcher Christian, to be perfectly honest—not to imply that the great Anthony Charles Lynton Blair was anything like Captain Bligh.
This great ship of state will be docking in another berth before too long. I would like to think that people realise that what is important about this place is not the gorgeous neo-Gothic surrounds, the Pugin beauty or the wonder of the place; it is what happens here and the people within it. I have to say that I do not know a single person who has come into this House with ignoble motives. I do not know anyone who has come into this House not wishing to make the world a better place. In many ways, we have failed to get that message across. If anyone had been here earlier on for the debate on historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland, they would have realised that this place is a powerhouse. It is a place where major change can take place. If we do not do it, then who does? If we do not give that political lead, then who does? If we do not set that standard and if we do not seek to protect our nation, then who will do it? As far as I am concerned, the miracle of this place is how much we do achieve. The tragedy of this place is how little we make that case.
I could not have survived all these long, lonely years out of office without the team in my office. I would particularly like to thank Sue McLeod and Diane Wall, who between them have been here for the whole of my time here. I would also like to thank my wife, who has been sitting in the Under-Gallery for four and a half hours. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Above all, I would like to thank my fellow parliamentarians. I have made friends across the political divide. I have actually spoken at a fundraiser for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on the Ards peninsula.
Stephen Pound
Even when I was making my speech to the Strangford Democratic Unionist party, he wanted to intervene on me! On that particular occasion I said, “Is there anything to drink?” He said, “Yes, orange juice.” I said, “Any particular sort?” He said, “Bitter orange juice.” And then there is the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), with whom I bonded in Hong Kong.
There are people on both sides who have taught me one thing: it really is not the colour of the rosette that we wear that matters. It really is not the mast to which we nail our flag; it is what is within us. It is what is within our hearts. The decency and honesty that I see all around me in this place is something that makes me bitterly regret that I will be leaving you, but it makes me immensely proud of the fact that even for a short time, for 22 years, I have been a Member of the finest legislature one could ever imagine, peopled by some of the finest personages. I would like to thank every one of you. I thank my constituents in Ealing North, and I thank this House for being such a marvellous Parliament for all the people.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Thank you so much for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who has entertained the House for many years; I enjoyed his speech very much. Today was the new Mr Speaker’s first appearance in the House and this will be my last appearance, but another date that we should recognise today is 5 November, when, in 1605, Guy Fawkes put 26 barrels of gunpowder in a shed up against the old House of Lords.
I have been very lucky to represent the Bosworth constituency for 32 years, covering Hinckley and Bosworth —over 100 square miles. It has changed dramatically. It was originally part of the Leicestershire coalfield—a mining constituency. Desford pit was running when I first went there. We had steelmaking at Desford—Desford Tubes—a great hosiery and knitwear industry, and shoes being made at Barwell.
Yesterday, when I was clearing out my office, I found my maiden speech from back in 1987. I wanted to make some kind of an impact. Colleagues who listened to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) will have heard her talk about how different it was then. We had no television in the Chamber; we aspired to get a couple of inches in The Times or perhaps be on Radio 4, but we had to say something of significance. I had a problem in my constituency about which I wanted to make a serious speech: the importation of cheap Chinese clothes, and more specifically, Chinese underwear. I had to attempt to dress this up in a way that would be eye-catching, but not too eye-catching, and the next day, one of the newspapers reported: new MP says, “Knickers to Cheap Chinkies…Lovely lassies are queueing up to support new MP David Tredinnick in his battle to give cheap Chinese panties the push”. This took some explaining in some quarters of my constituency.
Many colleagues have spoken of the importance of staff. I am pretty confident that I have the longest-serving staff in the House, and I want to thank them by name. Matthew Williams, who started work for me in February ’96, has worked for me for 23 years on the complementary and alternative medicine desk and has given great service. My parliamentary agent, Stuart Swann, has worked for me for 21 years and has taken me through all those general elections. Pippa Way has been a brilliant PA and is still working for me after six years. Her predecessor, Thurza Rowson, who was also brilliant, worked for me for 25 years. Jill Burge worked for me in support for 10 years. These are outstanding staff. I caution anybody coming into the House against having inexperienced staff—these are very experienced staff and they have helped me enormously.
I also thank my family. My partner, Carolyn, has been a terrific support, going around the constituency with me. We share most of the meetings and it is great to have triangulation when it comes to what people are saying—sometimes she tells me things that I was not expecting. I thank Rebecca, my former wife, who supported me while child-rearing and did a fantastic job, and my wonderful children, Sophie and Thomas, who still have not forgiven me for pushing them around in a supermarket trolley wearing t-shirts that said, “Vote for Daddy”—they are now 32 and 30.
I have worked with some fantastic officers in my constituency. I want to thank the presidents, some of whom are no longer with us: Jim Davenport, Geoffrey Stokes, David Palmer, Derek Crane, Rosemary Wright and Reg Ward. The chairmen I have worked with include Jack Goulton, Anita Wainwright, David Brooks, Carol Claridge, David Palmer, Derek Crane, Janice Richards, Mary Sherwin, Peter Bedford and Betty Snow. Betty was the treasurer of the Bosworth Conservatives for very nearly 40 years.
I echo the thoughts about the staff of the House. I thank the brilliant Library staff, the catering staff and the Doorkeepers. I also thank Postman John, who retired a day ago, not only for his service—for delivering the post—but for watering my plant, which some have seen; it has grown all the way around my office over the last 20 years.
Above all, I thank my constituents for voting for me and electing me eight times in the last nine general elections that I have stood in. I remember David Lightbown, my Whip, saying to me, “Never forget your constituency is everything”. Even though I voted to remain, when my constituents voted out—60% to 40%—I regarded myself from that moment onwards not as a representative but as a delegate, and I have voted faithfully ever since to get my constituents out of Europe under both the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister.
I rather regret that I am addressing retiring Members and not new Members. If I had any advice, I would quote Seneca: “A man should choose his enemies carefully.” That is very important in politics. I have tried not to have any enemies, and I hope I have not got any in my constituency—I have people in to talk to me if they do not like what I have said. I would also reference Bevan: “Stay out of the bars and specialise”—very important too. I have specialised in a couple of fields, which I will touch on if I have time. Finally, I would quote David Lightbown again: never forget your constituency base.
I did a lot at the end of the cold war. I met President Gorbachev in Moscow and President Yeltsin. President Gorbachev, who was on the news a couple of days ago, said to us young politicians, “Politics will find your every weakness and test you in every way”. I thought at the time, “I don’t think this makes any sense”, but I now know he was absolutely correct.
I have long championed alternative and complementary medicine. I have backed the homeopaths right the way through. I remember saying to my former right hon. Friend, the late Lord Spicer, “Should I keep going with this subject?” He said, “David, all a Back Bencher can hope for is to be remembered for something”. I have championed that cause ever since. So I say this to the House as I finish: we have carbon footprint problems, but a real problem is the carbon footprint of medicines. It is not being addressed, but it is hugely carbon intensive.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. I am sorry you did not make it to the speakership in the election yesterday, but I congratulate Mr Speaker on his success, and I thank again my constituents, my staff, my family and my friends in this House. I shall miss it, but life goes on and I have a brilliant successor on the way in the Conservative candidate, Dr Luke Evans. I encourage my constituents to vote for him.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As this is my first and last point of order, may I seek your guidance? Is it in order for me to record my thanks to my constituents and volunteers in South Ribble, my friends and family, my wonderful teams here in Westminster and in Longton, the many fine civil servants I have served with in three Departments and the staff of the House? Is it also in order for me to wish a civil and good-tempered campaign to the many friends of all parties I have made in my four and a half years in Parliament, and to wish a happy retirement to those who, like me—I cannot believe I am 45 and retiring—are leaving this unique and most special of workplaces? Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope it is in order for me to pay tribute to my beautiful boys. Their unstinting love and support have given me depths of courage I never knew I had. They mean the world to me.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
To answer the hon. Lady’s point of order, no, none of that was in order, but I am delighted to have been able to give her the opportunity to make the tributes she wanted to make. I am sure the House will appreciate that because she holds a ministerial position, she cannot take part in this debate. Perhaps that it is a part of our procedure we ought to look at.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
It seems only the blink of an eye since my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and I arrived here as wide-eyed innocents in 1997, hoping to change the world—an idea of which I, certainly, was quickly disabused when I tried to get on to the Education Committee, and made the terrible mistake of telling the Whips why I should be on it. I had been a teacher, I had a Master’s degree in education, and I had practised educational law. Of course they said, “No chance—absolutely not!” They sent me to the Catering Committee, possibly owing to some subliminal association with school dinners.
Many of us found that we were going to spend much of our time on the Back Benches. In fact, it took me 11 years to become a promising newcomer, when the Prime Minister was so desperate that he finally made me a Whip. Since then I have had a number of jobs here in Parliament, and I want not to enumerate the things that I have done, but to thank the people who have supported me in that time.
First, I thank my husband Mike and my son Chris. I met my husband when he was my parliamentary agent, and I followed that useful advice: “If you have a good agent, you should hang on to him.” My son was only seven when I was elected, and throughout his childhood had to endure the terrible embarrassment of having a mother who was an MP and who was also frequently absent. I turned up early one week, and was there when he got home from school. He said, “What are you doing here?” I said, “I live here; have you not noticed?” Clearly not.
I am very grateful first to the staff of the House who have supported me throughout those years. It is invidious to single out anyone, but I particularly thank the staff of the Tea Room, who have fed me, watered me, anticipated my needs and cheered me up through all that time. Secondly, I thank my office staff, past and present. MPs’ staff work incredibly hard, and the public often do not realise that. They work far more hours than they are paid for—IPSA please take note!—and, very often, the things for which constituents thank me are things that they have done. In fact, we decided long ago that the right response when people said, “Thank you for your letter” was “It was the least I could do”, because we did not know whether I had solved a problem for them or written to them because their mother had died.
Thirdly, I thank the staff of the Petitions Committee, past and present. It is an extraordinary privilege to chair a Select Committee, but it is a particular privilege to chair a new Committee and to be able to shape it, and I think that the Petitions Committee has been one of the successes in the House in the past few years. We have managed to pursue inquiries and not just become a clearing house for petitions, and we have pioneered new ways of communicating with the public. I could not have done that without the support of the wonderful staff who often work under extreme pressure, and also without the support of members of the Committee, who have shown that it is possible to look at issues with a clear, unprejudiced eye, and to reach common ground on how to deal with them.
Lastly, of course, I want to thank the wonderful electors of Warrington North, who have returned me in six general elections—thus proving that they are people of impeccable taste and judgment—and who have shown throughout a real decency that has supported me in difficult times. Most of my constituents are what I would call the “respectable working class”. They pay their bills on time, go to work, and keep their houses and gardens tidy. They are far too often ignored in politics, because they are not the noisy people; they are not the shouting people. In an age when there are lots of people shouting on social media, it is perhaps time we remembered that most people are decent people, and it is to them that we should be addressing ourselves.
Our politics has, I am afraid, become mired in a way of speaking which appeals to the worst in people. We hear talk about war, surrender, and so on, but politics ought to appeal to the best instincts of people, not their worst. If the House is to move forward in the future, it is the best instincts of people to which we need to appeal, because most people are common-sense people who will look for a compromise.
When I was growing up, I never expected to be an MP. I am the daughter of factory workers and the granddaughter of a miner, and I grew up on a council estate. When I was growing up if someone had said that one day I would be an MP that would have seemed as remote a possibility as my flying to the moon. It has been an incredible privilege to be here over these years and it will be a wrench to go, but we all have to go at some point and it will be a wrench whenever we decide to retire.
I have been very lucky to have a number of roles in Parliament after my 11 years on the Back Benches. I have been in the Whips Office, and I have had different Front Bench roles, including local government finance. In fact I once said to the current Opposition Chief Whip when I was doing that, “It’s very interesting,” and he said, “Helen, local government finance is important, but it is not interesting.” I found it interesting, however, which perhaps says something about me. Most of all, I am grateful for the friendships I have made here, for the comradeship that people have shown me, and for the support I have had from my colleagues in difficult times.
When I was first elected local council officers were told not to bother too much about responding to my letters, because I would only be a one-term MP. I am now the longest-serving MP in Warrington’s history, so I think I have made the point now.
I leave with regret, but with very good memories, and I say to all my colleagues in this place on both sides of the House and to my constituents what Jim Lovell said to his crew on entering orbit:
“it’s been a privilege flying with you.”
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
It is a great honour and privilege to attend one’s own obituary. It is a little bit like attending a group meeting within The Daily Telegraph, and it is also bringing back happy memories: happy memories of something I have not done for a long time—having to sit through interminable speeches waiting to be called, as one did 22 years ago when one was first called.
Unlike some of my colleagues and friends here, I suppose I was a bit of a political anorak. I began canvassing aged eight in the 1959 general election. My formidable grandmother ran the local Conservatives—my grandfather merely drove the Morris Minor—and I delivered leaflets. That, of course, was for the general election for Mr Macmillan, and in those days the Conservative parliamentary party only had 70 old Etonians as Members; now there are many fewer, although we do have an old Etonian as the leader and Prime Minister, and an old Etonian who is Leader of the House.
I think all of us who are leaving have mixed feelings. To be somewhere for 22 years is not just about being a member of an institution; if we are a good MP, we are absorbed into it, and we must get the balance right between our constituency and this place—and if we are a shadow or Government Minister, all of that—and that has become more difficult and more challenging.
I have been very fortunate in that I have represented, with differences in boundary changes, Mid Norfolk and then Broadland, which is the Norfolk broads. My 96-year-old mother still lives in Norwich, and she will phone up late on a Sunday morning, having watched Andrew Marr, wanting to cross-examine me on the debate that has been going on. I am lucky, as it is a beautiful constituency; there are social problems, but not on the scale of many who represent urban areas.
I have been lucky, too, in that I survived the great wipe-out of 1997; I felt like a young officer at the end of the first day of the Somme when all the officers and most of the other ranks had been killed. I was elected with a majority of 1,336. Those of us in the ’97 intake were enthusiastic, but so many friends and colleagues had been wiped out. Over the ensuing years we worked hard and, with the aid and support of our activists, we built up our majorities, and at the last general election, in 2017, I had a majority of 15,800. However, I would emphasise that that was at the last general election. Whoever takes over from me could get a bigger majority or a smaller majority.
I have loved being a Member of Parliament for my constituency and I could not have continued without the support of a number of people. Many hon. Members have made a similar comment today. First and foremost, there is my family. My wife Pepi, who is sitting under the Gallery, has given me some pretty firm advice behind the scenes and in her own way had a brilliant career. For 20 years, she was a commissioned officer in the British Army and spent most of that time serving with the military police. When she was first commissioned in 1973, it was all about deportment and flower arranging. Now, of course, it is completely different. My son, George, attended Conservative party functions from a very early age, handing the raffle round and eating as much food as he possibly could. My parliamentary secretary, Katy Craven, worked in No. 10 and then for my predecessor, Richard Ryder. She now works for me and is wondering, like a lot of our staff, what is going to happen to her when a new member of the association is selected to be the parliamentary representative on Wednesday.
I had a variety of jobs in Parliament, and let me tell you that being an Opposition spokesman is hard work with very little reward, as those now on the Opposition Benches know. I had two and a half years in the Opposition Conservative Whips Office when my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) was the Deputy Chief Whip. He is a robust man. Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were also there. You are a woman of great refinement, and I was your dresser. It was like a 19th century film, because you would go into the little room at the back and eventually your head would appear round the door and you would whisper to me, “Will you zip me up?” As many of you know, moving a zip up a lady’s back takes a steady hand—a warm hand—and if you do it too quickly, you will probably rip the dress. If you do it too slowly, the zip gets stuck. I have to say that I learned a lot from doing that.
Of the two things I did as a Member of Parliament that have given me the greatest satisfaction, the first was being nominated by the then Deputy Chief Whip to be one of the two Parliamentary Commissioners on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, on which I served with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). We made a great deal of difference, not only in helping to reorganise the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, but in representing it here in Parliament. Like many things we do on the margins of politics, I have had more compliments from constituents on that than virtually any other thing I have done. Secondly, for the last three years I have been lucky enough to serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I will not go into the details, but I made my views known in the urgent question that we had earlier today.
So when I leave this place, I will remember that we are in a Chamber that was rebuilt after the war, that Churchill and Attlee stood at the Dispatch Boxes and that on the Back Benches there are many Members of Parliament of all parties who work hard for their constituents. My final thought is that this has been a horrible Parliament, in the sense of the dreadful, robust debate on Brexit. I do not believe those who say that our Parliament is wrong, because we represent the divisions that are in our associations and in the country. I am a pessimist, in the sense that I do not believe those divisions are going to end with the general election. Brexit will continue over many months, if not years, and it will depend upon the quality of the people who get elected in five weeks’ time to ensure that the debate, which many hon. Members have already spoken about, is done in a civilised way. They can be emotional about it, but some of the dreadful things that we have seen MPs calling each other is a national disgrace.
I will think of you all during the general election. When it is snowing in November I shall be sitting in the TV room watching “The Crown”, drinking a large glass of whisky and watching my magnificent marmalade cat, Mr Pumpkin. He would have made a great leader of my party, on the grounds that he is beautiful, highly intelligent and a ruthless killer. God bless you all.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson); I will miss him at breakfast time.
My late father’s birthday was on 5 November. My father, Colin Lucas, and my mother, Alice Lucas, were profound influences on me and they taught me some very basic values. They taught me to tell the truth, to respect the law and always to listen to other people. I do that, and that has guided me in my parliamentary career.
I want to talk about the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I have been a member since 2015. Since 2017, it has shown Parliament at its best. It has worked across parties to produce work that I believe is world-leading. Twitter announced last week that it is stopping paid political advertising. I believe that that process was commenced by the DCMS Committee and its report on disinformation last year.
I am afraid that I am now going to change the tone of the debate, because I want to place on the record some information that I have concerning disinformation and the Government of the day. Sitting opposite me in this debate, I have seen many wonderful Conservative MPs for whom I have huge respect, people I have learned to respect since I came here in 2001. When I came to Parliament, I did not understand how Parliament worked so well on a cross-party basis. I know that now, and there are many, many noble, good and very skilled Conservative MPs. Unfortunately, they are not running the Government at this very serious time.
I want to draw the House’s attention to the serious position that exists on the cusp of a general election, because we have laws in place that are completely inadequate to deal with that general election. I want to quote the words of Dominic Cummings in correspondence that he sent to the Electoral Commission. He said:
“Overall it is clear that the entire regulatory structure around national elections including data is really bad. There are so many contradictions, gaps, logical lacunae that it is wide open to abuse…There has been no proper audit by anybody of how the rules could be exploited by an internal or foreign force to swing close elections. These problems were not fixed for the 2017 election, and I doubt they will be imminently. The system cannot cope with the fast-changing technology.”
The main adviser to the Prime Minister is telling us that the current legal structure for elections is unsound. We are going into a general election that is going to be fought online and we are already seeing the way in which that is affecting the campaign.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Information Commissioner’s Office is empowered under the Data Protection Act 2018 to produce a code of practice for political campaigning and it has produced a code. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the next Government should put that code of practice into statute?
Ian C. Lucas
Absolutely I agree. I fundamentally believe that we should implement all the recommendations of the ICO and the Electoral Commission, because the legal structure under which we are fighting the election is open to electoral fraud. That is the position in which we are going into the general election.
On electoral fraud, I want to refer to some correspondence that Dominic Cummings sent to another person in the referendum campaign in 2016. He was talking about breaking spending limits in the referendum, and that led to an offence for which Vote Leave was fined. Dominic Cummings said:
“We’ve now got all the money we can spend legally. You should NOT send us your 100k. However, there is another organisation that could spend your money. Would you be willing to send the 100k to some social media ninjas who could usefully spend it on behalf of this organisation? I am very confident it would be well spent in the final crucial 5 days. Obviously it would be entirely legal.”
The truth is that it was not legal at all, and Vote Leave was fined in connection with that campaign. As a result, the matter was referred to the police and has now been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, and the investigation is ongoing.
Furthermore, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Prime Minister were both aware of the fact that offences had been committed and were both heavily involved in Vote Leave. This document also has a statement from Dominic Cummings, which he wrote and sent to the Electoral Commission. He said:
“I never discussed VL’s donations to BL”—
the donations to BeLeave for which Vote Leave was fined—
“with either of them (before the referendum) and to the best of my knowledge neither did anybody else and they were wholly unaware of this issue until after the referendum.”
So, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were aware of Vote Leave’s offences, but they have not come clean to the House of Commons or to the DCMS Committee by producing that evidence. Furthermore, Dominic Cummings has refused to come to the DCMS Committee to speak about these matters. Even worse, the Prime Minister will not tell him to come to this House to speak to the Select Committee to explain himself and to give evidence. I have secured these documents through the Committee, and I am placing them on the public record, because they relate to something that should be known by the public before we vote in a general election. That information has been withheld from the British public, and it ought to be known.
What the British public also need to know is that, apart from the honourable Conservative Members facing me at the moment, we have a Government whose leadership includes a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who is in charge of electoral reform and who is not divulging his full knowledge of the 2016 referendum, his role in it, and the offences committed at the time. If this House is to regain the respect of the public, Select Committees need real powers to compel witnesses to attend. We should never again be frustrated by a Prime Minister who prevents a witness from giving evidence to a Committee.
It has been a real honour to be in this place. I have loved every minute. I love this House of Commons, and I will be sad to leave. We need to respect each other more in this House but—to go back to my mother and my father—we must have basic honesty. There is nothing complicated about that. Telling the truth and straight- forwardness are the principles that we should stick to, but I am afraid the Government do not have them at the moment.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) made some serious allegations in his speech today, but I will not comment on them and will leave it to the Leader of the House to respond.
I start my contribution, as so many colleagues have done, with thanks to my constituents for sending to me to this place and for putting their faith and trust in me. Serving my home community—the town where I grew up and the school I went to—has been the greatest privilege of my life. Of course, like so many other Members, I want to thank my staff who have helped me so well, so efficiently and so kindly in all the work we have achieved together for my constituents.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington), in the few minutes available to me today I will not talk about what I have done in this place. I want to talk about something for the next Parliament to think about.
Blazoned across the walls of Parliament today are banners promoting Parliament Week with the slogan, “It all begins with you.” Our democracy begins with, and indeed depends on, engaged and well-informed citizens. For citizens to make informed choices, they need easy access to accurate and impartial information about the work of their elected representatives in Parliament, including their voting record. Although our work in our constituencies is just as important as our work in this place, it is the actions taken here in this Chamber and in Committee that have the greatest impact on our national life.
We arguably live in an age in which it is easier to access information than ever before, but the owners and editors of media channels, including the social media platforms from which many people gather information and shape their opinions, have no responsibility or incentive to provide accurate and impartial information about our work and voting records. There are no real deterrents to misrepresentation.
Citizens often base their opinions about MPs on how they vote on particular issues. We all know that not all votes are equal and that some of the most important decisions taken in this House have been taken without a Division, but most people simply do not know that. As there are few adverse consequences for authors, publishers and social media platforms, there is widespread misrepresentation of MPs’ voting records. I believe that is contributing to the poisoning of our politics, corroding people’s trust in MPs and threatening the very foundations of our parliamentary democracy.
We have all been on the receiving end of communications from constituents that misrepresent the facts, derived from the far from perfect reporting of our voting records on websites such as TheyWorkForYou. Democracy does begin with the citizen but, right now, there is no trusted source of impartial, accurate information about the voting records and actions of MPs in Parliament to help citizens make informed choices.
In his passionate speech to the House yesterday, Mr Speaker said:
“I hope that this House will be once again a great, respected House… I hope that once again it is the envy of the world.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2019; Vol. 667, c. 619.]
We all share that hope, but action will be needed to turn that hope into reality. I would like Mr Speaker to take one action today and agree to work with Hansard to develop a new service, in addition to its excellent verbatim reporting of parliamentary proceedings, to provide impartial contextualised information on MPs’ voting records. This will need careful consideration and cross-party support, but I hope it will be a challenge he accepts. Based on my conversations with Hansard, it is up for it. If Mr Speaker takes up this challenge, he will do a great deal to shore up the foundations of our parliamentary democracy and, over time, restore trust in our politics.
I thank the thousands of volunteers who, over the next few weeks, will participate in the forthcoming general election campaign. They play an immensely important role in our democracy, too. I thank three particular volunteers, the three chairmen of the Truro and Falmouth Conservative Association who have worked hard to support me over the years: Nick Straw, Bob O’Shea and Alan Davey.
Finally, my most heartfelt thanks go to my husband, Alan, and our three wonderful children, Emily, Harriet and James, who have enabled me to be in this place and have the best job in the world.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), with whom I worked well when she was a Minister. She has a strong interest in Durham. Although he is not in his place, I wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who was a brilliant and dedicated Minister, and this House will really feel his loss. I wish at the beginning to put on record my congratulations to the new Speaker and to pay tribute to former Speaker Bercow for all he has done in recent years to uphold the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
Without doubt the greatest privilege of my life has been to serve as the MP for the beautiful City of Durham, and I want to thank all the House of Commons staff, including the Library staff, for the huge help they have given me over the years—they are definitely the unsung heroes of our democracy. My life here has also been hugely helped by my friends, those in the Chamber today, colleagues in the north-east and, in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). I have made long-lasting friendships that will endure beyond Parliament.
Of course, I also want to thank my fantastic staff over the years. I thank those in Westminster—Richard, Emma, Georgie, Rafi and Robyn. I also thank those in Durham—Paul, Nick and especially Christine, who has been with me since the beginning. I simply could not have done the job without them. In an age of increased automation, they are the kind, helpful voice on the end of the telephone, and they have done so much to sort out the problems for my constituents over the years.
I also want to thank my family—Tim, Maeve, Tom and Albie, and my many brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, and extended family—for their help and encouragement over the past 14 years. I intend to have more time to see them now, and I just hope they think that that is a good idea.
In Parliament, I have worked closely with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the all-party group on the United Nations to improve our development policies and ensure that the world, not just this country, is better governed. Again, I think that the work of the staff in the CPA and IPU often goes unrecognised, and we should thank them. In here, I have relentlessly raised a number of issues that emerge from my Durham constituency: the need for more money for education; the need for universal free school meals—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West for all the work she has done and will continue to do on that; the need for better licensing and planning policies; the need for prison reform and to look at how the penal system affects women; and the need for a greater recognition of the value that universities bring to our society and economy. I hope to continue that work beyond Parliament.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I just want to say how much I enjoyed working with the hon. Lady in that mission, both when I was a shadow Minister when her party was in government and then as a Minister. She has done outstanding work in that regard and I shall miss her contribution to the House, as well as our professional relationship.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those lovely comments. He, too, was a great Minister, especially in education, where I worked closely with him.
Most importantly, I want to thank my constituents. Those at my constituency Labour party, like the rest of Durham residents, are wonderful and have been hugely supportive over the years. I hope they all know that I have fought hard to try to improve and protect our public services, to improve access to education and employment and to enhance Durham’s amazing architectural and cultural heritage. I will of course continue to champion the incredible cathedral, our world-class Durham University and the Durham Miners Association. But I want to give a note of warning to my successor: Durham is a very busy constituency, with lots of issues emerging from the city centre as well as the surrounding ex-mining villages, and my successor will need plenty of stamina.
In 2005, in my maiden speech, I quoted the writer Bill Bryson, who wrote of Durham:
“Why, it’s wonderful—a perfect little city… If you have never been to Durham, go there at once. Take my car. It’s wonderful.”
The major issue of our time, which I hope the next Parliament will address—in addition to sorting out the small issue of Brexit—is that of climate change and the climate emergency we face, so in 2019 I say, “Go to Durham, go there at once, but please don’t take a car. Get the train.”
I will of course hugely miss being the elected representative of all the wonderful communities that make up Durham. It really is a special place and deserves to be extremely well advocated for and cherished.
In winding up, I wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington), who gave an amazing speech. He was right that in this Chamber we need to celebrate the diversity of this country, and we also need to respect those who have a view different from ours and to treat each other with courtesy. My experience of parliamentarians, regardless of their party, is that they work really hard—relentlessly—on behalf of their constituents. It is a pity that that is not better known in the country and not better represented in the media, because our democracy would be stronger for it.
I am really pleased that I have been able to give this speech today, and I look forward to the new opportunities that lie ahead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid I have to reduce the time limit to seven minutes. I am terribly sorry, but time just goes on.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I might have guessed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will, of course, abide by your strictures.
It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), who made a typically thoughtful speech. It is great to follow a Member with a double-barrelled name; I fear there will be too few of us after the forthcoming election.
It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), because we are part of the south-west mafia. There is a group of MPs from Somerset, Devon and Cornwall who have worked closely together to push forward on what we need for our region, and my hon. Friend has been front and centre in that proper and very successful campaign, but it is a work in progress, and I just want to take a few minutes on this, my last day in Parliament, to talk about some of the things that we have been able to achieve, as well as some of the unfinished business that still needs to be addressed.
We have had success since 2015 in putting North Devon on the Government’s radar and on the political map in a way that it simply has not been for too long. We have achieved an investment of nearly £100 million for a vital new road link in North Devon. People have heard me bang on about the North Devon link road enough in this place, and it would be silly for me not to do so on my last appearance. It is a vital bit of infrastructure investment, and I am so pleased that we have secured it.
We have also secured the future of the Royal Marines base at Chivenor in the constituency. There was a huge community campaign after the Ministry of Defence said that it was earmarked for closure. The community got together and said, “Up with this we will not put.” I am delighted to say that not only is Chivenor now safeguarded for the future, but that even as late as today I have been talking to the Ministry of Defence to make sure that we can do more there with the unique environment and the service personnel.
North Devon has a commitment to a brand-new district hospital, which is so welcome. Even though I will no longer be the MP, I am going to ensure that we stick to that commitment and that the Government continue to deliver on their promises for the NHS.
All those are things we have achieved, but I mentioned some unfinished business, and I wish to cover three subjects briefly. First, just like, I am sure, Members from all parties, I continue to be concerned by the state of mental healthcare for our young people in particular. It is an absolute shock to realise that the most common cause of death among young men aged between 18 and 35 is not an accident or an incident, or a drugs overdose or a physical illness; it is that they take their own lives. That is a mental health condition that we must tackle, and all Governments of all colours must do so urgently. I have done a lot of work on social care and the regulation and inspection of care home, and that needs to continue.
I really do not want to go down this road too controversially, but I worked for the BBC for many happy years. The BBC and the Government of whatever colour must ensure that the over-75s continue to get the free licence fee concession. I have spoken about that at great length, and I do not intend to rehearse all those arguments now.
As we are on the subject of the media, may I just say a few words about social media, which was touched on by other colleagues? The pressure that MPs find themselves under because of social media is something that has not been sufficiently addressed. I am fortunate in that I have not suffered the sort of threats, abuse or intimidation that many other colleagues in this House have, but none the less—I think that you only get this if you have been an MP—the constant low-level incoming does start to chip away. I do not think that this House, the social media companies or our legislation have caught up with what can be done about that. This happens, as has been said earlier, during election periods. We need to ensure that the role of social media during this and all future elections is more tightly controlled under law and under regulation.
I want quite properly to thank people without whom it would not have been possible for me to do this job. First, the North Devon Conservative Association has been a huge support to me ever since I was selected to do this role at the beginning of 2013. May I just mention the three chairs of the North Devon Conservative Association: Jeremy Smith-Bingham, David Barker and the current chair, Chris Guyver, who I have put in a pickle having to reselect a North Devon candidate in the space of a few days. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) know him by any chance? It sounds like he might. I want to thank all the Ministers and officials and the special advisers who I worked with when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary at two Departments—the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice. It was a pleasure to serve them and to serve the Government in that role.
I thank my colleagues, the south-west MPs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, who I am glad to see in her place. All of us, across the region, have worked really hard since 2015—there have been a lot of us since 2015 and long may that continue—to promote the south-west and its interests. I also thank my absolutely brilliant staff in the constituency and here at Westminster. Let me just mention by name my four current members of staff. Thank you very much indeed to Matt Cox and to my three members of staff who have been with me since the beginning in 2015: Marianne Kemp, Dan Shapland and David Hoare, who have all been brilliant in helping me along.
Finally, I thank the people of North Devon, who did me the privilege and honour of electing me not once, but twice to be their Member of Parliament in North Devon. Helping them, assisting them, meeting them, and sometimes having animated conversations with them really has been an honour and a privilege, and I wish my successor in the role all the very best. I clearly hope that they will be sitting on the Conservative Benches, but whoever they are, I truly wish them all the best. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the staff of the House as well. It is now time to get Pexit done!
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Act 2019.
Valedictory Debate
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones). I will start, if I may, by thanking everyone with whom I have had the honour to work in this place. In particular, I wish to put on record my thanks to my amazing staff both in the constituency and here in Parliament.
I had the privilege to serve for eight years the constituency in which I grew up and where most of my close family still live—Enfield, Southgate. That result in Enfield, Southgate in 1997 was once voted the third greatest television moment ever. This was in a survey in 1998, so it was fresh in people’s minds. In that poll, the greatest television moment ever was the first man on the moon, the second was the release of Nelson Mandela from prison and the third was my defeat of Michael Portillo in that election. I have told this story once or twice over the past two decades, and I should point out that it was a poll of The Observer readers and Channel 4 viewers, so was not necessarily a cross-section of the public as a whole.
When I lost in 2005, I sought refuge in Liverpool, and I am immensely grateful to my local Labour party and to the people of the great constituency of West Derby in the city of Liverpool for electing me three times since 2010. Liverpool is a city with a truly amazing spirit, and that spirit is embodied by the campaign for justice for those who lost their lives at Hillsborough 30 years ago. I pay tribute to the families and campaigners who did so much to ensure that that injustice was properly addressed. It is a city with a very vibrant community and voluntary sector. One of the things I have done is to volunteer at a local food bank at St John’s church in Tuebrook in my constituency. I think there is something profoundly wrong when people in this day and age are relying on food banks, but I pay tribute to those who work in them.
Education has long been my No. 1 passion, and I served for three years as Minister for Schools. In that role, I set up and led the London Challenge programme to improve schools here in the capital city. In Liverpool, I have run the Liverpool to Oxbridge Collaborative to encourage more state school students to consider Oxford or Cambridge. I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on global education.
Since 2015, it has been an honour to chair the Select Committee on International Development. I thank its staff and all its Members, past and present—in particular, my friend the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It is so important that the UK remains engaged globally, and one of the ways in which we do that is through our commitment to development and humanitarian relief. We can be proud of our 0.7% commitment and that we have an independent Department—the Department for International Development—that leads in the delivery of those programmes. We face huge challenges of climate change, conflict, poverty and inequality, and we have the tool of the sustainable development goals to address these crises, but we also need to maintain our focus on some appalling humanitarian situations in places such as Yemen and Syria, as well as the Rohingya crisis covering the people of Burma and Bangladesh. I hope that whoever takes over from me as Chair of the Committee will pick up those challenges.
In 1997, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and I were the first ever Members of Parliament who were openly LGBT at the time of our first election. I pay tribute to our friend Lord Smith of Finsbury, who for a long period was the only openly gay Member of Parliament. I am very proud that there are now 45 Members in this House who are openly LGBT and that we have seen huge legal progress in this country, although we still have a long way to go to achieve full equality across the world. Thanks to civil partnerships, I was able to marry Mark 13 years ago. We always called our civil partnership a marriage, but I was then very proud to vote with others across the House for equal marriage. I really thank Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron, all of whom showed great commitment to the cause of equality for people who are LGBT. As we move forward, I hope that we will address some of the very big challenges that LGBT people face around the world and ensure that part of our soft power and our approach to global human rights is about addressing those injustices, wherever they rear their heads.
I conclude by echoing comments made by a number of Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who talked about the importance of appealing to the best instincts of the British people, and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who spoke very powerfully about how we need to bring people together. We have seen a growth of a particular strand of authoritarian populism across our continent and in the United States, Brazil and other parts of the world. It poses a huge challenge for our politics. Here in the UK, Brexit is in a sense both a consequence and a cause of some very fundamental divisions and inequalities that scar our society.
Against that backdrop, I hope that the new Parliament will be able to do its best to bring people back together. I have never liked the adversarialism in this place. I did not like it when I was a Government Member with a majority of almost 200; I certainly do not like it in opposition. I think we do really have a lot in common with each other. We need to be more open about the need to address the evidence that is available on the policy challenges that we face. One of the reasons I have enjoyed chairing a Select Committee is that it is cross-party working and it is based on the best available evidence, not the best available slogan for carrying the headlines that day. I hope that is something that we can all reflect on in the weeks, months and years ahead.
I want to finish by quoting the late Jo Cox. I stand here in front of the shield in Jo’s memory. I only got to know Jo in that very brief period from her election in 2015 to her murder a year later. Jo said that
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
That message is one that I hope we can all take forward in this election campaign but also into the next Parliament.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow my friend the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), from whom I have learned a huge amount, both in the time when I served under him on the International Development Committee and, indeed, as a friend.
I would like to echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington) said. In doing so, I quote a former Member of Parliament for Stafford, the great playwright Richard Sheridan, who said:
“remember, now, when you meet your antagonist, do everything in a mild and agreeable manner.”
I entirely agree with that.
It has been a great honour to represent the people of Stafford for the past nine and a half years. Stafford has a breadth of landscapes, from the Trent valley to Cannock Chase, where we have the beautiful memorials of the cemetery for Commonwealth soldiers, mainly New Zealanders, but also the main German cemetery in the United Kingdom. I would encourage Members to visit that cemetery. It is in the most beautiful valley in Cannock Chase. We have farmlands. We have lovely villages such as Penkridge, and we have Stafford itself. Again, I would encourage Members who have the chance in June or July to see the open-air Shakespeare by Stafford castle—one of the best performances of Shakespeare that you could possibly hope to see, with a different play every year.
I pay tribute to all those in my constituency who have worked so hard through often very testing times around our hospital, then called Stafford Hospital and now called County Hospital. There were those who lost their loved ones and who saw their loved ones suffer, but also all those who worked in the NHS and tried so very hard, both at that time and subsequently, to give us what is now, I believe, a very good service. That led to the Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Act 2015, which I had the honour to present as a private Member’s Bill. When I see the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), the former Health Secretary, has done on patient safety, and the work he is intending to do now with his charity, I am relieved that the issue of patient safety has come to the fore.
Sir John Hayes
I cannot let that pass without paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s outstanding work in that field, which typifies his whole approach. His care, his insight and his dedication to purpose are exemplary. The whole House will miss him. Might I just cheekily ask him to work with me, when he has more time, on the campaign on haemochromatosis, which affects nearly 380,000 people? He can work from outside Parliament; I can work within it.
Jeremy Lefroy
I can never resist anything that my right hon. Friend says, so I will most definitely do what I can.
I would like to pay tribute to all those who work in our schools and colleges, police service, fire and rescue service, ambulance service and the local councils. We have three very good local councils, with excellent staff and councillors who make a real difference. I would also like to pay tribute to the businesses in my constituency. We have two new business parks. General Electric could have relocated elsewhere in the UK or, indeed, the world, but we were able to retain it in Stafford by having a wonderful new business park at Redhill, where we are the only manufacturer of large transformers in the UK. We manufacture many other things in the constituency, including the world’s best lawnmowers and some of the world’s best washing machines. Never let it be said that all these things are only manufactured outside the country. They are not; they are manufactured right here.
My constituency has a wonderful agricultural sector. People have told me that the constituency of Stafford produces about 10% of the UK’s strawberries. I do not know whether that is the case, but it certainly produces a lot. The former resident of Stafford, that great author Izaak Walton, said:
“Doubtless God could have made a better berry, but doubtless God never did.”
We also have the country’s largest producer of spinach, as well as one that produces 1 million lettuces a week in season, alongside other arable and dairy. It is a great pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) in his place—I had the pleasure of being defeated by him in 2005.
The voluntary sector is very large in Stafford, and I would like to place on record my desire to see an awful lot more done for unpaid full-time carers. I am working with a constituent on providing more breaks for unpaid carers. They often do not have the resources, and they do not have the time, but they need those breaks. We all value our holidays. Why should they not have them, even if it is a week a year? I would like to see that become a priority.
I would like to pay tribute to my neighbours, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), as well as others in Staffordshire, all of whom have been most generous to me. When I had the misfortune of falling ill and fainting during the address of President Obama in Westminster Hall, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) who looked after me and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin who visited me in St Thomas’ Hospital.
I must pay huge thanks to my staff: my magnificent chief of staff, James Cantrill, who has had to endure a lot in these difficult times, and Pauline Ingall, Sonya Redfern-Price, Alex Simpson and Jan Owers. In my constituency, I would like to thank Ann Foster, who has chaired the Conservative association for many years, Ray Sutherland and Amyas Stafford Northcote; at this difficult time for him, I wish him God’s blessing. I also want to thank Owen Meredith, James Nixon and Hetty Bailey, who have all worked for me in this place. Above all, I want to thank my wonderful wife Janet, who has combined supporting me here with being a full-time GP and university lecturer at Keele medical school. I simply could not have done it without her support.
Finally, I would like to echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) about the importance of looking outwards and discussing what is happening in the world much more than we do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby said. We are sometimes told that we talk too much about what goes on outside this country, but all those things are relevant to our constituents. Africa has a population of 1.2 billion, which will go up to 2.4 billion. We need to support them in the creation of hundreds of millions of jobs. Otherwise, they will look elsewhere. People do not want to migrate. They want to stay where they are, with their families, but if they are forced to for a better life, they will. We have to look at what we can do.
In terms of world health, Ebola is still in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and has spread into Uganda. We have to do more research on antimicrobial resistance. Otherwise, we will face great challenges. There are also the issues of climate change, conflict resolution and freedom of speech and religion; I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who have done magnificent work on the latter.
I will finish with two quotations from Izaak Walton. He said:
“He that loses his conscience has nothing left that is worth keeping.”
And, for those of us who are not standing again, he said, “Be grateful for the simple things in life. Don’t take them for granted.”
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I would like to thank my fantastic family, my friends and my staff, who are amazing, as well as all the people I have worked with here and in the constituency, but most of all I would like to thank my husband, who nine years ago put his life, dreams and ambitions on hold so that I could follow mine.
When you come into this place, it is the strangest thing. The first thing I did was to look for a job description, and as hon. Members all know, there is none. You become a combination of a councillor, a barrack-room lawyer, a trade union official and a social worker, yet an MP’s power, particularly in opposition, is more perceived than real. People ask you to get involved in everything and anything. When I was elected, I got 22,000 emails in the first year. The level of expectation from people is that you can solve everything from mice in their flat to conflict in the middle east, and of course the bins—there is always the bins. There are myriad ways that people can watch you now, and I am told by my constituents that I need to be at all these events in the constituency, but then the same people say to me, “I was watching the Chamber, and you weren’t in there. Where were you?” And at the same time, they want to know why you have not answered the 22,000 emails, which is why many people receive replies from me at 1 o’clock in the morning.
There was much I wanted to say this afternoon about the things I had done and the things I wished I had done, but we have sat here and passed the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Act. I listened to that testimony and it was familiar to me, so I have changed what I planned to say because I needed to say this. I could talk about what I have achieved, but what has been achieved by me here has actually been achieved because of my parents. Both of my parents were brought up in care—my mother in the infamous Nazareth House, which we heard about earlier, and my father by the Christian Brothers—and I can give personal testimony about the damage done to them for the whole of their lives. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who is no longer in his place, asked from the Dispatch Box: what must those children have thought of adults, and how could they ever trust? Well, I can tell the House that they never did. It became increasingly difficult as they got older, when we needed to get carers or meals on wheels to go in, because everybody who came in who they thought was from the authorities they sacked immediately the same day. They feared to the very end of their lives losing their liberty, because they had lost it as children when they had been incarcerated.
It is testimony to my parents that they never visited on me and my sister Rose the horrors of their childhood, and it is testimony to them that I am an MP now. My mother lived to see me elected, and she was as proud as punch. Sadly, my dad died in 2009, so he did not get the same bragging rights. My dad, Arthur Farrington, was what people would call a bit of a character. He had a tendency to embellish the truth, and sometimes he just made things up. He used to say to me and my sister that he was born in the workhouse, but then he used to say a lot of things so we did not take a lot of notice. When I was elected and was doing research on children’s homes in the 1930s, it came as a huge surprise to find that his parents were actually resident in Ormskirk workhouse at the time he was born. It seems I owe my dad a bit of an apology, as he was actually telling the truth. However, I still do not believe that the ring that my auntie had, which clearly came from Woolworths, was given to her by the Pope.
It is a privilege to hold the office of MP. I left school at 17, got married soon after and became a mother, but at 18 I found myself deserted by my husband and facing the world alone with a small baby and bleak prospects while the rest of my friends went to university. However, thanks to a small council flat in Belvedere, a GLC-funded day nursery and a Bexley Council-funded careers adviser, I was set on the road to independence, self-respect and a career. I have been successful and my family has thrived because society invested in me, and that investment has been paid back over and over. Sadly, however, those services no longer exist for many who find themselves in the same circumstances and do not have that ladder. In fact, the safety net of the welfare state that once saved me no longer exists in that real sense. It is more like a trapdoor you fall through and you may never get back up. That is why I have spent the last nine years trying to speak up for Erith and Thamesmead, so my neighbours get the opportunities that I had and can turn around their lives when they fall on hard times.
I would like to thank my constituents for the support they have shown me for the last nine years, electing me three times. It is now time to pass the baton on to someone else, and I am sure that they will show her the same support.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, and commiserations on yesterday—I congratulate the new Speaker. I apologise for being unable to be here at the start of the debate. I had not intended to speak, but I decided only last night to stand down as the Member of Parliament for Arundel and South Downs, the constituency that I have been honoured to represent for nearly 15 years.
It was a pleasure to listen to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin). Some 33 years ago, while working as a young researcher, I helped a young candidate who was standing in a by-election in West Derbyshire. I claim that the 100 votes that my right hon. Friend secured to win the seat were won by me, and he claims that he would have won handsomely had it not been for my disastrous research.
I went on to stand for Berwick-upon-Tweed in north Northumberland. Unfortunately, that was in 1997, the year of Armageddon. My efforts in that beautiful rural constituency were not helped early on when I opened a coffee morning with a speech urging everyone to vote Conservative, only to be told that I was in fact at a meeting of the Methodists. I could not have been expected to know that that particular village had two village halls, but I learned an important lesson about knowing your constituency.
I was immensely privileged to be chosen at the very last moment to stand for Arundel and South Downs for the Conservatives, and I believe that someone else will be very lucky indeed to be chosen at the very last minute to stand for what I believe is the best constituency in the country, full of the most wonderful people and strong communities. I will miss it a very great deal. I fought four general elections and my majority has gone up every time to a record level, and I know that it is smart to quit while ahead.
I made my maiden speech in a debate on rural issues. I spoke last in that debate, too, and nobody told me that I was permitted to go to what the Americans call the restroom while waiting to make my speech. I waited for what seemed to be hours, absolutely desperate for it, and then made the shortest maiden speech in history as a consequence.
I then went to see the Whips to explain that it was very important for the new Member of Parliament for Arundel and South Downs to watch Australia play the Duke of Norfolk’s XI at the Arundel castle cricket ground. The Whips told me that not only was that entirely possible, but I should submit any request, at any time, for any sporting event that I felt I needed to attend. I had no idea that they were being sarcastic and so proceeded to give them a long list of all the sporting events I wished to attend that year. I have never lived it down.
I soon found myself on the Front Bench and, for a very brief time—this is a salutary lesson for all the young people who will enter the House after the election—was billed as a rising star. I then plummeted into the depths of the Home Office, a fall from which I never entirely recovered.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington) that attending this debate, in which we have heard some marvellous speeches, is rather like attending the reading of one’s own obituary. I am not entirely certain that everyone would be effusive enough, so I intend to list some of the things that I have been involved in—my serious point is that I intend to continue working in a number of important areas that I have worked on in this place. They include LGBT rights, which my friend the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) mentioned, the campaign for equal marriage, setting up the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, and setting up the Global Equality Caucus, run so ably by Alan Wardle and supported by Andrew Slinn.
I also set up the all-party parliamentary group on global tuberculosis, to help fight the world’s deadliest disease. The Global TB Caucus has succeeded in driving TB up the agenda, with a high-level meeting at the United Nations. It is ably led by Sarah Kirk, with support on the APPG from Janika Hauser, and it was set up with brilliant initial work by my friend Matt Oliver.
I have recently assumed the chairmanship of the Countryside Alliance, which I intend to devote a lot of time to, returning to my roots, because I believe passionately in supporting rural communities, in the freedom to choose and in ensuring that we protect the rural way of life. I will be running the think-tank that I have set up, the Project for Modern Democracy, just as I previously set up the think-tank Reform, because I believe we need new thinking on Whitehall reform, planning and how we ensure markets operate fairly in the modern world.
I just want to say something briefly about Brexit. I set up the national no campaign against joining the euro. For a long time I was thought of as a Eurosceptic, but I led the Conservatives In campaign to remain in the European Union. Nevertheless, I accepted the result of the referendum immediately. I want to dispute the idea that the only principled position for remainers to take is somehow to gainsay the referendum result. I do not believe that that is true. Actually, I think it is a principled and honourable position to accept the result of the referendum, because in the end it is about democracy. I have done that, which is why I support the Prime Minister in successfully seeking a deal. I do not think that we should demonise the millions of people who voted for remain, but have accepted the result and think a deal is possible. Rather, we should investigate more closely why people voted for leave and what exactly they wanted, and have a more mature, sober and sensible debate on those issues.
Finally, I would like to thank my brilliant staff: Michelle Taylor, my wonderful constituency assistant; Alex Black, who runs my office; Lynsey White, my wonderful secretary; and Chris Cook, my researcher. I would like to thank members of my Conservative association and my chairmen, Angela Litchfield, Sue Holland, Malcolm Gill and Peter Griffiths. I thank my constituents for doing me the great honour of returning me to Arundel and South Downs. Above all, I thank my partner, my closest and best friend, Jason Eades, without whose tireless and unquestioning support I would never have been able to do this job in the first place. Thank you all for doing me this great honour. I am very sad to be going, but I know it is the right time to do so.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
What a privilege it is to follow that heartfelt speech. It is also a coincidence, because, as the majority of the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) has gone up at every successive election, mine has gone down. [Laughter.]
In 2010, when I first came into the House, we achieved the lowest swing away from Labour in the entire country. In the most recent general election, in 2017, I hung on by a mere 209 votes. As most people who looked at that will know, it is a total miracle that I am here at all. I never expected to be able to make a valedictory speech and I have viewed every single day of this Parliament as an extra, unexpected bonus. It was hard enough to hold the constituency of Barrow and Furness, the home of the Trident nuclear submarine programme, with the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). People, probably understandably, did not trust him entirely on the issue of Trident. However, it was an impossibility to hold the constituency with the current Leader of the Opposition. It was only by completely disavowing him that I was able, against all expectations including mine, to hang on.
I have, of course, paid in one way or another since then, but I will never forget the moment at 1 o’clock in the morning of election night when I thought, “My goodness, we might actually hold on here.” I had to get on the phone to my ex, Mandy, who ran my campaign to get me into Parliament in the first place, and say, “Look, you know I’ve offered to take the kids all summer, well…” I am deeply indebted to her for her forbearance on that and on so many issues, as we have made a crazy modern family life work. More on that towards the end of my speech.
I want to say how sad I am to be leaving, but I think we can be really proud of some the things we have achieved over these past nine and a half years. The brand new maternity unit literally would not have happened without the campaign led by local mums, including Mandy. Of course, I supported the campaign wholeheartedly —I knew what was good for me—but it showed that when the people of Barrow and Furness stand up, they are able to make themselves listened to. Together, we have effected real change.
The Leader of the House knows that it is more unusual to win a vote at the moment than it is to lose one, and 18 July 2016 will always be etched on my memory as the day that this House voted by 472 votes to 117 to renew Trident and fire the starting gun properly on the Dreadnought submarine programme, which, even now, is providing 9,000 directly employed jobs and sustaining the whole Furness economy. I am just sad to be leaving at a time when we are making critical decisions on how we ensure that that investment can lift the whole area out of the still really appalling pockets of deprivation and the lack of hope that remains in the Furness area. If I can play any role outside this place—possibly in a David Brent way, if I keep turning up to former offices—I want to play whatever role I can to ensure that that can happen in future.
I came into this House having been privileged to serve as a special adviser for a period in No. 10, and I never thought that the life of a constituency MP—trying to help the community change and lead that change—would be what drove me. That is what I will miss most of all from the job. It is well known in this place, but completely unknown outside it, how relatively little of that we drive ourselves as MPs, so—like many others—I need to give my heartfelt thanks to my team. Frank, Natalie, Angela, Carmen and the new arrival, Sian, have done extraordinary things. Literally thousands of people have had their lives changed for the better in ways that, more often than not, I have not known about personally, but they have delivered. I am so pleased that Cassie, my office manager, has come all the way here—it is a hell of a long way to get down from Barrow; it takes four hours on the train on a good day— and is in the Gallery today. Like a number of my staff—but this is particularly so in her case—she has stuck with me through some really difficult times and has stayed loyal, and I will always be grateful for that.
As a constituency MP, I am proud of what we have done, but I wish that I could be proud of what we have achieved in our politics over the last 10 years. We are not standing here as a Parliament of success. I am sorry that my attempt to wrestle my politics—the politics of the progressive centre-left—out of the hands of the extremists that have gripped my former party has not been a success. I am really grateful to my friends—who will remain my friends—in the Labour party, even though we have taken a very different view on how best to tackle that extremism.
I am really excited about the challenge that I am going on to as the Government’s special envoy on countering violent extremism; I want to continue to play a role in public life. Although I am sad to be leaving, I am leaving for absolutely the best reason: it was not part of the script that Issy and I would be having a baby, but it is a wonderful, wonderful thing on which to leave. Their two sisters, Maisie and Molly, are going to be wonderful big sisters, and I just cannot wait for the future that we have got together.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We all wish the hon. Gentleman and his future family all the very best.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend from Barrow and Furness—I suggest that he tries for size a majority of 30 on the third count at 6.30 in the morning.
I am sorry not to have been here to listen to all the speeches, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once upon a time this was going to be a normal working day; I had a delegation from Slovenia here for a tour. Everyone will know that being a tour guide is an occupational hazard in the Commons, not least as I am the chair of the all-party British-Slovenia Group, the chair of the all-party British-German group and the vice-chair of the all-party group on Japan. Present difficulties notwithstanding, the internationalism of this place has always been a surprise pleasure that I will certainly miss.
I also thank the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for kindly losing to me in 2005—in the nicest possible way and as only he knows how—because otherwise I would not be here making these remarks. I still have his campaign T-shirt, which I found tidying up my cupboard, and which I asked him for as a present. I will keep it and cherish it.
It feels strange to clear an office after 18 years. While packing up, I came across umpteen spare copies of my maiden speech from 2001, and I remember it well. I felt I had drawn the short straw, having to follow the lyrical Welsh tones of Adam Price, now the leader of Plaid Cymru. It felt like trudging in the footsteps of Richard Burton in a theatre audition. In making my speech, I felt sure I was the only grandson of a rabbit trapper from County Meath in Ireland to take his place on these green Benches. Now as I leave, I can burnish my Celtic credentials further, because on 2 March—my 57th birthday—the perfect present popped through the letterbox: my Irish passport. Whatever happens after the election, I will be remaining—no ifs, no buts, come what may—a citizen of the European Union, as will my three long-suffering children.
It has been a privilege to serve as the MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, my home town. I was the first born and bred “castle black”, as we say, for—well, I haven’t been able to find another going back 500 years. But 2001 was not my first general election; that came when I stood in Chesham and Amersham—my dry run—in 1997. So one of my first thanks this afternoon goes to my agent 22 years ago, Peter Ward, and his wife, Doreen, who wished me all the best again this week. I must also mention again the wonderful Keith Kingswood, the local constituency secretary back then. Just before the ’97 election, Keith flew to New York to see his son and collect a postal vote but tragically on the flight over contracted a mystery illness from which he did not recover. The day after the Blair landslide, while Labour was partying on the south bank, we were all attending Keith’s funeral in Chesham. My thoughts today are again with his wife Janet and his family.
This job would be impossible without the support of families, so I have to thank my wife Victoria for putting up with all the late nights, the weeks and weekends away, the overseas visits and all the football and, in particular, rugby—she curses Commons and Lords RUFC. She was also the one person I forgot to thank on election night in 1997. In turn, I have never been allowed to forget it. In Newcastle-under-Lyme, I want to pay a special tribute to the first person I met when I first went back to help in 1993: a truly great council leader, Eddie Boden, who turns 80 in a few weeks. Happy birthday from Westminster, Eddie. My agent in Newcastle all these years, David Leech, has been a rock of support and strength. Sadly, he lost his wonderful wife and soulmate, Cynthia, last year. Newcastle is much emptier without her.
Nothing could prepare me for this place. I was never a student politician or part of any network. I first got involved in politics in 1987, aged 25, when I took the day off work in London to do something, finally, about Margaret Thatcher. Through the occasional rebellions—student tuition fees, the dreadful war in Iraq, the dreaded B-word today—David and my officers in the constituency have always been loyal, steadfast and true. It was because of their efforts that a week last Friday in Newcastle-under-Lyme we were able to celebrate 100 years of continuous Labour representation in Parliament. We are one of only five constituencies in the whole of the UK to be able to do so. My majority might be a bit tight—we are one of 11 reluctant members of the “under 100” club—but I keep reminding people that at over 21,000 the Labour vote in Newcastle in 2017 was the biggest of my five general elections and the highest since that landslide under Tony Blair in ’97. It is the task of my successor as candidate, who was selected on Friday, to recreate that progressive alliance.
Politics is a difficult and demanding trade, and that has never been more true than in these testing time, in the age of social media, but in this job one really can make a difference and be proud of doing so, for constituents and causes and projects that leave a legacy for the future. At the outset in Westminster, I was rebellious enough to stand up for students over high and variable tuition fees and had the temerity to organise a rebellion. I next crossed swords with my own Government through a private Member’s Bill to ensure fairer treatment of temporary and agency workers—protections eventually implemented, we should remember, by a European directive that helped vulnerable and low-paid people in 28 countries.
I am also glad to have stood up for my beliefs in not voting for the legislation that paved the way for the referendum, or for the triggering of article 50. I understand that I am the only member of the Labour party to have departed from the whip on both those occasions, and the same applies to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in respect of the Conservative party.
I am proud, too, to have served for 14 years on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The Committee has certainly made a difference, pursuing phone-hacking and, more recently, investigating fake news and abuse of social media, as well as helping to change libel law in the interests of my former profession: responsible, serious investigative journalism.
Locally, there is much for Labour, and retired colleagues in north Staffordshire, to be proud of, such as our brand-new hospital and the excellent Newcastle college, to name but two. In Newcastle, my favourite place of all is the wonderful Peter Pan Nursery for Children with Special Needs, and I want to record my thanks to Peter Traves, who was Staffordshire’s education director until 10 years ago, for his help in securing its future in brand-new premises opposite my old school in Wolstanton. He is simply the best officer in the public sector with whom I have dealt in 18 years.
Let me end with two final votes of thanks. This job would be impossible without great staff. I have had wonderful staff doing a wonderful job for constituents—Caroline Eardley, who has been with me throughout, Dr Barry Schofield and Martin Bell—and, in Westminster, Hannah Matin, Thomas Brayford and, for so many years, Dr Neil Watkins. We always need good officers in our constituency parties, and I want to thank the chair of my constituency party, Allison Gardner, for her wonderful support. Her drive and motivation, and her great sense of humour, made the last two elections enjoyable, and without her help I would not be standing here today.
Finally, I thank colleagues across parties for all the work that we have done here in those years. I will certainly miss them, and I will miss it.
Mr Speaker
May I suggest that the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House split their speaking time accordingly?
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate you on your victory, and I know that you will make a very good Speaker.
When I first sat here today, 60 Members were saying that they would be leaving the House. The number has now risen to 62, following the announcements by the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and the ex-Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) that they would be standing down.
The speeches were a bit like maiden speeches to start with—everyone has such a beautiful constituency—but what was clear was the amazing array of talent that we are losing. The right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) has served his party so well. He has been an excellent Chief Whip—I do not suppose that many people say that, but I will—and has given 33 years of devotion to the House. I also thank Mrs McLoughlin. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) has had extensive experience of posts ranging from parliamentary private secretary to Chair of a Select Committee.
The right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey)—I know that he added “Didcot”, but the annunciator said “Wantage”—is not standing down; he was contributing to the pre-Dissolution debate. He talked about the arts, and I want to thank him, because when he was in opposition he visited the New Art Gallery in Walsall, where anyone who goes into the lift will hear the voice of Noddy Holder.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) was true to herself. She is also a formidable coach of Arsenal Ladies Football Club. I agree with her about Balj Rai—he is absolutely fantastic—and I want to pay tribute to Max Freedman, in her office, who made a great contribution to the independent complaints and grievance process.
The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) leaves a huge legacy. He was what people refer to as the “dead cat on the table”—he was always the one who diverted people and moved them to another point in the debate—but his nickname was “the Minister for the ‘Today’ programme”. He is right about debates on foreign affairs: we need more of those. I hope the Leader of the House does not mind my raising again the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and expressing the hope that she will soon be released from prison.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is an extensive human rights champion, and a champion for miners’ compensation—the subject of miners was a thread running through the debate—and, of course, she was a human rights envoy. She has produced an incredible body of public service, both as a Member of the European Parliament and as an MP. Wales is also losing my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), whom I have worked with. I hope he will continue his work with Welsh tourism.
What can we say about my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas)? An outstanding solicitor and an outstanding Minister who has a great way of asking important questions. He has made an important contribution to the debate today about how we run our elections. He will be missed, but we can see him in the documentary “The Great Hack.”
When I first came to this House in 2010, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said that Michael Howard had visited her constituency, and had resigned as leader. Maybe he knew—this is what came across to me when I first saw her at the Dispatch Box—that she could be a future leader of her party. I am sorry that she is standing down because I think she would have been an excellent leader and an excellent Prime Minister. She did some fantastic work at the Department for International Development. The logo for UK Aid was down to her, as was the audit of all the money that was given out to everyone; I cited that to some students I spoke to in the House. I thank her for her excellent work on that.
I will put together my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) as they make me think of Donald Dewar. He said that he could never get selected and then when he finally did, and was elected to the House, he was confronted by people who beat him. Those three Members all beat me; I was runner-up to all three of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North has made a huge contribution to the Petitions Committee; it is now a very important part of the work we do here and she rightly paid tribute to the Clerks of the Committee.
What can I say about the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington)? He was an absolutely fantastic Leader of the House. I do not have time to do justice to the work that he has done here. He started out as a special adviser to Douglas Hurd and I keep saying, “Where are those members of the Conservative party like Douglas Hurd, like the right hon. Gentleman and indeed like Douglas Hurd’s son, the right hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd)?” They are all going, and all are incredible public servants. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury was very kind to me when I first became shadow Leader of the House and we had very important conversations that we knew were not going anywhere. He made an important point for us to take forward for the future—we must ensure that this House moves forward. I hope he will continue to play an active role in public life because he is needed.
The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) was a Health Minister when I visited him and asked him to take up the cause of John’s campaign with Nicci Gerrard, Julia Jones and Francis Wheen, which was to allow family members to visit people in hospital who have dementia. Nicci Gerrard found that her father did not have an opportunity for interaction with his family—perhaps just playing a game of chess—and that that had a detrimental effect. When the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister he facilitated that opportunity for visiting.
The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) was an outstanding Minister and an outstanding parliamentarian, and is an outstanding human being. Oh, I am not the right person to be doing this, given my past record of breaking down. I do not know what we will do without him. He has been absolutely fantastic. We walked arm in arm to St Margaret’s church when we paid tribute to Jo Cox. It was a very special day, and I will never forget his kindness. He talks about kindness; he is a really decent person. As he has said to me, his constituency is lucky as it has two MPs, because of course he is ably supported by Eve who did a fantastic job for Christians in Parliament.
I will turn now to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). There are four of us here who used to be on the council in Ealing together: my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and I. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North always used to show us up when he was a councillor. People used to say, “You’ve got to be like Steve Pound, because he turns up and fixes our boiler.” He actually went into people’s lofts and did the work—we would write the letters and he would do the work.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and I served on the Health Committee. It showed how cross-party work can be done in this House, and I hope he will continue with his work on health.
There was an important point of order that you missed, Mr Speaker, and I therefore want to mention the hon. Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy). She was the first woman Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Prime Minister, a role she performed really well at a very difficult time. She has been an excellent colleague and an excellent Minister, and she will be missed.
I will turn now to the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson). I should not have been in the Lobby with him, but he was in the Lobby with me and I know how deeply he struggled with voting the way he did. He voted for his country rather than his party; he put his personal loyalties aside and made sure that he did that for his country. He will be a fantastic loss. The sad thing about this is that we now see how wonderful everyone is, in the way they speak and the stories they tell. He is truly an honourable gentleman.
I have watched the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) nurse other hon. Members in this House when she was a vice-chair of the Tory party; she has been an assiduous vice-chair. She has been very kind to her colleagues and I know that she has been an excellent Minister. All the replies I have received from her have been absolutely fantastic, and she will be missed. Her manner is a gentle one, but she has a lot of strength. I know that her point about the Official Report and what we can do in that regard will be taken forward, and I am happy to work with the Leader of the House on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) has done some great work in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I hope she continues to do that, along with her work with universities and higher education. She, too, will be missed.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) is right about mental health care, and I hope that he continues to work on this important policy. He is also right about free TV licences for the over-75s; I am glad that he said that.
Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg): yes, we were all up for Portillo. He and I met a long time ago when we were going down to the Labour party conference. At that time, there was a section 28, which has now completely disappeared, so we know that politics can change and that we can make a difference.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) has been a wonderful colleague. We have worked well together on hospital issues and he will certainly be remembered for his work for the Francis report. He has also been a champion for getting funds for the NHS. I also want to thank him for introducing me to Bananagrams, which is like Scrabble without the arguments.
The struggle that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) had to become a Labour candidate has turned her into an absolutely exemplary Member of Parliament, and her life story has shown why she will be missed; her strength and her story are absolutely fantastic. Andrew, who works for me, is a constituent of hers, and he says that she is a fantastic MP. Sadly, she has chosen to be an MP no longer; she wants to be with her family.
The right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made a speech that was something of an emergency intervention. We are sorry to see him go, as he has been absolutely fantastic and a really assiduous Minister. I asked a colleague why the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for this debate, and now we know. He had seven minutes to set out his case, which might be slightly more than he had for his maiden speech. It is true that he does have a very nice constituency.
It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) back here. He has been through some really difficult times, but he has always worked with, for and on behalf of his constituents, wherever he has been. I wish him well with his new family and his new post.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) has done some sterling work on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Finally, I just want to say to the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), because this is a pre-recess Adjournment debate, that I must make a bid for Southend to get city status.
As this is the final day, I want to thank everyone. I want the Clerk of the House to pass down to everyone in his directorate our thanks for all the work they have done. I thank all the Clerks who, during difficult times, have given us excellent advice. I also want to thank all those in the Official Report, the Library and the Tea Room, the cleaning and catering staff, the Speaker’s Office and the post room. I post something here at seven o’clock and it arrives in Walsall the next day. I thank all our staff, including my Chief Whip, the Whips and Luke and Simon. We have the most amazing, talented people in this House who will no longer be here, and I hope that they will think about serving their country. I want to thank them for all the work they have done, and I want to wish every hon. Member all the best for their campaigns.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
It is very humbling to close this debate. I have worked out that there is over 540 years of experience in the Members who are standing down and if you place that end to end, I think that gets us back to the middle of the reign of the first Queen Elizabeth. It is an extraordinary degree of experience and political contribution. Mr Speaker, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you as you take the Chair. I think of all the work, and all the restoration and renewal, that you are going to do, both to the buildings and to our culture, which I think we are all looking forward to.
Like the right hon. Lady, at the end of a Session I thank, on behalf of all Members, the staff of the House, the members’ staff, security staff, the Doorkeepers, the civil servants and all those who keep the show on the road and are always here when we need them. Gratitude to the staff came through in all the speeches that were made, including that of my right hon Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who has hereditary staff taken on from his father. I think that that is unusual, but it nonetheless shows the commitment of staff to this House, and I pay compliment to him while I am mentioning his staff.
Now it is my privilege to go through the Members who have spoken. I have nine minutes to do it, so forgive me for being brief. I am saving up one or two for the end. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) has been such a fantastic servant of this House. Running the Standards and Privileges Committee was a very hard job to do and his non-Oscar speech was better than most Oscar speeches.
I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) is retiring––maybe, maybe not––but his protection of the arts and his service are noble. His point about technology and the economy is fundamental.
Dare I say that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is every Tory’s favourite socialist, though I think the word “socialist” may be unfair in her case? I find that I agree with her on almost everything, so either I have moved to the left at some point mysteriously or she has moved some way to the right. She will be enormously missed. I loved her comment that there is always tradition for a reason, which is practically my motto, so I very much agreed with that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) served four Prime Ministers and very kindly invited me to speak at Chartwell. One of the greatest honours that I have ever had was to speak in the home of perhaps our greatest ever Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend shows great kindness to new Members, which is perhaps little known, but it also makes one think about fate. I supported him to be Chairman of the Treasury Committee, which, by great good fortune, he did not get but went on to a glittering Cabinet career instead, which was probably better all round. My noble Friend Lord Tyrie got the Treasury Committee, which he served with great distinction.
We heard the tributes to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)––I probably massacred my pronunciation––with the tributes to our previous Speaker. I do not know the right hon. Lady enormously well, but it became so clear during those tributes that she is loved across the House and must be one of the most popular Members for her work in favour of peace and human rights and to stop child abuse. I salute her on behalf of the whole House for what she has done.
I have a compliment for my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) from one of my civil servants which, if I may, I will read out:
“She has always taken the House very seriously and as a Minister, she impressed upon her Department the need to think constantly about Parliament, to make a case to Parliament and to convince Members across the House that the Department was doing the right thing.”
I think that that is a noble tribute and it has not come from me; it is not a political tribute but is from the civil servants with whom she worked. I so agree with her in her efforts to make social mobility a reality. That is something we should all want to do, and I am glad she is going to continue to work on that.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) first contested a seat at the age of 24, which is a very young age at which to contest a seat. He has been a distinguished Member of this House and is still very passionate about what he believes in, about what he wants to do and about his commitment to Select Committees, which is of importance to the whole House.
The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) showed in his final few words his amazing campaigning zeal. Though we all tease the Liberal Democrats, what we love about the true Liberals is that they believe in campaigning and they have strong principles for which they campaign. He has been such a champion for his constituency; he has been a champion for what it believes in and what it voted for.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) is, I think, just one of the most gentlemanly, gentle and kindly Members of this House. He was enormously helpful to new MPs, and he probably has the best manners of anybody in this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) has been such a campaigner for what he chooses to believe in, and the advice he gave us at the end was brilliant. Seneca is normally only quoted by my right hon Friend the Prime Minister, so it was an ambitious quotation. “Choose enemies carefully,” has a touch of steel about it, “Stay out of the bars,” has a touch of realism about it and we know, “Never forget your constituency base,” only too well, particularly as the election looms. We hope that we have not forgotten that in recent years.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) made a brief point of order. It was her first point of order and, like all points of order, it was a bogus point of order, but it was charmingly bogus. We are very sorry to be losing her, but her three splendid sons are the beneficiaries.
The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) made the most charming speech and reminded us about the Tea Room staff, who look after us so extraordinarily well at all hours. She has the one job in this place that I once wanted, which is Chair of the Petitions Committee. I was on the Procedure Committee to set it up, and I am afraid that I had my eyes on the post and then it became an Opposition post. When I mentioned to the Whips that I was keen on it, I think they thought that it had better be an Opposition post, and the hon. Lady has run that brilliant and important Committee with great panache.
The right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) lamented the decline of old Etonians as Members of the House of Commons. I do sympathise with that position, and I am glad he made the point. I thought it might have been a little bit too much coming from me, but coming from him I am allowed, I think, to reinforce it. He is a great Tory Member, a great supporter of Tory Members, and a teacher of Tory Members with his fabulous book list, which he regularly sends round. I hope that he will continue to do so, because his reading list is always interesting. I would also highlight his work for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is valued by everybody.
I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) is retiring. He made a political commentary of importance, and I think he should stand at the next election and bring those points back to the House. I urge him to change his mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) is the kindest lady in the House of Commons. She has been a friend towards me since we were elected at the same time, even when we have disagreed, and I love her confidence in Hansard. Hansard is so brilliant. Not only does it make a verbatim report, but it improves one’s English. It takes out all the split infinitives. I have only one disagreement with it, and that is that it thinks that “Government” is a plural, and I think it is a singular. My hon. Friend’s suggestion that Hansard should do even more work got nods and smiles from the Hansard representatives, so that will happen.
With all its heritage, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) has a wonderful city to represent. She called the Library staff the unsung heroes, and we must sing more to the Library staff. There must be a tune for the parliamentary choir.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) is a wonderful champion of local service. He will be missed, and his views on the BBC are noted.
Turning to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), we all remember the Portillo moment. I had not realised that it was up there with the moon landings and the release of Nelson Mandela, but it was very humble of him—there has been humility in so many contributions—to say that that was based on a poll of readers of The Observer and Channel 4 viewers.
The Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Act 2015 that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) presented is of great importance, and I so support his campaign for religious freedom and freedom of speech. I hope that his work will be continued when he is no longer in the House.
The most touching and moving speech of the day was from the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce). I have hardly been more moved by a speech in this House. On that basis, I know that she will be missed. What she said about historical institutional abuse was really very shocking—what an extraordinary thing for her family to have coped with.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) is supporting the PM. I am sorry that he has decided to leave at short notice.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on the new baby, and I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) that 31 votes is enough.
I briefly want to mention my right hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) and for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington) and, the comedian of the House, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). What brilliant people we are losing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales put me through to the candidates list. I would not be here without him, so he has that resting upon his conscience, but what a fine and distinguished career he has had. He is one of the true fantastic figures of the House. I clashed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury over Europe, but he is so courteous and so well informed and his arms never stop moving, which is fantastic. I will finish with our comedian: what will we do without him?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Dissolution.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the petitions, I would just like to say that I am losing many friends in this House who are stepping down. I say to Members on all sides that you have been great parliamentarians. I will not name you all—that is for others to do—but I thank you for the privilege of working with you. I wish you well for the future. My door is open if you ever need to come back. Please keep in touch.
Petitions
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Mr Speaker.
I started a petition earlier this year on the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir. The situation has deteriorated further since the petition’s wording was agreed, and it is with great urgency that I present the petition to the House on this, the last sitting day of the Parliament.
The petition has been signed by 1,608 people, in addition to the 250 people who signed it online.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the security situation in Kashmir remains unacceptable with continued human rights violations; further that recent events, particularly around the Indian General Election, have seen an increase in violence and deaths in the region.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put further pressure on the Indian Government to resolve the long running dispute; and further to commit to working with both parties to encourage dialogue to deliver a resolution to the status of the region; and further to support development in the region; and further to support calls for self-determination for the Kashmiri people by empowering those who live in Kashmir to determine their own future through the ballot box.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002540]
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I rise to present a petition from residents of the Loachbrook estate in Somerford, Congleton. It asks for the completion of outstanding works to this estate by the developer, Bovis Homes, and is supported by more than 100 residents, representing well over a third of households on the estate.
I recently visited the Loachbrook estate to see these outstanding works and therefore fully support my constituents. Residents have been pressing for their completion for some time and are concerned that some may be dangerous, particularly to children.
This is not the only estate in my constituency where works have been left incomplete for too long after residents have bought new homes. This is unacceptable and I hope the petition serves to highlight local concerns about this issue more widely.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Congleton,
Declares that the Petitioners call for the completion of outstanding landscaping, drainage, fencing, footpath and clearance works to the Loachbrook Estate.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Bovis Homes to complete works by the end of this year.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002541]
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
There is hardly a family in my constituency that is not proudly associated with the Navy or the merchant navy. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships are based and maintained in Falmouth, along with the ocean survey vessel HMS Scott. I am delighted that one of the new batch 2 river-class offshore patrol vessels has been named HMS Tamar and will be attached to the port of Truro. All five of these new offshore patrol vessels will be maintained by A&P. Seven ships of the Royal Navy have been named HMS Cornwall after the Duchy of Cornwall. The first was launched in 1692 and broken up in 1761, and the last was launched in 1985 and decommissioned in 2011. Commanders and crew of all the HMS Cornwalls served with distinction, and I want to enable a new generation of Cornish people the opportunity to serve and support the Royal Navy.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Truro & Falmouth,
Declares that one of the new Type 31e General Purpose Frigates should be named HMS Cornwall.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure this is done.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002542]
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted that you are in your rightful place, Mr Speaker.
The residents of York, who have sent me to this place, are deeply disturbed about the environment and climate crisis, the loss of species and habitats and the impact that has on our biodiversity and human race, whether flood or famine, drought or conflict, poverty or migration. I support their call for a climate emergency Bill. There is no planet B—we must care for the one we have.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a Climate Emergency Bill to set out in detail as to how the United Kingdom will play its full roll nationally and globally to meet its commitments made in Paris in 2016, and to ensure it overhauls its consumption of all resources to end the climate and environmental crisis and build a sustainable world.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of York,
Declares that the Government must now prioritise the climate and environmental emergency since there is no time to waste as each day global warming is causing irreversible ecological degradation, which is having untold damage on our biodiversity, on the survival of species losing their habitats and the human race, now facing floods and famine, conflict and migration as a result or climate of climate change; further that if we do not act now to cut our consumption, to clear up our air pollution, to use renewable energy, to cut plastics and to transform our transport system, it will be too late.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a Climate Emergency Bill to set out in detail as to how the United Kingdom will play its full roll nationally and globally to meet its commitments made in Paris in 2016, and to ensure it overhauls its consumption of all resources to end the climate and environmental crisis and build a sustainable world.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002543]
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, I rise for what is probably the last time for some time, for a number of reasons, to speak on behalf of my constituents about a matter of grave concern to them. We had thought we might have a bit longer to gather signatures, but the calling of a general election and my impending maternity leave have put paid to that. However, we are community that has long been concerned about the situation in Kashmir.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Walthamstow,
Declares that the dispute in Kashmir should be resolved peacefully.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the UK Government to use its international standing to encourage India to engage in a comprehensive and sustained dialogue process with its neighbour Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute, and urge the international community to play its role in securing a just and peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002545]
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (Suffolk)
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
May I, Mr Speaker, add my congratulations to those already given in respect of your elevation, both metaphorically and physically, to the speakership?
Suffolk has a greater than average number of special educational needs and disability assessment cases going to tribunal; poor communication between providers and with parents; a lack of specialist placements; an inadequate resource in the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, which is supposed to provide mental health services; insufficient respite services; a growing gap between the provision described in education, health and care plans and what is actually provided; an acute shortage of autistic spectrum disorder provision; and an overall lack of staff and funding to address these issues, either in mainstream education or in specialist provision.
Since the revisit from Ofsted in January this year, and its report in February, little seems to have been done to hold Suffolk to any action plan that might deal with the failings identified. There has been no increase in monitoring since the failed revisit and no appreciable changes in senior management. Mental health services—or the lack of them—continue to cause distress to young people and their parents, and young people are harming themselves or falling into greater mental health need while they wait for support that does not come.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, may I, too, publicly congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election as the Speaker of the House? It was a great pleasure to watch that.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this issue is critical, not only for him and his constituents but for me and mine, and the Minister has responsibility for it. The time allocated for direct contact time with educational psychologists is just 15 hours a year for pupils at one primary in Northern Ireland. For children dealing with anxiety and other social issues, that is simply not enough. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the provision of support and early intervention in respect of social anxiety issues can positively impact lifelong mental health, and reduce the need for further intervention in high schools at a greater cost? In other words: do it now, do it early.
Sandy Martin
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct; he has put his finger right on the main point.
Two days ago, in response to the news that I had secured this debate, I received an email from a distressed parent. She says:
“My son has been out of school for 3 years in December. He was signed off by our consultant paediatrician as medically unfit for mainstream school. He has an Education & Health Care Plan. He has all the paperwork to state he has autism with a pathological demand avoidance profile but he cannot sit through the formal assessment as it runs for too long and he finds it too difficult to cope in the situation.
I have contacted the local authority so many times with regard to providing my son with an education; I have put in formal complaints and yet he still has no education.
I applied to the tribunal last December as the Local Authority insisted in his Education Health Care Plan that mainstream schooling was suitable for him, but they simultaneously refused to name a school he could go to.
The tribunal have made numerous orders ordering the Local Authority to name a school for my son but these have all been ignored.
We went to the tribunal last Tuesday, 29th October, at which the Judge told the Local Authority that they need to name a school on his education and health care plan and that the tribunal had to be adjourned until 13th December because of this, adding more of a delay to my son getting an education. He is now 12 years old.
My son is still without an education and we are in limbo.
My son deserves the correct education but he has been thoroughly let down by the education system. The strain of fighting the system tires you out but you still have to keep going. It should not be like this—every child has the right to an education. We keep being told that it is not the label that counts, but the child’s needs. Well we know our son needs an education but we cannot access any support for him to get that education because he doesn’t seem to have the right label.”
I had already secured this debate when that message was sent to me. The reason why I applied for the debate was that parent after parent has written to me, emailed me, met with me at my surgeries, and invited me to visit their child’s school or visit the school that their child would be going to if they had enough support in place, or the school that would be ideal for the child, but which has no more capacity.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, but before I make my point, may I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, for the first time on your appointment? I think you will be a brilliant arbiter in this Chamber.
To the hon. Gentleman, who is also my neighbour, may I just say that I, too, have cases in my constituency that are very challenging? Does he accept that underneath all of this is resource, that it is the long-term funding formula that has caused us to receive such a small allocation, and that by fixing that we actually have at least a chance to see significant increases in SEND funding in Suffolk?
Sandy Martin
I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree that underlying all of this is a lack of resource, but I think the problem is not the formula, but the overall lack of resource.
I have met parents whose child had been placed in another county hundreds of miles away. I have met parents whose child is taken to school every day, but then regularly leaves the premises without any sort of supervision to prevent them from leaving. I have met parents who desperately want their child to receive some specialist support, but who believe that he or she is just left in the corner of a classroom for most periods because the school does not have the resources to provide the extra care required.
For years, resources for child mental health, school health visitors, children’s centres, mainstream schools, county educational services, school transport and family social workers have been more and more tightly rationed, and the situation for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities has suffered as a result of all of these cuts.
For children on the autistic spectrum, the situation is dire. It can often take years to get a diagnosis. Child and adolescent mental health services often tell parents that they need to get an initial assessment from the school first, but in most cases the school has nobody on the staff who is qualified to make such an assessment and will pass the buck back to CAMHS. In some cases, such as the one I mentioned at the start, the child will never be in the school to be assessed, because one of the defining characteristics of many mental disabilities is the refusal to submit to stressful situations.
Even once a child is properly assessed and their needs are understood, there is nothing like the necessary range of provision for those needs in Suffolk, and in particular, in my constituency of Ipswich. I am not a supporter of free schools as a model for educational delivery, but I still supported a free school for children on the autistic spectrum simply because there is a crying need for that provision and there does not seem to be any other way of obtaining it. Such a school has still not been built.
It is not just a problem for children with mental disabilities. There are 637 deaf children in Suffolk. Far too many of them are not receiving an adequate education. Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission carried out a local area SEND inspection in 2016 and found significant failings. The revisit in January of this year found that, in this area of provision, there was still not sufficient progress. It is not surprising that little progress has been made for deaf children. The numbers of trained teachers of the deaf in Suffolk have fallen by 8% in the past six years. The county is now trying to change the way that social care support is provided for deaf children, but it is not involving the families in the design of the new provision. “Nothing about us without us” is not just a woke slogan—if we do not include service providers in the redesign of a service, we will not be able to understand the problems and frustrations that have led to the need to redesign the service in the first place. The problem is not just confined to children who are profoundly deaf. There is very little provision for speech and language therapy in schools in Ipswich, and the few schools that were able to provide it in the past have had to think very carefully about whether they can continue to do so because of the inadequacy of the funding regime.
In many cases, parents are being forced to seek private provision because they cannot obtain anything through the educational system or the NHS. Both our educational system and our NHS were founded on the principle that education and health should not just be the preserve of the rich. It is, quite frankly, appalling that whether a child gets the support that they need to lead a satisfying and productive life can depend on whether their parents have sufficient resources to buy them the help that they need.
The Ofsted report from February this year is not encouraging. It identifies three areas of serious weakness that were all previously identified in 2016. The first is the poor timeliness, integration and quality of SEND statutory assessments and plans. This includes when statements of special educational needs are transferred to education, health and care plans, and the delivery of subsequent individual packages of support. The second is the lack of local understanding of the support available and the poor quality of the local offer, including access to child and adolescent mental health services support across the area. This leads to high levels of parental complaints and anxiety. In this section of the report, Ofsted particularly points out the long waiting times for assessments for autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and states that current pathways do not support best practice in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. The third area of weakness is the lack of joint working to monitor, quality assure and maximise the effectiveness of the work undertaken to improve outcomes for children in a diverse range of settings and circumstances. In all three cases, Ofsted says leaders have not made sufficient progress to address the serious weaknesses.
Underfunded schools, a failing mental health service in Suffolk and a lack of adequate leadership have all come together to produce wholly inadequate SEND provision in Ipswich. This is not just about the provision of nice-to-have services. It is about us failing people and leaving them with ruined lives.
Let me describe some of the situations in which young people in my constituency have found themselves. One student was transferred from a statement of special educational needs to an education, health and care plan. The plan is supposed to give access to medical and social care services as well as appropriate education, yet the entire preparation work for the plan fell to teachers who did not have the qualifications, time or support to provide such a plan. This is one of the areas that have been assessed as failing by Ofsted.
There is also a student in my constituency who has profound difficulties, and would respond well to music and other arts stimuli, but who is being taught to recognise coins, even though there is no likelihood they will ever be able to shop for themselves. Another student built up a good rapport with a midday supervisor in the school, but then lost that personal support when the midday supervision service was outsourced and the staff were forced to spend time logging their activities on paper to ensure that they were fulfilling the contract, instead of interacting with the children.
Mainstream schools do not have the resources to deal with the issue. Teachers are already near breaking point, and some are leaving the profession as a result. Analysis by the school cuts coalition shows that 94% of schools in Ipswich still have less income per pupil in real terms than in 2015—£290 per pupil less. The results-driven competition between schools leads to decisions that particularly hit SEND pupils. The local authority does not have the resources to deal with the issue. The invaluable county educational advisory service, which used to be one of the jewels in Suffolk’s crown and led to the county reaching the top quartile for educational provision between 2000 and 2005, has all but disappeared. The county no longer has sufficient powers to properly control admissions, exclusions, recruitment or the allocation of funds within schools. The Ofsted report repeatedly blames “local area services” or “local leaders”, but it cannot pinpoint blame because, in reality, nobody is in charge anymore.
There are things that the county could do, but unfortunately it is doing the opposite. Improved children’s centres would go a long way to helping in early diagnosis of childhood problems and, in many cases, in preventing those problems from becoming embedded. As identified in the Local Government Association report on the subject in January, Suffolk County Council is in the process of closing many of its children’s centres and converting the rest to hubs, which will supposedly cater for young people aged nought to 19, although what a newborn baby has in common with a 19-year-old is somewhat beyond me—unless, of course, the 19-year-old is the parent.
Whenever hon. Members raise the issue of systemic difficulties in various services, it is normal for the Minister or Secretary of State to explain patiently that everything is now improving and the picture is based on past errors that are now being rectified. I do not believe that in the case of SEND provision in Suffolk. I believe that there are profound problems in the way in which the county approaches the issue, and that there is an underlying belief at Suffolk County Council and in other related services such as CAMHS that, somehow or other, the affected parents are just making things up and the problems will eventually just go away. I do not know what the answers are, but I do know that SEND provision in Suffolk is failing children and their parents in Ipswich, and that doing nothing is not an answer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Michelle Donelan)
Congratulations on your new position, Mr Speaker. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) on securing this important debate.
Supporting children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities is one of my key priorities, so let me begin by stressing that I know and recognise that some families and teachers are unhappy, and both I and the Department are committed to listening to them. While I am pleased that we have been able to secure an additional £780 million in high-needs funding for next year, we do realise that this is about much more than just money. I want to ensure that children and young people with SEND have the best chance in life and that the system supports them to do this. That is why we have recently launched the SEND review, which will look at how the system has evolved since 2014 and how it can be made better for all families.
About 1.3 million children have special educational needs. In Suffolk alone, 4,735 children and young people have education, health and care plans, and a further 11,369 are in receipt of SEND support for Suffolk schools. The Government are clear that our ambition for these children is exactly the same as it is for all children: we want them to reach their full potential in school and college and to find employment and lead happy and fulfilled lives. I have seen this happening in my own constituency. The 2018 Ofsted-CQC SEND inspection report for Wiltshire said:
“Young people are increasingly well supported as they move into adult life.”
In 2014, we introduced major reforms of the SEND system to improve and streamline the support provided to children and young people with SEND, and to put their needs, and those of their families, at the heart of the SEND system. Local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and education, health and care providers have all been working hard to implement the reforms, and we recently heard from the Education Committee that they remain “the right ones”. But it is important to note that most parents think that they get a lot of support through parent carer forums, which are providing a crucial voice in local SEND decision making.
The Ofsted and CQC inspections of SEND services will see all local areas in England inspected by 2021, and they have identified a range of strengths in the way that local areas are delivering the reforms. The reforms made it clear that SEND decision making must be informed by, and co-produced with, children, young people and parents, and we have played our part in securing that. We have invested heavily in the development of parent carer forums in every local authority, and forums have received £2.3 million in grant funding each year since the reforms were introduced. Every local authority has in place an information, advice and support service that provides impartial, free advice for families. We know from SEND inspections that in most local areas families really value that advice and support.
We know that most children with SEND are educated within mainstream schools and colleges, and we have committed to maintaining and developing still further an inclusive mainstream system. This really can work, as I have seen in my own constituency, where Abbeyfield School’s latest inspection showed that the experiences of their children are proving effective for all. So to support inclusion, my Department has awarded a two-year contract to the National Association of Special Educational Needs and University College London, on behalf of the Whole School SEND consortium, to help to embed SEND in school improvement and equip the workforce to deliver high-quality teaching across all areas of SEND.
As I said, I know and appreciate that there are concerns, particularly from parents, about the way that the reforms have been delivered across the country. While strengths have been reported in every local area, SEND inspections have also identified weaknesses in many local services. This does include Suffolk, whose inspection report was published in January 2017, as alluded to by the hon. Gentleman. That report identified issues with SEND leadership and governance, the timeliness and integration of needs assessment systems, and the poor quality of the local offer. Nobody, for one minute, is denying or underestimating the importance of those grave concerns. Where there have been concerns, we have worked with partners, including NHS England. Support and challenge are offered to all areas required to produce an action plan through regular advice and monitoring from the Department for Education and NHS England advisers and through access to funded training opportunities and resources.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend is right to be open and clear about the challenges that we face in Suffolk, but does she agree that it partly reflects the long-standing impact of the funding formula, which has given our county a very low share of overall funding? Can she assure me that we will not only provide extra funding next year but back SEND children in Suffolk in the years to come?
Michelle Donelan
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been an assiduous campaigner on this issue, as well as others. Of course it is important that we get the right resources and funding into areas, including Suffolk, so that they have the tools and ability to ensure that SEND children have the same opportunities, choices and chances in life.
I recognise that there have been problems in Suffolk, but I want to reassure the hon. Member for Ipswich that, despite what he said, we are monitoring progress closely. This remains a key priority for our Department. We will hold a formal progress review meeting later this month, to which stakeholders and parents will be invited. Despite what he said, Ofsted and the CQC highlighted several improvements since the original inspection, particularly in the area of governance and leadership, from which one would expect the rest to follow. Improvements were also found in access to speech and language therapy; positive work by outreach and inclusion services; activity to reduce exclusions; and the active role and contribution of the Suffolk parent carer forum in shaping the development of services.
Many areas are facing pressure on their high needs budgets, which the hon. Gentleman stressed. That is why we recently announced £780 million in additional high needs funding for next year, which is an increase of 12% compared with this year, bringing the total amount for supporting those in need to £7.2 billion. Every local authority will see an increase in high needs funding of at least 8% per head of population aged two to 18, with some seeing gains of up to 17% per head. In Suffolk, the provisional high needs funding allocation for 2020-21 is £75 million—a 17% per head increase, and a staggering amount, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome. In May 2019, we launched a call for evidence on financial arrangements for SEND and alternative provision. We are currently considering the responses and will look at the high needs formula in due course, to consider whether any changes are needed.
Creating the right number of school places in the right settings is a challenge. That is why I am pleased that Suffolk County Council is developing more than 800 new specialist education places between 2020 and 2025. That will include the establishment of three new specialist schools, up to 36 specialist units attached to mainstream schools and an in-county specialist setting for children with the most complex needs. As part of the capital programme, Suffolk will open a social, emotional and mental health school in Bury St Edmunds, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) was instrumental in ensuring. It is expected that those schools will open across the next two to three years. Alongside Suffolk’s capital programme, through the DFE scheme, it is opening two special free schools in Ipswich.
The hon. Gentleman has raised some important concerns today, and I once again thank him for securing the debate. The Government have invested heavily in reforms of the system for SEND support, and local areas are all working hard to ensure that they are a great success. However, we know there is further to go, and we remain determined to tackle the issues that exist. That is one of the reasons why we announced the SEND review. The review will consider how the system can provide the highest quality of support to enable children and young people with SEND to thrive and to prepare for adulthood, including employment. It will ensure that quality of provision is the same across the country and that there is joined-up thinking across health, care and education services. Finally, it will ensure that public money is spent in an efficient and effective way to deliver for all children.
Mr Speaker, I am delighted to have the final word of this Parliament on my passion for education, which I have always said has the ability to transform lives for all children, including those with special educational needs. I must stress that I am committed to work relentlessly with my colleagues across the Government to ensure that the system delivers for all children—those in Suffolk and those up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(5 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
We allow eggs to be imported only if they meet our marketing standard, which is currently an EU marketing standard. If in future a third country were to meet that standard, which is set out separately in law, there would need to be a body that attests to the fact. That is a power that the Secretary of State must have in future, as the EU will no longer be able to do that for us.
[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 21 October 2019, c. 10.]
Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice):
Errors have been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct remarks should have been:
George Eustice
We allow eggs that do not meet standards equivalent to EU marketing standards to be imported only if their packs are marked accordingly. If in future a third country were to meet a standard equivalent to the UK standard, which is set out separately in law, there would need to be an authority that attests to the fact. That is a power that the Secretary of State must have in future, as the EU will no longer be able to do that for us.
Health and Social Care
(5 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Last week it was reported that a 16-year-old boy in Milton Keynes tragically died by suicide. His referral to mental health services was rejected because he did not meet the threshold as his mental health problems were not deemed severe enough. This is deeply shocking, and it is clear that too many children are going without the support they need. Will the Minister now match Labour’s commitment to invest in children’s mental health services and to ensure that every secondary school has access to a trained mental health professional?
Ms Dorries
Obviously I cannot comment on an individual case, but what I can say is that the NICE guidelines on assessment for suicide were recently sent out to A&E departments to ensure that people who present with mental health problems are treated holistically and looked at in the round to assess whether they are a suicide risk.
We are investing £2.3 billion in mental health services—more than invested by any previous Government—and a huge amount of that is going towards children and young people. I hope cases such as the one highlighted by the hon. Lady will be a thing of the past. We have turned a corner. We are rolling out these mental health teams and, in the last year alone, 3,000 more people are working with young people and young adults. We have the new training scheme and the school mental health support teams. There is more to be done, but I hope such stories will become a thing of the past.
[Official Report, 29 October 2019, Vol. 667, c. 188.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff).
The correct response should have been:
Ms Dorries
Obviously I cannot comment on an individual case, but what I can say is that the NICE guidelines on assessment for suicide were recently sent out to A&E departments to ensure that people who present with mental health problems are treated holistically and looked at in the round to assess whether they are a suicide risk.
We are investing £2.3 billion in mental health services—more than invested by any previous Government—and a huge amount of that is going towards children and young people. I hope cases such as the one highlighted by the hon. Lady will be a thing of the past. We have turned a corner. We are rolling out these mental health teams and, in the last year alone, 2,300 more people are working with young people and young adults. We have the new training scheme and the school mental health support teams. There is more to be done, but I hope such stories will become a thing of the past.
Tamworth George Bryan Centre
Morrison's supermarket Shirley
University Hospital Monklands
Dispute between HMRC and Roadchef Employees Benefit Trust
Insolvency of London Capital and Finance
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Retail Crime Prevention
(5 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered prevention of retail crime.
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Betts, for the final day of activity in this Parliament. I wanted to raise the issue of retail crime today because it is still an important one that the House needs to consider. I shall discuss a number of matters that I hope will give the Minister food for thought but also provoke responses on some of the key issues that hon. Members collectively have raised in the House during the past couple of years.
I am raising retail crime because it is an important issue—indeed, a key issue—and sadly is often overlooked. The British Retail Consortium, one of the major organisations representing retailers, estimates that the cost of spending by retailers on crime prevention and of losses to the industry as a result of crime is a staggering £1.9 billion each year. That £1.9 billion cost is passed on to us as consumers and is having a major impact on the ability of retailers, at a challenging time on high streets, to make a profit and ensure that they have a profitable and valued business.
Let us consider crime as a whole. More than £700 million has been lost through shoplifting—customer theft—an issue to which I shall return. That represents a 31% rise in shoplifting on the previous year.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend both on securing this debate and on all his campaigning on this issue. He is rightly highlighting the economic cost of retail crime. Does he agree that there is also a human cost to retail crime and that we must do all we can to protect those who work in shops from threats of physical violence?
David Hanson
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I am starting with the financial cost of crime, but I will come in a moment to the key issue, of which the Minister will be aware, of the consultation regarding attacks on shop staff.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. I draw the House’s attention to my membership of and support from both the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB, which represent shop workers in my constituency. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) have mentioned attacks on shop workers. In the Trafford Centre in my constituency, there have also been physical attacks on shoppers—gangs were threatening them with knives. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just protection of shop workers that is a crucial factor in this debate, but the wider protection of the public?
David Hanson
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I had not intended to refer to it in this debate, but self-evidently, in a big shopping area such as the Trafford Centre, policing and security for shoppers, particularly in the run-up to Christmas, is a critical issue, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it today.
As I said, £700 million has been lost because of customer theft alone, and that represents a 31% rise. Some £163 million has been lost via fraud and £15 million via robbery. That is the very hard end of retail crime whereby people walk into shops with shotguns and knives and engage in physical violence—attack shop staff—but also threaten and take valuable resource from shopping. A further £3.4 million has been lost via criminal damage, which can involve people vandalising shops both in the evenings and during the daytime. That is a staggering amount of resource.
The Association of Convenience Stores, which represents 22,000 small shops, estimates that there is a £246 million cost to its sector from retail crime. That is £5,300 per store. Interestingly, there is in effect a 7p crime tax on the cost of an average shop in a convenience store. The cost is being passed on to the consumer—the customer.
My purpose today is to look at three issues. The first is progress on the consultation that we secured from the Home Office earlier this year to look at shop theft generally and at serious crime. Self-evidently, we are in an election period, but, if re-elected, as a Back Bencher I will continue to raise this issue, whoever is in government after 12 December, because it is important.
Let me start with the very important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned—attacks on shop staff. Today and every day, 115 retail staff will be attacked in their workplace while protecting the shopping offer on their retail premises, upholding the legislation that we in this House have passed—on solvents, knives, alcohol and tobacco—and preventing shoplifting in their stores. As my hon. Friend suggested, that is a traumatic event for members of staff. It puts pressure on their mental and physical health. It is not acceptable that 115 colleagues are attacked each day, particularly given that knives, for example, are increasingly a significant weapon on the streets. The industry itself is doing all it can to protect its staff in their workplaces by spending about £1 billion on crime prevention measures, but we are still in a position whereby we need to look at what measures we can put in place to support the staff who are upholding the legislation that we have passed in this House.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about crime prevention measures. Does he not see that there is a difference between the large shops—the Sainsbury’s and so on of this world—and the smaller shops, the small businesses, which have great difficulty in coping with the costs of retail crime? Do we not need a differentiated approach for the two?
David Hanson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Everybody who runs a shop wants their staff to be protected. Large multinational retailers such as Tesco, the Co-op, Sainsbury’s and Asda are caring for their staff, but everybody who runs a shop, be it a corner shop, a one-person shop, or another kind of small shop, wants their staff to be protected at work. That is particularly important when those staff are upholding the legislation that we have passed. When they are threatened by people who want to buy alcohol late at night or early in the morning, when they are threatened for refusing cigarette, solvent or knife sales and when they are threatened for taking action to try to stop shoplifters, it is imperative that we, as the society as a whole, look at what measures we can put in place to help support them.
The Co-op Group recently produced a report entitled “‘It’s not part of the job’: Violence and verbal abuse towards shop workers”. It shows clearly that violence against shop staff has long-term consequences for them and their communities. I know the Minister will know that this is a key issue, but it is one that we need to raise, recognise, and highlight, and we need to give a commitment to those staff on the ground to ensure that they are protected as a whole.
USDAW, which, like my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), I am proud to be a member of—I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—runs annually the Freedom from Fear campaign, and in the run-up to Christmas it will again run the Respect for Shopworkers campaign. Of the 6,725 shop workers surveyed by USDAW in the past year, 64% faced verbal abuse at work, 40% were threatened by a customer, and 280, on average, were assaulted every day. That is not acceptable.
I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who previously dealt with this issue. We raised it during proceedings on the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. We tabled amendments and called for action in the form of a review of attacks on shop staff. The then Minister agreed to that review during a roundtable meeting with the Co-op, USDAW and other trade unions, the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. That review has been undertaken; it has taken evidence. There have been an awful lot of consultation responses. The previous Minister promised to respond to that evidence in the course of November. It is now November, so I wanted to put that on the record and get some feedback from the current Minister as to where we are with that action. We are in a politically divisive time, but I hope the Minister and his team see this as an important issue on which we can have cross-party co-operation. If he can tell us what he intends to do, if the Government are re-elected, that would be welcome. I know what I would like to do if Labour is elected as the next Government—we would take action—but it is important that we discuss these issues today.
Kate Green
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to understand, should the Minister’s party be returned to government, what its view is on the use of facial recognition technology, which has been tried in the Trafford Centre, but is controversial? It has the potential to address crime, but we need to know what protections would be in place for personal privacy.
David Hanson
My hon. Friend has put an important issue on the table for the Minister to respond to.
In June, 50 senior retail figures, chief executives of the UK’s most recognisable retailers, the general secretary of USDAW, the chief executive of the Charity Retail Association and the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium all signed a letter calling for legislation in response to the Government consultation. Can we hear about the consultation and the potential legislation, and about what the Government intend to do, so that we can make a judgment about that? Whoever wins this election—that is for the British people—we need to know what measures are in place to take this issue forward.
I met with the Charity Retail Association—not just retail shops as a whole—which wrote to me on 5 June:
“We look forward to joining your list of…organisations in your fight for better protection for shop workers from violence or abuse.”
I wrote to the Minister earlier this year on the consultation that he is now considering. He responded on 3 September:
“Early analysis suggests that, as you highlight in your letter, the vast majority of respondents believe that violence and abuse toward shop staff has increased in recent years and that many respondents are unaware of the measures and tools available to tackle it and provide support for victims.”
My challenge to the Minister is this. Given that those respondents believe violence and abuse has gone up, and they want to see action from the Government, what will the Government do?
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing such an excellent debate. Having worked for USDAW for nearly 20 years, I have spoken to thousands of shop workers who have suffered abuse. They often felt that their employer was not doing enough to be on the side of their staff who were facing abuse. That has happened over decades. Does he agree that the Government should take a lead on this and make it clear that it is never right to abuse or threaten staff on the frontline?
David Hanson
I absolutely agree, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s efforts in this area. It is right that the Government should do that. I am looking to the Minister to show political leadership on this. For example, 98% of the current police and crime commissioners’ policing plans make no reference to shop theft, 63% make no reference to business crime, 72% make no reference to prolific offending and 79% make no reference to addiction, drug treatment or drug recovery, which are key to preventing shop theft. What pressure will the Minister put on police and crime commissioners for their actions?
The Minister will probably have received a letter today, dated 1 November, from James Lowman, chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores, supporting the broad thrust of this debate and the consultation, and asking for legislation. The key point from Mr Lowman’s letter that I want to put on the record is this. Since the Government’s consultation began—back through the autumn, summer and spring, to when it was launched—200,000 assaults have taken place on people working in the retail and wholesale sector, in their place of work, because of the issues that we have mentioned around shoplifting and shop theft, and the lack of prevention of those activities.
Mr Lowman makes the valid point that his organisation represents 33,500 shops, including the Co-op, BP petrol stations, Spar, Nisa and Londis—a whole range of shops. They are united in their wish for a Government to take action on this issue and introduce legislation on shop theft and attacks on shop staff. I hope the Minister will give some indication on that in due course.
I also want to raise the issue of shoplifting as a whole. In the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, the definition of shop theft was revisited. At the time, I was the shadow Police Minister. I objected to that change and we pressed the matter to a Division. “Stolen goods from shops” was defined as goods worth £200 or less, which meant that such cases would therefore not necessarily go to court. That has had a dramatic impact on shop theft. Someone could walk into a supermarket today and steal £199-worth of goods and potentially not face court, but instead face an out-of-court disposal. I happen to think that it is important that people go to court and face the consequences of their crime. We need to review the threshold.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and her colleagues will be in the Minister’s position shortly. After this election, whoever the Minister is, they should review the £200 limit on shoplifting. It is causing, potentially, increased shoplifting, because people know there are few consequences to face, and the police do not follow up on that type of activity, because of their stretched resources—which is something we might come to.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has done so much in this area. I agree that reducing shoplifting to the status of a parking offence has sent entirely the wrong signal. Does he agree that one of the perverse effects has been on the insurance industry? The police will say, “You have insurance.” If a small retailer makes a claim, its insurance goes up and the customer pays more. The shoplifter is the one person getting away with it, but everyone else is paying for the crime.
David Hanson
That is another knock-on consequence of retail crime and emphasises the point I want to make to the Minister. This is not an inconsequential or victim-free crime. The victims of shop theft and shop retail crime are the staff on the frontline, who are upholding the law, the shop owners and businesses, who take a hit to their profits, the customers, who pay more, and the insurance companies and other businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned, which face the consequences of those actions.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his brilliant work over the years to support shop workers and the way that he has tried to get the Government to change their approach to the law. The wider damage done by crimes against shop workers affects staff, businesses and, at a time when retail is struggling, communities. Does he agree that, for all those reasons, if this Government are re-elected, they must act? If the Labour party is elected to Government, we will take the action required.
David Hanson
I am not a Front Bencher. My Front-Bench days are over by choice. I did the Minister’s job at one point. We had 21,000 more police officers, at that stage, who helped to protect victims from crime. I cannot speak for a future Labour Government, but I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) will put in place measures to improve policing and legislation to protect shop staff, and to reduce retail crime, which impacts badly across our community and remains a hidden crime.
I have mentioned the policing plan and the policing response. I make no criticism of the police for being unable to respond at the same level as in the past, because when there are 21,000 fewer police officers than there were 10 years ago, that puts pressure on the police. The Government have said they will introduce 20,000 new police officers. I would like to know from the Minister how many police officers have been recruited since that pledge was made. What is his plan for when those 20,000 will be recruited? Why is he still putting forward proposals to have fewer police officers than when I held his job 10 years ago? What priority will he put on ensuring that police forces tackle retail crime, supported by legislation? These are key issues in any forthcoming discussion on this subject.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I, too, commend my right hon. Friend for the immense amount of work he has done over the years on this topic. Does he agree that policing is particularly relevant in rural areas, where we are seeing a massive loss in coverage by shops, particularly little independent shops? In my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, we have communities with a single shop—the one shop in the village—and they are the ones that are most vulnerable to retail crime.
David Hanson
They are, and as the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) said earlier, the additional costs of CCTV, head cameras, recording equipment or protective measures such as shutters fall disproportionately on smaller shops. When I was doing the Minister’s job, we had a scheme to support small businesses to prevent shop theft and other types of theft. I would like to hear what he proposes to do, should he be re-elected, on those issues.
I want to see the response to the consultation, I want to see more police officers on the street, and I want to see help and support to raise awareness of the importance of tackling this crime. However, much shop theft is also driven by alcohol or drug abuse and mental health issues. There is a real challenge for the Minister and the Government—again, I compare and contrast previous Governments with the current Government—in supporting those who face difficult challenges and whose shoplifting and shop theft, and maybe even their consequential violence, is linked to a problem that is solvable and that can be dealt with by society as a whole.
I simply make the point that in 2014, for example, there were 8,734 drug treatment orders in the community, but in 2018 there were only 4,889. The number of drug treatment orders given to serial offenders has almost halved in the five years between 2014 and 2019, while alcohol treatment orders have gone down from 5,500 to 3,300. People who needed a criminal justice outcome to their criminal activity—a community-based solution of a drug or alcohol treatment order—have seen the number of those orders fall dramatically in that period. That might mean that more people are in prison, which certainly takes them off the streets but does not necessarily rehabilitate them. Nevertheless, it is important that the Minister looks at how we can increase drug and alcohol treatment orders and the use of mental health orders for people in the community who are undertaking shoplifting because their treatment for alcohol or drugs is not being provided to the extent that it was. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, the shadow Minister, will look at that.
Again, in my time as Police Minister—I am going back 10 years—we had a prevention strategy as well as a policing strategy. The strategy was about trying to deal with the alcohol and drug problems that were driving offences, in addition to liaising with police in the community who knew who the prolific and serial offenders were locally and taking action accordingly. It is quite possible to find someone who is involved in 10 shoplifting events a month. Reducing those 10 to one through a drug treatment order has a massive impact on the crimewave in a local community. The Minister needs to explain what the Government’s future plans are.
Finally, I want to touch on the issue of serious crime. We have talked about shoplifting, which is serious; we have talked about violence against staff, which is serious. Sadly, however, there has also been an upswing in armed robberies at petrol stations, post offices, shops and supermarkets. I believe that the National Crime Agency should be focusing on this issue, driving down armed robberies, breaking up gangs and working hard to identify perpetrators.
Although I do not have time to go into that issue in detail, I simply put to the Minister three final points. First, he needs to give us the Government’s response to the consultation. Shop staff, shop businesses and shop organisations are unanimous on the need for legislation and a Government response. He should now say what he is going to do, because I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister will say that Labour will act if we are in government. Secondly, the Minister needs to review the £200 shoplifting threshold—as will my hon. Friend, if she holds his post in future—because it is having a damaging effect on shoplifting as a whole. Thirdly, we need a review to look at the number and type of organised criminal gang attacks on shops, because they are rising, causing fear among staff and damaging our communities as a whole.
This is an important issue. Today is the last day of our parliamentary Session, but I wanted to raise this issue because it matters to the people who work in shops, to the businesses that run those shops and to the consumers who spend their money in those shops. And it should matter to the Minister, as it matters to me and my hon. Friend, the shadow Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. Looking at the number of Members who want to speak, I will give a guideline speech limit of six minutes for each Member. If Members exceed that, those at the end of the debate will get less time.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.
It is typical of the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) to approach this subject in the way that he has; he has stressed the need for cross-party action. I am not anticipating—unusually—that he and I will be returned here at the general election, but if we are then I would very much like to work with him on sorting out some of the issues that he has raised, and I praise him for securing this debate.
Going shopping should be a pleasure; it should be full of the excitement of trying to find a bargain or being able to negotiate with a shop owner, and I do not think we should do anything that takes away that pleasure. Whatever we do should be seen within that context.
The point that I made in my intervention earlier is crucial. The measures that we can suggest as the solution for companies of the size of Tesco or Waitrose will be completely different to the measures that we can suggest for smaller businesses. In my constituency, although we have a Waitrose and a Tesco, we also have a vast array of smaller businesses. In fact, the majority of the businesses in the high streets in both Henley and Thame are small shops, many of them family-owned, and they are my greatest concern in how we tackle this issue. I am not questioning anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said today, but I am merely pointing out that we need to consider the best approach.
For example, if we consider some of the suggestions that have been made, such as using CCTV or some of the other more developed techniques to control retail crime, we see that they are quite expensive for small and medium-sized businesses. I do not think that a strategy that just takes the whole of the retail sector and applies solutions right across the board is at all appropriate for smaller companies.
We all know, and the right hon. Gentleman made this point very acutely, that shoplifting affects the productivity and competitiveness of smaller shops. A few years ago, a study showed that even the smallest amount of shoplifting can have a major impact on the profitability of these shops. The effect is much greater than the percentage suggests, and that is particularly so in smaller shops where the margins are tighter. That is where we need to concentrate on tackling this crime.
I want to highlight several other issues. It could be said that credit card fraud is a problem just for the credit card companies, but it is not; it is also a problem for small and medium-sized retailers, and a much more joined-up approach to tackle that is essential. Allied with that is the use of mobile payment technologies. I know there are huge benefits to mobile payment technologies, and I acknowledge that I have taken advantage of those benefits in my own shopping, but we have to take a firm line in mitigating the risks of mobile payment technologies when it comes to the proposed solutions.
The points that have been raised about attacks on staff and shoppers are valid. We must do everything we can to protect those individuals. I have no experience of being attacked while out shopping, and I would like to keep it that way. I would like that not only for me, but for everyone who goes shopping. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, drug-related cultures have a keen impact on this issue, and that ties in with the statement he made about attacks on shops to get alcohol and cigarettes. The two are often linked, and we need to tackle them together to sort them out.
My final point is that it is despicable that anyone should target charity shops, which exist for charitable purposes, for theft. We should try to do anything we can to help them. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take forward a cross-party approach to the issue, then I am in. I am happy to work with him. He is a colleague of mine on the Justice Committee, so we have worked together enormously on these matters, including some of the justice issues he raised in his speech. I thank him for bringing this debate to the House.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson), who is a great parliamentarian and a great champion of shop workers. Like him, I declare the support I receive from USDAW and the GMB.
The first cost of violence against shop workers is the cost to shoppers. My right hon. Friend was right to refer to the work done by the Association of Convenience Stores, which suggested that 7p of the cost every time anyone shops is a consequence of violence against shop workers.
The second cost is the human cost of violence against shop workers. I will tell a story about when I was walking in my right hon. Friend’s giant footsteps as shadow policing Minister four years ago. I addressed the USDAW conference as part of its Freedom from Fear campaign, and alongside me was a shop manager who had worked for 15 years in a particular shop. One night, a group of youths came in and were very abusive towards a black security guard. The manager went over, managed it and they left. The following night, yet more of them came back. When the manager went to the security guard’s aid, because he was being attacked, he was himself attacked so violently that he died. Mercifully, he was resuscitated on the spot by the ambulance service. What was so heartbreaking was that he told a story about how he loved playing football with his son and loved going mountain biking. He said, “Jack, I’ll never be able to do that again.” He is a fine young man, and he is never able to do that again.
We see the consequences nationwide, including on Erdington high street, where there are increasing problems of violence against shop workers and crime and antisocial behaviour. One of the impacts of that is that I get people saying to me, “I am reluctant to shop locally because I fear going down the high street.” That cannot be right.
What can we do? My right hon. Friend has focused on the need for action. First, shop workers are public servants. They are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Secondly, violence against shop workers needs to be properly and fully recognised in local police plans. The statistics read out earlier are shocking, but not entirely surprising if 21,000 police officers have been taken off the streets. The statistics need to be recognised in police plans. Thirdly, we need more prosecutions, sending an unmistakable message that those who commit violence against shop workers do so at their peril. Fourthly, a clear message needs to be sent by the law. On the one hand, there is the nonsense of the £200 limit—my right hon. Friend ably advocated for tackling that—but on the other, we have a legal framework with three categories of crime and culpability and 19 aggravating factors. We need a specific offence that sends an unmistakeable message.
My right hon. Friend was also right about the importance of preventive measures. My experience is like his: some of those involved in shoplifting and violence are themselves vulnerable individuals and everything possible needs to be done to deter and deflect them from the path of crime, in particular crime against shop workers.
In conclusion, my right hon. Friend was right to make an appeal to Government. There is common ground that such crime is completely unacceptable, but it must be tackled with the urgency it requires, including—crucially—resource and more prosecutions. I hope that when the Minister responds, he says, “We get it and we are determined to act.”
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to you, Mr Betts, for giving me the opportunity to speak. Like others, I praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) for once again bringing the House’s attention to this important issue. He rightly took time out to praise USDAW, the campaigning union. It is a particularly strong campaigning union on this issue, and I acknowledge the financial support it gives me. He also rightly praised the work of the Co-operative Group, which I know well as a member of the Co-operative party. The work of USDAW and the Co-op Group has, in very different ways, served to push the issue up the political agenda, and long may that continue, given what little action has been taken to date.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) rightly raised the impact of retail crime on small businesses in our communities. Looking at the small businesses, as well as the big retail concerns, in my constituency, we can see that Harrow is no longer a manufacturing town. The businesses based in Harrow are predominantly retail. Many of them work on very small margins, which he alluded to, and the significant increase in shoplifting has put some of those businesses at risk. I will come back to that in a moment.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn set out, the rise in violence has had a profound impact on many of those who work in our shops. They are public servants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) rightly said, and they deserve the protection of all of us in this place. Retail crime impacts not only on the individual shop worker or business, but on our communities. There is a sense that the area is less safe to enjoy and that businesses might leave, and the strength of district shopping centres is deteriorating, which is what drew me to this debate. During a conversation with a manager, I was staggered to hear that, in the 18 months following the announcement that the major police station in my constituency would be closed, there was a 20% increase in shoplifting. According to UKCrimeStats, the number of shoplifting offences in my constituency since 2011-12 has trebled, which is a remarkable increase, by any stretch of the imagination.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn rightly raised the issue of violent crime. In my constituency, the number of violent incidents has almost doubled, which is hardly surprising given that considerable cuts to Metropolitan police funding have resulted in 30% of police officers disappearing from the streets of Harrow since 2010. We need stronger deterrents against attacks on retail workers. I join my right hon. Friend in urging the Government to update us on the scale of the responses to the call for evidence that closed in June. I remain strongly of the view that we need a clear deterrent against violence in shops. I do not understand why a specific offence cannot be created. It is staggering that the losses resulting from retail crime and the counter-crime prevention measures that businesses have to take amount to almost £2 billion. Mothercare is the latest example of a major chain potentially having to go into administration, and that brings home the scale of the impact not only on individual members of staff, but on our communities.
Finally, I have two specific points. An extra £1 million from the Metropolitan police budget for Harrow West would enable a return to the ward-based teams of a sergeant, two police constables and three police community support officers, who could gather intelligence about crime within our area, find out who is committing it, and react more quickly when retail crime takes place. Our courts need more resources to handle cases more quickly. Working with police and crime commissioners, they need to be able to direct efforts to tackle the root causes behind some of the retail crime, including the drug dependency and mental health issues that others have mentioned.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) on outlining the major points.
I want to say one thing to the Minister: the £200 de minimis level is now so counterproductive that it is causing as many problems as it solves. I accept that it is not easy to get a prosecution. It has to go through the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, but the problem now, as was said earlier—and I have talked to numerous people—is that I face losing shops. Perhaps £200 does not sound much, but a succession of £200 losses causes difficulties because the same businesses get hit time after time. I have had instances where people who take whatever they take wave at the CCTV camera on the way out, and a member of the shop’s staff has to decide whether to intervene, with the possibility of violence against them, or allow the perpetrator to leave. That is why the £200 de minimis level is wrong. If someone steals, they should face the possibility of prosecution, no matter what the shop’s circumstances are. It is particularly problematic for smaller shops, because they are hit much more regularly. The bigger shops have the means to bear down and prosecute in their own right if the police choose not to prosecute.
I want to commend two organisations. The all-party parliamentary group on retail crime has been very valuable. There are many all-party groups. They spread themselves around and dilute our ability to do things, but the APPG on retail crime has been valuable. I am close to the Association of Convenience Stores. I have met representatives on many occasions, and I am told that shops in Stroud have lost an estimated £184,816 because of retail crime. The appeal has to be made to police and crime commissioners, although they cannot deal with the operational stuff. We have a very good police and crime commissioner in Gloucestershire. Martin Surl has taken up this issue and made it clear that he will be supportive, but we lack police numbers. Far too often the police either do not turn up at all or they turn up very late. They are incredibly sympathetic because they know what has happened and they know about the impact on the owners and staff, but they say it is impossible to do much about it.
We need to get rid of the de minimis level. We have to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, as was said some years ago. All the issues to do with mental health and drug and alcohol abuse are integrated into the whole problem, but we cannot allow the crimes to carry on, or most of our convenience stores will disappear. That would be tragic in a rural area, because that store is often the last shop in the village, and such stores serve a community purpose. Can we therefore get rid of the £200 de minimis level? If the Minister agrees, I will be happy as I go through the election.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) on securing it. There are not many debates in Westminster Hall when he and I are not together, and I am very pleased to participate in this one, so I thank him for securing it. I also thank him for all the hard work he did when he was a Northern Ireland Minister and I was on the council—which was not yesterday.
As I have previously highlighted in this Chamber, although the costs in my constituency are not massive, retail crime does have massive consequences. Whether someone steals biscuits from the local pound shop or creates and distributes fake money in the lead-up to Christmas, it affects our local businesses.
Over the weekend, a shop in the town centre of Newtownards contacted me about a spate of petty crime involving the theft of alcohol. Such crimes are committed by young men who do indeed wave to the CCTV camera on the way out. They seem oblivious to the possibility of getting caught, although they have changed their tactics slightly and now use young girls to go and do the same thing. The shop staff are fearful of stopping them. The ladies who mostly man the counters are reluctant to try to detain someone, for fear of violence. They did not sign up to confront people, but to work in the store and do what they do. The Library has supplied information. The issue of the £200, which the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) and others have mentioned, needs to be addressed.
The businesses on our high streets need every penny they earn. I encourage people to shop locally when possible. I once saw a sign saying that research shows that £10 spent in a local independent shop means that up to an additional £50 goes back into the local economy. That is simply because those shop owners put the money we spend back into the local community by going to local pubs and restaurants and so on, thus circulating the money and allowing the community to thrive. Some of us shop locally to sow into our local economy, so retail crime is a local issue. People abuse and steal from their own community and it cannot be tolerated.
The Business Crime Partnership launched its business crime survey in September. I look forward to reading the responses. I agree with the development manager of the Federation of Small Businesses Northern Ireland, Mairaid McMahon, who said:
“Crimes against small firms, contrary to what some may think, are certainly not ‘victimless’. The average cost of a crime to a business is almost £3,000…and when additional negative impacts such as reputational damage, lost time and delayed business activity are factored in, it quickly adds up to a significant barrier to growth, or in the worst cases a threat to their survival.”
That is certainly what it means for small shops. She went on to say:
“Having worked with the Business Crime Partnership we know that tackling these crimes are a priority for the justice system, but we need a stronger evidence base to ensure that resources are being targeted effectively. We encourage all businesses to complete the Survey to enable us to capture the true impact of these crimes right across Northern Ireland.”
If the Minister remains in post after the election, perhaps he could look at that survey and factor it into the process.
Aodhán Connolly, the director of the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium said:
“For our members the combined cost of spending on crime prevention and losses from crime to the retail industry across the UK is substantial and more importantly every day, including weekends, 115 colleagues are attacked, with many more threatened. That is why we are members of the Northern Ireland Business Crime Partnership, to make NI a safer and more competitive place to do business and that is why we are encouraging retailers and all businesses to fill in this survey.”
In short, fill in the survey, ensure that the information is there, and work off the back of that evidentially. He went on to say:
“To fight crime we need to understand how, when and where it is happening and that’s how you can help shape the response to business crime.”
This is an issue for our local businesses. To keep the high street thriving, businesses must be able to pay their bills and wages, and that can happen only if we cut down on retail crime, working hand in hand with the local police force. I was glad to hear that funding will be released for more community policing. That means that officers will be able to arrive quickly at the scenes of crimes, and it sends the message that these small crimes will not be tolerated and that prosecuting them is a priority. We must do all we can to keep our high streets thriving and our local people in employment.
I am proud that I can honestly say that I have never shopped online; I buy only from my local high streets. My wife, of course, will say, “You don’t very often go shopping with me,” but any shopping that I do is probably specific. That is usually what men do. Although I absolutely support our local entrepreneurs with online presences, my pounds are content on the high street. I have a wonderful constituency in Strangford. I do not need to expound the values of Strangford: everyone knows that it is a premier place to go shopping and has everything to offer. Members will understand why I do not need to go any further. We must play our part in tackling high street retail crime, and send the clear message that we support local businesses in spirit, financially and with the full extent of local police, hand in hand together.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) on securing this important debate, and on all the work that he has done on this issue. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding previous support from the trade union GMB. As we are in the run-up to Christmas—as well as something else that is on the horizon—I pay tribute to all those who work in retail, not just at this time of year but all year round, for the important work that they do. I also pay tribute to police officers and community support officers across the country for all that they do in the fight against retail crime to keep our communities and shops safe.
As we have heard, retail crime is becoming increasingly serious and frequent in today’s society. As my right hon. Friend said, the British Retail Consortium’s 2019 retail crime survey reported that last year the total cost to retailers of crime and crime prevention was a staggering £1.9 billion, up 12% from the year before. Customer theft was also up 31% on the previous year. A survey of more than 3,000 retail workers by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, responding to the Government’s call to evidence on retail crime earlier this summer, showed that 62% of respondents had been subjected to verbal or physical abuse, and 80% believed that violence and abuse towards staff have increased in recent years.
Many thousands of retail workers are dedicated, longstanding employees who work in stores that are important assets to their communities, be they small or large. In many areas, such stores are the only place to buy essentials such as milk and bread, to withdraw cash or to send and receive post. The services that many retail workers provide and facilitate are invaluable to local communities, and they should not have to deal with retail crime of any kind, be it verbal abuse, assault or theft. Nobody deserves to go about their job in fear: fear of who may come into the store that day and what may happen; fear that they may be fired from a cruel so-called flexible or zero-hours contract for being the member of staff on the shop floor when cash or stock was lost through theft; or, worst of all, fear of what happens if the police are unable to respond to the incident.
The Government can and must do more, and commit to providing greater protection for retail workers. Constant cuts to police numbers and resources over the past decade—21,000 police officers lost since 2010—with police officer numbers at their lowest levels since the 1980s, have stretched our local police beyond measure and forced such immense pressure on them that they simply cannot attend to incidents being reported. They cannot always maintain visibility in the community, with a presence in town centres or high streets, to protect and reassure retail workers and to deter potential criminals from committing an offence in the first place. Cuts to our local councils have meant that there is now even less funding for them to work with the police and other partners to manage antisocial behaviour and reduce crime, and there are fewer youth workers, social workers and education welfare officers to work with people to ensure that they never turn to crimes such as shoplifting and vandalism.
Retail crime is a serious issue across the country. According to new national crime statistics, in my constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney 567 incidents of shoplifting were reported over the past year. Tory cuts to my local police forces, South Wales Police and Gwent Police, have had a devastating impact on the ability of officers to prevent incidents of retail crime, as they are already stretched in so many other areas. A good number of local schemes are in operation in our communities to prevent and tackle retail crime, such as Shopwatch, but that responsibility should not be solely with the communities or retail workers themselves.
The responsibility is on the Government to introduce legislation for greater legal protection for retail workers, and to give our local police forces the support that they so desperately need to respond to, and prevent, incidents of retail crime, and to reverse the appalling record on it. Today’s debate shows much cross-party support for a solution. The Government can and must do more. Hopefully we will hear some positive news from the Minister about what he plans to do to address this important issue.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) for introducing this important debate. Even on the last day of this Parliament, it is important that both sides of the House look at the position of shop workers in the run-up to Christmas, because crime and violence against them has got worse.
I pay tribute to USDAW, having worked on its Freedom from Fear campaign for many years, and having been instrumental in setting that up. USDAW surveyed its members recently, and found that 80% believe that crime and violence against them are getting worse. It was bad 20 years ago and, as Members across the House have described, we are now seeing more incidents of violence and threatening behaviour with weapons. That is not good enough for shop workers, who provide a valuable service—whether on our high streets, which desperately need our support, or in community shops on the edges of towns or in villages.
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary small shops group. We hear from people across the country about the vulnerable position those staff and business owners can be in, and I pay tribute to them. As our retail shops decline, and sole shops decline as well, we see a decline in our communities. High streets are important for bringing us together. Small shops are often the only place that people in those communities get to speak to someone. A shop owner told us at one of our recent events that an old lady said to him that the only time she touched another human being was when he gave her her change. Those stores are so important to their communities and to people across the country, so it is particularly important that we see them not just as profit-making businesses, but as providing a service. Most of the shopkeepers in my constituency say that they do not do it for the money, but because they love their community, and the community values them as well.
Those shopkeepers are on the frontline. More and more prolific offenders are targeting small, isolated shops, and more and more of the shopkeepers in my constituency are having to take on and tackle offenders themselves, which is a position that nobody should be in. Both through my work with USDAW and locally, I have met shopkeepers and shop workers who have been traumatised for life by the experiences they have had to go through. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) described the case of Barry, who I know; when he spoke with my hon. Friend at the USDAW conference, it was an incredibly moving experience.
The trouble is that our justice system is letting these people down. It is not just that police numbers are decreasing and that the response to incidents is not improving: by the time that I left the union, Barry, who I have known for many years, had still not seen the perpetrators in his case brought to justice. The court case was delayed again and again, and he was left knowing that those perpetrators were out there committing more offences, and feeling that he was in danger as a witness.
In my community, we have seen the amount that police can do to tackle prolific offenders reduced. Our local magistrates’ court in Buxton closed in 2015, and the local police cells have now been closed because there is not so much need for them now that we do not have a magistrates’ court. That makes it far harder for those police who are still there to deal with offenders. The number of community orders has decreased by a third; prolific offenders travel across county lines, knowing how to evade different police forces and evade justice, and our police have had to invest enormous amounts of resources in trying to bring those perpetrators to justice.
As we know, 20,000 police officers have been lost, but I ask the Minister what his party proposes to do about the staff who are so often crucial to bringing successful prosecutions. In Derbyshire, not only have we lost just over 300 police officers, but over 400 support staff. Those police community support officers, investigating officers and detectives are often the ones who do the work to ensure that criminals are not only caught, but successfully prosecuted. Without those support staff, that work is very difficult and ties the hands of police officers. I pay tribute to the Derbyshire police and crime commissioner; this year, through additional council tax, we had the funding to hire another 120 officers and staff. We got 58 additional police officers from that, but also 62 support staff including PCSOs, investigating officers and detectives. That is making a real difference to the ability of my local police force to bring perpetrators to justice, which we must never forget is an extremely important part of policing.
This issue is not just about political headlines or the number of police officers, but about the experience of communities. It is about people feeling that they are on the frontline and are not getting the response from Government, the police or society that they need to protect them and to keep those valuable community stores running.
In the run-up to Christmas, all Members will want to pay tribute to shop workers. Those people can expect an extremely busy time, but also, unfortunately, an increase in abuse by people who are stressed, and an increase in violence and in thefts by criminals who seek to take advantage of this time of year, with the extra stock and extra money in the tills. I hope that in spite of the election, we can send a message to our communities and to police forces and shop workers everywhere that we are going to act.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I too declare an interest, in that I am a member of USDAW, the Co-op and the GMB. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) on all the work he has done on this issue and on having secured today’s debate, which is probably the last opportunity we will have this year to debate this important subject, ahead of Christmas—when the problem will be at its worst—and, indeed, ahead of the general election. I feel that in the past four years, I have been a parliamentary candidate more often than I have been to the dentist.
Many other right hon. and hon. Members have shared stories of some of the truly terrifying situations that shop workers are put in as a result of retail crime. It is a cruel injustice that so many people across the UK go to work in absolute fear of being physically or verbally attacked just for doing their job. I pay tribute to USDAW for its Freedom from Fear campaign, which for many years has been raising awareness of this issue, both in this House and in all of our constituencies. Most of us have had the obligatory Freedom from Fear photo taken before Christmas; in my case, it is always taken in Morrisons. USDAW recently reported that 62% of shop workers have been the victim of verbal or physical abuse: that is shocking, and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The UK Government must step up and provide the resources to give retail workers the protection they deserve.
A step in the right direction would be for the Home Office to publish its response to its call for evidence on violence towards shop staff, which took place earlier this year. That consultation closed in June, and received over 800 responses from individual shop workers, small shopkeepers, unions and businesses, all detailing their experiences of the growing problem of violent crime. We were originally promised a response by this month, but there has been nothing so far. In light of the current political situation, I hope that some clarity will be provided before this Parliament comes to an end. I am clearly not alone in seeking that clarification, as the Association of Convenience Stores has written to the Minister calling for an urgent response. With an estimated 200,000 assaults or threats to retail and wholesale sector staff in the period since that call for evidence closed, the Home Office must stop delaying, show some leadership, and commit to introducing tougher penalties for the perpetrators of those crimes.
Retail crime has multiple victims, from the retailers who suffer the losses to the staff who face abuse that makes them fearful of turning up for work. Every MP has this issue in their constituency; in Swansea East, retailers have lost nearly £200,000 through shoplifting just this year. However, although we are all well aware of the effects of retail crime on individuals and businesses, we need to start paying more attention to its causes. All of us have been sat in a pub and witnessed someone come in with a bottle of perfume, a DVD, a joint of meat or a slab of cheese, which are quite clearly stolen goods. All too often, those people are simply desperate to make a few pounds to feed an addiction, whether to alcohol, drugs or gambling. If we seriously want to see a reduction in retail crime, we need to do something about its catalysts. Addiction services are desperately underfunded, and the Government need to rectify that by providing sustainable resources for rehabilitation programmes and diversionary activities that will support those facing addiction and therefore protect our wider community.
Many retailers have raised concerns that the scale of the problem has escalated since the coalition Government introduced a £200 threshold for low-level shoplifting back in 2015, effectively decriminalising it. With police resources stretched to their limits, it is understandable that that is happening, but that does not make it right. Simply, we need more police officers on our streets. The Government have proudly announced their plan to recruit 20,000 more officers, which I am sure we would all be delighted about, if they had not spent the last nine years inflicting a series of cuts. That effectively means that their plan to get police numbers up would only replace what they have taken out since they took office.
People need to feel safe. Police patrolling the streets in our neighbourhoods would make a substantial difference. The Welsh Labour Government have funded an extra 500 police community support officers across the country, who have helped to reduce the impact of retail crime. It would be welcome if the UK Government were to replicate that.
I hope that the Minister has truly listened to the contributions of hon. Members and that he understands that violence against shop workers is a growing problem that needs to be urgently addressed. Nobody should fear going to work, but that is the reality for many retail staff. We need a commitment from the Government about their plans to tackle the issue. Frontline retail staff in our communities deserve more than empty gestures and broken promises. We need change—they need change—and we need it now.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service (Kit Malthouse)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, albeit in a different forum from the last one we met in. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) on securing the debate about a matter that he has worked on for some time. He worked closely with my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), now the Minister for Safeguarding and Vulnerability, who took the matter seriously. I listened carefully to the contributions of all hon. Members and I will try to address some specific points that were raised.
As I hope hon. Members realise, the Government recognise the significant impact that retail crime has not only on businesses and those who work for them but on shoppers, consumers and the wider community, as we have heard from several hon. Members. That is why we co-chair the national retail crime steering group to bring together the Government, trade organisations and enforcement partners to ensure that the response to crimes affecting the retail sector is as robust as possible. We have seen the benefits that that group can achieve in its recent response to the issue of violence and abuse towards shop workers, which was overseen by my hon. Friend the Minister for Safeguarding and Vulnerability, but we know there is more to do.
The right hon. Member for Delyn raised the issue of violence and abuse toward shop staff. I pay tribute to his work on raising awareness of the issue. I am aware of his discussions with Home Office Ministers on the topic during the passage of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 in the last parliamentary Session, to which he referred. Violence and abuse remains the biggest concern for retailers and we are determined to tackle it.
Every day, we ask shop workers to deal with whatever comes through their door, whether that involves enforcing an age restriction on certain products or confronting shoplifters. Like anyone else, shop workers have the right to feel safe at work without fear of violence or intimidation. That is why, on 5 April, we launched a call for evidence to inform our response—I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his submission. We sought information on four key areas: prevalence and data, prevention and support, enforcement and the criminal justice system, and best practice.
As was mentioned, the call for evidence closed recently. We received more than 800 responses, including many first-hand accounts from shop staff. Although Home Office officials have completed an initial analysis, we have not yet published our response. That will disappoint hon. Members who referred to it, but we want to ensure that the detailed responses received are subject to a thorough and accurate analysis. Given that Parliament is about to be dissolved, I will take the opportunity to share our initial findings with hon. Members and to reassure them that we are engaging with key organisations to consider the next steps.
An initial analysis of the responses shows a widespread belief that violence and abuse towards shop staff has increased in recent years. The most common reason given was in the context of challenging individuals committing shop theft. Many respondents felt that a lack of a suitable response from the police resulted in offenders not fearing repercussions. Many felt unsupported by their organisation’s policies and management when dealing with verbally abusive customers. A significant number of respondents stated that they felt that incidents were becoming more violent and that they had experienced threats from individuals with knives, needles or other sharp objects.
That is obviously unacceptable. Nobody should be subjected to such violent attacks, especially in the workplace, and I reassure hon. Members that we are keen to take action in those areas, and in some cases, we already are.
David Hanson
Before the Minister moves on, is it his gut instinct that, if he were returned, as opposed to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), he would legislate for a stronger legislative solution to the offence?
Kit Malthouse
I will come on to that. I am not wholly convinced that we are without the tools that we need to deal with the issue, but we might need to address whether we are using them correctly.
On serious violence, we published the serious violence strategy, which has a particular focus on early intervention, in April 2018, so there has been action in that area. We allocated £22 million to the early intervention youth fund and, in the long term, £200 million to the youth endowment fund to ensure that those most at risk are given the opportunity to turn away from violence and to lead more positive lives. We launched a public consultation on a new multi-agency public health approach to tackling serious violence, following which we announced that we would introduce a new legal duty on statutory agencies to plan and collaborate to prevent and reduce serious violence. We gave the police extra powers to tackle knife crime through the Offensive Weapons Act, including new knife crime prevention orders.
Those wider measures will help, but we recognise the importance of focusing our efforts on measures that are specifically targeted on tackling retail crime. This year, the Home Office provided £60,000 for a targeted communication campaign, led by the Association of Convenience Stores, to raise awareness of the existing legislation to protect shop workers. We published guidance on gov.uk about the use of the impact statement for business, which provides victims with the opportunity to tell the courts about the impact that a crime has had on their businesses. We also worked with the police to develop guidance for staff and retailers to use when reporting emergency and violent incidents.
The right hon. Member for Delyn and other hon. Members have asked the Government to consider introducing a new offence of attacks on shop staff, or to increase the severity of existing offences. I hope that he is aware from previous discussions that powers are already available to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to deal with that type of offending and to provide protection to retail staff.
There are a number of assault offences and corresponding differences in maximum penalties. At the higher end of the scale, causing grievous bodily harm with intent and wounding with intent carry maximum penalties of life imprisonment. The sentencing guidelines on assault include an aggravating factor of
“offences committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public”,
which should be taken into account by the courts when deciding what sentence to impose and may be applied to retail staff conducting their duties. In addition, the Sentencing Council is reviewing its guidelines on assault. A consultation on the revised guidelines is anticipated in 2020. I advise hon. Members to respond to that consultation with a specific focus on assaults on retail workers.
Let me turn to some of the specific points raised. Several hon. Members called for me to publish the review of the call for evidence as quickly as possible. The fact that we are going into an election will make that quite difficult, but I give my undertaking that, as soon as we come back, if I am in the job, we will try to get it out as quickly as possible. Obviously, the five-week election campaign gives officials a bit of an easier time, so they can digest the responses and get it out as soon as they can.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raised the issue of facial recognition technology. Obviously, we are supporting the police as they trial the use of new technology across the country. It has become clear that facial recognition technology has significant crime-fighting possibilities. A recent court case established that there is a sufficient legal framework for its use and operation in this country, but as its use is expanded, possibly by police forces, in the months and years to come, I have no doubt that it will have to come to the House for some sort of democratic examination at some point. Thus far, however, where it is being deployed, we are seeing significant benefits from it.
Kate Green
I am pleased that the Minister believes that there will need to be a full debate about facial recognition technology in the House. He will be aware of concerns about personal privacy and the possibility that it is, in some respects, discriminatory against certain groups. If he and his party are returned to government, will he commit to ensuring that the House has an opportunity to have that full debate?
Kit Malthouse
There has already been a debate in the House on the use of facial recognition technology, and it is obviously within the purview of Members and Select Committees and others to examine the issue. It has just been through the courts—South Wales Police has been challenged on its use of facial recognition technology, and the courts found the current framework satisfactory. I have no doubt that when we get back from this election there will be an urge for the issue to be debated in the House, given the enormous success that is being seen with facial recognition technology.
The right hon. Member for Delyn raised the issue of local police plans, suggesting that we put pressure on police and crime commissioners to include retail crime in their plans. If this was a pressing issue in the high street, one would hope that the police and crime commissioner would commit to having it in their plan anyway. However, we have created a new National Policing Board, which is looking at systemic issues across the country that should be addressed by the whole policing family in a concerted effort, and one area we are looking at is neighbourhood crime. What we put into that basket has yet to be fully agreed, and I will certainly consider putting retail crime in there.
I am very alive to the connection between drugs and alcohol misuse and the impact on shops and retail crime. First, on alcohol, I hope Members will have noticed that we are planning to roll out alcohol abstinence monitoring orders across the whole country. From memory, we have been given about £22 million to do that. The orders have been very successfully used in Croydon and in a pilot in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Humberside recently. They are for low-level offending and those convicted of a crime where alcohol was the compelling factor in its commission. Compliance rates with that disposal are up at 93% or 94%, and there is enormous potential there.
With drugs, we have been given some money to start to combat the awful scourge of county lines, which is causing mayhem in many small towns across the country, not least in my constituency. I hope that when we return after the election we will see even more assertive action on that.
There is more that we can do on treatment and rehabilitation for those who fall into drug addiction. We must look imaginatively at schemes around the world that can be used to divert from offending those who have been convicted of a drug offence and are out in the community on probation. I point Members to a very interesting programme in Hawaii called the HOPE programme—Hawaii’s opportunity probation with enforcement—which I would be very keen to try to establish in this country as a way to deal with people who are low-level offenders because of a drug addiction. That could be managed in a much better way than I think we are managing it at the moment.
A number of Members mentioned the £200 threshold. I hope they are aware that police can still prosecute somebody who steals something worth less than £200.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I met Chief Constable Lee Freeman of Humberside Police and raised the £200 threshold. As other Members have pointed out, it causes great concern, particularly to small shopkeepers. He pointed out that the police are flexible in how they interpret the guidance in Humberside. Will the Minister make sure that other forces up and down the country treat the matter in a much more serious way? It is very serious for small shopkeepers. The flexibility that Humberside is showing should be replicated elsewhere.
Kit Malthouse
That is exactly right. If a chief constable decrees that it is a problem in their area, it is perfectly possible for them to have a policy of prosecuting thefts of a value under £200. I am certainly willing to make sure that chiefs across the country are aware of that.
Given the depth of concern expressed this morning, if I am returned to this job after the election, I am happy to look at the data and see what it tells us about the operation of that policy, now that we are four or five years in. I do not think there is any problem with us reviewing that data internally and deciding whether the policy is working, and then promulgating some kind of best practice.
A number of challenges were made on the recruitment of 20,000 police officers. The right hon. Member for Delyn asked me when they would be recruited—recruitment has already started. A number of police forces are recruiting, not least because we have 3,000 police officers to recruit from last year’s budget settlement. With the allocations to all forces, we have already signalled what the recruitment targets should be over the next 15 months or so.
We expect the first 6,000 of the 20,000 to be recruited by the end of the financial year next year, 8,000 in the year after and the final 6,000 in the year after that. It will not be a straight progression, not least because police officers tend to retire at unpredictable times. When we add in retirees, we have to recruit somewhere between 45,000 and 50,000 police officers over the next three years, which will be a huge job. Nevertheless, we have been given £45 million in-year this year to start, and I hope we will be announcing the allocations of that money relatively soon.
Some forces are going for this in a big way straightaway. I know the Met police is recruiting between 300 and 400 police officers a month at the moment, which is all good news. However, I would just counter the direct connection that a number of Members make between levels of crime and numbers of police officers, because the connection is not just about inputs; it is also about what we are doing. I remind Members that, notwithstanding the fact that we have fewer police officers today, overall crime is 35% lower than it was 10 years ago. For example, police officer numbers were much higher in the ’80s and ’90s than in the ’50s and ’60s, yet crime was much higher too. Focus and priority is as important as the number of police officers.
Kit Malthouse
I always say the same thing when people tell me about under-reporting, which is that we must urge everybody to report every possible crime, because modern policing is all about data. The police respond to numbers. If they see numbers, feel the numbers and see the pattern of behaviour, they will respond. It is a bit like that old philosophical aphorism: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, did it actually happen? If a crime is committed, particularly in a large rural constituency such as mine, and it is not reported, as far as the police know, it never happened. Data is absolutely key. I urge all shop owners to report every crime.
The right hon. Member for Delyn raised the impact of serious and organised crime. He is quite right that high-profile thefts by serious and organised crime need to be addressed, not least the demolition and stealing of cash machines, which we see in quite a lot of rural constituencies, including my own. As I hope the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are undertaking a serious and organised crime review over the next few weeks, which I hope will give us some strategy and point us to the future.
I am grateful to hon. Members for what has been an important debate. I hope that I have outlined some of the work that the Government have done, and will hopefully do more of in future, to make sure that everybody—shop workers and shoppers alike—will have fun and will exchange money for presents and gifts in the run-up to Christmas, safely and happily, now and in the years to come.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for their co-operation in keeping to the time guidance. I call David Hanson to wind up.
David Hanson
I am grateful to you, Mr Betts, for chairing this session, and to the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for their responses. I will take one point from what the Minister said: if he is returned, he has agreed to review the £200 threshold on shop theft, which I know my hon. Friend will do, should she be returned to office.
This issue is extremely important and will not go away. It is about ensuring that staff who uphold our laws are protected by our laws; it is about ensuring that they live free from fear. I suspect that every retailer in the country in response to the consultation will have said that they want a separate offence and for assaulting a staff worker to be an aggravated offence. I hope that whoever forms the Government after this election will look at the consultation responses and bring forward measures. It is within our grasp now. The people who work in shops, the people who manage, run and own shops, and consumers have the same objective—to allow shop workers to be free from fear and to go about their business supported by the state, upholding the laws of the land; to ensure that members of the public who attack them face an aggravated offence; and to ensure a greater police presence on the streets if needs be, more neighbourhood policing and strong interventions to tackle some of the problems that drive people to undertake those shoplifting and attack offences in the first place.
This is an important issue. I am grateful that so many hon. Members have turned up on the last Tuesday of Parliament to put down a marker to whoever forms the next Government that this issue will not go away and will be dealt with by Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered prevention of retail crime.
Princess Royal Hospital, Telford
(5 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Princess Royal Hospital, Telford.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Last week the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), said:
“Our main purpose as Members of Parliament is to seek redress of grievance for our constituents”.—[Official Report, 31 October 2019; Vol. 667, c. 509.]
That is what I seek to do today, on the last day of this Parliament and on what might be my last opportunity to speak for Telford. It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to do so.
For the past six years, Telford’s No. 1 concern has been the future of the Princess Royal Hospital. Throughout those years, I have been working with my community to get their concerns heard by the hospital management and in many debates and speeches in this place. Today is different, because in the past few weeks the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care endorsed a decision by hospital management to proceed with a plan that will mean Telford loses vital hospital services and that, simultaneously, will lead to huge investment in Royal Shrewsbury Hospital in the county town of Shrewsbury, some 30 minutes away from Telford. In this debate, I want to put on the record why my constituents feel a sense of loss and a sense of anger.
Telford is not a place that has a sense of entitlement. It is not a place that makes demands or shouts over the voices of others. It is a stoical place and has often had to overcome the odds, face adversity and keep on going. It is a former mining town and is now a rapidly growing new town, lying 20 minutes equidistant between Black Country Wolverhampton and the leafy county town of Shrewsbury. Telford is remote and isolated, because it has poor transport connections and low car ownership. It troubles me that, despite the poorer health outcomes, child poverty and health inequalities that I as the MP see, the hospital management has brought forward a plan for our health that allocates NHS resource not in accordance with need, but for some other reason that has not been explained.
Like many new towns, Telford was resisted by its county neighbours when it first came into being some 50 years ago. It was dismissed as an overspill town of incomers and a blot on the landscape, never quite accepted by its rural hinterland. It was somehow always the poor relation, surrounded by rural, leafy shires and county towns. There was a snobbishness whereby Telford was supposed to know its place and be grateful for the opportunity. We were somehow never quite equal to our neighbours.
However, Telford has ambitions, and overcoming the odds is what it does. Today, Telford is an economic powerhouse of advanced manufacturing and makes a massive contribution to the west midlands economy, offering new jobs and homes. Its population is forecast to grow to 200,000 people in the next 10 years. Telford needs its A&E and its women and children’s centre—anyone who knows Telford knows that—but the hospital management has other plans.
For six years, the management has toyed with a plan to centralise services 30 minutes away. It has been dressed up as local decision making by local clinicians, but, in reality, it was decided by executives from across the country—smart suits and smart cars—with no connection to our area and no concern for our communities. Indeed, the original architect of the plan held many hospital management chief executive officer posts, from Chester and Sherwood Forest to London, and he was last reported to be earning £40,000 per month, having resigned from a previous post for a single day in order to pick up a tax-free retirement package of £252,000 and then resumed the same job the next day. Such are the people behind this plan.
Actual local clinicians opposed the plan, as did all the councillors and local MPs. Protests were held and petitions made, but the decision makers did not want to know what local people had to say. Throughout that time, there was one hope—that once the bureaucrats got to the end of their decision-making process, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would call for an independent review to consider all the issues. I thank the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), for his courtesy, consideration and kindness to me and my constituents as he listened to me and to the arguments about why the plan is flawed.
The hospital bureaucrats, whose decision this was, did not have to think about how people feel when they are told they do not need their A&E. It is not part of their role to understand our communities, our history, our geography, our identity, our emotional connectedness to our hospital, our affection for it and our pride in it. After all, they are not accountable to us; it is just one more job before the next one.
We, the representatives of the people, should care about our communities. We should care about how they feel, and about their sense of what is just. It is our job to be on the side of the people—not on the side of those who are well connected and have power and influence, who can speak to the decision makers behind closed doors, but on the side of the stoical, decent people of Telford, who play by the rules and have a right to be treated as fairly and justly as anyone else.
I will quote a constituent who has worked locally in the NHS for 15 years. He says:
“In Telford we are a group of hardworking communities with ambitions for our children’s future. When the brand new women and children’s unit was opened I was ecstatic. It was a turning point for us. I understand how health economics works—none of this proposal makes any sense, not in a business sense nor from a clinical outcome perspective. Shrewsbury is 30 minutes away. That’s too long for stroke, too long for a heart attack and too long for our children. This is a plan that bears all the hallmarks of cronyism at its rampant best. How else can it be explained? The NHS has no colours or banners”—
he is right about that—
“it supports all of us all of the time. It is something worth fighting for, for our children’s sake.”
On the point about children, I want to give voice to another one of my constituents. She wrote to me and said:
“My name is Sarah. I live in Telford. I am a mother to Alfie, who is 5 years old. Alfie has Down’s syndrome. In April 2018, at night, our son began to haemorrhage and he was taken to Telford A&E. Whilst there Alfie started to have a massive haemorrhage (blood was pouring from his mouth and nose and you could not even see his face or his beautiful blond hair). I was immediately told to run with him to Resus. There was so much blood. He was rushed in for an emergency operation to cauterise the bleed. Then our world then truly fell apart. He failed to breathe in air, post surgery. It took the theatre staff three hours to get him stable. The point of telling you this is quite simple. If A&E at PRH had been closed, Alfie would have had his 2nd and massive haemorrhage whilst still being transported to wherever they deemed to take us. I have chills just thinking of what the outcome would have been for our beautiful son. Put simply, having A&E open 24/7 saved Alfie’s life.”
I know the Secretary of State has tried his best to save our A&E from the hospital management’s plan. Indeed, he announced on the Conservative MPs’ WhatsApp group last week:
“Lucy, we’ve saved the A&E at Telford. We have just put a further £5 million into Telford’s hospital just last week.”
That would clearly be fantastic news. If it were indeed the case, I would not be standing here today; I would be writing an election leaflet proclaiming the good news to my constituents. Let us not be flippant and casual about something that is so important. My constituents want to know what an A&E local is and, importantly, whether the hospital management will agree to support it. When I asked the Minster’s parliamentary aide, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), whether she could find out more about A&E local, she asked her assistant to respond to me. They said that my inquiry would be passed on to the Department for a response, which, in the light of the impending dissolution of Parliament, would not come until after Christmas at the earliest, in 2020.
It was the Minister’s decision to rush out an announcement in support of the management’s plan. He chose to do so without having worked out what would happen in Telford. Having made that announcement of his own volition, it is not good enough to say, “You’ll just have to wait to find out more.” How do I explain that to my constituents? If the funding for a new 20-bed ward for winter pressures has increased from £4 million to £5 million, that is fantastic, but I want to know and be able to tell my constituents about that. Simply mentioning it in a WhatsApp group is not enough; something has gone wrong with the communication.
My mission as an MP is to stand up for my constituents and take up their needs and concerns, so I know that the Minister will fully understand why I am so aggrieved that my constituents have been treated this way. Their treatment has been shabby and disrespectful. We are talking about the issue that matters most to my constituents, which is why I have helped them to crowdfund the money and seek counsel’s opinion on whether to pursue judicial review. We have nearly hit our target—thank you Telford—but it should not have come to this. A little more respect for the people of Telford would have avoided this situation.
During this lengthy saga, a former hospitals Minister—not my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who is here today—said to me, “They can’t all expect to have an A&E at the end of their road you know, Lucy.” My constituents have never asked for that and nor would they. They ask only to be treated as equal to anyone else in their value, worth and dignity, and that is what they deserve.
Lucy Allan
My right hon. Friend is one of my dearest friends and I would be delighted to give way.
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a powerful case, as she always does when standing up for her constituents in the House. She has given some very moving examples of the messages that she receives and of the strength of feeling in the community that she serves. Does she recognise that the debate on acute services provision in Shropshire and Telford—that is the wider area, which extends to mid-Wales—has been ongoing for decades? In all the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, the difficulty arising from indecision about the reconfiguration of acute services has led to many services being provided out of county.
My hon. Friend mentioned stroke and cardiac services. Many of those are now provided in Staffordshire, so Shropshire has already lost services and people have to make long journeys. A reason for that is the difficulty in persuading enough clinicians with sufficient seniority and experience to provide a safe 24/7 service for our constituents. Although I completely understand her regret—half of my constituents would prefer to see the Telford services remain where they are—does she not see the opportunity to resolve the crisis and to ensure that we retain quality services for our combined populations? The area that she has focused—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but this should be an intervention rather than a speech.
Lucy Allan
As a former hospitals Minister and long-serving Member of Parliament for the area, my right hon. Friend has a great level of expertise on this subject. He makes some excellent points, some of which I agree with. We are very fortunate that £312 million of Government money is being invested in the area, but I want my constituents to benefit from that, which is why we are having this debate.
If I return to Parliament after 12 December—I suspect the Secretary of State would rather I did not—I will do all I can to ensure that my constituents are treated better than they have been until now. As suggested by the Leader of the House, I will seek redress of grievance for my constituents, whether in Parliament or by working with them to challenge the decision in the courts.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) and congratulate her on securing this important debate. As ever, she spoke on behalf of her constituents with passion and determination. She and I entered the House on the same day in 2015, and I would be mortified if she did not return after the election, although I suspect she will. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to whom she referred throughout her speech, would share my sentiments and wish for her to return to the House because she is an exemplary Member of Parliament, even though, on occasion, she may press us to go further when she is speaking up for her constituents.
I echo the spirit of my hon. Friend’s speech by thanking everybody who works in our amazing NHS for everything they do, particularly those who work in her local hospital in Telford. I know that there are strong feelings on all sides of this debate, but whatever the differences of view, everyone involved—particularly my hon. Friend—wants to do the right thing for patients.
As hon. Members will know, major service change in the NHS is complex. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), a distinguished former Minister of State for Health, knows that only too well and alluded to it in his remarks. Major service change involves a number of factors, and it is vital that the voices of local people and their MPs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Telford, are heard and respected at all stages. I am grateful for the opportunity to provide a brief overview of the plans and to update my hon. Friend on our progress in recent days.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Future Fit plans. The set of proposals that fall under that heading have been under development for a number of years. The case for change was first articulated about 10 years ago, and the clinically driven scheme proposed to transform services across Royal Shrewsbury Hospital and Princess Royal Hospital. A 15-week consultation on those proposals ran in summer 2018.
The joint committee of the Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin clinical commissioning groups decided to proceed with the preferred option of the local Future Fit programme. That programme would see the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford become a dedicated planned care site and the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital become a specialist emergency care site. Under those proposals, patients would continue to be able to access 24-hour urgent care services at both hospitals, meaning that 80% of patients would continue to go to the same hospital for emergency and urgent care. The model would also see women and children’s consultant-led in-patient services provided at the Royal Shrewsbury in the future.
As has been alluded to, in March this year Telford and Wrekin Council referred the scheme to the Secretary of State, who in turn referred it to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which then provided its advice to the Department on 31 July.
Turning to the crux of my hon. Friend’s concerns about the A&E and urgent and emergency care, she is right that all patients should receive excellent healthcare throughout their life, no matter where they live. Any changes to services are rightly based on clinically led decisions at the local level. I am delighted that, as she mentioned, we are investing £312 million to support acute services in the local area.
The Secretary of State, following thorough consideration, accepted the IRP’s impartial advice, which looked at urgent and emergency care across Shrewsbury and Telford, and recommended that the emergency care centre for the region should remain at the Royal Shrewsbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford has been courteous but clear about disagreeing with that advice, on behalf of her constituents.
The Secretary of State also asked NHS England to come forward with proposals within a month on how to keep the A&E in Telford open as an A&E local, to ensure that the Princess Royal Hospital can continue to deliver the urgent and emergency care that the residents of my hon. Friend’s constituency need and value so much. That request drew on the advice provided by the IRP. Plans for A&E locals are being developed by NHS England and NHS Improvement, and the Department has been in close contact about those developments.
NHS England has now published the proposal, following the Secretary of State’s request. He and I are delighted with the development. The Shrewsbury and Telford trust has put forward a model that will enable an enhanced service that is distinct from an urgent treatment centre. The model will increase the volume of activity that can safely be delivered through the proposed urgent treatment centre on the planned care site at PRH.
I understand that the Secretary of State and NHS England have today written to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford. If I may, I will touch on what that letter says. She may well wish to come back on it, once I have let her know what it states. The Secretary of State has been clear: the A&E at the Princess Royal Hospital, Telford, will remain open as an A&E local.
Lucy Allan
In my constituency, there is concern as to what “A&E local” means. I am aware that there is 24/7 walk-in, which is fantastic, although most of my constituents do not know that, but will “A&E local” be defined in more detail? I have not yet received the letter, so will the Minister enlighten me and my constituents?
Edward Argar
I am happy to do so. I hope that what I say will be helpful to my hon. Friend, but I am always happy to have a further conversation, if she so wishes after this debate. If she and I are both successfully returned to this place and doing the same things, I would be delighted to meet her.
The trust and local commissioners will further develop a framework of options for outside core hours. The trust has proposed a model that will increase the volume of activity that can safely be delivered through the proposed UTC on the planned care site. It proposes an emergency medicine consultant presence throughout core hours, a consultant-led ambulatory emergency care service for specific pathways, and additional diagnostic presence. That model means that the PRH will continue to provide A&E services. We are satisfied that that meets the proposed A&E local model.
My hon. Friend will wish to consider that further, and she may wish to have a further conversation with me, but I believe that the proposal is testament to the strong voice that Telford has because she listens to her constituents. It is a victory for my hon. Friend in speaking up for her constituents.
Lucy Allan
I am very grateful indeed to hear the Minister’s comments and, in particular, to see some movement—a shift indicating that we are being listened to and that Telford is not being ignored. I am grateful for that development and progress. As the Minister will understand, I may well continue to push for further progress, but it is a step in the right direction and I am grateful for it.
Edward Argar
I am grateful. It would be a brave Minister who ignored either Telford or my hon. Friend, and I am not sure that I am quite that brave.
I believe that this is welcome news, although I know that my hon. Friend will want to consider and digest it. It also comes on top of the extra £4 million in winter capital funding going to the PRH—again, she argued for that and helped to secure it—which the Secretary of State announced last week, to reduce pressure on the A&E and to prepare for winter.
Lucy Allan
Will the Minister confirm that that winter capital funding is for this winter and an extra 20-bed ward?
Edward Argar
I confirm that that is capital funding for her hospital to prepare for this winter and to meet the challenges it faces.
The detail of the proposal has still to be worked up, and NHS England will work with the trust, its partners and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine to support the development of the model and a timeline for its implementation. I hope my hon. Friend wishes to be involved in that process, and that both of us will be back here to have that conversation later in the year.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing this important debate. A number of constituents from the west side of my constituency rely absolutely on the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford. Will the model mentioned by the Minister include, as it does in Stafford, the reception of blue-light services—that is, 999 ambulances —in the medical sphere at least? It is important to understand that, because the ability to receive blue-light services is what distinguishes an A&E from an urgent care centre.
Edward Argar
May I crave your indulgence, Mr Betts? My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) is retiring from Parliament at this election, so it would be wrong of me not to take the opportunity to pay tribute to him. He has been an extraordinary advocate for Stafford and, more than that, an asset to this Parliament and previous ones. He is a thoroughly decent and honourable man, and Parliament will be a poorer place without him sitting in it. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
In respect of the point that my hon. Friend made, my understanding—I will clarify this subsequently, if necessary—is that the model will be underpinned by comprehensive pathways and protocols agreed with the ambulance services for blue-light transfer when the consultant cover is available, or diversion when not. There is, however, direct engagement with the ambulance trust. As I have said, hon. Members will need time and further discussion to consider the proposal, but I think and hope that they will agree with me that it is a useful first step to making progress.
To conclude, this is positive news for Telford, and that is down to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford, who is a strong and determined local champion for her constituents and for the town of Telford. They are incredibly lucky to have her as their representative and their voice in Parliament. I am confident that that voice will be speaking up for them in this House for many years to come. If they want a strong local voice in this House and for their hospital and NHS, every vote that they cast for my hon. Friend in the forthcoming election will deliver exactly that.
Question put and agreed to.
School Uniform Costs
(5 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered school uniform costs.
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, although it feels a little like we are in the graveyard shift at the end of a very long Parliament. As I said to the Minister just before the debate, it is a genuine pleasure to talk to him about education once more. I started this parliamentary Session talking about education, so to finish it this way feels complete. I want to focus on the cost of school uniforms, and I will make recommendations that I hope schools and the Minister will follow.
After nine years of cuts, benefit cuts and stagnating wages, an increasing number of parents are unable to meet the basic cost of living, and the knock-on effect of that reality is a rise in child poverty. Currently, 8.3 million working-age adults and 4.6 million children are living in poverty. The numbers continue to rise, and forecasts predict that they are set to exceed the record levels of the early 1990s, which should concern us all deeply.
Recent research has brought to light many of the negative effects that growing up in poverty has on children. Some are stark and brutal. In the most deprived areas of our country, girls can expect to live 20 fewer years of their lives in good health, compared with those in the least-deprived areas. For boys, it is 19 fewer years. Both genders are four times more likely to develop mental health problems by the age of 11.
The indignities and suffering brought about by poverty are often less obvious. Every September, we see children on their way to start the new school year looking very smart in their uniforms, and our thoughts might turn to our own, or perhaps our children’s, first day. I was a teacher, and I remember the pleasure of having my classroom windows overlook the children starting school and lining up with their brand-new book bags, which were nearly as big as them, as they stood outside, waiting to meet their new teacher.
I now see children in uniforms through a different set of eyes. I was deeply affected by the testimony of a group of mothers at an evidence session of the Select Committee on Education. They told us of the demands placed on them by the increasing cost of school uniforms. Uniform dress codes now rarely consist of a simple badged sweatshirt and dark trousers or a skirt; they now include shirts, ties, blazers, and PE kits, indoor and out, all branded and often available through only a single supplier. I was devasted by the parents’ description of skipping meals to try to meet the ever-increasing costs.
Tragically, those accounts do not represent rare and isolated circumstances. Research from the Children’s Society shows that nearly one in six families said that school uniforms were to blame for their having to cut back on food and other basic essentials. Its report, “The Wrong Blazer 2018: Time for action on school uniform costs”, revealed that families have to find an average of £340 per year for each child at secondary school—an increase of 7% since 2015. Parents of primary school children spent an average of £255—an increase of 2%.
Parentkind’s latest annual survey of parents confirms that upward pressure: 76% of parents reported that the cost of sending children to school is increasing, and more than half are worried about meeting that cost. The high cost of uniforms is in some cases maintained by school policies that insist that parents buy clothing from specialist shops, rather than giving them the choice of buying items at cheaper stores, such as supermarkets or high street chains. When parents had to buy two or more school uniform items from a specific supplier, spending was found to be an average of £71 per year higher for secondary school children and £77 higher per year for primary school children. Some schools demand that seemingly generic items, such as a pair of black trousers, a PE top or shorts, must carry the school badge or logo, which also locks parents into specific retailers.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a very important speech. This matter was brought to my attention by my constituents when a school changed its uniform policy to have badged trousers, skirts, blazers and other items of clothing. Does she agree that schools can take matters into their own hands not only by having generic main items of clothing, but by using uniform exchanges, which not only help families that cannot afford school uniforms, but are good for the environment?
Emma Hardy
I completely agree. I will go on to talk about uniform exchanges and the impact on the environment. The House of Commons did some social media outreach in advance of this debate. Someone from Birmingham said: “My niece is from a disadvantaged school background and had to completely replace her school uniform within six months of starting a new secondary school.” Someone else wrote: “My dad needs to buy me a PE kit, which is around £80 for everything I need. I can’t do PE, and get detention every time I go to PE. I feel embarrassed going to PE knowing everyone will make fun of me not being able to afford the extreme costs.” There are many other examples.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying, because I have also had people contact me. One lady said that supermarkets are an ideal place to go because she can get matching clothes. I was surprised to find that Tesco used to embroider badges on at parents’ request. It does not do it now, but the supplier will do it. Parents pay £4 for a pair of trousers, instead of something outrageous if it is from the key supplier. It is in the hands of the schools if they wish to do it.
Emma Hardy
I agree in part, but I want to put a bit of pressure on the Minister to try to force schools to ensure that uniforms are as cheap as possible, because there are alternatives out there.
This is not just about the increasing cost of uniforms; the fashionable zero-tolerance approach to behaviour is also having an impact on the education of children from hard-up families. More than one in 20 parents reported that their child had been sent home for wearing non-approved clothes or shoes, or even the wrong socks, as a result of struggling to afford the costs. That is something that came up in the evidence. Children are being sent home or are being put into isolation for the day because their uniform is not absolutely accurate. Based on Department for Education statistics on the number of children in primary and secondary schools across England, that translates to about half a million children having suffered the indignity and humiliation of being sent home from school or put in isolation—punished for no reason other than the misfortune of having been born part of a family that is living in poverty.
The pernicious nature of poverty sours even what we might remember as the fun parts of school. It is known that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to miss out on school extras, such as trips or music lessons, but evidence has emerged recently showing that the growing trend of schools increasing the number of dress-up days, often as a means of shoring up their depleted funds, is resulting in an increase in the number of unauthorised absences among those pupils.
An analysis of attendance data by the Association of School and College Leaders shows a significant increase in the number of unauthorised absences among pupils on 14 December. The date puzzled the researchers until they realised that the date was traditionally Christmas jumper day. Unauthorised absences among pupils regarded as disadvantaged in the schools studied were nearly three times higher than on a typical day. For those regarded as without disadvantage, it was still nearly twice as high. At the risk of sounding like the Grinch before Christmas, I encourage schools to change Christmas jumper day to something more straightforward, such as Christmas hat day. The school could provide all the materials for the children, who could still dress up and enjoy Christmas, but it would not put off children from poorer backgrounds from attending school that day and learning, just because they cannot afford the cost of a Christmas jumper.
The fact that the embarrassment of standing out drives pupils to skip school casts a different light on the Children’s Society’s findings: about one in 10 said that the unaffordability of uniforms had led to the child wearing unclean or ill-fitting uniforms to school. I received feedback from some teenage girls about that, and they talked about the humiliation they felt at having to go to school in ill-fitting uniforms. One parent told me that her daughter was sent home because her skirt was too tight and was seen as not correctly following the school uniform code. However, the girl had grown considerably after a sudden growth spurt, and the parent was unable to afford a new uniform, especially as the need for logos makes it more expensive.
Our children are growing up in an increasingly image-conscious world where bullying has become easier through social media. As I have said, children in poverty are four times more likely to have a mental health problem by the age of 11. It seems unlikely that there is no connection between children being forced to go to school in ill-fitting or unclean uniform and their feeling an impact on their mental health.
My response to hearing the harrowing testimony from mothers at the Education Committee hearing was to organise a uniform exchange in my constituency, called RE:Uniform, which began at the beginning of summer term and ran through the summer holidays. Thanks to a network of volunteers—in particular, I thank Reverend David Speirs and Susie Steel from the Methodist Church, the Hessle Road Network and many others—items of school uniform that were no longer needed but still perfectly wearable were collected at pick-up-and drop-off points. They were washed, ironed, sorted and made available, for free, to anyone who needed them. It was a huge success—we helped more than 500 families and we intend to repeat it. That kind of scheme should be part of everyday life. Although some schools do similar schemes, one of the great things about the RE:Uniform project was that it mixed up uniform from across the city. Some areas may have a more expensive generic uniforms, and it might end up being distributed to another area of the city. That was its strength and the reason it worked so well.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for sharing that example with us. She is making a powerful speech. A Huffington Post journalist recently visited Moorside primary school in Halifax and published an article that reflected not only on cuts in schools but on how poverty at home had an impact on a child’s learning, through hunger in the classroom and school uniforms. The article included some incredibly powerful images of tiny children’s feet in pumps with holes in them and of holes in school uniform sleeves. Does my hon. Friend agree that while the Government do support a number of schemes to make sure that children are fed and can learn in the classroom, there is not a great deal of support for families to pay uniform costs?
Emma Hardy
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government can do more. In fact, the Welsh Government are insisting on a limit on school uniform costs and on gender-neutral uniform. They are giving parents the power to hold schools to account if they are not acting in the parents’ interest, but unfortunately we do not have that option for schools in England. The scheme that we ran was very successful, but it could have been even more so had all schools been encouraged to take off the badges and have generic uniform, because if uniforms did not have badges, they could be shared more easily across the city.
Putting costs and poverty aside for a moment, we need to think about a sustainable future and consider the pressures on the environment and the challenges of climate change. Last Saturday I attended a fantastic event in Hull: an eco and affordable fashion show, where people had made incredibly inventive clothes out of discarded materials. I sat next to an amazing woman who called herself “the mean queen” and said she could live on hardly anything. She had knitted a bag out of the tape from a video cassette—it was absolutely amazing. I am not saying we all need to that, but perhaps we need to think about sustainable fashion and reusing things.
There is no evidence that a school uniform, let alone a highly prescriptive and zealously enforced school uniform, improves educational outcomes for any children, disadvantaged or otherwise. A perception seems to have grown over time that, somehow, the stricter the uniform, the better behaved the child, but I have seen no evidence of any correlation. Having a uniform that all parents and children can access is more likely to build positive relationships with parents and the community, and, therefore, instil a better attitude to learning at school.
The Department for Education states that it
“strongly encourages schools to have a uniform”,
and believes that
“uniform can play a valuable role in contributing to the ethos of a school and setting an appropriate tone”.
The Department insists that schools should have a uniform, but I put it to the Minister that perhaps it needs to do more to ensure that it is affordable for everyone. Currently, the Department expects schools only to “take account” of its published guidance on school uniforms. The guidance states that a school’s uniform policy should be clearly set out and subject to reasonable requests for variation, and that any changes should take into account the views of parents and pupils, but there is no mention of affordability. Specifically, it says:
“No school uniform should be so expensive as to leave pupils or their families feeling unable to apply to, or attend, a school of their choice, due to the cost of the uniform. School governing bodies should therefore give high priority to cost considerations. The governing body should be able to demonstrate how best value has been achieved and keep the cost of supplying the uniform under review.”
The evidence I have presented shows that the guidance is routinely ignored. Parents up and down the country are starving themselves to pay for school uniform. In September, Lord Agnew agreed with me that the approach of some schools to uniform was “ridiculous” and “mindless bureaucracy” on their part. He said,
“They don’t realise that actually this is an additional burden for a family that’s not well off”,
and that he was
“happy to amend the guidance.”
That was very welcome, but in the light of the fact that schools clearly disregard the guidance, the Minister should make it statutory. In response to a written question in July, the Minister said that the Department intended to put the school uniform guidance on a statutory footing,
“when a suitable legislative opportunity arose.”
I would like to think that neither my nor any other party would oppose that proposal, and that we can all unite in agreement. It could, therefore, be progressed extremely quickly, although I realise that time is getting a little tight. Instead, however, it has been put on the back shelf.
We need to poverty-proof the school day, beginning with a school uniform price cap. The Children’s Society proposes taking a similar approach to that of the Financial Conduct Authority in its capping of rent-to-own products. It proposes the benchmarking of prices and an average as the cap. That would involve a school’s regulatory body surveying the market to ascertain the cost of school uniform items and setting the cap based on that. Then, under statutory guidance, schools would be responsible not only for ensuring that they are making affordability a primary concern, but for demonstrating that their uniform policy is in keeping with the cap. In short, under the cap, would a family be able to afford the items of uniform set out in the school’s policy?
Introducing such a measure would not be without challenge. It would require some extra administrative work for schools, to ensure that their uniform cost is within the cap. Crucially, it would require an honest and accurate assessment of the incomes of poor families and the other claims on their spending, to decide what is realistically affordable for them. Recently, many decision makers have struggled to accept the true scale and nature of poverty in this country.
The measure should alleviate the unnecessary costs facing all parents. However, for millions the root cause of the problem will remain—ever-increasing poverty in our country. In response, the Labour party is prepared to reinvest in this country, to make work pay and to properly support those who are out of work or disabled. It will create a unified national education service for England, to provide cradle-to-grave learning that is free at the point of use. Fully funded, it will begin the huge task of turning around the effects of years of cuts and neglect, and will incorporate all forms of education, from early years through to adult education. That will be built on the principles that underpin the Labour movement: a society should be judged on how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable, and should believe that every child—and adult—matters.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, for what inevitably will be the last time in this Parliament. It is also a pleasure to participate in a Westminster Hall debate; I have spoken in a large number of them and I am a happy to finish this Parliament speaking in one. The third pleasure is to follow the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy).
Let me start with where we agree. I would like to hear from the Minister what the plans are for the guidance on school uniforms and whether it will be made statutory. For the reasons the hon. Lady set out, I fully accept the benefit of making that guidance statutory, as I think it will help. Where we tend to differ is in our attitude to school uniforms as a whole. I regard them as important and I have seen evidence, which I am happy to make available, that schools with a school uniform perform better and their children feel much more cohesive and part of something bigger. I would hate to lose that and, thinking back to my own time at school, the feeling of collectiveness that followed from it.
However, I agree that we need to help with the cost of school uniforms, which averages around £350. That is quite a lot, particularly for families at the bottom end of the pay scale. Interesting new methods have been developed to tackle that. I will come to one of them, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) mentioned another: putting pressure on organisations to allow badges to be sewn on to standard clothing, which is much cheaper and is accessible to everyone.
In my experience, many schools—I have not done a calculation on this, so I will not say most—take this issue into account and have their own schemes to help disadvantaged families afford uniforms, where one is in existence. Such schemes are very helpful. However, one of the most interesting schemes I have come across uses the internet to make what are, in effect, second-hand clothes much more widely available. I see a lot of attraction in that. People might argue, “Well, it’s second-hand clothing,” but the person who founded the charity that established that scheme was clear when she said, “Well, heavens; a school uniform, whether it’s new or not, looks second hand within two weeks of being worn.” That is absolutely true, so I do not think the fact that the clothing is second hand should play a major part in preventing anyone from being able to engage in that sort of transaction, and it has a material impact on the cost of the items concerned.
This is an important issue to have raised at the end of this Parliament. As I said, it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response about the statutory basis on which school clothing is to be founded.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to follow the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing the debate, and on her tireless work to raise the profile of an issue that for too long has flown beneath the radar, despite having a real and significant impact on our constituents’ lives.
According to the Children’s Society, 1 million children in England live in families that get into debt just to meet the rising cost of school uniforms. One in six families blames school uniform costs for having to cut back on food and other essentials. One resident in my constituency told me she had forked out more than £120 for one child’s school uniform and PE kit. That is a staggering amount to pay, but the reasons why people have to do so are well known. Some schools require compulsory branded items, some request expensive specialist gear, and others use single suppliers and retailers—even getting a financial incentive to do so. As if that were not enough, for many struggling parents this is an annual occurrence, as their children quickly grow out of purchased uniforms, and many must pay to clothe several children.
This summer, in response to the concern among parents in my constituency, I organised the Barnsley East school uniform exchange, which was an opportunity for those who had uniforms they no longer needed to pass them on to other families in need. I was blown away by the response. Not only did we manage to provide uniforms for children and families who might have struggled otherwise, but we helped to facilitate a community’s coming together, sharing resources and helping one another out. It was a testament to the incredible generosity in Barnsley, and such was the response that we already have uniforms ready and waiting to go for the next school year, when I plan to continue the exchange.
Ultimately, however, we should not have to rely on the generosity of our friends and neighbours to help provide even the basics, especially when it comes to children and their experiences in education. Provisions and guidance to schools to ensure that uniforms remain affordable and accessible should be reinstated following their dilution under this Government, and greater ability for local authorities to keep the costs down would undoubtedly make a difference. No family should be left vulnerable, and no child left disadvantaged, because of what for too many is the extortionate price of education. Schools, local authorities and communities can come together to tackle the burden, but action must start with the Government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in Westminster Hall. I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for what he said; it is nice almost to complete this Parliament in Westminster Hall—I suspect there may be one more debate to come, but that is by the by.
I am very pleased to be involved in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on bringing it forward. This is a massive issue in my constituency. The Minister does not have responsibility for it, because it is a devolved matter—if the Assembly were working, it would be sorting it out—but, if I may, I would like to make some remarks in relation to Northern Ireland.
This is a big issue in my constituency simply because, as the hon. Lady and everyone else who spoke said, a number of families are in the clutches of in-work poverty. That term probably has not been used very often in the House, but it happens to people. I find there is a squeezed lower middle class, who find it more difficult than anybody else just to try to get through because they are outside the benefit system, so they feel the pain. They go to work, yet the money coming in does not satisfy the money going out, particularly in August and September every year, as parents scramble to get school uniforms.
Some retailers that are aware of the pressure on parents offer packages. For instance—nobody will know this—Crawford’s across from my advice centre on Frances Street in Newtownards has offers online for all the major schools and some others, designed to help parents get a good deal. Mr Crawford has been doing that for umpteen years, and he does it very well. However, by their nature, offers are time limited, and if someone does not have the money in August and September, they must scrape together even more to meet their child’s basic school needs.
Expensive uniforms are another form of discrimination: if someone cannot afford the uniform, they cannot attend the school. They may have the educational qualities, but can they buy the uniform? No, they cannot. Unfortunately, therefore, parents may have to make difficult decisions for children who have the educational quality. Everybody, including the Minister, wants everyone to have the same opportunity for educational achievement, but someone who is poor and does not have much income will sometimes make decisions based not on how bright wee Johnny or Sally is but on what they can afford.
In 2017, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People published a report stating that the average cost of a school uniform in Northern Ireland is £109 per child, with yearly education costs well over £1,200 a year. I am going to mention some things that hon. Members have already mentioned, because it is important that they are on the record. Last year, a survey found that more than a third of families in Northern Ireland go into debt at the beginning of the new school year because of rising costs. A third of families in Northern Ireland go into debt just to get the uniform to get their children to school. School uniform grants are available from the Education Authority to families in receipt of universal credit or certain other benefits, but, at best, those grants cover only a fraction of the cost of the typical school uniform, and people are struggling greatly.
We should try to encourage children to be active, yet when they join a school club—hockey, football, rugby, athletics or whatever it may be—and travel to matches, they must be in their PE tracksuit with full school insignia, and then their actual playing gear and all the rest. Again, that is a method of discrimination. It can be heartbreaking for a family on the poverty line to realise that their child is good enough for the school team but that they cannot be part of it because the family cannot afford the prohibitive cost of the uniform. With full PE kits starting at £240—those are the cheaper options—and children needing one at least every other year, that is a massive cost. Let us be honest: the hon. Member for Henley mentioned how a uniform can look well used in a couple of weeks, and PE kits can get damaged as well, so that £240 may be unfortunately only the start of the cost. For that reason, some children are not taking part in school clubs, staying away not because they do not have the interest, the enthusiasm, the energy or the ability but because their mums and dads cannot afford the massive cost.
We are in 2019, and I truly thought these days were behind us, yet it is clear that children are penalised in their education because their parents work as hard as they can but have difficulty just making ends meet. I believed that was why working tax credit was created, to step in, fill the gaps and help with school uniforms and the now obligatory hockey, football, Gaelic football and rugby uniforms, as it should. Yet unfortunately in August and September, and at other times of the year, whenever parents come to see me, I see at first hand in my office that it is not working. We need more help for those who are working and yet are on the breadline—the working poor. That is a real issue.
At this stage, I wish to thank some people in my constituency who do great work. The likes of the Ards Community Network, Friends of Regent House and other residents’ groups have introduced a system, like the one referred to by the hon. Member for Henley, where used uniforms that are still in good condition can be dropped off to help those who cannot do it all. Hon. Members have referred to similar organisations. Those initiatives must be applauded and encouraged, but they highlight the failure of the system we have in place. That we need those initiatives illustrates clearly that we need help.
As a side issue, the Trussell Trust opened its first food bank in Northern Ireland in Newtownards in December 2011. I was there at the opening. It is now operating in more than 20 locations across the region. Families in crisis are up by over 13%. The welfare system is missing those people on the peripheries. I sincerely ask for a review of the school uniform grants procedure to help those on the edge.
I know that this is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland and that the Minister has no responsibility for what happens there, but hon. Members’ reflections are mirrored in my constituency as well. School uniform grants must help those who may be above the threshold on paper but in real life are struggling.
It is so important that children are happy at school. In my constituency and across Northern Ireland—I am sure this affects other hon. Members—we have some of the highest figures for young people at primary school level, and certainly at secondary school level, with mental health problems. Why is that? It is because they are not happy at school. I suggest very gently to the Minister and hon. Members that we must improve the quality of life for our children at school. We must ensure that they all have equal opportunities in education and so on. If that happens, we can make a change. My question to the Minister is this: when will that happen?
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing the debate on the last day of this Parliament. It is not quite the graveyard shift, as she put it. We may be competing with the House on who finishes first—I believe the valedictory speeches have just started—and I know you are anxious to get in the final word of this Parliament, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend for her work. She is an indefatigable campaigner on education, not just as a former trade unionist in education but as a former teacher, like me. Her passion shines through.
I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) rightly said that uniforms bring a common identity. Few schools up and down the land do not have some sort of uniform. He also talked about second-hand clothes, as did my hon. Friend. I might not be forgiven for saying this, as a Mancunian MP from Cottonopolis, but we now know that cotton production is one of the greatest polluters on the planet. We must begin to think of new ways to go forward sustainably. Recycling, reuse and reduction of cotton is therefore important.
I was taken aback by the community organising project of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), putting power into the hands of people who struggle to purchase uniform individually. Bringing people together for a school uniform exchange is a remarkably good idea. If she does not mind, I may well steal it for my own constituency.
As ever, whether in Westminster Hall debates or Adjournment debates, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made some strong points. Poverty is common across our islands, and it is a form of discrimination if parents have to fork out too much for uniforms.
We know that common uniform policy reduces bullying in schools, and I saw it for myself. Sometimes as a schoolteacher I would dread non-uniform days. The school where I taught was in a very mixed area. There were some rich areas from which children would come in wearing designer Nike gear, and some came in wearing supermarket gear. Even at quite a young age, they knew the difference. That is important.
I think of my constituency, which StepChange says has 3,000 families containing 5,000 children in toxic debt—the most in England, for sure—owing about £14 million to utility companies, dependent on payday lenders and pawn brokers to get to the end of the month. They are unable to pay when their white goods break down and they are really struggling to get by. I also have the highest number of social tenants who are affected by the bedroom tax—or the spare room subsidy. This is therefore a timely debate to finish off this Parliament.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, nine years of austerity has been unrelenting. Universal credit is failing, driving people to debt and even destitution. For many in my constituency and up and down the land, and particularly for those in faith communities, the two-child policy for child benefit is an utter disgrace. I pray for the day of a Labour Government. If one comes about in a few weeks’ time, that is one of the first things we will deal with. If we do have a Conservative Government, I pray for the day on which they will change their mind, because it is driving people to despair.
More than 4 million children are growing up in poverty. More than 1 million are forced to go to food banks, and it is predicted to get worse. My food banks coalition came to me towards the end of August—we will all have faced this—saying, “We have run out of food, Mr Kane.” I asked, “Why have you run out of food? We have churches, civil society, supermarkets and business contributing week in, week out.” They said, “It’s school uniform buying week.” They were out of food at the Wythenshawe food bank. The Government should be hanging their head in shame that those families are in that situation.
There are also signs that our increasingly fragmented schools system hampers what we can offer our parents and children. It is a system that allows free schools and academies to act as islands, independent of their communities and the needs of the children they are supposed to support. On this Government’s watch, we have seen parent governors stripped from school governing bodies up and down the land. It is a system with no means by which parents can hold a school to account, and the Government have failed entirely to act on parents’ concerns. Academies and free schools set rigid dress codes with expensive uniforms that cannot be bought on the high street, and children are sent home from school because their parents cannot afford to meet those dress codes.
The system has exacerbated sending children home, with 10,000 children off-rolled in the last year alone. We give a charter to criminals and county line gangs when we send children home and we have no idea where they are. The system is broken. What is the Minister doing to ensure that children do not lose time in school because their parents cannot meet unrealistic demands on school uniforms? When will the Minister ensure that the Government meet their pledge to make school uniform guidance legally binding? What are the Minister and the Government doing to address the ever-increasing challenge faced by parents to pay for the basics? What will they do to ensure that support is available when they have overseen the abolition by stealth of the school uniform grant?
Time after time, Labour has pressed Ministers to take action, but yet again we are well into a school year with parents paying the price for the Government’s failure to act. The Government pledged statutory guidance in 2015, yet, four years and three Prime Ministers on, they still hide behind the excuse that they could not find parliamentary time. It is clearer than ever that parents, children and teachers need a Government that will act on their behalf—a Labour Government with a national education service. Will the Minister pledge to us today to end once and for all the perverse situation whereby poverty acts as a barrier to children attending school?
Finally, may I thank all Members who have contributed today and to the parliamentary Session? Putting one’s name on a ballot paper, from whatever political party, is a brave act: an increasingly braver act these days. I wish all Members good luck and I thank the Minister for his courtesy over the past few years. I have stood opposite him many times in many debates. I thank the House staff, the Doorkeepers and all who keep us safe and functioning in this place.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I hope it will not be for the last time, even if it is the last time during this long parliamentary Session. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), whose views I share. It is a worthwhile occupation to stand for election to public office in our great democracy. It is a pity that politicians are treated in the way that too many of us are. We need to do more across parties to re-establish the safety and position of politicians and how they are regarded by the public. I am sure that together we can do a lot to enhance their reputation.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing this important debate and on her powerful opening speech. I am aware of the hon. Lady’s concerns, given her role as a member of the Education Committee. I also congratulate her on her work with the RE:Uniform campaign, and the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) on similar campaigns in her constituency. Such campaigns facilitate the exchange of second-hand school uniforms for many in both their constituencies. I am sure that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, will not be the only person stealing her ideas.
The hon. Gentleman said that school uniforms reduce bullying and that when he was a teacher he dreaded non-school uniform days, which reveal too harshly who has designer clothes and who does not. That is why I am a keen adherent and supporter of school uniform in this country. Where I disagree with him is on how we ensure that poverty is reduced to an absolute minimum. A driving objective of Conservative economic policy is to reduce poverty. We have the lowest level of unemployment since the mid-1970s. There are fewer workless households and fewer children living in workless households today as a consequence of our presiding over a strong and what I would call a stable economy, which is our objective going forward. We want to maintain a stable and strong economy, keeping unemployment low and the number of jobs at record levels. That is how we reduce poverty in this country. Opposition Members should know that no Labour Government has ever left office with unemployment lower than when they came into office. People need to take that very seriously if they are as determined as we are to reduce poverty in this country.
Jim Shannon
I am ever mindful of the different aspect in Northern Ireland, but I am conscious of those who are in in-work poverty. Have the Government had an opportunity to assess the extent of that? In my constituency it is enormous, but I suspect it is the same in every other hon. Member’s.
Nick Gibb
The way to reduce in-work poverty is to have a strong economy that creates the wealth that everybody can benefit from. We introduced the national living wage to ensure that people on low wages gain a bigger share of the wealth that our economy creates. Also, we have raised the personal allowance tax threshold to something nearer £11,000 or £12,000, so that people on low incomes pay significantly less tax. Millions of people have been taken out of tax altogether. That is how to tackle poverty and low income. A strong economy with very low levels of unemployment means that wages are pushed up because of market forces.
We can all agree that the cost of school uniform is an important issue for many families. I was grateful for the opportunity to speak about it in response to a debate on this topic secured by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) last year, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue again today. If schools can ensure that uniform items are available at a reasonable cost to parents, there are significant positive benefits that school uniforms can provide. The Government strongly encourage schools to have a school a uniform.
It is common for schools also to have a school dress code, and the overwhelming majority of schools require pupils to wear a uniform. A school uniform can play an important role in contributing to the ethos of a school and setting an appropriate tone. It can help foster a sense of equality and belonging for pupils and reduce pressure for pupils and parents to have to spend money on keeping up with the latest fashions or trends. It can also support discipline and motivation among pupils as part of a wider behaviour policy.
A primary purpose of a uniform is to remove differences between pupils. If everyone is dressed the same, it underlines that we are all equal. With a standard uniform in place, it is harder to tell a pupil’s background. In such ways, uniforms can play an important part in helping pupils feel safe and happy at school. Although decisions about school uniform are made by head teachers and governing bodies, and it is right that they continue to make such decisions, I encourage all schools to have uniform policies for the reasons I have outlined.
When speaking about this topic, I have consistently said that I am clear that the cost of uniform should not act as a barrier to obtaining a good school place. I want all children to be able to attend a school of their parents’ choice wherever possible. No school uniform should be so expensive as to leave pupils or their families feeling unable to apply to or attend a school of their choice. That is made very clear in the admissions code.
Holly Lynch
Looking back to when I went to secondary school—which I appreciate is some years ago now—I am reminded that the school provided a list of the uniform and equipment that I would need. The cost of all those things was a challenge for my family, and there were things on that list that we paid for that I never used in five years. Could we not do something very quickly and simply to prevent families from having to fund those costs without additional cost to the Government?
Nick Gibb
Certainly schools should be careful in requiring purchases of equipment that is not needed. It is a loose use of other people’s money by the school, so I share the hon. Lady’s concern about that. I am proud of the pupil premium, which the previous Conservative-led Government introduced. It is about £2.5 billion a year—nearly £1,000 for every secondary school pupil and about £1,300 for every primary school pupil on free school meals. The money can be used to pay for uniforms and equipment that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds might need to have.
Emma Hardy
One of the points made by some of parents was that when a school is re-brokered as a different academy trust, all the parents then have to buy the new branded uniform for that trust. If the Minister is looking at amending or improving the guidance, could the DFE not say that, in the case of re-brokering, parents will be allowed to continue to use the uniform until the pupil has grown out of it, and can simply purchase new in the new school academy, rather than having to potentially change in September and then in January?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Lady raises a good point. It is something that we will reflect on. I have often seen schools and academies, in such circumstances, provide the uniform for existing pupils, because of course it is a cost that parents will not have expected. There are many ways around the issue, but it needs to be addressed and taken seriously, as the hon. Lady says.
While school uniform can have a hugely positive impact on a school, by providing cohesion and community for the pupil population, it may present a financial burden to some—particularly to families on low incomes —as has been widely discussed in this important debate. In 2015, the Department commissioned the “Cost of school uniform” survey, which provided the most recent information that we hold on the cost of school uniform and indicated that the average cost of most items decreased between 2007 and 2015—the date of the report—when adjusted for inflation. Moreover, most parents were pleased with the overall cost and quality of their child’s uniform. More than two thirds of parents were happy with the cost of uniform and PE kit. However, in the same survey nearly one fifth of parents reported that they had suffered financial hardship as a result of purchasing their child’s school uniform. It is therefore vital that we do what we can to ensure that school uniform is accessible for all, no matter what the family’s budget.
It is for the governing body of a school, or the academy trust, in the case of academies, to decide whether there should be a school uniform policy, and if so, what it should be. It is also for the governing body to decide how the uniform should be sourced. However, we are clear that governing bodies should give cost considerations the highest priority when making decisions about school uniform. The Department published best practice guidance for school leaders on developing and implementing school uniform policy. That guidance sets out that a school should ensure that its school uniform policy is fair and reasonable for all its students. It should make certain that the uniform is affordable and does not act as a barrier to parents when choosing a school.
School uniform should be easily available for parents to purchase. In particular, the guidance specifically states that schools should seek to select items that can be purchased cheaply—for example, in a supermarket. If parents can shop around for items of uniform, that can encourage competition and enable them to buy their uniform from a retailer at a price that suits their household budget. The Department’s guidance advises schools that, in setting their school uniform policy, they should give the highest priority to cost considerations and achieving value for money for parents.
I am aware that a concern is often mentioned in this context about branded items of uniform, and how those are supplied—something that has been mentioned in the debate. We recognise that schools will often want to adopt items of uniform that are specific to that school, such as a branded blazer or tie. The Department, however, advises schools to keep such branded items of uniform to a minimum, as multiple branded items can significantly increase costs. We recommend that schools should avoid exclusive single-supplier contracts, as those could risk driving up costs. Where schools choose to enter into such contracts, which in some cases may be the best option, they should ensure that they are subject to a regular competitive tendering process to ensure the best value for money.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East raised the issue of schools that receive a financial incentive to use a specified supplier. The guidance explicitly states:
“Schools should not enter into cash back arrangements.”
It is very clear about that. If parents have concerns about the school uniform supply arrangements in relation to competition law, they can raise them with the Competition and Markets Authority. As you may be aware, Mr Pritchard, the CMA wrote an open letter to schools and school uniform suppliers, which provides more detail about its policy, and what powers it has, regarding the appointment of exclusive suppliers for school uniform.
With reference to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), he will be pleased to know that the Government have committed to putting our best practice guidance on school uniform on to a statutory footing. Opposition Members also made that request. The Secretary of State and the CMA recently engaged in an exchange of open letters on the matter of single-supplier contracts.
Stephanie Peacock
I believe that the Welsh Government used powers provided in the Education Act 2002 and the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which were passed under a Labour Government, to issue their statutory guidance. Why has the Minister not done the same?
Nick Gibb
We keep those issues under review. As has been pointed out, we are running out of time in this Session, but if a Conservative Government are returned with a functioning majority, I am sure that we will give urgent priority to legislating on the matter in question.
The CMA stated its approval of our commitment to place our guidance on a statutory footing when a suitable legislative opportunity arises, as I am sure it will after the general election. In turn, the Secretary of State has reaffirmed our commitment to do so, which will send a clear signal that we expect schools to ensure that uniform costs are reasonable. I should make it clear that the Government’s stated intention to make school uniform affordable does not undermine our commitment to the principle of uniform itself. Putting our guidance on a statutory footing is directly intended to ensure that school uniforms are affordable for all.
In England, some local authorities provide discretionary grants to help with buying school uniforms. It is a matter for the local authority to decide whether to offer those grants and to set their own criteria for eligibility. Schools may offer individual clothing schemes, such as offering second-hand uniform at reduced prices, as in the uniform scheme that we have heard about today. As I have said, schools can choose to use their pupil premium funding to offer subsidies or grants for school uniforms. Again, that will be a decision for the school to make.
I am enormously grateful for the support that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle has given on this issue. She has raised some important concerns, and I hope that she is relatively happy that the Government also recognise the cost of school uniform as important. We want all children, wherever they are and whatever their background, to be able to secure a good school place, and we do not want the cost of uniform to act as a barrier. The steps that we have taken underline the importance of the cost of school uniform in helping the most disadvantaged members of our society to get access to a good education. The Government have made a commitment to legislate on the issue, which we intend to honour.
Emma Hardy
I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate. There has been broad agreement on the need to have a school uniform, as it helps to disguise some of the differences in income levels between families. There is also broad agreement on where we need to go forward. Let me push the Minister a little further. He referred to statutory guidance, but I think that should also include a limit on the number of branded items that can be required, and on overall cost. Schools should be encouraged to show and share the cost of their uniforms.
I have one final little push—“If you don’t ask, you don’t get”, as I was always told—to ask whether the Minister will consider introducing grants that are available throughout England, and not linked to a local authority’s ability to pay for them. We know that local authorities have suffered cuts and cannot afford to pay for those grants, but they should be available to every child, regardless of where they live. On that slightly demanding note, I thank all hon. Members—it has been a pleasure to take part in this debate and to continue campaigning on education; and, in the words of Arnie Schwarzenegger, “I’ll be back.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered school uniform costs.
Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries Study
(5 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the recommendations of the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries study.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his place. He has been very supportive of proposals to revitalise the UK fishing industry, and through the Fisheries Bill, which I hope is only temporarily stalled, he has provided a framework for doing that.
My interest is in the East Anglian coast, which runs for 208 miles from King’s Lynn in Norfolk to Leigh-on-Sea in Essex, with Lowestoft in Suffolk, in my constituency, geographically at its centre. Lowestoft is historically the fishing capital of the southern North sea, and the hope is that in the future, if we make the most of the opportunity that Brexit presents, it will be the regional hub port at the heart of a revived but modern fishing industry that plays a key role in the regeneration of coastal communities.
REAF—the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries—is a community-led group that has come together to produce a long-term strategy for fishing in the region. Work began in 2018 as a result of the joint endeavours of East Suffolk Council, June Mummery, Paul Lines and me. A partnership was formed between the regional industry, East Suffolk Council, Suffolk County Council, Norfolk County Council, the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, Seafish, and Associated British Ports. Funding was provided by the participating councils, Seafish and the European maritime and fisheries fund, via the Marine Management Organisation. East Suffolk Council has given invaluable administrative and project management support and has hosted our meetings.
The REAF report was prepared by its members, with advice from Rodney Anderson and research and analysis from Vivid Economics. The strategy builds on the insights of numerous stakeholders and expert interviews across the whole industry, as well as conversations with regulators and public bodies. Special thanks go to all those who have contributed to the project.
There is a long history of fishing along the East Anglian coast. However, over the past 40 years, its importance to the area has significantly declined, and in Lowestoft, where it used to underpin the local economy, the industry is currently a very pale shadow of its former self. Across the region, the industry covers a diverse range of fleets and activities, including a shellfish fleet; an inshore fleet catching flatfish; some offshore demersal and pelagic fleets; processing, with some international exports; port and market services; and various other ancillary activities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate. Is he aware that UK vessels land some 40% of the catch from UK waters, whereas Norway and Iceland, for instance, land 83% and 90% respectively of theirs? The report to which he is referring makes it clear that East Anglia’s inshore fleet does not get a fair slice of the cake and there is scope for renewal of the fisheries employment sector in that area. It is very similar to my own area, the constituency of Strangford, and indeed my own village of Portavogie, which once had two fish processing plants. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the correct exit policy—the Minister will probably confirm this—we could again see business opening up and thriving in all our fishing ports and surrounding areas across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall cover a lot of the issues that he has raised in my speech, but I will highlight two things immediately. First, he is correct to say that, with the opportunity to land more fish in UK ports, the whole of the country and particularly our coastal communities could benefit. Secondly, the point I will be making is that although the REAF report is very much bespoke to the East Anglian area, there is no reason why similar reports could not be produced for other regions, such as the one that he represents.
The total reported value of the catch of commercial species from the southern North sea has in recent years varied between £190 million and £260 million, and only between 7% and 8% is landed by the UK fleet. Most fin fish are currently landed overseas, in ports in the Netherlands and France, with shellfish landings taking place off the west Norfolk coast and in the Essex estuaries. A varying but low number of UK-registered offshore vessels are operating in the southern North sea, but the vessels land only low values into regional ports because of their foreign ownership. The Lowestoft Fish Producers’ Organisation lands its fish in the Netherlands, not in Lowestoft.
The specialist modern vessels represent a substantial investment, made possible by access to UK waters under the common fisheries policy and through the purchase of access to UK quotas. They are said to comply with the CFP’s economic link obligation, mostly by gifting some quota to the UK. However, although East Anglia sits next to one of the richest fishing fields in Europe, very little local benefit is in practice currently derived from it.
Some Dutch demersal trawlers have used pulse fishing, which employs electric currents to force fish from the seabed—a technique that the European Parliament voted to ban with effect from January of this year, although 5% of the fleet of the North sea is permitted to continue for scientific purposes until 2021.
At present, we have a system that not only brings very little benefit to the East Anglian fishing industry, but is extremely environmentally damaging. This study’s main finding is that the UK’s departure from the CFP provides a remarkable opportunity to bring about a renaissance of East Anglian fisheries. However, that will be achieved only if our leaving the EU is accompanied by well-designed national policy and regulation that provide the framework for regional strategies such as REAF.
The report concludes that there is the opportunity to increase UK vessel quota catch in the southern North sea by seven times its value and UK vessel non-quota catch by 25%. That will together add 25 or more vessels to the UK fleet, creating jobs both offshore and onshore. Up to 13,300 additional tonnes per year of allowed catch will become available to UK-registered vessels in the southern North sea, potentially being able to be landed and processed in the UK. That will come about through a change in the way the fishing opportunity in the North sea is allocated between countries as we move to a geographic area allocation under the international law of the sea, known as zonal attachment, replacing the current basis for fish catches, known as the relative stability rule of the common fisheries policy. It is vital that zonal attachment and a requirement to land fish in the UK are the basis of any future agreement with the EU. Such a change would allocate the aforementioned sevenfold greater catch of quota stock value to the UK from the southern North sea; it would be worth approximately £28 million to £34 million at the quayside. That includes an eightfold volume increase in sole, a tenfold increase in herring and an elevenfold increase in plaice.
In addition, the economic link rule, which the UK uses to regulate the activities of vessels fishing UK fish stocks, should be strengthened so as to promote the landing of fish in UK ports. The potential benefits could increase further as fish stocks improve through effective management and as the regional fleet becomes more competitive and more efficient. In addition, there may be more opportunities to start harvesting crabs further offshore and to expand oyster cultivation.
To realise that opportunity, the REAF strategy makes 11 recommendations, which I will briefly outline. They fall into three categories of change. The first is economic change, bringing potentially rewarding and well-paid jobs to the East Anglian coast for not just the catch sector, but the whole length of the supply chain, from the net to the plate.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s strong advocacy for his fishing fleets in Lowestoft, which he has always demonstrated in his time as the Member of Parliament for Waveney. In East Anglia, we are proud of our food and drink produce. Does he agree that the opportunities he has just outlined would have an impact in constituencies further inland, such as mine, where we have the UK’s biggest producer of sushi, Ichiban, which produces 60% of the UK’s sushi?
Peter Aldous
My hon. Friend and neighbour is right. While I concentrated on the coast, where my constituency is located, the supply chain goes much further inland in East Anglia, into those constituencies, such as his, which are landlocked—for example, the merchants and the type of processing industry he highlighted. The tentacles of the industry’s supply chain extend a long way.
The second category into which the recommendations fall is environmental—the importance of promoting sustainable fishing, helping to avoid the overfishing mistakes of the past, so that we leave our fisheries to the next generation in a better state than we inherited them. The third category, linked to that second objective, is regulatory change, putting in place a local, bespoke system of management, which includes fishermen, and which avoids the past mistakes of the common fisheries policy, which was too centralised and distant at times.
In brief, the 11 recommendations can be summarised quickly as follows: introducing a new system of control in the inshore fleet through hours-at-sea restrictions and the use of gear; requiring the offshore fleet to land its catch in the UK and restricting it from fishing within 12 nautical miles of the coast; considering restricting offshore vessels to 500 hp and banning beam trawling; investing in a regional hub fishing port in Lowestoft; providing access to finance for the scaling-up and automation of the processing sector; upgrading the control regime for anglers; removing barriers to aquaculture expansion by de-risking developments and improving access to finance; setting up an apprenticeship scheme; combining the two inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and the Marine Management Organisation into a new single East Anglia regional fisheries authority; managing fishing stocks as a mixed fishery and introducing more effective controls over fishing mortality; and, finally, making more use of data to manage potential conflicts between fishermen and other marine activities, such as wind farms and dredging.
The REAF study is very much a living document. It is not a piece of academic research purely designed to provoke contemplation and debate. It sets out a range of practical recommendations that, if implemented, could bring significant benefits to local people, communities and businesses. Brexit on its own is not a magic wand that will revitalise our fishing industry, but it gives us the opportunity to start again with a clean sheet of paper, to pursue innovative and radical policies that can bring real benefits to East Anglian coastal communities. We need to get Brexit done, so that we can get on with putting in place strategies such as REAF.
So that East Anglia can get on with this work, I ask the Minister in his response to confirm support for the following first steps. First, it would be appreciated if he could ask his officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—who have been extremely helpful in this process—to continue to work with the REAF team, so that a strategy can be agreed for starting work on implementing the study’s recommendations. This regional approach to fisheries management will help to secure the Brexit dividend, and REAF provides a blueprint that could be used elsewhere around the UK coast.
Secondly, seedcorn funding should be provided, so that REAF can carry on into its next phase. East Suffolk Council has confirmed that it is prepared to continue to offer support and host meetings. It will convene a new REAF group and oversee the preparation of the first year’s programme of works. However, it does not have a budget to fund anything more than basic secretarial support. To take the project forward, there is a need for a full-time outreach worker, a liaison officer, who will foster, galvanise, encourage, interpret and explain. This person would spend the first six months of their time visiting ports and landing places, working with fishermen, talking to processors and hauliers, and generally obtaining further background information. This person will play a crucial role in advising the steering group about the practicalities of what is or is not happening on the ground. They will feed back to the different sectors of the industry and ensure that they continue to be fully supportive of the project. This will mean constantly getting out and about at times that suit the industry, not standard office hours. They will be the linchpin of the project. A dedicated project manager and administrative backup are also required, as well as a modest level of specialist consultancy support.
Thirdly, we need to promote a new approach to managing mixed fisheries by controlling the inshore fleet through hours-at-sea restrictions. The Minister has previously indicated that the Government will carry out an hours-at-sea pilot; we ask for that pilot to take place in East Anglia.
Fourthly, it is important that we put in place an apprenticeship scheme for those wanting to pursue a career in the industry. That will include establishing an apprenticeship training programme for future skippers, funded by the national apprenticeship levy; preparing a careers in fishing brochure to accompany the scheme; and making available finance for graduates from the scheme, to support them in acquiring a vessel and a licence. East Coast College in Lowestoft wishes to be involved in this scheme, and there is a need to forge the proposals into a deliverable project.
Fifthly, Lowestoft wants to regain its crown as the capital of the southern North sea. That will require a fishing port development study to be prepared, working in close collaboration with Associated British Ports, the owners of Lowestoft port. The scope of the project could include a new fish unloading quay, berthing and provisioning facilities, and the creation of a new fish market. This would provide the port with the capacity to handle shellfish and both inshore and offshore vessels.
Sixthly, following Brexit, there will be a need for investment in the processing sector, not just in East Anglia but nationally. A scheme needs to be set up for which East Anglian processors can apply, and it should mirror the support that Marine Scotland provides to Scottish processors. My seventh and final ask is that we start work on forming the new single East Anglia regional fisheries authority, which will provide clear and visible signs on the ground of improvement in regulatory operations.
I suspect that I have spoken for too long and I apologise. I hope that I have illustrated that we have a detailed plan for securing REAF—the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries. We now want to get on with delivering that plan, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister that he supports that local ambition and that his Department will work with us to secure what I believe is a very exciting future.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We are all very privileged to be in the final Westminster Hall debate not only of this Session but of this Parliament, as we prepare for a general election. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), with whom I have had many debates on these issues. He has been a champion for the inshore fleet, particularly around East Anglia. Of course, his constituency is also home to the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is the national headquarters of our fisheries science agency and has a truly global reputation.
My hon. Friend was also with me on the Fisheries Bill Committee, which he mentioned, so he is familiar with our White Paper and our approach in the Bill. Sadly, that Bill has now fallen with the end of this Parliament. However, I believe that the principles we debated in Committee will be as relevant as ever when Parliament returns and when we leave the European Union. That is why the Government are committed to bringing back a fisheries Bill.
In the original Bill, we set out a number of important approaches. Clause 1 set out a whole series of fisheries objectives, including objectives for fishing sustainably and towards maximum sustainable yield. It was also very clear that we would take control of our exclusive economic zone, which means controlling access out to 200 nautical miles or the median line.
There were also ideas to improve the way in which the discard ban works. For example, a discard disincentive scheme would create a national reserve that fishermen with out-of-quota stock could access, and they would have to pay a penalty so that there was no incentive for them to target vulnerable stocks. In addition, we would have made it easier for them to avoid their current problem of choke species. Our fisheries White Paper was also clear that we would depart from relative stability—the EU sharing arrangements—and move to a new and more scientific sharing arrangement, based on zonal attachment, to which my hon. Friend referred.
We have also been clear that as we depart from relative stability and transition to this new and more scientific approach, under which we will have additional catching opportunities, we will use a different methodology to allocate any new quota coming into the UK. Although we want to keep some stability in the short term by keeping the current fixed quota allocation units for existing quota, additional opportunities will be distributed using different criteria. We are interested in giving additional quota to the inshore fleet—the under-10 pool, as it is currently described. We may tender some quota to existing producer organisations, based on their track record of sustainability. We will also, as I have said, keep some of that quota back for a national reserve.
Into the mix of this quite exciting change for our fisheries policy comes the Renaissance of East Anglia Fisheries initiative. As my hon. Friend said, there are many groups involved, including the local authority, Seafish and a number of local groups. I commend the work he has done in holding the ring and organising many events to promote its objectives. Indeed, I was very pleased to be able to attend the launch of the report.
The historic reason why relative stability does not work for many of our coastal communities, in particular those around East Anglia, is broadly as follows. During the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, most of our fishing fleet were catching cod in Icelandic waters, we were fishing less in our own waters, and other countries—mainly near neighbours in Europe—were fishing in those UK waters. It was very unlucky for us, in the way that sometimes happens to our country, that just as we were driven out of our Icelandic fishing grounds, where we had historic rights—we were driven right out to 200 nautical miles, following our defeat in the third cod war—we had already given the European Union control of our waters. The sharing arrangements were therefore set in concrete. To compound matters, the catch data that some of our smaller vessels had was not as comprehensive and detailed as the data that other EU countries purported to have. That created an unfairness in the sharing methodology, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, has continued to this day.
I turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend and the report. I have to say that he had many asks, but I will try to deal with as many of them as possible. First, there was a proposal to close the inshore pool and to have instead a system based on effort or hours at sea. As my hon. Friend knows, our White Paper was clear that we want to pilot such a system. When it comes to the inshore fleet, there is a case to be made that sometimes an effort-based regime is more appropriate for those smaller inshore vessels, because they have a small amount of quota for a large range of stocks, and a quota system does not work that well for them. There are, however, drawbacks to an effort-based system. A pilot in Ramsgate about seven years ago was not particularly successful, so we need to learn the lessons. Nevertheless, I am open to doing it. A quota system will always be the right approach for larger trawlers and offshore vessels, because an effort-based regime is not the correct approach when it comes to pelagic fish, which have very large stocks.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked that we require offshore vessels to land their catch in the UK and to restrict their fishing within the 12 nautical miles. He will be aware that we have given notice to quit the London fisheries convention. That expired in July. Therefore, when we leave the European Union, the historic access rights that some foreign vessels have had to fish within the six to 12-mile zone will expire. It is our intention that the 0 to 12-mile zone—our territorial waters—will be predominantly reserved for British vessels, and we will seek to restrict the access of foreign vessels to those waters.
We are also reviewing the economic link. That could include requiring vessels to land a greater proportion of their catch in the UK, so that what they catch is of benefit to communities such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We must, however, take into account certain considerations when adopting such an approach. Last year I visited the Faroes, which required 100% of catch to be landed in the Faroes. However, their fishermen complained that that meant that they were, in effect, captured by processors and did not have other market alternatives. There are, therefore, reasons for allowing some catch to be landed outside the UK, but we are seeking to strengthen the economic link.
A number of the other issues raised by my hon. Friend relate to funding. We will replace the European maritime and fisheries fund. We have also announced a new domestic maritime fund, precisely to support fish processing and harbour and port facilities to help projects such as that under discussion.
The report proposes that the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and the Marine Management Organisation should be combined into a single force. There is a reason why IFCAs were created. Previously they did not have an enforcement role; they had a management role and the MMO did all the enforcement. There was criticism that individual localities did not get the attention that they felt they deserved, and that is why IFCAs were given an enforcement role. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right that there is a case for joining up more closely the efforts of the IFCAs and the MMO. That is why we formed the Joint Maritime Operations Coordination Centre, where everybody—from the coastguard to the MMO and IFCAs—can work together to co-ordinate their assets in a single approach to the issue of enforcement.
Finally, my hon. Friend says that we should manage stocks as a mixed fishery and implement more effective controls for fishing mortality. CEFAS, which is based in Lowestoft, has done a lot of groundbreaking work. Our chief fisheries scientist, Carl O’Brien, has been a leading light in developing some of the methodologies for mixed fisheries analysis, and this is something that the UK is keen to pursue.
In conclusion, I welcome the REAF report and commend my hon. Friend for his work. As for where we go from here, I stand ready to work with him in the future, should we both be returned to this place, to further develop the thinking. When it comes to administrative support for the project, I know that Seafish has been involved and I think it would also be good to engage the local enterprise partnership in the process, to help to support bids. The time will come, however, when REAF will, I presume, want to turn its ideas into a grant bid to one of our maritime funds—either an existing fund or a future one—and at that point my Department and the MMO would stand ready to assess that application. My hon. Friend will be fully aware that I cannot give any cast-iron guarantees that it will get support, but I can guarantee that it will be given full consideration. I thank my hon. Friend again for his work and I commend him for the points he raised.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Before I adjourn this sitting, I would like to thank, I am sure on behalf of all colleagues, the Clerks, the attendants and the security officers outside, the sound and broadcasting staff, who of course are never seen but do an excellent job every time we sit in Westminster Hall, and the Hansard staff for their excellent coverage of our debates. Indeed, I thank all the staff of the House in what has been a very short parliamentary Session following one of the longest parliamentary Sessions in the last 450 years of our history. I thank you all.
I can now say, for the last time in this Parliament, that the sitting stands adjourned.
Written Statements
Intimidation in Public Life
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Oliver Dowden)
In July 2017, the then Prime Minister commissioned the independent and respected Committee on Standards in Public Life to undertake a review into abuse and intimidation in elections. This followed concerning evidence from many parliamentary candidates—across the political spectrum—on their experiences during the 2017 general election.
For those in public life, it has become harder and harder to conduct any political discussion, on any issue, without it descending into tribalism and rancour. Social media and digital communication—which in themselves can and should be forces for good in our democracy—are being exploited and abused, often anonymously.
It is important to distinguish between strongly felt political debate on one hand, and unacceptable acts of abuse, hatred, intimidation and violence. British democracy has always been robust and oppositional. But a line is crossed when disagreement mutates into intimidation.
Left unchecked, abuse and intimidation will change our democracy and mean that the way Members interact with constituents will need to change. Increasing levels of threats directed at those in public life is a worrying trend that will require a co-ordinated and thorough response from Government, the relevant authorities, businesses and the public themselves to address.
As the general election campaign commences, I want to update the House on the actions that the Government have taken to tackle intimidation, and the steps that the Government are taking in this specific election.
Prosecution guidance
We have worked with the Law Officers to publish new guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for the legal authorities on the laws on intimidation, and the wide range of areas in which intimidation can be prosecuted under existing laws. This has been complemented by guidance to the police from the National Police Chiefs Council.
The CPS guidance “Responding to intimidating behaviour: Information for Parliamentarians” can be found at:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/Responding-to-intimidating-behaviour-04-2019.pdf
The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC), CPS, College of Policing and Electoral Commission have also issued “Joint Guidance for Candidates in Elections” at: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/candidate-or-agent, which is distributed by the Electoral Commission.
Supporting local councils
We have passed legislation to remove the requirements for candidates running for local government, parish council, and local mayoral elections, to have their addresses on their ballot papers.
We have written to local authority chief executives, to raise awareness about the sensitive interest provisions in the Localism Act 2011 which protect the personal addresses of councillors in England, ensuring that monitoring officers are aware of the guidance published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
New legislation to tackle intimidation
We have consulted on our internet safety strategy Green paper, and we published the world leading Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport-Home Office online harms White Paper in April 2019. This set out a range of legislative and non-legislative measures detailing how we will tackle online harms and set clear responsibilities for tech companies to keep UK citizens safe. It established a Government-wide approach to online safety, delivering the digital charter’s ambitions of making the UK the safest place in the world to be online, whilst also leading the world in innovation-friendly regulation that supports the growth of the tech sector.
The White Paper set out the Government’s intention to introduce a new mandatory “duty of care”, which will require relevant companies to take reasonable steps to keep their users safe and tackle illegal and harmful activity on their services. It stated that the new regulatory framework will make clear companies’ responsibility to address the harm of “online abuse of public figures”. The White Paper also included ambitious measures to support education and awareness for all users and to promote the development and adoption of new safety technologies.
The Cabinet Office has undertaken a public consultation entitled “Protecting the Debate: Intimidation, Influence and Information”. From that we committed to legislate to introduce a new electoral offence, clarify the electoral offence of undue influence of a voter, and introduce a digital imprints regime.
Digital imprints
We recognise the important arguments in favour of having a digital imprints regime in place as soon as possible, but it was not possible to legislate for and implement a regime in advance of a December election. Technical considerations would need to be addressed, for example to avoid the need for individual candidates and campaigners to publish their home addresses as part of an imprint. Moreover, for a digital imprints regime to work properly, political parties, campaigners and others would need to understand on what material they are required to include an imprint. Rushing into a new regime—that could have proved unworkable—could have led to significant issues, including confusion, unintentionally stifling democratic debate or to people unknowingly committing an offence.
The Government are committed to implementing a digital imprints regime as soon as they can but it must be a workable regime.
Defending democracy programme
On 22 July 2019, the Government announced the defending democracy programme that will help maintain the integrity of our democracy and electoral processes. This cross-Government programme, led by the Cabinet Office, has been set up to:
protect and secure UK democratic processes, systems and institutions from interference, including from cyber, personnel and physical threats;
strengthen the integrity of UK elections;
encourage respect for open, fair and safe democratic participation; and
promote fact-based and open discourse, including online.
Earlier this year, this Government committed to publishing a consultation on electoral integrity, which will look at measures to improve voters’ confidence in our democracy.
Protection of candidates
The parliamentary liaison and investigations team (PLAIT) and the Members security support team (MSSS) will continue to support Members once they become candidates after Dissolution. Personal security advice and guidance has been provided to all Members, and there is a package of security measures available for homes and constituency offices.
Local police forces are chiefly responsible for the security of candidates. As such, they have been briefed on their responsibilities regarding the delivery of protective security measures. The Home Secretary wrote to chief constables on 2 October 2019, and the Security Minister wrote to Police and Crime Commission, to ensure that they prioritised tackling the intimidation and abuse of Members and candidates.
Local police forces also have a dedicated point of contact for candidates who can be contacted for security advice. All urgent concerns, or contact outside of office hours, should be directed to police control rooms, who have been briefed to provide suitable guidance and support.
Recognising that intimidation can take a number of forms, the Cabinet Office will co-ordinate with the police, the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and others to issue a package of security guidance, including how to report it. Following the Dissolution of Parliament, this guidance will be sent to all returning officers, to be issued to all candidates in every constituency.
The Cabinet Office, in its cross-Government co-ordination role, has set up an election cell which will meet regularly during the election campaign period and whose attendees include organisations responsible for the safety of candidates.
Advice to candidates regarding abuse online
Social media helps Members and candidates connect with the public and can and should be a force for good in our democracy. However, there have been worrying trends of abuse and threats directed towards Members of all parties, and particularly female and BAME Members. The Government believe this is completely unacceptable.
Illegal activity online should be treated in the same way as illegal activity offline, and reported to the police. Social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, have also developed guidance and dedicated mailboxes for reporting abuse and intimidation against candidates during an election. Today, the Home Secretary, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and I have written to social media companies asking them to work together during this election to provide clear advice to candidates in one place so candidates know what content breaches their terms and conditions, where to report suspected breaches and what they can expect once a report has been made. We have also asked that they work together to identify where abusive users towards candidates are migrating between platforms and to encourage more proactivity on this.
A copy of this letter has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
Democracy is a fundamental British value and one underpinned by respectful, vibrant and robust debate. But this freedom cannot be an excuse to cause harm, spread hatred or impose views upon others—a line is crossed when disagreement mutates into intimidation, violence or abuse.
Our politics will be the poorer if talented potential candidates—people who just want to stand to represent their peers and stand up for their areas—decide not to get involved out of fear for their or their loved ones safety. If fewer candidates put themselves forward, then voters will have less choice at the ballot box.
The Government will take all necessary steps to protect the debate, have put in place measures to support candidates with their safety for this election and have ambitious plans to tackle online and offline abuse of those in public life beyond.
[HCWS100]
Audit Reform
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrea Leadsom)
The Government recognise the role that audit plays in the effective functioning of the UK’s financial markets and broader economy.
To help meet our ambition that the UK should become the best place in the world to work and to grow a business, we must take forward reform of audit. This will include reforming audit, the audit regulator, and the audit market. Change would affect a large number and a wide variety of companies, firms, and interests; but it is clear that there is a need for truly long-lasting and effective change.
I want to see the UK leading the world in the next phase of improvement for corporate governance and audit. In the first quarter of next year—when I have considered Sir Donald Brydon’s recommendations—I intend to bring together all relevant elements of reform in order to take that forward.
I am already working to create the new audit, reporting and governance authority, to replace the Financial Reporting Council. I have started with appointing new leadership at the Financial Reporting Council, who are driving a new vision and culture for the regulator. They are now implementing those recommendations made in Sir John Kingman’s excellent report that are not contingent on legislative change.
Future reform will cover not just the function of the regulator, but also the purpose and function of the audit market, and audit itself. I intend to bring forward an ambitious and coherent programme of change that drives up quality, resilience and choice. It will include proposals on the function and oversight of audit committees and new internal control arrangements within businesses; on the responsibilities of boards and directors; on how both investors and regulators can better hold companies and their auditors to account; and to reduce the reliance on a few large audit firms for the provision of audit.
All of those factors must be and will be assessed and weighed together, so that the whole package is coherent and effective. As recognised by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, whose work on audit I welcome, some reform will require radical action in order to ensure that it is meaningful and enduring, and that it fully addresses the very real concerns that we all share with the current state of the market.
[HCWS102]
Cobham plc Merger
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrea Leadsom)
On 25 July 2019, the boards of Cobham plc and a subsidiary of funds managed by Advent International, a US private equity firm, announced that they had reached agreement on the terms of a recommended cash acquisition of Cobham for approximately £4 billion.
On 17 September, following advice from relevant Government Departments and agencies, I initiated a public interest intervention under the Enterprise Act 2002 into this merger on the grounds of national security. I required that the Competition and Markets Authority investigate the merger and provide me with a report on the transaction by 29 October, which it has done. The Secretary of State for Defence has also written to me about the national security implications of the merger and the discussions which have taken place with the parties to propose undertakings to address those implications. I am grateful for the advice I have received and the constructive engagement from the parties.
The decision on how to proceed in this case requires further full and proper consideration of the issues. Having received these reports, I will therefore have further discussions with my ministerial colleagues and the parties to the transaction to inform the decision-making process. I will update the House in due course so that hon. Members can scrutinise the Government’s decision. The full legal process will continue to be followed throughout the general election period.
[HCWS86]
Work of the Department
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrea Leadsom)
I would like to update the house on some of the key achievements of the Department for Business, Energy and the Industrial Strategy since it was created in July 2016.
Leading the world in tackling climate change
Achieving net zero carbon emissions is a key departmental priority and we have set out actions we are taking across the economy to accomplish this.
We committed to set a legally binding target to end the UK’s contribution to climate change to net zero by 2050.
We have set out further actions we are taking across the economy to achieve net zero by 2050. These include adding around 6GW of clean energy to the grid by 2025 through the contracts for difference (CfD) scheme, enough to power over 7 million homes at record low costs.
We announced £200 million of initial funding for a programme which aims to design and build a nuclear fusion plant by 2040, looking to exploit the potential for clean, safe and inexhaustible power.
We announced £27.8 million of Government funding to advance carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technologies in the UK, a crucial step towards the UK’s net zero emissions.
We announced investment of up to £1 billion over five years to boost the production of key green technologies in the motor industry, including batteries, electric motors, power electronics and hydrogen fuel cells. This is in addition to £400 million for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
The UK was nominated to host the COP26 UN climate talks next year in partnership with Italy, recognition by world leaders of our strong global on climate issues.
UK emissions in 2019 were 42% lower than in 1990, while growing the economy by 72%. The UK has delivered fastest decarbonisation in G20 since 2000 according to PWC.
The UK’s fifth carbon budget was passed into law, equivalent to a 57% reduction on 1990 levels by 2032.
We committed £5.8 billion of international climate finance from 2016 to 2021, placing us among the world’s leading providers of climate finance, in addition to the £3.87 billion we provided from 2011 to 2016. The Prime Minister later announced the doubling of international climate finance spend to £11.6 billion.
Our international climate finance programmes are delivering real results on the ground and are catalysing wider change.
Among others, we have built the market for concentrated solar power (CSP) in developing countries.
We have contributed £720 million to the green climate fund, financing projects and programmes in a range of developing countries.
We published the Clean Growth Strategy: Leading the way to a low carbon future policy paper. This set out the strategy for decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy through the 2020s, benefiting the economy while meeting commitments to tackle climate change.
We held the UK’s first green GB week in 2018, a week to celebrate clean growth and raise awareness regarding how the public and businesses can tackle climate change.
We launched the smart export guarantee consultation which proposed that large electricity suppliers must offer small scale generators a price per kWh for the electricity they export to the grid. The scheme came into force in June 2019.
We are taking action to make sure the UK’s energy system has adequate capacity and is diverse and reliable.
We gave the go-ahead agreement to proceed with the first nuclear power station in a generation at Hinkley Point C to ensure future low-carbon energy security. Hinkley will provide 7% of Britain’s electricity needs for 60 years. UK-based businesses will benefit from more than 60% of the £18 billion value of the project, and 26,000 jobs and apprenticeships will be created.
We continued to support the capacity market auctions. The capacity market aims to ensure security of electricity supply by providing a payment for reliable sources of capacity, alongside electricity revenues, to ensure the delivery of electricity when needed.
The Department’s ambition is for the UK to have the lowest energy costs in Europe, for both households and businesses.
The Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill put a requirement on the independent regulator, Ofgem, to cap energy tariffs until 2020. It came into force in January 2019, saving customers on default tariffs around £76 on average and as much as £120 on the most expensive tariffs.
As of March 2019, there were over 14.3 million meters operating under the smart meter programme.
Making the UK the best place to work and grow a business
The Secretary of State has set out her ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to work and grow a business. Creating fairer, inclusive workplaces and unlocking enterprise by cutting the burdens on businesses are two sides of the same coin and both equally important.
We announced that the British Business Bank would expand its venture capital and debt support programmes. A total of 82,000 smaller businesses have been supported by the British Business Bank.
The Brydon review examined the quality and effectiveness of the audit market and looked at what audits should be in the future. It addressed the audit expectation gap: the difference between what people think an audit does and what it actually does. It will also look at the scope of an audit, any changes that may need to be made to it and how it can better serve the public interest.
We consulted on the competition and markets authority’s far-reaching and ambitious recommendations to improve quality, resilience and competition in the statutory audit market. We are committed to acting on the CMA’s findings and will respond as soon as possible.
We established the Office for Product Safety and Standards to enhance consumer protections.
We published the Consumer Green Paper, aimed at responding to the challenges and opportunities of modern consumer markets via a regulatory and competition framework. This was followed by consultation and engagement on the Green Paper.
We carried out a Smart Data Review and proposed a set of measures to ensure consumers’ data is handled with the security they expect, while enabling them to continue to have access to the best deals available.
The Government asked Matthew Taylor to conduct an independent review of employment practices in the modern economy, which was published in July 2017.
We responded to this review with the good work plan. The plan set out proposals to ensure workers know their rights and receive the benefits they are entitled to, and that action is taken against employers who breach those rights. Proposals include:
First-day entitlements to holiday and sick pay;
A new right to payslips for all workers, including casual and zero-hour workers; and
A right for all workers to request a more stable contract, providing more financial security for those on flexible contracts.
As of 1 April 2019 the national minimum wage (NMW) was £7.70, and the national living wage (NLW) was £8.21. The annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker have increased by over £2,750 since the introduction of the NLW in April 2016. An estimated 1.8 million workers are expected to benefit from this above inflation increase. By 2020, almost 3 million low wage workers are expected to benefit directly from the NLW, with up to 6 million in total potentially seeing their pay rise as a result of a ripple effect up the earnings distribution.
The Parental Bereavement Act entitles parents who lose a child under the age of 18 to two weeks paid leave, supporting those affected by the tragedy of childhood mortality.
The Department consulted on a number of key employment issues. These include measures to boost workplace participation and to tackle employers misusing flexible working arrangements.
We announced a Tipping Bill, reaffirming our commitment to delivering employment rights reform to ensure our employment practices keep pace with modern ways of working.
Solving the grand challenges facing our society
Our industrial strategy is built to ensure we focus our efforts and resources on solving the grand challenges facing our society. Through this we will increase productivity and improve lives, as well as helping to make the UK a science superpower.
The “Industrial Strategy: building a Britain fit for the future” White Paper set out the Government’s long-term plan to boost the productivity and earning power of people throughout the UK, provide more opportunities for young people to find high-quality, high-skilled work, and spread jobs, prosperity and opportunity around the whole country.
We launched four grand challenges to put the UK at the forefront of the industries of the future:
Growing the artificial intelligence (Al) and data driven economy
Clean Growth
Future of Mobility
Ageing Society
We are pursuing five individual missions related to these grand challenges. Each of the missions focuses on a specific problem, bringing government, businesses and organisations across the country together to make a real difference to people’s lives.
We agreed 11 sector deals, partnerships between the Government and industry to create significant opportunities to maximise the potential of each sector. Each deal will substantially boost the sector’s productivity, through greater investment in innovation and skills
The Space Industry Act created a regulatory framework for the expansion of commercial space activities and the development of the UK space port. It will enable the first commercial space launch from UK soil in history, creating the potential for hundreds of highly-skilled jobs and bringing in billions of pounds for the economy
We launched the AI package for 200 UK doctoral studentships in AI and related disciplines which could help diagnose diseases like cancer earlier and make industries, including aviation and automotive, more sustainable.
The “Future of mobility: urban strategy” outlined the Government’s approach to maximising the benefits from transport innovation in cities and towns, therefore improving choice and the operation of the transport system. The strategy aims to make transport safer, more affordable and accessible to all.
We launched the West Midlands and Greater Manchester local industrial strategies, working with local leaders to boost the productivity and earning power of people throughout these regions. Local industrial strategies will allow places to make the most of their distinctive strengths, helping to inform local choices, prioritise local action and, where appropriate, help to inform decisions at the national level.
We announced funding for strategic priorities fund (SPF) wave 2 programmes on healthy ageing, clean air and productivity. These will help us to fulfil our goal of improving lives and increasing productivity through high-quality research and innovation. Programmes include research into care robots that could make caring responsibilities easier; digitising museum exhibits so they can be seen in peoples’ homes, libraries and schools; research into teenage mental health issues and closing the productivity gap with investment in super computers and a new productivity institute. The SPF Wave 2 total programme funding allocation is £496.8 million.
We set out plans to rewrite the regulation rulebook to ensure the UK leads the tech revolution and empowers consumers. The “Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution White Paper” outlined how the Government will transform the UK’s regulatory system to free up businesses and innovators to test their ideas, make use of the latest technologies and get their products to market quicker, keeping the UK at the forefront of innovation.
We committed to increase investment to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. The Government are increasing spending on R and D by £7 billion over 5 years by 2021-22. This will be the largest increase in nearly 40 years. Within this funding we have:
Allocated £1.7 billion to the industrial strategy challenge fund (ISCF) over two waves of investment; £1billion was announced for wave 1 in Budget 2017, and a further £725 million announced in the industrial strategy White Paper. These challenges have been developed to align with the four grand challenges set out in the White Paper. We have announced nine challenges under the third wave of the ISCF.
Announced investment of £118 million to attract highly skilled researchers to the UK through a new Ernest Rutherford Fund, providing fellowships for early-career and senior researchers.
Committed £900 million to the UK research partnership investment fund over 2012-2021, which will lever double from private sources into R and D collaborations between universities, business and charities.
Committed to developing the UK’s national space capabilities, including:
£1million, matched by industry, for innovative new business ideas that could benefit from a flight to the international space station. These could be anything from medicines and innovative materials developed in the low gravity environment, to space-flown consumer products.
£20 million is being invested to predict severe space weather events by improving systems at the met office space weather operations centre and building the UK’s knowledge on how to forecast and better prepare for space weather.
To support R and D we have also within this funding we have:
Published “Higher Education: Success as a Knowledge Economy” (White Paper, 2016). This document set out a range of reforms to the higher education and research system, aiming to boost competition and choice in higher education, and strengthen the way the sector is regulated, and research is funded.
Passed the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, bringing together the seven research councils, Innovate UK and research functions of HEFCE into a single, strategic agency called UK Research And Innovation (UKRI) to encourage collaborative research across the sciences, and closer co-operation between researchers, innovators and entrepreneurs. UKRI was formally launched in April 2018.
Getting businesses ready for Brexit and the opportunities beyond
Preparing for all scenarios and delivering a Brexit that works for business has been the Government and the Department’s immediate focus.
As part of the Government campaign to ensure people and businesses are ready for Brexit, the Secretary of State hosted nine business roundtables, including five regional events, and visited businesses across the UK, in locations including Belfast, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Manchester. Businesses participating in the roundtables included Tate and Lyle Sugars, JCB, Tesco, Unilever, Laing O’Rourke, Scottish Power and Diageo.
We ran a “Get Ready for Brexit” roadshow, with 30 events over six weeks across the UK, where 3,132 attendees received tailored advice and support on preparing for Brexit. We also produced an online version of the roadshow, which has attracted nearly 6,000 viewers.
The Department launched the business readiness fund to help business representative organisations (BROs) and trade associations to support businesses to be ready for EU Exit. Initially launched as a £10 million fund, a further £5 million has been made available due to the fund’s popularity. So far over £10 million in grants has been issued to support 124 BROs.
We published 28 of the Government’s 106 technical notices to help the public prepare for Brexit, including Horizon 2020, state aid, workplace rights, nuclear research, mergers and trading goods.
The Nuclear Safeguards Act made provisions for nuclear safeguards after the UK leaves Euratom, ensuring the UK meets its international commitments.
[HCWS98]
Euratom Exit Strategy
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
The Government have further advanced their preparations for the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom and the European Union.
As made clear in previous statements on the topic, the UK has concluded all replacement international agreements required to ensure continuity for civil nuclear trade for when Euratom arrangements no longer apply to the UK and confirmed the operability of an existing bilateral nuclear co-operation agreement (NCA) with Japan.
Further to this, the UK and the Government of Japan held formal negotiations on the text of an amending protocol to the existing bilateral nuclear co-operation agreement (NCA) on 4 June. This amending protocol is not essential for the operability of the NCA or for our continued trade and co-operation with Japan but completes the formal legal process to amend the NCA on a permanent basis. Negotiations on the amending protocol continue.
Implementation guidelines for nuclear operators were published on 27 June outlining future reporting requirements on operators related to nuclear co-operation agreements. These requirements will allow the UK to comply with its NCAs with Australia, Canada, Japan and the US, following withdrawal from Euratom.
The UK also continued to make progress in implementing its new domestic safeguards regime. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) remains in a state of readiness to deliver a state system of accounting for and control of nuclear material (SSAC) that enables the UK to meet its international safeguards obligations when Euratom arrangements no longer apply.
The former Secretary of State prescribed the forms required by UK industry to notify UK regulators of the import of sealed radioactive sources from EU member states as well as the forms required by UK industry and UK regulators to apply for, authorise, and notify trans-frontier shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel. The use of these forms will only be required from exit day in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. A statement notifying Parliament of the use of the sub-delegated powers exercised to create these forms can be found in the report accompanying this statement.
Overall the Government have continued to work closely with industry to address the issues that may affect the civil nuclear sector in any exit scenario and remains committed to regular engagement with industry, civil society, academia, trade unions, and other interested stakeholders.
Today I will be depositing a report in the Libraries of both Houses that sets out further details on the overall progress on the Government’s implementation of its Euratom exit strategy, including domestic operational readiness, legislation and international agreements. The report covers the three-month reporting period from 26 March to 26 June 2019 and is the fourth and final statutory report under section 3(4) of the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018.
[HCWS87]
Business Productivity Review
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
The UK has some of the world’s most productive businesses and has a strong business environment upon which we can build. Despite this, the UK has a long-standing productivity gap with international competitors. That is why we launched the joint Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and HM Treasury, business productivity review to understand the decisions and actions taken by businesses that affect their own productivity.
The potential prize is significant. The Bank of England estimates that if UK firms could move along the productivity distribution into the next quartile, then this could see a boost to UK GDP by around £270 billion in today’s prices.
To inform the review we launched a call for evidence in May 2018 and received more than 140 written responses. Meetings were held with 3,000 business leaders and we also engaged with sector trade bodies and membership organisations that jointly represent over 500,000 businesses across the UK, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The business productivity review we are publishing today identifies best practice used by our leading businesses and sets out ten key actions that will support businesses to become more productive these include:
£20 million to strengthen local England peer to peer networks in England focused on business improvement so that thousands of business leaders can share expertise on leadership, business development and technology adoption.
£11 million to create a small business leadership programme in England to provide small business leaders with leadership training, building on existing world-class training programmes: such as Be The Business’ productivity through people, Lancaster University’s LEAD and Goldman Sachs 10,000 small businesses programme.
£25 million through the knowledge transfer partnerships to allow over 200 more UK based businesses per year to access the skills and talent to improve their business performance and productivity by improving how well they are managed. Today we are announcing that there will be a dedicated management KTP round which will be open on 12 December 2019 and closes on 19 February 2020.
Work with trade bodies, sector councils and Be The Business to ensure small businesses have access to business mentors from the UK’s leading and inspiring businesses.
Development of the evidence base on productivity, including through the recently announced productivity institute and the BEIS business support evaluation framework.
Work with the behavioural insights team to improve messaging to businesses, and work with trusted intermediaries—e.g. banks, accountants, trade bodies—to support small businesses to take action.
Improve the customer experience for businesses accessing online Government information and services for growth domestically and internationally.
Work with the private sector, such as Be The Business, to ensure businesses have access to clear advice and the tools they need to help them both understand and improve their productivity.
[HCWS92]
Adrian Smith Review
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
I am pleased to announce that I have today published the report “Changes and Choices”, co-authored by Professor Sir Adrian Smith and Professor Graeme Reid. This report, which I commissioned in March of this year, provides independent advice on the design of UK funding schemes for international collaboration, innovation and curiosity-driven blue-skies research.1 In the course of producing the report, Sir Adrian and Professor Reid issued a call for evidence and engaged in discussions with the research and innovation community across the UK. I would like to place on record my thanks to Sir Adrian and Professor Reid, as well as to all of those who engaged with them to ensure that the UK continues to be a global leader in science, research and innovation.
The UK’s world-leading science, research and innovation sector delivers real economic and social benefits for communities across the country. International collaboration allows us to work at greater scale than the UK could alone—for example to meaningfully tackle global challenges, such as climate change, artificial intelligence, cancer, and the future ageing society. In the Withdrawal Agreement Bill debate on 22 October, the Prime Minister confirmed that “we will protect, preserve and enhance” [Hansard, col.837] co-operation with European science and research funding programmes.
Sir Adrian and Professor Reid highlight the importance of stabilising and building on the UK capability built up through our international partnerships to date. This Government have participated in negotiations with European partners in a positive spirit as Horizon Europe takes shape—and intends to consider association to Horizon Europe provided the programme is open to third country association and offers value for money to the UK. Any decision about associating to the programme will need to take place after both the Horizon Europe proposal and the multiannual financial framework discussions have been completed in Council.
This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to be a global science superpower. That is why we have committed to increasing R&D investment to at least 2.4% of GDP by 2027 and have announced our intention to significantly boost R&D funding to provide greater long-term certainty to the scientific community and accelerate our ambition to reach the 2.4% target. In this context, I welcome Sir Adrian and Professor Reid’s recommendation that the Government should set out a new vision for international collaboration. The report will help inform our ongoing ambition to deliver wide-ranging and effective research and innovation collaborations with partners around the world.
1Adrian Smith Review: [Hansard HCWS1449]
[HCWS95]
ECOFIN
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sajid Javid)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) will be held in Brussels on 8 November 2019. The UK will be represented by Mark Bowman (Director General, International Finance, HM Treasury). The Council will discuss the following:
Excise duties
The Council will be invited to agree the directive on general arrangements for excise duty (recast); the regulation on administrative co-operation of the content of electronic registers; and amendments to the directive on the structures of excise duty on alcohol.
VAT data from payment service providers
The Council will be invited to agree a general approach on amendments to the directive on the common system of VAT with regards to requirements for payment service providers; and the regulation on administrative cooperation in the field of VAT concerning measures to combat VAT fraud.
VAT treatment for small enterprises
The Council will be invited to agree amendments to the directive on the common system of VAT in regards to the special scheme for small enterprises.
Current financial services legislative proposals
The Finnish presidency will provide an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
European Central Bank—executive board member
The Council will be invited to adopt a recommendation to the European Council on the appointment of a new member of the executive board of the European Central Bank.
Digital taxation
The Council will be updated on the current state of play of digital taxation and will discuss the way forward.
European Fiscal Board report
The Council will be presented with the 2019 annual report of the European Fiscal Board.
EU statistical package
The Council will be invited to adopt Council conclusions on the EU statistical package and to review progress achieved.
Climate finance
The Council will be invited to adopt Council conclusions on climate finance for the COP25 climate summit.
Follow-up to international meetings
The presidency and Commission will inform the Council of the main outcomes of the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors and the IMF and World Bank annual meetings held in October 2019.
Stable coins
As an AOB, the presidency will inform the Council about a joint statement on stable coins to be agreed at December ECOFIN.
[HCWS93]
British Indian Ocean Territory
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)
My noble Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon), has made the following written statement:
The United Kingdom is aware of the proceedings brought by Mauritius against the Maldives under the UN convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS). The UK is not a party to these proceedings, which can have no effect for the UK or for maritime delimitation between the UK (in respect of the British Indian Ocean Territory) and the Republic of the Maldives.
The UK has no doubt as to our sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the BIOT and the UK does not recognise its claim.
As we have made clear previously, we were disappointed that the sovereignty dispute over the BIOT was referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). By agreeing to answer the questions put to it by the General Assembly on behalf of Mauritius, the Court has enabled Mauritius to circumvent the basic principle that the Court should not consider a bilateral dispute without the consent of both states concerned. This sets a precedent which will potentially have wide implications for other states with bilateral disputes.
Despite these clear reservations, the UK participated fully in the advisory proceedings in good faith. We have also made known our views on the content of the opinion, including its insufficient regard to some material facts and significant legal issues. These included the 2015 binding UNCLOS arbitral tribunal award, which held the 1965 agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom, in which Mauritius agreed to detachment of the BIOT in return for benefits including the United Kingdom commitment to cede the territory when no longer needed for defence purposes, was legally binding. The opinion also gave insufficient regard to the reaffirmation by Mauritius, after independence, of the 1965 agreement.
In any event, what is undisputed is that the opinion is advisory and not legally binding. Moreover, the Court itself recognised that its opinion is without prejudice to the sovereignty dispute over the BIOT between the UK and Mauritius.
As the dispute over the BIOT is a sovereignty dispute, the General Assembly is not the appropriate forum to resolve such disputes. General Assembly resolution 73/295, adopted following the ICJ’s advisory opinion, cannot and does not create any legal obligations for the member states. Nor can or does General Assembly resolution 73/295 create legal obligations for other international actors such as a special chamber of the international tribunal for the law of the sea. Neither the non-binding advisory opinion nor the non-binding General Assembly resolution alter the legal situation, that of a sovereignty dispute over the BIOT between the UK and Mauritius.
A fundamental principle of international law and the international legal order is the principle of consent. It follows that the special chamber is not in a position to pronounce itself on the sovereignty dispute between the UK and Mauritius without the consent of the UK to resolve the sovereignty dispute before the special chamber.
The UK remains committed to implementing the 2015 UNCLOS arbitral tribunal award and seeking direct, bilateral dialogue with Mauritius.
[HCWS90]
Work of the Department
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) uses its global platform to promote a truly global Britain and support the UK’s values and interests—from helping victims of forced marriage to championing media freedom to securing market access for British companies.
Its 270 diplomatic posts are invaluable assets in 169 countries and territories. Its leadership within nine multilateral organisations shapes global agendas and sets global standards. It supports 31 Government partners, including Department for International Development, Department for International Trade and the British Council.
It is also a diplomatic network with ambitions to expand influence. By the end of 2020, the UK’s diplomatic network will have opened 12 new diplomatic missions across the globe since 2018, recruited 1,000 more staff members and boast more sovereign missions than any other European country.
The Department has also provided extensive support to the Government’s efforts to prepare for Brexit. This has included contingency planning for a “no-deal” situation, engagement to influence the EU on negotiation priorities and an extension to article 50, providing support to UK nationals living in and travelling to the EU, and planning for the UK’s future partnership with the EU.
Since the strategic defence and security review in 2015, this Department has made significant achievements in the following priority areas.
Protecting our people
Safeguarding our national security by countering terrorism, extremism, weapons proliferation, and other state and non-state threats in co-operation with allies and partners. Assisting British people living, travelling and working around the world in times of need.
In 2018-19, the Department provided invaluable assistance to over 22,000 British people around the world, and ongoing support to 7,700 existing cases. We responded to 14 major incidents overseas, from terrorist attacks and natural disasters to high profile political and security issues.
This year, the Department partnered with the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of
Transport to carry out HMG’s biggest peacetime repatriation operation of more than 150,000 people following the insolvency of Thomas Cook. In 2017, 85,000 passengers were returned to the UK after the collapse of Monarch.
The Department played a vital role in the response to Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017. The response involved 138 substantive updates made to travel advice for affected countries during the crisis, liaising with 14 foreign missions to answer queries on their nationals affected by the hurricanes, answering over 3,800 calls to the crisis hotline and deploying 82 FCO staff to provide support to 11 different countries in the region.
Projecting our global influence
Projecting and promoting the values and influence of a global Britain, strengthening our partnerships and the rules based international system. Supporting good governance, democracy, rule of law and human rights; preventing and resolving conflict; and building stability overseas.
In 2018, the Department helped to ensure a robust international response to the use of chemical weapons, following the attempted murder of a Russian dissident and his daughter in Salisbury using a chemical nerve agent. As a result, 28 countries and NATO expelled 130 Russian undeclared intelligence officers.
The UK is proud to have helped train almost 3,000 volunteers for the white helmets (a volunteer humanitarian organisation operating in Syria and Turkey) who have saved over 115,000 lives through their emergency rescue services in Syria. Through post in Geneva and in New York, the Department has worked to pressure the regime and its backers to end the fighting in north west Syria, and has supported efforts towards greater accountability for those who have attacked unarmed civilians, schools and hospitals. The Department has continued its strong deterrence messaging against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, including through support for the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons and the targeted and proportionate military response to the chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018.
UK climate change diplomacy led by the Department helped achieve an historic international agreement to tackle climate change in Paris in December 2015. For the first time ever, 195 countries agreed to act together to combat global warming and reduce carbon emissions. In 2020, alongside Italy, the UK will host the United Nations framework convention on climate change conference of the parties, a clear signal of the UK’s global leadership on climate change and commitment to reducing greenhouse emissions to zero by 2050.
The UK has been a global leader in the international fight against the ivory trade, legislating to introduce the toughest ivory ban in Europe and help bring an end to the poaching of elephants. In 2018, the FCO-organised illegal wildlife trade conference was attended by 1,300 participants, and resulted in significant, ongoing pledges by several countries.
Promoting our prosperity
Promoting our prosperity by opening markets, driving economic reform, championing British business, and supporting free trade and sustainable global growth.
In calendar year 2018, the Department continued to play a unique role within the Government’s cross-departmental conflict, stability and security fund (CSSF) and make a critical contribution to the CSSF’s work to tackle instability and prevent conflicts that threaten UK interests. The Department both delivered the majority of CSSF programmes and co-ordinated wider cross-Government efforts at the country and regional level, drawing on its deep foreign policy expertise. For example, in Ukraine FCO-led CSSF programmes have strengthened peacebuilding and resilience of conflict-affected communities, assisting more than 111,000 internally displaced peoples and supporting increased capacity in key Government ministries.
The Department has led on negotiations on Gibraltar, delivering an extensive set of agreements, as well as EU exit preparations on the other overseas territories. The Department has also supported the negotiation of arrangements for the sovereign base areas on Cyprus, and prepared for the implications of EU exit on UK sanctions policy.
In 2018-19, FCO-delivered prosperity fund programmes, worth a combined £850 million from now until 2023, began to deliver expertise and assistance in sectors and countries where there is high potential to support the inclusive economic growth needed to reduce poverty. Programmes initiated included a £45 million global anti-corruption programme, and £34 million ASEAN economic reform and low carbon programmes. The prosperity fund programme promotes economic reforms and remove barriers to trade, reform key sectors such as infrastructure, energy, financial services, future cities, education and healthcare, and tackle corruption.
In 2018, BAE Systems (BAES) won the tender to design and build nine future frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. It followed the Department playing an important role supporting the cross-Whitehall effort, and leading the campaign’s co-ordination in Australia. This outcome is a significant export boost for the UK as we prepare to leave the EU. It will secure around £2 billion of direct exports through British designed and manufactured components like engines (Rolls Royce) and Sonars (Thales UK and Ultra). It also opens doors to UK SMEs and secures approximately £10 billion worth of exports through the life of the programme. The whole of life sustainment win for BAES as a national shipbuilding enterprise partner is likely to generate another £40 billion.
In 2018, the Department hosted the largest ever Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, with 46 Heads of Government and 49 Foreign Ministers. As chair-in-office, the Department has since been working to strengthen the Commonwealth with delivery of ambitious commitments on prosperity, security, fairness and sustainability with a focus on supporting small island states. Moreover, the Department has achieved Foreign Ministers’ agreement to reforms that will improve the governance of the Commonwealth secretariat.
[HCWS89]
Foreign Affairs Council
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)
The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) will take place in Brussels on 11 November. It will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini.
The FAC will discuss current affairs, Afghanistan and Iran. There will also be a ministerial lunch with Sudanese Prime Minister Hamdok.
Current affairs
HRVP Mogherini will raise Venezuela. She will reflect on two international meetings held in Brussels in October. First, the international contact group meeting held on 28 October. Secondly, the international solidarity conference on the Venezuelan refugee and migrant crisis which took place on 28-29 October.
HRVP Mogherini will brief Ministers on the follow-up to the October FAC and European Council conclusions on Turkey’s actions in north-east Syria and Turkish hydrocarbons exploration activity. We expect the Council to adopt a framework for a sanctions regime on the latter.
HRVP Mogherini will also provide an update on the conflict in Libya and preparations for the leader-level conference which Chancellor Merkel will host in Berlin later this year.
Afghanistan
Due to time constraints, the discussion on Afghanistan at the October FAC was postponed to November. Ahead of the publication of the recent presidential election results, Ministers will focus on the political situation in Afghanistan. They will review prospects for peace, in light of recent Afghan and US-led peace efforts. The UK will underline the importance of completing the electoral process in an impartial, efficient and transparent manner, and highlight the importance of momentum in the peace process.
Iran
Ministers will discuss the EU’s approach to Iran and Gulf regional security. Ministers will focus in particular on the importance of preserving the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPoA) and the need for a diplomatic solution to de-escalate tensions in the region. Along with our French and German partners, the UK will highlight the importance of Iran returning to full compliance with its commitments under the JCPoA. All parties need to engage in comprehensive negotiations without prejudice to the JCPoA itself—to address Iran’s nuclear activities after 2025 as well as regional security.
Ministerial lunch with Sudanese Prime Minister Hamdok
Ministers will discuss recent progress in Sudan with Prime Minister Hamdok. The UK will continue to urge the EU to be ambitious in the level of support they provide to Sudan throughout the political transition. This should be proportionate to needs and include assistance focused on economic and social stability, the peace process, human rights, and democracy and governance.
Council conclusions
The Council is expected to adopt a number of measures, including: a framework sanctions regime in response to Turkish hydrocarbon explorations around Cyprus; the annual review of the Venezuela sanctions regime; and authorisation to open negotiations with Somalia on the status of the EU’s training mission for the Somali security forces.
[HCWS88]
Learning Disability and Autism Training
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
The Government have made improving the care and treatment of autistic people and people with learning disabilities a priority. Society is rightly judged on the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens.
Health and social care professionals have a crucial role to play in helping people with learning disabilities and autistic people lead longer, heathier and happier lives. We know there is good practice out there and excellent examples of staff working incredibly hard and supporting individuals and their families to receive the best possible care. However, staff can often lack the training or experience to deliver effective and compassionate care, resulting in significant health inequalities for people with learning disabilities and autistic people and poorer health outcomes.
In February this year, my Department published a public consultation to obtain views on how best to ensure that staff working in health and social care receive the right training to understand the needs of people with learning disabilities and autistic people and develop the skills to provide the most effective care and support. The consultation ran for 10 weeks, closing on 26 April 2019.
I am pleased to say there was an excellent response to the consultation. We received over 5,000 responses from a range of key stakeholders as well as individual members of the public and I am grateful to those who took the time to respond to the consultation. I am also pleased to confirm that the overwhelming majority of responses were supportive of the principle of mandatory training.
Today, we are publishing the Government response to the consultation, confirming our intention to introduce mandatory learning disability and autism training. A copy of the response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Our vision is that in future all professionals will, before starting their career or through continuing professional development, undertake training which covers a “common core curriculum” for learning disability and autism so that we can be confident there is consistency across education and training curricula.
We are committing to work with all professional bodies and the devolved Administrations to agree a common core curriculum based on the core capability frameworks for supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people. We recognise that it will take time to ensure that all training is aligned with the frameworks; with periodic updates to syllabuses and training requirements, but we will work with the regulators to ensure the closest possible alignment at the earliest opportunity.
Like everybody across the House, I have been moved by the personal stories about how care and treatment has been experienced by people with learning disabilities and autistic people, which in some cases has resulted in the worst possible outcomes. Cases like that of Oliver McGowan, whose story captures why learning disability and autism training is so important. I can announce that we will be developing a high-quality training package that will be named in Oliver’s memory.
I am also pleased to confirm that we are committing £1.4 million to develop and run a series of trials across both the NHS and social care setting, so that we better understand the impacts before implementation and a wider roll out.
To make the training mandatory we are proposing a number of actions, recognising that different approaches are required for different staff groups. Further detail on this, and the proposals above, is set out in the consultation response.
We need to ensure that those who work in health and social care understand the needs of people with learning disabilities and autistic people, how their needs can differ from the general population and for staff to be able to respond to those needs appropriately and positively. I believe the action we intend to take will do just that and ensure that everybody with autism or a learning disability receives the high-quality care they have a right to expect.
[HCWS91]
Immigration
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I am announcing today the conversion of the prisons and probation ombudsman (PPO) investigation of Brook House immigration removal centre to a statutory inquiry, in accordance with the Inquiries Act 2005. This inquiry will investigate the mistreatment of detainees at Brook House immigration removal centre broadcast in the BBC Panorama programme “Undercover: Britain’s Immigration Secrets” on 4 September 2017.
The Government take any allegation of mistreatment, and the welfare of immigration detainees, very seriously, and I want to establish the facts of what took place at Brook House and ensure that lessons are learnt to prevent these shocking events happening again.
Sue McAllister, the prisons and probation ombudsman, had appointed Kate Eves to lead their special investigation into Brook House. Following conversion of the special investigation into an inquiry, Sue McAllister, as ombudsman, was automatically appointed as the chair. However, to ensure continuity with their investigation I have agreed that Sue McAllister will recuse herself and Kate Eves will take up the position of inquiry chair. Kate Eves is an experienced and highly qualified investigator within custodial environments.
I have consulted with both Sue McAllister and with Kate Eves to confirm that the inquiry will have a similar scope to the PPO special investigation.
From today, the inquiry will have statutory powers to compel witnesses and establish the truth of what took place at Brook House.
I wish Kate Eves and all at the inquiry every success in taking forward this important piece of work.
The inquiry’s terms of reference are set out below:
Purpose
To investigate into and report on the decisions, actions and circumstances surrounding the mistreatment of detainees broadcast in the BBC Panorama programme “Undercover: Britain’s Immigration Secrets” on 4 September 2017.
To reach conclusions with regard to the treatment of detainees where there is credible evidence of mistreatment contrary to article 3 ECHR; and then make any such recommendations as may seem appropriate. In particular the inquiry will investigate:
The treatment of complainants, including identifying whether there has been mistreatment and identifying responsibility for any mistreatment.
Whether methods, policies, practices and management arrangements (both of the Home Office and its contractors) caused or contributed to any identified mistreatment.
Whether any changes to these methods, policies, practices and management arrangements would help to prevent a recurrence of any identified mistreatment.
Whether any clinical care issues caused or contributed to any identified mistreatment.
Whether any changes to clinical care would help to prevent a recurrence of any identified mistreatment.
The adequacy of the complaints and monitoring mechanisms provided by Home Office immigration enforcement and external bodies (including, but not limited to, the centre’s independent monitoring board and statutory role of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons) in respect of any identified mistreatment.
Scope
For the purpose of the inquiry, the term “complainants” is used to refer to any individual who was detained at Brook House immigration removal centre during the period 1 April 2017 to 31 August 2017 where there is credible evidence of mistreatment of that individual.
“Mistreatment” is used to refer to treatment that is contrary to article 3 ECHR.
The inquiry should in particular include investigation in to the mistreatment of complainants known (in the recent Brook House litigation) as MA and BB.
The inquiry may wish to draw upon the evidence and findings of the previous special investigation in to the events at Brook House, conducted by the PPO, before it was converted to a statutory inquiry.
Method
As a statutory inquiry, the inquiry will operate within the legal framework provided by the Inquiries Act 2005. As such, the procedure and conduct of the inquiry are to be directed by the chairman.
Report
The inquiry should be undertaken with sufficient pace to enable resulting recommendations to be implemented as quickly and effectively as possible. It is expected, on the basis of current information, that the inquiry will make its best endeavours to complete work and produce a final report to the Home Secretary, setting out their findings of fact and recommendations, within 12 months.
Principles
The inquiry will have full access to all the material it seeks.
The inquiry will bear the legal expenses for any individuals designated as core participant status by the inquiry chairperson.
It is not part of the inquiry’s function to determine civil or criminal liability of named individuals or organisations. This should not, however, inhibit the inquiry from reaching findings of fact relevant to its terms of reference.
[HCWS99]
Pre-charge Bail
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
This Government are fully committed to protecting the public, and ensuring the police have the powers they need. As such, today I am announcing that I intend to review pre-charge bail legislation to ensure we have a system which more effectively prioritises the safety of victims and witnesses and the management of suspects.
Pre-charge bail enables the police to release a suspect from custody, usually subject to conditions, while officers continue their investigation or await charging decision. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 “the Act” introduced reforms to pre-charge bail to address legitimate concerns that suspects were spending too long under restrictive conditions with no oversight or redress.
Specifically, the Act introduced (in relation to pre-charge bail): a presumption against use unless necessary and proportionate; clear timescales, and senior police and judicial oversight of its use and extension.
Since 2017 the use of pre-charge bail has decreased, and the number of individuals released without bail, or “released under investigation”, has also increased.
Furthermore, the demands on the police service have also changed. Concerns have been raised that pre-charge bail is not consistently being used in instances where it may be necessary to effectively manage suspects and protect victims and witnesses.
The review will also look at how legislative frameworks around pre-charge bail can more effectively:
support the police in the timely management of investigations, whether released on bail or without bail (“released under investigation”);
respect the rights of suspects, victims and witnesses to timely decisions and updates;
support the timely progression of cases to courts; and
how existing rules may be made simpler and more flexible in design to support effective operational decisions
[HCWS94]
Work of the Department
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Boosting Home Ownership and Getting Britain Building.
Getting more much-needed homes built
Since 2010 we have delivered over 1.3 million homes.
In 2017, we published our ambitious housing White Paper, and set an ambition to increase the delivery of homes to 300,000 a year by the mid-2020s. In 2017-18 over 222,000 new homes were created, the highest number in all but one of the past 31 years.
There was a net increase of 232,800 in the number of domestic properties with a council tax band in England between March 2018 and March 2019.
We are also ensuring that people have access to high-quality, affordable homes, having delivered over 430,000 affordable homes since 2010.
In 2018, we launched a new national housing agency—Homes England—to increase the supply of new homes, bringing together money, expertise, planning and compulsory purchase powers.
We have invested in overcoming the barriers to building.
In 2017 we launched the £5 billion housing infrastructure fund, to provide infrastructure in areas where housing need is greatest. At Budget 2018 we increased the funding by another £500 million, taking it to £5.5 billion in total, which will potentially unlock up to 650,000 homes. Over £3 billion has now been allocated to housing infrastructure fund bids—25 forward funding projects and 110 marginal viability fund projects—to unlock up to 297,100 homes, with more expected to be allocated over the coming months.
In 2018 we launched the £1.3 billion land assembly fund to acquire land needing work, making it less risky for developers to invest in. We also launched the £630 million small sites fund to help public landowners or local authorities speed up getting the right infrastructure in place to support stalled small sites.
In total, the Government have provided financial support for housing of at least £44 billion since the start of this spending review period to 2022-23. This includes £15 billion allocated at Autumn Budget 2017.
We have released land from the public estate for 109,000 homes through the 2011 to 2015 public land for housing programme, exceeding its 100,000 target. We have launched a successor programme, which aims to identify and release land for 160,000 new homes.
Boosting home ownership
In total, we have helped over 566,000 households into home ownership since 2010 through Government-backed schemes including help to buy and right to buy. The number of first-time buyers is at an 11-year annual high and has increased by 84% between 2010 and 2018.
Since its introduction in 2013, the help to buy scheme has helped over 221,000 households to get on the property ladder. In August 2019 we closed a loophole in the scheme, giving people the freedom to reduce their monthly mortgage repayments. This has opened up the help to buy re-mortgage market for more lenders, giving customers more choice and potentially paving the way to more competitive deals.
At the Autumn Budget 2017, we introduced stamp duty land tax relief for first-time buyers, which will help over 95% of first-time buyers who pay the tax, benefiting a total of 401,900 households so far and it is expected to benefit over 1 million households in the first five years. To date, this has saved first-time buyers an estimated £955 million.
We have launched two pilots of voluntary right to buy—one in 2016 and one in 2018—giving thousands of housing association tenants the opportunity to buy their homes.
In 2019, we announced plans for a new national model for shared ownership, which will help thousands of lower earners to step on to the housing ladder.
Improving people’s experience of the housing market
In 2010 we scrapped home information packs, removing unnecessary regulation and making the process of selling homes easier and less costly.
In August 2018 we published the social housing Green Paper, which set our ambitions for a new, fairer deal for social housing residents, including making it easier for residents to progress into home ownership. The Green Paper was informed by conversations with over 1,000 social housing residents and 7,000 online submissions.
Since 2012, the social housing waiting list has dropped by 40%. The Localism Act 2011 has given local authorities the power to set their own qualification criteria for social housing and to set policies which are appropriate to their local area.
We are helping renters by:
Passing legislation banning unfair letting fees and capping tenancy deposits, which will bring an end to costly upfront payments and renewal fees. The Tenant Fees Act came into force on 1 June 2019 and is set to save tenants £240 million in the first year alone.
Empowering tenants to tackle bad landlords through the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018.
Ending the practice of evicting tenants with no clearly specified reason, by committing in April 2019 to repeal s.21 of the Housing Act 1988.
Cracking down on rogue landlords. Last year alone we introduced banning orders and a database of rogue landlords and agents, and we extended mandatory licensing to protect tenants from overcrowding and poor housing conditions in houses in multiple occupation.
We are helping leaseholders by:
Announcing a range of measures to cut out abusive practices within the leasehold market, including prohibiting the development of new build leasehold houses other than in exceptional circumstances and restricting ground rents in newly established leases of houses and flats to a peppercorn, zero financial value.
Reforming the planning system to ensure that the right homes are built in the right places
In 2012 we published the national planning policy framework, replacing over 1000 pages of individual policy statements. In 2018, we revised the national planning policy framework, implementing around 80 planning reforms whilst making it more streamlined and easier to use.
As of the end of September 2019, 301 of 338 local planning authorities (89%) have an adopted local plan. 152 of these local plans are up to date (45%). This compares to 58 (17%) local planning authorities that had an adopted local plan in May 2010.
We are now preparing an accelerated planning White Paper to speed up the planning system, including the potential for more fees to be refunded if councils take too long to decide on specific planning applications.
We have given communities more power to plan for their areas, by introducing neighbourhood planning in 2011. Since 2012 over 2,600 communities have started producing a neighbourhood plan.
We have introduced permitted development rights for change of use to residential; over 46,000 homes have been delivered in the three years to March 2018 through these.
In May 2019 we announced changes to permitted development rights, allowing thousands of homeowners to extend their properties quickly and easily without the need for a full planning application.
We have continued to protect the green belt and it is now larger than in 1997, when records began, if we disregard land re-classified as national park.
We have reformed the system of developer contributions, to support local authorities to better collect and spend contributions. Local authorities received £6 billion in developer contributions which go toward affordable housing and local infrastructure in 2016-17, a £2 billion increase in real terms than in 2011-12.
Improving Quality and Design of Housing
We recently launched our national design guide. The first-ever Government-backed national model design code will be published in the new year and will set out a clear model for promoting a better design and style of homes across the country, shaped by what local people want.
We launched the future homes standard consultation in October 2019, to ensure that every new home that’s built in this country from 2025 will have low or zero-carbon emissions and the highest levels of energy efficiency.
Diversifying the housing market
We are backing councils to build more homes by removing the housing revenue account borrowing cap in 2018, enabling them deliver around 10,000 homes a year by 2021-22.
We established the £4.5 billion home building fund in 2016 to get more homes built. This will provide £2.5 billion funding specifically for SMEs, custom builders and innovators, giving them the funding they need to compete in the market. The fund also provides £2 billion in long-term infrastructure funding to unlock between 160,000 and 200,000 homes by 2020-21, with an emphasis on developments on brownfield land.
We have supported the build to rent sector to deliver over 30,000 homes across the UK since 2012, with over 110,000 further such homes in the pipeline. The build to rent fund provided over £630 million of development finance for the supply of 6,000 new privately rented homes. The fund closed to new applications in 2015. The £3.5 billion private rented sector guarantee scheme finances new build rented properties, and as of October 2019, £1.75 billion in total has been approved for 9,050 homes.
In autumn 2017 we announced a further £8 billion in guarantees to support housebuilding, including purpose-built rented homes and SMEs; £4 billion has been allocated so far:
In April 2019, we launched the £1 billion ENABLE build programme to support SME housebuilders.
At spring Statement 2019, we announced £3 billion of guarantees to support affordable housing delivery. The invitation to tender to run the scheme opened in November 2019.
Levelling up across the country
We continue to decentralise power away from Whitehall and back into the hands of local councils, communities and individuals to act on local priorities. In the 2019 Queen’s Speech, we committed to publishing a devolution White Paper to unleash regional potential in England and enable decisions that affect local people to be made at a local level.
Eight metro mayors have been elected since 2017, most recently in North of Tyne in May 2019. Through a major programme of secondary legislation, we devolved significant new powers, including over transport, housing, skills and planning to the mayors and combined authorities. Mayors are growing local economies by working with local councils and businesses to create jobs, boost skills, build homes and improve connections.
We replaced top-down regional development agencies in 2012, following the establishment of local enterprise partnerships in 2011.
In 2014, we established the £12 billion local growth fund and have since funded three rounds of growth deals for local enterprise partnerships to support local areas, creating jobs, supporting businesses and encouraging growth.
We have agreed 26 bespoke city deals through two waves in 2012 and 2013. These deals devolved powers and opened up new and innovative ways of doing things to unlock growth and deliver jobs.
We have supported the creation of three mayoral development corporations at Old Oak, Stockport and Teesside, to drive regeneration and growth.
In March 2019, the Department announced two new housing communities in London, Old Oak Common and Brent Cross Cricklewood. The investment package totals £570 million and will create 20,000 new homes and new jobs opportunities in the area, whilst benefiting from new transport infrastructure.
Supporting our towns, high streets and coastal communities
In July 2019 the Prime Minister announced an expanded £3.6 billion towns fund. The Government have since announced an initial 100 places that Government have invited to enter into a town deal negotiation, and 100 places that are benefiting from the future high streets fund.
The Town Deal funding will enable communities to develop ambitious transformative plans, improving their economic growth prospects, transport, broadband connectivity, skills and culture. In October 2019, Government launched the #MyTown campaign to give people a say in how a new generation of town deals should transform the place they call home.
The high streets funding will empower local leaders to help transform their high streets and town centres as consumer habits change. In August 2019, we announced its expansion, meaning that an additional 50 towns will now benefit from £1 billion of available funding. Part of the fund will be used to support the regeneration of heritage high streets. We have also funded successful initiatives such as “love your local market” and the “great British high street awards”, and established the high streets task force to give high streets and town centres expert advice to adapt and thrive.
In November 2018 we launched the open doors pilot scheme, which has matched landlords struggling to find tenants for their empty high street properties in five locations around England with community groups looking for space.
We are supporting our coastal communities through our coastal communities fund which supports projects in the UK delivering sustainable growth and jobs. In September 2019 we announced a further five towns which will benefit from this funding. Since 2012, we have awarded grants to 369 projects across the UK, totalling over £229 million.
Unleashing regional potential
Northern powerhouse
In 2016 we published the northern powerhouse strategy. Since then we have:
Invested £3.4 billion of local growth funding in the region to support locally determined projects across the north.
Seen record levels of investment in transport—over £13 billion between 2015-16 to 202-/21—and the creation of the first statutory, regional transport body outside of London, transport for the north.
Created the northern powerhouse investment fund, worth £400 million, to support SMEs to grow and scale up.
Boosted the international profile of the northern powerhouse through a commitment of £15million to support trade missions and £7 million for the northern powerhouse taskforce.
Improved education in the north, with £70 million for the northern powerhouse schools strategy.
Seen almost 50% of the north being covered by devolution, with metro mayors in place across the north.
In the autumn Budget 2018, the Government extended the transforming cities fund by another year, 2022-23, providing an extra £240 million available for six metro mayors for locally determined projects to improve transport connections. This builds on the initial transforming cities fund of £436 million in the northern powerhouse regions.
Midlands engine
In 2017 we published the first midlands engine strategy which included an additional £392 million for midlands local enterprise partnerships to support local growth projects, bringing the total growth deal funding for the midlands to nearly £1.9 billion.
We have supported enhanced connectivity in the region with £25 million of funding for midlands connect to publish its first strategy in March 2017. Further transport support has included, in March 2019, the transforming cities fund with Derby and Nottingham receiving £7.2 million, Leicestershire receiving £7.8 million and Stoke on Trent receiving £5.6 million.
We are investing over £250 million through the midlands engine investment fund to support small businesses to start and grow.
Skills development is being supported in the region through a £20 million midlands engine skills challenge, delivering targeted support to the unemployed through work coaches, providing English language training to help more people access employment and empowering employers to help employees with mental health issues.
Three institutes of technology have been established at Aston University, Dudley College of Technology and the University of Lincoln.
The west midlands was selected to become the home to the UK’s first multi-city 5G testbed in September 2018. The £50 million trial of new high-speed connectivity will pave the way for rollout across the UK. This builds on the already active 5G testbed in Worcestershire, putting the midlands at the forefront of 5G developments.
Birmingham was selected to host the prestigious 2022 Commonwealth Games and in Budget 2018, £165 million was announced to support the games athletes village and unlock 5,000 homes.
Coventry was announced as UK city of culture 2021 and has been provided with £8.5 million for its plans to showcase the city.
In May 2017, the people of the west midlands combined authority (WMCA) elected their first mayor, Andy Street. Government have agreed a second devolution deal with the WMCA which included £6 million for a housing delivery taskforce, £5 million for a construction skills training scheme and £250 million from the transforming cities fund to be spent on local intra-city transport priorities.
In October 2019, following the £2 million already granted to the midlands to develop the Toton growth zone near Nottingham, we announced intent to establish a new locally led development corporation with the aims of delivering new houses, jobs and economic growth.
Western gateway
In November, alongside the Secretary of State for Wales, we announced the western gateway: a strategic partnership promoting and maximising economic growth across south Wales and the west of England to create jobs, boost prosperity and support the world-renowned universities and businesses of the region.
To represent a strong business voice and lead the project to success, Katherine Bennett, senior vice president of Airbus, is the first acting chair of the western gateway.
MHCLG is providing £400,000 start-up funding to kick-start the partnership.
Helping Vulnerable People
In 2018 we published our rough sleeping strategy, setting out our vision for halving rough sleeping by 2022 and ending it altogether.
We have allocated more than £1.2 billion to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping over the spending review period to April 2020. This includes a flexible homelessness support grant of £617 million for homelessness services, £28 million of funding to pilot a housing first approach in three major regions of England and the rough sleeping initiative (RSI). The RSI began with a £30 million fund for 2018-2019 targeted at 83 local authorities with the highest levels of rough sleeping. The Government announced a further £46 million fund for the RSI for 2019/20. We expect this to provide 750 staff and 2,600 bed spaces this year.
These efforts are having an impact on rough sleeping levels: the 2018 annual rough sleeping statistics showed a decrease for the first time this decade, and a 19% reduction in those areas receiving additional funding and support under the rough sleeping initiative. And our recent impact evaluation of the rough sleeping initiative showed that the true impact was even greater with a 32% reduction in rough sleeping in these areas, compared to what it would have been had the initiative not been in place.
At the spending round in 2019 we announced £422 million offunding to help reduce homelessness and rough sleeping in 2020-21, which is an additional £54 million of funding compared with the previous year.
The Homelessness Reduction Act came into force in 2018, which will transform the culture of homelessness service delivery. For the first time, it placed new duties on local housing authorities to take reasonable steps to try to prevent and relieve a person’s homelessness.
Since 2011 we have delivered 34,000 units of supported housing for disabled, vulnerable and older people.
Supporting Local Government to deliver
high quality services with sustainable finances
Making public services better and more efficient
Between 2011 and 2016, we have provided almost £5 billion of council tax freeze grant funding to local authorities that froze their council tax level to help keep bills low.
We have worked with councils on agreeing locally led proposals to establish new unitary councils and to merge district councils, saving millions annually. In 2018-19 we supported two new unitary councils in Dorset and three merged district councils in East Suffolk, West Suffolk and Somerset West Taunton.
In 2011, we launched the troubled families programme to support local areas over the long term to transform the way services worked with families with multiple high-cost and complex problems. In 2015 we launched the second troubled families programme. As of March 2019, it has funded areas to work with nearly 380,000 eligible families, with 172,000 families achieving significant and sustained progress against the problems identified when entering the programme.
In 2013 we introduced new legislation to allow councils across England to charge double the rate of council tax on homes left empty for two years or more, and therefore raising funds which can be used to keep the overall rate of council tax down.
Council tax in England is 6% lower in real terms than it was in 2010. This follows a doubling of council tax over from 1997 to 2010.
We have also taken steps to ensure local authorities and private operators provide adequate parking spaces and are fair to their customers. These include:
Amending the national planning policy framework and planning guidance to reduce restrictions on parking and help local authorities and householders rent out empty spaces in 2011;
Reducing over-zealous parking enforcement through the Deregulation Act 2015, and giving local residents, community groups, and businesses the ability to challenge parking policies in the same year;
Tackling rogue private parking operators through supporting Sir Greg Knight’s Private Members’ Bill, helping it to secure Royal Assent in March 2019; and
Proposing a new code of practice, to be developed by the British standards institution, to provide drivers with a 10-minute grace period after their tickets expire and crack down on intimidating and aggressive debt collection practices.
Improving local government sustainability
The 2019 spending round provides access to the largest year-on-year increase in local authority spending power since 2010. We expect core spending power to rise by £2.9 billion, from £46.2 billion to £49.1 billion in 2020-21. This includes an additional £1.5 billion to help local authorities to meet rising demand for adult social care. Average spending power per dwelling for the 10% most deprived authorities is around 16% more than for the least deprived 10% in 2019-20.
The total net revenue service expenditure by all local authorities in England is budgeted to be £96.2 billion in 2019-20. This is 3.8% higher than the £92.6 billion budgeted for 2018-19.
We have helped to drive the integration of health and social care services following the establishment of the better care fund, from a total of £5.3 billion in 2015-16 to a total of £7.8 billion in 2018-19.
In 2013 we introduced the business rates retention system, giving local authorities more control over money they raise locally. We have conducted a series of pilots for full business rate retention.
Since Budget 2016 the Government have introduced a range of business rates measures in England worth more than £13 billion over the next five years.
Uniting the Country
Building communities and great places
We have empowered communities by establishing a range of community rights in the Localism Act 2011, including the community right to bid to help protect local assets for community use and the community right to challenge to give communities a greater role in shaping and running local services.
We are ensuring that communities are heard through our £3.2 million communities fund which has supported 54 local authorities to shape and improve service delivery in partnership with community groups. As well as investing a £1.85 million endowment, from March 2016 to March 2019, to allow communities to buy their local pub.
In September 2019 the community infrastructure levy regulations came into force, helping local people see how every pound of property developers’ cash levied on new buildings is spent.
In July 2019 we published a communities framework to set out our renewed vision for building stronger communities and championing communities in every aspect of society.
Green spaces and parks
In 2018-19 we invested £15 million to improve parks through the local authority parks improvement fund, the future parks accelerator and pocket parks plus. In October 2019 we launched a further £1.35 million of funding to extend the pocket parks programme. Pocket parks is designed to create new pocket parks or renovate existing parks that have fallen into disrepair where it can be shown that physical changes could have a significant positive impact on the local community and address a specific local need. Through the 2018 programme, we funded 198 new and renovated parks across England.
Integration
We are continuing to invest in isolated communities and improve English language skills by committing to spend over £50 million in 2018-19 and 201-20 to support priorities set out in the integrated communities Green Paper and subsequent action plan. At the spending round 2019, we announced an additional £10 million of funding to continue the integration areas programme with a major focus on English language provision, building on the success of the first five integration areas announced in 2018.
We are supporting English local authorities to tackle the impacts of recent migration through our £102 million controlling migration fund. Funded activity includes supporting newcomers to learn English and understand local social and cultural expectations, caring for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and tackling rogue landlords.
Tackling hatred in all forms
We are committed to tackling all forms of hate crime as demonstrated through the hate crime action plan, this was refreshed in 2018. As part of the refresh, we have committed additional funding to continue to protect places of worship. We have committed over £1.5 million for projects to tackle racially and religiously motivated hatred.
We have committed to launching an anti-Muslim hatred working group and an antisemitism working group. Most recently, we have appointed an antisemitism advisor—Lord John Mann—and appointed the first advisor to take forward the Government’s commitment to work on a definition of Islamophobia.
In September 2019, the communities secretary committed £100,000 funding to stem the spread of anti-Semitic material online. The Secretary of State also wrote to all councils and universities encouraging them to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism as a matter of urgency.
We are honouring and remembering Holocaust victims by committing up to £75 million for a striking new national memorial and a state-of-the-art learning centre next to Parliament, to be matched by at least £25 million from private donations. Subject to planning permission, construction will begin in 2020.
Achievements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;
The UK government has committed up to £1.6 billion for six city deals across Scotland and Wales and has committed to extending city deals to Northern Ireland. A funding commitment that has been matched by £1.4 billion from devolved Governments and a further £1.6 billion from other partners including local authorities, universities and the private sector.
[HCWS101]
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018: Section 4 Report
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Julian Smith)
This statement is issued in accordance with section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018, “the NIEFEF Act”. Section 4 of the Act requires that I, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, report on a quarterly basis on guidance issued under that section of the Act. It also requires me to report on how I plan to address the impact of the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers on human rights obligations within three months of the day the Act was passed.
The Act received Royal Assent on 1 November 2018. Following careful consideration of the sensitive issues section 4 deals with, and in consultation with the Northern Ireland civil service, guidance under section 4 was published on 17 December 2018.
The guidance made clear that it could not be used to change the law on abortion or same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. The guidance also provided that all relevant Northern Ireland Departments should continue to have regard to all of their legal obligations, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and sections 24 and 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in exercising any relevant functions in relation to abortion and same sex marriage.
Three reports required under section 4 have been published as written ministerial statements to date, on 30 January 2019, 1 May 2019 and 4 September 2019.
Since the NIEFEF Act passed, the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (NI EF Act) has also passed, placing duties on the Government to make regulations to provide for same-sex marriages and opposite sex civil partnerships in Northern Ireland by 13 January 2020, and to change Northern Ireland’s abortion law, with regulations providing for a new regime to be in place by 31 March 2020. The relevant provisions came into force on 22 October 2019 given that the Northern Ireland Executive was not restored by 21 October 2019.
In respect of abortion, the coming into force of section 9(2) of the NI EF Act has meant that sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 have now been repealed in respect of Northern Ireland. A moratorium on all investigations and prosecutions brought under those sections has also come into effect, regardless of the date on which any offences took place, under section 9(3) of the Nl EF Act. Therefore the incompatibility with human rights identified in section 4(1)(a) of the NIEFEF Act no longer exists. The new legal framework for abortion in Northern Ireland will be set out in regulations to come into force by 31 March 2020.
The Government launched the consultation on the proposed new framework for post 31 March 2020, A legal framework for abortion services in Northern Ireland, on 4 November 2019. The consultation will run for six weeks, closing on Monday 16 December 2019.
The Government will keep its position on the initial guidance published under section 4 of the NIEFEF Act under review, in the light of the legal duties under sections 8 and 9 NIEF Act, and work towards making the regulations which will come into force by 13 January 2020 for same-sex marriage and opposite sex civil partnerships and 31 March 2020 for abortion.
[HCWS97]
Northern Powerhouse Rail Programme: Accommodation
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute describing a contingent liability raised as a result of a letter of comfort provided to Transport for the North.
Unfortunately, due to the need to secure value for money it is not possible to allow the required 14 days’ notice prior to the liability going live. A delay until after the general election on 12 December or until January when Parliament returns following Christmas recess is likely to result in higher costs.
The letter of comfort provided by the Department is in respect of a lease for office accommodation for Transport for the North. The accommodation is to support TfN’s work on the Northern Powerhouse Rail Programme and involves a taking seven-year lease of which five years remain (with no break clauses). TfN is concerned that if it no longer requires the space, it will not be able to cover any remaining commitments related to the lease from its core funding. The cost of the lease is £183,000 per annum and the maximum exposure, taking account of committed funding to April 2021 is £505,000. TfN proposes to cover these costs from NPR development funding. This is currently confirmed to 2021/22. TfN will actively seek to sublet the space if it is not required for their operations.
The Treasury approved this liability. I have also informed the Chairs of the Transport Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.
[HCWS96]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Choudrey
Introduction: Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
Message from the Queen
The Lord Chamberlain (Earl Peel)
My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
“I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament”.
Health and Social Care: Malnutrition
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Aberdare
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the prevalence and impact of malnutrition among people in health and social care settings; and what steps they are taking to prevent it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, malnutrition is a common clinical health problem affecting all ages and all health and care settings. The Government are committed to better screening for malnutrition and improved food standards in hospitals. Hospitals and care homes must screen people for malnutrition on admission and meet high standards of nutrition care. We have announced a root and branch review of hospital food to ensure that patients receive the right nutrition and hydration.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response. Even here in the UK, malnutrition is shockingly underrecognised and undertreated. Some 3 million people live with malnutrition, including one in 10 older people. One in six patients admitted to hospital, and about 40% of those entering care homes, are malnourished or at risk. Disease-related malnutrition is estimated to cost over £20 billion a year. What steps will the Government take to improve identification and treatment of malnutrition, not just by promoting screening in care homes and GP surgeries, which I very much welcome, but also by improving the training of GPs and other health professionals on this issue?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord is absolutely right that this is an issue which is on the rise. The causes are complex and can be clinical, social or economic, but we are committed to improving this situation. That is why we have brought in the hospital food review, to ensure the safety of the food available for patients, visitors and staff, but also to look at how we can provide the highest level of care possible for patients, which includes the quality and nutritional value of the food served to them. The review will also look at the best possible methods of screening and training staff.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in a rich country such as ours, it is shameful that anyone does not have enough to eat. Yet over £3 billion is spent on managing malnutrition and its effects. NHS trusts already have a duty to ensure that they meet patients’ nutritional and hydration needs. However, the Campaign for Better Hospital Food has said that, despite the introduction of food standards, at least half of all hospitals are not complying and the current Government are failing to encourage progress. Labour has committed to mandatory nutritional standards being regulated. I invite the Minister to join us in supporting this sensible policy.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that it is critical that people have good and healthy food in hospitals. That is exactly why there are very strict food standards in hospitals and health and care settings which are already enforced by the CQC. It is also why we appointed the former head of the Hospital Caterers Association, Philip Shelley, to look at what more could be done to improve the situation with the hospital foods review, to look at the safety of food available to patients, visitors and staff, improve nutrition and make available healthier choices, and ensure that we can improve the expertise of caterers, suppliers, staff and those who work in hospitals, to ensure that we raise standards and reduce the incidence of malnutrition across the system.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, in the light of the very real pressures on care services in communities, could the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the elderly and vulnerable living in their own homes are not suffering from malnutrition due to poverty and neglect?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is right to raise the important issue of malnutrition in the community. We have put together a malnutrition task force, which has published a series of guides of expert advice on prevention and early identification of malnutrition in later life. These guides draw together principles of good practice and offer a framework for making sure that the situation which the noble Baroness has identified does not arise. We have also published a guide for care homes on integrating good nutrition into daily practice. This includes screening, initiating nutritional care plans and considering fortifying food and using oral nutritional supplements when appropriate.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister realise that there is a huge problem of pressure ulcers due to bad nutrition? It costs the country millions, if not billions, of pounds. Could she do something about this? It is very difficult to encourage people who do not want to eat to do so.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to identify some of the very significant health consequences of malnutrition. This is one of the reasons why it has been taken on board as a top priority by not only NHS England but the care system from top to bottom. The start is to have the right screening and to gather the right data so that we can identify where this needs to be improved. She is right that it needs to be integrated into nursing practice so that we not only prevent malnutrition in the first place but, where it does occur, provide the right support to put it right and the right care where there are health consequences for individuals due to clinical, social or economic problems.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I must confess to the House that I am president of the Hospital Caterers Association. Would the noble Baroness agree that there is no shortage of good advice on dealing with malnutrition and good food in the health service; nor is there a shortage of good catering professionals? The issue is trust boards that will not invest sufficiently in this area. Will she start to instruct the NHS to get serious about this if we are going to deal with this big problem?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord is quite right that this is about leadership not only at board level but from the very top. It has been instructive that not only the Secretary of State but the chief executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens, have made it one of their priorities to ensure that the quality of food and food safety standards throughout the hospital and care systems should be improved. This is one of the key ways that we will drive out malnutrition from our health and care sector.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Could my noble friend please take a look at the frail elderly living alone at home who are not necessarily regularly seen by doctors because they do not present with symptoms? Very often, the older people get the more difficult it is, as the body starts to age, for them to absorb nutrients, even when they are eating a mixed diet. Could she take a look at that particular group, in the way that we look at people who have regular check-ups with a GP for heart problems and diabetes, to ensure that they are not just deteriorating? It is not until they deteriorate to the point where they become ill and symptomatic that people start to notice that there is a problem.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My noble friend is absolutely right. Evidence is on the rise that malnutrition is worse among older age groups and is both a cause and consequence of ill health. We must make sure that we are identifying and intervening as early as possible to make sure we are not leading to some of the challenges raised by the noble Baroness. That is why the malnutrition universal screening tool has been developed by the Malnutrition Advisory Group to assist those in nursing and in general practice to intervene as early as possible to prevent some of the challenges that she has identified.
Housebuilding: Accidents in the Home
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jordan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance they have given to the housebuilding sector in order to reduce the number of accidents within the home.
Lord Jordan (Lab)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as vice-president of RoSPA.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that all homes are safe and that people feel safe in their homes. We have banned combustible cladding on tall residential buildings and are embarking on a process to systematically review the approved documents to the building regulations on a range of safety measures in response to Dame Judith Hackitt’s review. Moreover, we introduced building safety legislation in the Queen’s Speech to provide a tougher new regulatory framework.
Lord Jordan
I thank the Minister for his reply. Some 11.5 million adults over 65 live in the UK. The NHS says that around one in three will have at least one fall every year, and about half of those will have more frequent falls. Falls continue to be a leading cause of accident-related A&E attendances and overnight hospital admissions. With their goal to build 300,000 houses a year, will the Government advise and encourage house builders to adopt the recommendations of RoSPA’s proposed safer by design framework? This embraces not only elements from the British Standard 5395 code of practice for the design of stairs and steps but other significant fall prevention measures that cost so little to implement at the design stage.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We welcome the work of RoSPA and take note of its design standard, Safer by Design: A Framework to Reduce Serious Accidental Injury in New-Build Homes, which I have here and have read. We are developing a programme to review the building regulations guidance and will carefully consider any relevant recommendations from RoSPA. However, the noble Lord makes a more important point: the figures are pretty awful. We have a figure of 255,000 fall-related emergency hospital admissions per year for older people, and the annual cost to the UK of hip fractures is estimated to be around £2 billion, so this is an important matter.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, accidents in the home are bound to increase with the rapidly ageing population. Does the Minister agree that if homes today are not built to accessible and adaptable standards, it could be very difficult even to fit grab rails in the bathroom, for example?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Baroness is right. That is why we are reviewing all the schedules, particularly in her case Part M of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, which sets requirements for access and use of old buildings. We are looking very carefully at this, because it is extremely important, when people move into their homes and then become disabled, that there is that adaptability.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that removing some of the biggest hazards in the home would save the NHS almost £335 million per year, according to research done by the Building Research Establishment? This could be achieved if the Government incentivised the building sector to build category 2 homes to accessible and adaptable standards. What are the Government doing to ensure that this is achieved sooner rather than later, to ease the burden on the NHS and allow disabled people to live independently in the community?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We are looking closely at category 2, to see whether we can raise the minimum standards from category 1 to category 2. Also, the national planning policy, which we have updated, sets out that local authority plans should meet the current and future housing needs of a wide range of people, including older and disabled people.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right: safety is of paramount importance. Can he explain why plug sockets, which are not allowed in bathrooms because of the humidity, are allowed in kitchens?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My wife would say that I am no electrician. However—and perhaps I can see whether the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, is nodding or shaking his head—my understanding is that in bathrooms you have a greater build-up of condensation, and a greater likelihood of water splash or even flooding. Therefore, it is essential that you do not have plugs in bathrooms, whereas in kitchens, you do not have quite the same hazards.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, what apology can the Minister make on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government for the promise that was made to build 200,000 low-cost homes for sale, a promise that was echoed in David Cameron’s manifesto? Is it not a fact that as of today, not one of those 200,000 homes has been built? Can he tell us how much of the £200 million that was set aside has been spent? I can help him by suggesting that it is £187 million for not building a single home. Can he tell us when they are going to honour their promises?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
As the noble Lord will know, we are already building a lot of homes. This has emerged from an NAO report, and it will be for the Public Accounts Committee to take evidence on that report in the normal way. The Government are delivering on a package of interventions to support people to achieve their aspirations and own a home of their own. Since 2010, over half a million households have been helped into home ownership through government schemes. This includes more than 220,000 households benefiting from Help to Buy equity loans and our £9 million investment in the affordable homes programme.
Digital Competition
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recommendations of the report of the Digital Competition Expert Panel, Unlocking Digital Competition, published on 13 March.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the Government welcome wholeheartedly the Digital Competition Expert Panel’s report. We have accepted the panel’s bold set of pro-competition recommendations to open up digital markets, including a new digital markets unit to protect consumers and competition, and to encourage innovation. We are carefully considering the panel’s thoughtful report and look forward to providing a response in due course.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is clear that big tech platforms are gaining enormous market power, particularly in data and digital advertising. Is it not now vital that we recognise the importance of giving the Competition and Markets Authority the new powers that it needs to treat datasets as an asset over which there must be competition, and certain UK technology companies as strategically important when it comes to takeovers? Why have this Government not already set up the digital markets unit urgently, as Furman recommended, to do the necessary assessments?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
Until we decide where we are going to base the digital markets unit, we need to look at its functions in the round. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, as well as the digital markets panel, will feed into the process that we are looking at. The noble Lord is quite right to raise datasets as a concern. The ownership of such things is a formidable barrier to entry, so loosening an incumbent’s grip on data and forcing companies to hand over personal data to competitors, at the request of a consumer, would indeed boost competition and consumer choice.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I welcome the noble Baroness to her first Question Time and congratulate her on her smooth answers so far. The report to which she refers points out the advantages of a digital markets unit. But it also points out the difficulties in the overlap of responsibilities between it, the CMA and Ofcom, as well as the possibility of links across to the Information Commissioner’s Office. This is a sort of spaghetti of different titles and groups. Has she any answer to how that will pan out?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I cannot answer on the results of our discussion at this stage because they are ongoing. There are a number of options for how the digital markets unit could be taken forward, including whether it should be in an existing institution, such as Ofcom or the CMA, or located separately. We believe, however, that form and location should follow function. The follow-up work by Professor Furman, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, and the Government will address these issues.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, my main concern is that, rather than being given new powers without the proper scrutiny that we all like to see, the competition authorities should exercise the powers that they already have to stop takeovers by the digital giants of plucky and talented digital innovators, working across borders where necessary—for example, in the case of the recent Fitbit move. When I was at Tesco—I declare an interest—we could barely buy a single supermarket without an investigation. Does my noble friend agree that we should now use competition law to encourage scale-up, not the takeover of our vital digital businesses?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I understand my noble friend’s concern. We should indeed be encouraging our emerging digital businesses to grow independently. But as the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, observed in his report, the CMA has an analogue system of competition and consumer law in a digital age. The digital panel recognised that its powers needed to be adapted to cope with the complex mergers in this sector, and we welcome the CMA’s review of its merger assessment guidelines for these digital markets.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the report is right to highlight the importance of allowing consumers to move and control their data as key to stopping these data monopolies locking data in. But the report also points out how slow current competition practices are; we see evidence of this slowness in the response. When will the Government sort out the mess that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, set out over who is to be responsible for making these important things happen?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
In the normal course of events, the Government would have promised a White Paper in January and that would still be our aim. All these institutions are working together to provide an answer to those questions.
Baroness Couttie (Con)
My Lords, when are the Government planning to follow up on the Green Paper published last April, Modernising Consumer Markets?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
The Government are committed to ensuring that markets work for all consumers. Since the Green Paper, we have consulted on enabling consumers to simply and securely share their data with third parties. We have confirmed our commitment to giving regulators the tools they need to address the harm caused by the loyalty penalty and worked with the UK Regulators Network to ensure that better support is available to vulnerable consumers, including piloting projects on data sharing and setting minimum standards for their treatment across sectors. Work has also been undertaken to follow up on the Green Paper. As I said, we would, in the normal course of events, expect to bring forward proposals for consumer reform early next year.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, has the Minister seen the reports that people who used to work for Conservative Prime Ministers and the Conservative Party have set up false sites on Facebook and other social media, under false names, and attacked the Labour Party? When will that kind of manipulation, falsehood and lying by Conservatives be stopped and outlawed?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I do not recognise those reports; I have not read them myself. However, the Government are committed to increasing transparency in digital campaigning to maintain a fair and proportionate democratic process. To this end, the Government announced, on 5 May this year, that they will implement an imprints regime for digital election material. The defending democracy programme, which we have already set up in the Cabinet Office, also works across government departments to strengthen the integrity of our electoral system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, if the Government are so committed to transparency, why have they not released the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee looking at the potential influence of Russian interference in our electoral system?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
The noble Lord is straying slightly away from the original Question, but the Prime Minister is considering the report and will report in due course.
Health: Tick-borne Encephalitis
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the appearance in England of a tick-borne encephalitis virus, and what plans they have to include advice about such a virus alongside that given on the tick-borne Borreliosis bacteria and associated Lyme disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, the risk from tick-borne encephalitis virus is assessed as very low for the general public and low for those visiting, living and working in areas where infected ticks have been found. Lyme disease is the most common tick-borne infection in the United Kingdom. Tick awareness campaigns are planned for early 2020, ahead of the seasonal increase in tick activity in the UK, and will include information on tick-borne encephalitis and Lyme disease.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the history of Lyme disease, a bacterial infection called Borreliosis, has been riddled over many years with mistakes of understanding, recognition, testing, diagnosis and treatment. Tick-borne encephalitis—a viral infection—has now reached the UK for the first time, having been steadily spreading westwards across Europe for several years. What are the Government doing to make sure that the mistakes that have been made—and are still being made—on Lyme disease are not made on TBE, and in particular that new instances of TBE are not mistaken for Lyme?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord is right to raise this issue. We have been making sure that action is taken quickly. Tick bite avoidance is a key message in this area and is the same for TBEV as for Lyme disease. PHE has worked with local authorities and key stakeholders in the relevant areas, informing them about TBE and the tick toolkit documents and guidance, so that they can remind the public, their staff and visitors to be tick aware. Specific awareness campaigns will come forward in spring 2020. The material for these will include information on Lyme disease and TBE. In addition, there will be research programmes on TBE, to ensure that we in the UK are as aware as we can be about it. To be clear, there has been only one probable case of TBE infection diagnosed —a European visitor bitten by a tick in the UK. At the moment, this is a very low risk to anyone in the UK and a low risk to those in the areas.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to be alarmist but the discovery of tick-borne encephalitis virus in the UK is worrying. The tick vectors of this viral infection are widespread throughout the UK and are maintained on a variety of animal hosts, including wild deer, which are now extremely common in lowland as well as upland areas. The number of clinical cases in Europe has been steadily increasing and, while it is true that something like two-thirds of cases are non-clinical, as many as up to 10% of those affected may suffer severe neurological sequelae, especially children and—noble Lords may like to know—the elderly. I ask the noble Lord: will the Government reintroduce the mandatory tick treatment of pets imported into the UK under the pet travel scheme? Is the noble Lord satisfied that we are doing all we can in the UK, in terms of research and preventive actions with regard to biosecurity, to safeguard animal and human health in this era of climate change and globalisation?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Lord for that question, although I generally identify as a noble Baroness. We are continuing surveillance studies for TBEV in ticks and wildlife, and we plan to monitor its prevalence, distribution, maintenance and spread in the UK to ensure oversight of the situation. We have based our understanding of the risk assessment on recent experience in the Netherlands, where TBEV was recently identified. The estimated risk there of Lyme disease from a tick bite is 1:50, while the estimated risk of TBEV from a tick bite is 1:500,000. As regards us doing enough work, we have a national contingency plan written to deal with vector-borne diseases and understanding the effect of climate change, which gives us a sense of the challenges that we face.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend recognise the work of the national Encephalitis Society, which is based in Malton in North Yorkshire, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president? Will she update the House on what work has been undertaken to help doctors identify the difference between meningitis and encephalitis so that the swiftest possible treatment can be given? My husband was one of those who suffered encephalitis in his 20s; many are less fortunate and do not make the recovery that he made.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and I am happy to recognise the organisation that she mentioned. In the first place, the tick toolkit and the work of PHE is in place to raise awareness, and work goes into providing advice to professionals so that early diagnosis is possible.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, one of the problems with Lyme disease is that the symptoms that it causes mimic a whole range of different viral infections, many of which are much more common. Does the Minister feel that the Government are doing enough to raise awareness of Lyme disease among general practitioners, and is she satisfied that the screening tests—I think that they cost around £60 a time—are sufficient?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord is quite right, and he understands this a lot better than I do. NICE published guidelines for health professionals in 2018 in an effort to ensure prompt diagnosis of Lyme disease. Obviously if it is recognised promptly and treated with antibiotics, acute Lyme disease is usually resolved without further complications. I will take away the question about the cost of the test to consider whether that has been a barrier; we have no evidence about that at this time.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, raising awareness is critical, and many are completely unaware of the risk when they go out for a walk. What actions will the Government take to ensure that organisations such as national parks, national forests and the National Trust have a part to play?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
We will run tick awareness campaigns in the spring. Material for these campaigns will include information about Lyme disease and TBE. They will be run in all areas identified as at risk as part of the surveillance campaign.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, how much research is the UK doing with other European countries, which may know much more about these conditions?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
As part of our surveillance work and the work of PHE, there is constant contact between the UK and other public health bodies across Europe to understand not only the risks but the most effective interventions. Two specific studies are looking at evidence of past TBEV infection in people and to understand the best interventions among the general population.
Mental Disorder: Autism and Learning Disabilities
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of reports that people are being wrongly detained in secure hospitals units, whether they will review the Mental Health Act 1983 to amend the definition of mental disorder to exclude autism and learning disabilities.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice and declare an interest as president of the National Autistic Society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the significance of this issue and its importance to stakeholders. The recent independent review of the Mental Health Act considered the definition of autism in the Act and recommended that the Government should keep it under review. We will respond to the review’s recommendations via the forthcoming White Paper.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, since 2015, there has been a 24% increase in the number of autistic people sectioned, even if they have no mental illness, because the Mental Health Act defines autism as a mental disorder. Autism is not a mental disorder. Last weekend, the Health Secretary promised to detach autism and learning difficulties from mental health legislation. That is most welcome, as is the appointment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to chair an independent panel to oversee case reviews.
However, those reviews will be conducted over a 12-month period. I press the Minister for one more step. Will the Government set up an advice hotline for families who are in despair because they have no idea where to go for help or advice as their children—and they are children—face Christmas locked up and detained by a medieval practice that deprives them of the human rights?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Lord for raising this very important Question today. I should like to be clear that the Government are committed to ensuring that people with learning disabilities and autistic people have the best quality of life and live a full life in the community. A lot of the work that has been done recently, including reviewing and replacing the autism strategy and doing case reviews of every individual who has a learning disability or autism and is in in-patient care, is designed to ensure that we deliver that. I shall take back to the department the noble Lord’s specific point about a hotline for families and ask what can be done.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend has rightly highlighted, neither autism nor learning difficulties are mental health conditions. These children should not be in wards which are likely to be noisy, bright and unpredictable. Noble Lords may have seen the report on Sky News about Jeremy, whose autistic daughter Bethany is being held in a mental health unit. He has been campaigning about her inhuman treatment for a long time—too long. He says of the proposed review: “There are 600 people whose care plan says that they should not be in hospital, and for half of them, their local authorities do not even know that”. Those are the Government’s own figures. We have had one review after another since Winterbourne View, nine years ago. I agree with Jeremy— we need action not reviews.
Worse, Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State, is apparently sitting on a report about Jeremy’s daughter and said that it will be released before Parliament rises. Can the noble Baroness ensure that Bethany’s report is released to her parents this afternoon and tell the House when we will see action, rather than reviews, for this vulnerable group of young people?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
We absolutely agree with the noble Baroness’s point. We need to ensure that everybody who can be cared for in the community is able to be cared for. That is why we have reduced the number of people in in-patient care by 22%; we have set a target to reduce that number by 50%. We are driving that forward as quickly as possible.
On the matter of the serious incident review of Bethany’s case, we have received the report and are working to release it as soon as possible. NHS England is taking action to improve Bethany’s situation and secure an alternative, more suitable, provider in the community as quickly as possible.
Regarding the case reviews of every individual, the Government have committed to providing each patient with a date for discharge or, where that is not appropriate, with a clear explanation of why and a plan to move them closer to being ready for discharge in the community. This significant commitment from the Government should be welcomed.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I declare two interests. First, I had an editorial published in the British Journal of Psychiatry last week, proposing that learning disability and autism should be removed from the Mental Health Act. Secondly, I have just agreed to chair a panel to review the cases of people with learning disability and/or autism who are in segregated care. Does the Minister agree with the treatability criterion in the Act, particularly with respect to the question of removing learning disability and autism from it? In other words, does she agree that, in detaining somebody in hospital under the Act, the excuse of doing so to improve—or with the intention to improve—their behaviour, even though their behaviour may be a reaction to inadequate social care, is an inadequate reason for detention under legislation?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for taking on the chairing of the independent panel. I cannot think of anybody better placed to do so. When it comes to her question about the detention of an individual to improve their behaviour, again, I do not think that anybody in this place or elsewhere could disagree with her. On changing the Mental Health Act, we commissioned the independent review led by Sir Simon Wessely, who is also a leader in the field. He reported in December. In its findings, the review made it clear that we need to modernise the Mental Health Act, ensure that views are respected and ensure that patients are not detained for any longer than is absolutely necessary. Sir Simon stated that there is “no clear consensus” on removing autism from the Act, and that,
“we have heard also about the many negative consequences that could arise from being outside this framework … this should be kept under review”.
Obviously, we will not respond to that immediately. There will be a White Paper by the end of the year. We will consider this carefully and we recognise the strength of feeling on this matter.
Baroness Browning (Con)
In support of what the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness said—we greatly welcome her chairmanship of the review—there is a very good reason for removing autism as a mental disorder: it is not a mental disorder. It is as simple as that, although it is true that people with autism, including children, will have comorbidities and will develop a mental health condition on top of their autism. I do not know whether the Minister understands my frustration, but I have been raising this issue in Parliament for nearly 28 years. The real problem is that we do not have sufficient psychiatrists who understand and can differentiate between autistic behaviour and what they believe to be psychotic behaviour. Once patients start the spiral of medication for psychosis, the autism disappears and the person disappears altogether.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My noble friend puts this very clearly. The Government accept completely that autism and learning disability are not mental disorders. The question is whether being excluded from the legislation would cause challenges or difficulties for those who may have autism and mental disorders. We will have to consider that carefully as we go into the process of considering a review of the Mental Health Act. As my noble friend just said, we recognise that we will have to go through a careful process. We also recognise the strong feelings—and the correct view—that autism and learning disability are not mental disorders. There is no disagreement on that point.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the noble Lord—I am sorry, does the Minister agree that we are confusing disability with illness, something which has gone on for far too long? Are we going to have a programme to train people in recognising the different facets of the two and how they interact? The treatment of many people with autism has undergone is probably the best way to induce poor mental health in many of them. Can we please do something to stop that?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Lord and I recognise the challenge to my gender today. He and my noble friend are absolutely right that we must ensure that all health and social care staff have appropriate training on autism and learning disability. A number of Members of this House have campaigned long and hard to ensure that this happens. Some £1.4 million of government funding has been put in place to develop and test some new training packages and today we published the government response to the consultation on mandatory learning disability and autism training which confirms the intention to introduce mandatory training for all health and social care staff. I think that that is an excellent step forward and I am absolutely sure that this House will scrutinise it for its effectiveness. That is right, but it marks a steps forward and should be welcomed.
Tributes to Mr Keith Phipps
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, before we move on to the rest of our business, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a loyal servant of the House, our Principal Doorkeeper, Mr Phipps. I know that the whole House will join me in thanking him for his 25 years of outstanding service.
A dedicated public servant, Mr Phipps left school at 18 and joined the Coldstream Guards. He served in the Army for 22 years and in December 2000 enlisted as a Yeoman of the Queen’s Bodyguard. In 1994, Mr Phipps joined the House as a Doorkeeper and was promoted to Principal Doorkeeper in 2005. As he rose in seniority, he consistently served Members of the House with his characteristic charm, good nature and unfailing politeness. He handles colleagues with the utmost courtesy, while at the same time making it clear that there is an underlying message of authority, along the lines of, “Don’t mess with me”—some might say, the original strong and stable. Over the years he has provided Members, long-standing and new, with his wise counsel, as my noble friend Lord Robathan attested in his maiden speech. During their time in the Army in Hong Kong and Northern Ireland, my noble friend found that Company Sergeant-Major Phipps was right about most matters and could be relied upon to steer his company commander in the right direction. Many noble Lords will recognise that description of Mr Phipps, who has been a source of wisdom on procedure and custom, helping to steer us all in the right direction; and of course, his commanding presence made him the ideal candidate to act as the master of ceremonies during the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee lunch, which hosted Her Majesty the Queen and 700 guests in Westminster Hall.
When I joined this House in 2014, Mr Phipps and his team made me feel very welcome. He has always been willing to help out and on several occasions has taken pity on my poor guests, who invariably get the most uninformative tour of this place, taking over as tour guide with panache and more anecdotes than I could ever remember. His generosity and good humour are, I am sure, valued by all noble Lords.
Our remarks today come earlier than expected. Mr Phipps officially leaves on 13 December, but today is our last day with him as our Principal Doorkeeper. As the season’s festivities get under way in the coming month, I am sure that the Cirencester Salvation Army will want to seize the opportunity to sign him up for a starring role as Joseph in the nativity play, a role that I understand he played successfully some years ago.
Mr Phipps, on behalf of the whole House, thank you for your incredible service to us. We wish you and Sue all the very best for the future; enjoy your well-deserved retirement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this feels a bit like the end of an era, because Mr Phipps has become a bit of a legend in your Lordships’ House. As we have heard, his journey from the Coldstream Guards to the longest-serving Principal Doorkeeper is one in which he can take immense pride. Much of his work will exist in fond memories—his own, ours and those of the many colleagues with whom he has served. It was also captured when he played a starring role in the 2017 “Meet the Lords” mini-series, an appearance—or should that be performance—that has earned him his own personal entry and credit on the IMDb website, which prides itself on being,
“the world’s most popular and authoritative source for information on movies, TV shows, and celebrities”.
Today we say farewell to a celebrity in our midst.
I first met Mr Phipps when I was a fairly new MP in the other place and had a group of constituents visiting from the men’s group at one of our local churches in Basildon. He will not remember this, but I remember it very clearly. I walked through the Peers’ Lobby with some trepidation and approached the imposing-looking gentleman in a white tie. Very politely, I asked, “Would it possible for my guests to sit below the Bar to get a better view of the Lords’ proceedings?” In rather imposing tones, he asked, “Are they all wearing ties?” Then, spying one member at the back of the group, he pointed and said, “He’s not wearing a tie; he won’t be able to get in”. Embarrassed and a little puzzled, I looked around at my guests and spotted the offender. I said, “But, Mr Phipps, he’s the vicar and he’s wearing a clerical collar”. He let him in. For a few years now, just to be on the safe side, one of our staff in the Labour Lords office, Rob Newbery, has kept a drawer full of ties to provide for any Peer or Peer’s guest who requires one.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
We are here to serve.
In all the years he has been in your Lordships’ House, we have appreciated Mr Phipps’s company, efficiency and natural authority. We have always known who is really in charge. I hope he has enjoyed his time with us as much as we have. I had to smile at the comments of his late father, Ken, when he reflected in 2012:
“He enjoys his job I think—he has a little moan every now and then, but who doesn’t?”.
On a more serious note, it is both an honour and a pleasure to thank him on behalf of these Benches for his dedicated and unparalleled service to your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt that he has made his mark in the most positive way, for which we are extremely grateful.
Keith, we are going to miss you. We wish you and Sue, your wife, a very long and happy retirement. There is only one thing left to say: thank you and goodbye, Mr Phipps.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I have seen Mr Phipps in two guises: as a doorkeeper here in your Lordships’ House and as a member of the Queen’s Bodyguard when I was captain of that august body. His attitude in both environments was that of an experienced NCO having to deal with a blundering second lieutenant who did not even know how to salute properly. He knew how it was done. I certainly did not, and I am sure that new Members of your Lordships’ House have felt similarly at sea when they first tried to work out how we do things here. But he has done that with everybody with an avuncular friendliness and firmness that has been extremely impressive.
At a time when the atmosphere in Parliament has sometimes been extremely fractious, he has helped to ensure that the ethos of your Lordships’ House reflects the tolerance and civility that, I am sure, we all believe should characterise the operations of a Parliament. We will miss him and the qualities he has brought to his roles, and I am sure we will all do our best to uphold the values he has brought to his work and our proceedings. We wish him and his wife a long and enjoyable retirement.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, on behalf of the Cross-Benchers, I enthusiastically support what has already been said. But the three words I want to use have not been used: “Salubritas Et Industria”. For the benefit of the Cross-Benchers, that is Latin. It is the motto of Swindon Town Football Club. I say this with feeling, because the most important game in Swindon Town’s football history was a 4-3 win in a playoff for promotion to the Premier League in 1993. It was one of the greatest games ever played at Wembley. Swindon scored three goals by half-time; they were home and dry. The opposition scored three goals, so it was 3-3. Then the ref gave a penalty to Swindon Town. The opposition team was Leicester City—my team since I was a boy. I have always had my doubts about that penalty, but for today I will say, as Mr Ranieri once said, “If the ref says is a penalty, is a penalty”. The result was that Swindon went up to the Premier League, and within a very few months, on the wings of that great triumph, Mr Phipps came here. Here he has stayed.
Industria et salubritas. Looking at my own translation, “industria”, as we are all well aware, means work. We have had nothing but work from him, whenever it has been needed. “Salubritas” means health; as we wish him a diminution in his work, we on the Cross Benches wish him all possible good health and a serene, peaceful retirement.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, on behalf on these Benches I join in the tributes that others have paid. Each of us coming into the House has been greeted and welcomed. We have been guided, led in right directions and stopped from going in wrong ones, always with firmness and kindness. It is that kindness for which I thank Mr Phipps as I, like others, wish him a long, happy, healthy retirement.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I am distressed today, and your Lordships should be as well, for the following reason. For some two years Keith Phipps looked after me as a company commander. He kept me out of trouble and on the straight and narrow. He supported me when he conceivably may not have agreed with everything I wanted to do—quite a lot that I wanted to do, actually—and since I have been here he has similarly kept me on the straight and narrow and out of trouble. If he is leaving, who will do that task? Your Lordships should all be worried.
He has shown as Principal Doorkeeper the values and behaviour we would wish for in such an esteemed position, exactly the same as he showed in the Army. He has supported this House as he supported the Army and has shown authority and dignity. I salute him. We have been friends, I hope, for some time. His wife Sue, I, my wife and he have dinner together from time to time. I hope as he goes, we can remain friends and shall continue to have dinner.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I conclude very briefly by placing on record my personal thanks to Mr Phipps for the assistance he has provided to me and my two predecessors as Lord Speaker, which has been fantastic. I know from what has been said, and from my short time in the Army, that service in the Coldstream Guards means that he is made of very tough stuff. He will have developed a resilience to many things, including serving under the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. There is an apocryphal tale about the noble Lord marching his platoon to a cliff edge. Nothing was said and they went further and further, when Mr Phipps suddenly intervened to say, “Say something, sir, if it’s only goodbye”.
Mr Phipps’s service to the House has been exemplary, very much in the highest tradition of public service. I know I speak for the whole House when I convey to him our deep gratitude and, above all, our very best wishes for the future.
Intelligence and Security Committee Report
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in another place on the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia. The Statement is as follows:
“The ISC provides invaluable scrutiny and oversight of the work of the intelligence community to Parliament, so I am grateful to the committee for conducting this timely inquiry into our work on Russia. Russia’s reckless behaviour in Salisbury and Amesbury shows that now more than ever we cannot afford to be complacent about that Russian threat.
Because the ISC deals with matters of national security and intelligence, its reports always contain sensitive information, so it is entirely right that reports such as these go through an intensive security review before publication. This report is one of a number of ISC reports that the Government are currently considering. The current length of time that this report has been with the Government is not unusual as this has averaged around six weeks for reports published in recent years, and three to four weeks for a response to be forthcoming from the Government.
For example, the details of the CT attacks review and the 2017-18 annual report were sent together to No. 10 on 12 October 2018. We were asked to respond 10 days later on 26 October. We responded on 8 November and then the checked, proof-read report was published on 22 November 2018. Similarly, the details of the detainees report was sent to No. 10 on 10 May 2018. Again, the ISC asked for a response in 10 working days on 24 May. We responded on 30 May and then the checked, proof-read report was published on 12 June 2018.
In both cases, the process took approximately six weeks because by law it is imperative that this process is thorough. In accordance with the JSA 2013, the impact of releasing sensitive information must be carefully considered by the Prime Minister on the advice of civil servants. We cannot rush this process at risk of undermining our national security.
There is no set timeline within the MoU with the committee for the Government to clear such reports for publication. Under the same memorandum, there is no set timeline for a response, nor is such a deadline set in the governing legislation. I want to assure the House that the committee is well informed of this process, which is continuing along the standard parameters that apply before every publication. Once the process has been completed, we will continue to keep all relevant parties and the House informed”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, knows, the feelings of this House were made perfectly clear yesterday: this report should be laid before Parliament today. There is no doubt about that. It affects matters highly relevant to the next period of general election campaigning and it is vital that the public and this House know the contents of this report.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a straightforward question: has the Prime Minister read the report? If the Prime Minister chooses to withhold this information from the public until after the election, when it is eventually published—which it will be—how will he tell UK voters that he was acting in their interests and not his own?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, as I said, the Prime Minister is acting within the orders laid down. This is not a formality. The Prime Minister’s approval for the publication is vital. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, it is a statutory requirement within the JSA 2013. A report such as this is reviewed by the relevant senior officials within government before going to the Prime Minister for final approval.
As I said in the repeat of the Urgent Question, the committee is well informed of the process. I shall not comment further on the process, apart from to say that the Prime Minister is considering the report.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, in 10 years on the Intelligence and Security Committee I became familiar with the extreme care that the agencies and the Cabinet Office take when seeking redaction of anything whose publication might imperil national security. Does the Prime Minister want to substitute his own inexperienced judgment at this stage for the judgment of those agencies and the Cabinet Office? Has he some other reason for delaying the report—perhaps something to do with his complicated relationship with President Trump—or does he simply not want anything that might embarrass him to be published at this stage, in which case that is not a provision that the Act makes?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I respect that the noble Lord speaks with insight and experience on this matter, but I am sure that insight and experience lends itself to the fact that the Prime Minister needs to consider the report submitted to him. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, this is a formality. It is enshrined in legislation and he is doing just that. Any other thing is mere speculation.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, while I entirely agree that this report should be published in the public interest, and I reinforce what has been said, does my noble friend agree that it would be wrong to see the publication of the report as an act of hostility towards Russia? Many of us deeply regret the fact that the Russians were not invited to the D-day celebrations this year. They should certainly be invited to the celebrations on 7 and 8 May next year. They lost 26 million people in the Second World War. While it is important that we are correctly informed of what they are up to at the moment, we should not forget our historical debt.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I hear what my noble friend says. I am sure I speak for everyone in your Lordships’ House when I say that we all should pay tribute to those who lost their lives during the Second World War, battling Nazi aggression across Europe, and to the many Russian civilians who lost their lives. I reiterate to my noble friend that our differences and disagreements with Russia are not with the Russian people. However, we have seen Russia commit aggressive actions. As I am sure my noble friend acknowledges, Russia committed an act right here on UK soil in Salisbury and should be held to account for it. We have been asking for its co-operation on this matter. On the wider issue of talking to Russia on important security issues, I, as Minister for the United Nations, reassure my noble friend that we continue to engage with Russia on important issues of global affairs in fora such as the UN Security Council.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the Government’s answer to the questions on this subject yesterday, can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that there is nothing in the report that embarrasses the Government in any way?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As my noble friend made clear, and as I have repeated today, this is a sensitive report. It is important that it goes through the full process. That is exactly what is taking place, in accordance with legislation. The Prime Minister will respond accordingly. I shall not add any other comment to those I have already made.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the report may well be sensitive but, as I understand it from the exchanges in this House yesterday, all the relevant security agencies have already given their approval for publication. Why does the Prime Minister not have confidence in their judgment?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and this Government have total confidence in our agencies, which do a sterling job in keeping us safe. According to law, however, it is not for those agencies to comment. The Prime Minister provides the final approval after taking all matters into consideration. That is the process being followed.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Does the Minister not understand that hiding behind the customary approach has led substantially to a belief that there is something in the report that the Government do not want published in the course of a general election? If that charge ultimately proves correct, the Government will necessarily suffer grave embarrassment for their approach to this matter.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Again, the noble Lord has great insight and I am sure he would share my view that this is not about hiding but about following due process. In the Answer to the Urgent Question that I repeated, I reiterated that this is not unusual or the only report currently being considered by No. 10 and the Prime Minister. All that is being done is that due process is being followed. The Prime Minister takes his responsibility very carefully and he will give approval for publication in due course.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest, having been the deputy chairman of the JIC for three years, director of naval intelligence for three years, chief of defence intelligence for three years and Security Minister for three years. It seems that usual procedures are for the obedience of fools. This seems a slightly different report. While I would be the first to say that we must never give away any of our country’s secrets, I do not believe that in this case there is any likelihood of that. This has a nuance of something else. By holding it back, we are creating an area of uncertainty and a feeling that something is being hidden. Will the Minister go back and ask again whether the Prime Minister could read the report—I do not believe he has from what the Minister has said—and then, having read it, perhaps make a rapid decision to have it released?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord knows that I respect his insight and experience greatly, but I reassure him that more is being said about this than is warranted by the facts. Due process for a report is being followed—this is not unusual practice. As I indicated in the original Statement, the standard procedure is being followed, and the Prime Minister is giving the report due consideration. The noble Lord knows how much I respect his opinion. I agree with him about the importance of issues of national security. The Government take their responsibility seriously, as does the Prime Minister, and it is right that he gives this matter due consideration.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, will the noble Lord consider this point? Even if the Prime Minister, following the Act, refuses to publish the report today, can the noble Lord assure the House that if there are sensitive matters in terms of Russian interference that require security services and other agencies of state to take necessary precautions in the six weeks leading up to the next election, they will do so, irrespective of whether the report is published?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Baroness uses the word “refuses”, but there is no refusal to publish; we are merely following due process. On her latter point, I reassure her that, as noble Lords who have served in various offices of state, particularly at the Foreign Office or the Home Office, as security Ministers or Ministers dealing with counterterrorism will know, this is not a case of waiting for the publication of a particular report. If there is a threat to the United Kingdom, we will deal with it there and then with the robustness that it deserves, with the Government working hand in glove with the security agencies.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
Clearly, one of Mr Putin’s main priorities is to weaken NATO on any occasion that he can. He is clearly working very hard on Turkey at present, and some people are saying that he may well have some success in that direction. What is the Government’s strategy for dealing with this threat?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As the noble Lord rightly points out, Turkey is a member of NATO. We continue to use NATO channels and, importantly, we have been talking directly to Turkey. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has spoken to President Erdoğan a number of times over the past few weeks, and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Foreign Minister of Turkey on matters of bilateral importance and on the situation in Syria. We take Turkey’s membership of NATO very seriously. NATO has kept the peace across Europe since the Second World War. As the noble Lord points out, it is important that NATO’s commitment continues, and Turkey is an important part of that alliance.
Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 22 October be approved.
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 3rd Report, and by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 4th Report.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument was debated in the other place on 31 October. Its main purpose is to allow opposite-sex couples in England and Wales to form civil partnerships. The Government want to see more people formalise their relationship in the way that they want with the person they love. We know that there are over 3 million opposite-sex couples who cohabit but choose not to marry. These couples support 1 million children but do not have the security or legal protection that married couples or civil partners enjoy.
That is why we announced last year that we would extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples and why we supported the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc.) Act 2019, guided so ably through this House by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. Section 2 of the Act enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to amend the eligibility criteria for civil partnerships and to make other appropriate and consequential provision. The Act requires the regulations extending eligibility to come into force no later than 31 December 2019.
This instrument therefore amends the eligibility criteria in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to allow opposite-sex couples to register civil partnerships under the law of England and Wales. It provides specific protections for religious organisations and persons acting on their behalf in relation to civil partnerships. Importantly, the regulations prevent religious organisations and persons acting on their behalf from being compelled to do specified acts, such as allowing religious premises to be used for civil partnerships. The instrument also ensures that, where religious organisations do choose to participate in civil partnerships, they can distinguish between opposite-sex and same-sex civil partnerships, as with marriage.
The instrument amends legislation relating to children and parenthood to provide opposite-sex parents in a civil partnership with generally the same rights as opposite-sex married parents in a number of areas. It also amends the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to allow applicants to obtain a full gender recognition certificate without the need to dissolve their civil partnership, provided that the other partner consents, as is currently the case for married couples. The instrument makes consequential and related changes to primary and secondary legislation, including to pensions entitlements and the registration of opposite-sex civil partnerships overseas by UK consular officials.
The instrument also amends the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 so that, for now, only same-sex couples will be able to convert their civil partnerships to marriage pending the outcome of our consultation on conversion rights, which closed on 20 August. I know that this last change has been drawn to the attention of Members of this House by the JCSI and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is also the subject of an amendment expressing regret, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury— although I note that this is somewhat at odds with the comments of Dawn Butler, who welcomed the regulations and did not mention the JCSI’s report during the debate in the other place.
We have given very careful consideration to the committee’s concerns about the provision but, on this occasion, we do not agree with them. Our approach on conversion maintains a difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples in terms of their ability to convert their civil partnerships into marriage. Importantly, these two groups are not in a directly comparable position. The right to convert a civil partnership into marriage was introduced to enable same-sex couples to marry without having to dissolve their civil partnership, as marriage historically had been denied to them. That same consideration does not apply to opposite-sex civil partners, who have always been able to marry.
Even if same-sex and opposite-sex couples can be compared, the Government consider that maintaining the status quo in the very short term—we anticipate for no more than a few months—is fully justified. Extending conversion rights on an interim basis to allow opposite-sex couples to convert their civil partnership to marriage now, while we are considering responses to the consultation, would risk creating uncertainty and confusion over future rights. We do not wish to introduce a new, potentially short-term conversion right that might be changed later in 2020 when we determine our long-term position on conversion.
In addition, it is difficult to see that opposite-sex couples are disadvantaged by this interim position. Couples who have waited for the chance to form a civil partnership as an alternative to marriage are highly unlikely to wish to convert their relationship into marriage in the first few months. Once we have made civil partnerships available to opposite-sex couples, our priority will be to resolve the longer-term position on conversion rights for all civil partners and to bring forward further regulations as soon as possible next year.
I hope that this reassures noble Lords that we have carefully considered these issues and why we consider the regulations to be compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998.
Before winding up, I again pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Hodgson and to Tim Loughton in the other place, for their great skill and tenacity in steering the 2019 Act through Parliament; I pay tribute also, of course, to noble Lords who took part in the debates here.
I know that my noble friend is keen for the first opposite-sex civil partnership to be formed before the end of 2019. Our intention is to commence the regulations on 2 December, which would allow the first opposite-sex civil partnership to take place on 31 December, given the usual 28-day notice period. I know how long some opposite-sex couples have waited for the opportunity to formalise their relationship and enjoy the stability, rights and entitlements that other couples enjoy. This is the final legislative step in the process and I look forward to the first opposite-sex civil partnership being formed by the end of the year. I commend this instrument to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Collins of Highbury
At end insert “, and while this House agrees with the general principle of the Regulations, nevertheless regrets that Her Majesty’s Government is continuing with the new legislation following the criticisms of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in their third Report that the Regulations ‘will plainly discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation from the moment it is in force’ and that that Committee ‘has a real doubt as to whether it would be lawful for the Secretary of State to include regulation 37 in the proposed Regulations’; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to replace these Regulations with new ones which ensure equal rights and are not discriminatory.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I make it clear at the beginning that the reason why I have submitted this amendment is that I felt it was really important that this House debates the reports under consideration from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and this House’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is important so that the Minister can answer the questions raised by those committees. In her introduction, she gave the same answers that she gave to the committees, but they were not satisfied with those answers. That is why we need a full debate today. Also, the Government Chief Whip told me yesterday that there was no business scheduled this afternoon apart from this statutory instrument, so I took the precaution of preparing a six-page speech, to make sure that we are here for most of the afternoon. I assure noble Lords that I will not read it all out.
What I am concerned about is that the Government should have taken responsibility for this matter in the first place. When the Supreme Court made its judgment in June 2018, this Government had the opportunity to decide on primary legislation and subject that legislation to the scrutiny it should have received. However, they decided not to. We had a Private Member’s Bill, which I agree with the Minister was ably pursued by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. We had the Supreme Court judgment in June 2018. Why did the Government have to wait from 2013 until the Supreme Court judgment, when people who wanted civil partnerships were pursuing this matter? Why did it take a Supreme Court judgment to make this Government react?
In October 2018, Theresa May announced with great fanfare that the Government intended to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. I am fully aware of the concerns of opposite-sex couples who want to have the opportunity to enter into a civil partnership. I know they are concerned about the time they have had to wait. I share that concern completely, so my amendment today will not delay the implementation of this statutory instrument. However, I want to say that I personally experienced the consequences of delay. When I originally planned my civil partnership, this House imposed restrictions that delayed it for a year. We had to celebrate our planned day without having a formal, legal civil partnership. We were kindly allowed to use the offices of the London mayor and have a civil partnership in City Hall. True enough, 12 months later to the day, the law changed and we entered into a civil partnership. As the Minister mentioned, that was because same-sex couples had no other choice; civil partnerships were all that was open to us.
When same-sex marriage was mooted by David Cameron, I was in two minds about it. Did it undermine the equal status I had in a civil partnership? What was this about? I actually congratulated David Cameron and said that this was worth doing because it is that final step to equality under the law and equal treatment. My husband and I took great pleasure in converting our civil partnership. It did not undervalue it—we still felt that we were married under the law—but we wanted to celebrate something else: not only the change in society, but the fact that it would personally affect us. We were really pleased to do that.
The noble Baroness might think, as she said today, that there is a difference between that situation and the one we have now. I am not so sure. The consultation has not finished. I wish that we had been able to conflate all this into one proper process. There are very good reasons why people might not want marriage. It is often because they do not want the religious connotation. Sometimes—I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, will refer to this in much more detail—a couple might want a civil partnership because of religious differences. There are all kinds of reasons, but I would not exclude the possibility that once people enter into a civil partnership—I have mentioned the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who talked about the journey the Church of England has been on—they might see the value of that legal recognition and decide that at some future stage, they would like it to be a marriage. Does that mean that they have to stand up in court and divorce, so that they can be married?
I know that the Minister will say that this will be subject to a separate consultation, but the Joint Committee has raised two principles. It is about equal treatment. I want to be very clear that the Government will be absolutely wholeheartedly behind the principle that we end up with equal treatment for same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples; that there will be no division in this and we will not end up with a different situation for same-sex couples.
The Minister says that this will be for only a short time. Maybe or maybe not; we do not know how long the consultation will take. I remember that when the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, moved her replacement for Clause 2 of her Private Member’s Bill, which we all had concerns about, she said that the Government had concerns about the original clause since they believed that it would not deliver,
“a robust opposite-sex civil partnerships regime”,
and pointed to,
“the lack of detail in the regulation-making power”.—[Official Report, 1/2/19; col. 1290.]
We have now gone through the process. The noble Baroness’s amendment was clearly tabled following detailed consultation with the Government—it was, in effect, a Government-backed amendment—and was clearly going to address those issues.
Whether I like it or not, or whether anyone else does, the two committees responsible for scrutinising secondary legislation are saying that these regulations are at fault. I come to the other principle. The Minister mentioned the fact that there was no objection from the other place. My biggest concern about this is that we have these committees as part of our job of scrutiny. These reports were produced so late in the day. I was sitting in the office on Friday trying to read them and to submit an amendment to ensure that we have a proper debate. My first concern is the delay in considering the reports and in the opportunity to see the Government’s response to the committees’ concerns. All the Minister’s responses today were given to both committees. They were not satisfied with them, so there is an issue here that she needs to address.
Let me make it clear: we back these regulations. We want them to be implemented. I do not want an opposite-sex couple to suffer the same delays, having their expectations raised and then dashed by this House. I want the regulations to go through, but I also want the Government to respond to the committees’ questions. There are process issues here.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury. I will not rehearse the very powerful statement that he made to your Lordships. I too spoke in the debate and supported the Private Member’s Bill, so ably and rather brilliantly presented and steered through this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. I had concerns about discrimination continuing despite these regulations coming into force. I share the deep concerns of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and I would welcome the Minister’s response to the items raised by my noble friend Lord Collins.
I also have to reflect on this as someone who undertook a civil partnership and welcomed the work that was done. It is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, in her place; I am sure that if she had made her maiden speech by now, she would be taking part rather forcefully in this debate. I recognise the work that she and Stonewall, and many others, did to achieve consensus on equal marriage.
This country is better for the fact that equality is shared, regardless of difference or perceived difference. Why do I say, “perceived difference”? It is because, although I am not blessed in having children—I think that an atheist can use the term “blessed”—I believe that everyone wants to see the best for their child, offspring or partner. To see same-sex couples, along with opposite-sex couples, having the opportunity to celebrate their relationship and commitment of love publicly makes us all better for that commitment. I say that because within these regulations, we reinforce the principle of discrimination. Again, this was raised in our debate on the Private Member’s Bill. We reinforce the concept that religious organisations and bodies can choose to discriminate by saying that they do not or will not celebrate same-sex civil partnerships. Surely, rather than reinforcing the principle of discrimination within the regulations, we should be encouraging and reinforcing the principle of openness, and moving towards a universal celebration. Equally, opposite-sex couples cannot convert their civil partnership into marriage, so again we are reinforcing the principle of discrimination and inequality.
I know that the Minister is personally committed to the principles of equality; I believe in all good faith that so, too, are the Government. I am concerned about the perception now coming from the Home Office. She would expect me to say this, particularly given that I tabled an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill, which was adopted by the Government in what became that 2017 Act, widening the disregards and pardons for those homosexual convictions which are no longer crimes. Two and a half years later, regulations come there none—despite repeatedly asking the Government to bring forward those regulations. I know that there are problems of capacity within all government departments in relation to the work that has to be done on Brexit but, in the end, we cannot excuse the fact that inequality rumbles on and blights the lives of those who carry these convictions, which often prevent them going into occupations which they love and would want to pursue. While these convictions remain, they cannot.
This is blighting people’s lives and I therefore urge the Minister to reassure me and others that the inequality raised within these regulations will be addressed swiftly. I am a non-aligned Peer—that sounds rather luxurious—but I still wish to call the noble Lord, Lord Collins, my noble friend. As he rightly said, let us get this through and allow those who may wish to take this wonderful opportunity—perhaps on 31 December or even 1 January—the luxury to say that in a country where we are equal, they celebrate the person they love regardless of the gender of that person.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her extensive explanation of the regulations before the House today. I know that she has taken a particular interest in the civil partnerships Bill and I am most grateful to her for her care and attention to it. As my noble friend has already said, I had the honour to sponsor the Private Member’s Bill in your Lordships’ House and I therefore welcome these regulations. I pay tribute to the honourable Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, Tim Loughton, who took the Bill through the other place.
As the House has already heard, these regulations are part of the commitment made during the passage of the Bill and we should not forget that they are of enormous importance to many people. There are over 3 million opposite-sex couples who cohabit and choose not to marry, and they support a million children, yet they do not have the legal protection that married couples or civil partners have. When taking this Bill through your Lordships’ House, I was surprised to receive such an enormous postbag on this subject and it was clear to me that many opposite-sex couples would like to formalise their relationship and enjoy legal security but not be married; they have waited a long time for this legislation to be introduced. However, these regulations extend only to England and Wales. Where have we got to in Scotland and Northern Ireland? I understand that there has been a Bill in the Scottish Parliament and I would be grateful if the Minister could update me on its progress.
I am grateful that the Government have given time to getting the Bill on to the statute book and that these regulations are before the House today. It was important that opposite-sex couples should be able to have a civil partnership before the end of this year, so I very much hope that, in spite of the impending general election, the regulations will still be able to come into force by 2 December and thus the first civil partnerships will be able to be registered 28 days later on 31 December this year.
This is, of course, just one part of the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Act. Will my noble friend update the House about progress on the other parts of the Bill—notably that mothers will be able to sign their child’s marriage certificates—and also on the two reports on registration of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, and whether coroners will be able to investigate when a baby dies after 38 weeks’ gestation without having had independent life?
However, as I have already said, I enormously welcome these regulations. I am incredibly grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the passage of the Bill and are speaking to encourage these regulations to go through. They are a milestone in getting nearer to opposite-sex couples being able to have a civil partnership.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I have had the opportunity of carefully considering these regulations. There are, without doubt, still imperfections with regard to the conversion of opposite-sex civil partnerships to marriage, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, outlined so well. However, we need to proceed so that people who wish to have a civil partnership but are of the opposite sex are not disadvantaged. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, gave me some time at lunchtime to discuss this, because I feared that he might want to hold it up. His remarks, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, this afternoon brought home to me how very fortunate I was 38 years ago to be able to marry the person I love, and that other people were unable to form similar relationships because they were of the same sex. I thank those noble Lords for their generosity and support in enabling people of opposite sexes to have a civil partnership if they wish to, often for very personal reasons. I know of one person who was married but in a very abusive relationship who feels she could never marry again but would like a civil partnership.
I greatly appreciate that your Lordships do not want to hold this up, despite the fact that there remain some inequalities, which it is essential that the next Parliament resolves. I ask the Minister to ensure that opposite-sex couples will be able to form civil partnerships by the end of this year.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it appears that on the issue of equality, we are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I do not want to hold back these regulations, because they are not just a step but a huge leap forward for opposite-sex couples’ equality. However, I despair a little that the Government have not been able at this point to bring about true equality.
I wear this lanyard, as others do, not because I am proud to be LGBT or an LGBT ally, but because I believe in fundamental equality before the law and in human rights. I have spoken in this House before about not being able to marry in a religious institution, which is a form of discrimination. I would not want somebody who is part of an opposite-sex couple to feel that sense of joy being deflated by not being able to convert their civil partnership into a marriage. There is no legal reason why that cannot happen but just a bureaucratic one, based on “some consultation is taking place”.
I know the Minister and her personal passion for equality, which is beyond doubt. However, she kept saying “short term”. How short is short term? The one thing she cannot give is any certainty. We are going into a general election, so short term may be longer than the noble Baroness feels. In addition, it may be short term to the Government, but for somebody who is in an opposite-sex civil partnership and wants to convert, it may take much longer than the short term, particularly if that person has a terminal illness. People make decisions because of life-changing events, so we may be denying somebody the equality that they want based on where they are in their life.
I therefore ask the Minister and the whole House, to ensure that, whoever is returned after the general election, short term must mean a matter of weeks or months. This cannot go on for years because of some bureaucratic government view about consultation.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to important comments from the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Cashman and Lord Scriven, with whom I agree so much on matters relating to civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. However, I would like to return briefly to a deep injustice which the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples has made even more glaring.
Civil partnerships were introduced for the express purpose of conferring legal rights on couples who were ineligible to marry. Through these regulations, civil partnerships will be extended to all couples who now possess the right to marry. They will be withheld from people who cannot marry—in defiance of the very principle on which they were established in the first place.
I have brought up on a number of occasions in this House the question of why the Government feel it is acceptable to continue to withhold from long-term cohabiting siblings who choose to live together for companionship and mutual support all the legal rights and fiscal safeguards they offer, through civil partnerships, to couples they presume to be in sexual relationships.
Do the Government think that two siblings who live together in mutually supportive and financially independent relationships are less in need of the legal protection and fiscal safeguards afforded by civil partnerships than sexual couples? If not, why do they continue to reject both the argument that they should extend civil partnerships to long-term cohabiting couples and the suggestion that they should address that discrimination through other means—for a start, by reforming the rules governing inheritance tax so that bereaved survivors of a sibling couple are at least spared losing the joint home to inheritance tax on the death of the first sibling? I am in touch with a large number of elderly siblings who have lived together, often all their lives, in committed and caring relationships. They simply cannot understand why the Government refuse to recognise them as a single legal unit or give them any help whatever by other means.
Take Beatrice and Mary, sisters whose mother was widowed in their teens and whom they looked after throughout their adult lives in their jointly owned home until her death at the age of 100. The sisters are now 91 and 87. When one of them dies, the survivor will face an inheritance tax bill so hefty on her sister’s share of the estate that there will be nothing left of their joint savings for her own care. If they were civil partners who had known each other for just a few weeks, they would be spared.
A responsible Conservative Government must recognise the value of arrangements such as that of Beatrice and Mary, bring an end to this injustice and finally put the family, in all its manifestations, back where it belongs: at the heart of Conservative social policy. The regulations advance the principle of equality in human affairs—although perhaps not as fully as many would wish—and that is very important, but Conservatives should be no less concerned with the welfare of families in all their forms.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased that, on the last day of this Session, we are returning to this business. Like other noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Collins, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for all the work she did to get us to this point.
I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for so long that I can remember all the rather tortuous path that we have been down, from when we started off, back in 2004, with a Civil Partnership Bill that was wrecked in this House and very nearly fell, but was then rescued and came back, through to where we are today. It is a tortuous path for two reasons. One is that, at every step of the way, the Government have felt that they have to pick their way round strong religious sensitivities. The second is that there is a fundamental flaw in all the reasoning as a result. We were told, way back when we were looking at civil partnerships, in definite terms by evangelical Christians and all the rest, that civil partnerships would undermine marriage. They do not.
In this House, from listening to officials at the time, I understand that at every stage we had to give in to the idea that civil partnerships were somehow a threat. I have never thought that they were for a very simple reason. My father married a lot of people. On Saturday afternoons, my dad would go out, perform a wedding, come back and we would say, “And what was the bride wearing?” Dad would say, “A white dress”. Because my dad was a nonconformist minister long before the Church of England saw the light on matters such as divorce, he was marrying a lot of people. He always had the right not to agree to marry someone. It was a right that he exercised very rarely—only in one or two instances when people came before him and he believed that one of them was under duress to do something that they did not want to. However, he quietly confided that he often officiated at marriage ceremonies where he felt that the people were getting married because that was all there was, and that if there had been an opportunity for them to have their relationship recognised in a different way, that would have been a more honest thing to do. If the Church had recognised that a long time ago, we would not have had to go through much of the difficulty that we now do.
Many people have shouted out their congratulations; mine go to Lynne Featherstone—my noble friend Lady Featherstone. No matter what anybody says, we would not have same-sex marriage were it not for her determination. For these regulations, I also want to give a shout-out to somebody else: Peter Tatchell. As one would expect, he has always single-mindedly stood up for full equality. Therefore, he has always been in favour of opposite-sex civil partnerships. So, we have got to where we are today. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, is right: the Government know that we on this side of the House do not want to stop the regulations. We are keen for people who have waited for such a long time to have their opportunity.
I want to ask about the territorial extent of this issue. I see that we are legislating for England and Wales. Speaking as a Scot, I feel that it might have other things to do on Hogmanay, but perhaps the Minister can explain the likely timetable for the Scottish Parliament to consider this matter.
I also want to talk about Northern Ireland. It is important that we get legislation of this type in Northern Ireland as quickly as possible, for the reason alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I know several people in committed relationships who have been brought up in a faith that means so much to them that they cannot bring themselves to offend their families and that faith, but want to secure their relationship in legal terms. For others, civil partnership is about equality; as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, said, other people have experienced difficult and violent marriages and want never to return to that situation, but are in partnerships to which they are committed. What is the envisaged timetable for introducing this in Northern Ireland?
My understanding of this legislation is that, just as happened with the abortion legislation for Northern Ireland, there will be a read-across from existing legislation. Therefore, I think I am right that the aspects of the regulations that deal with the GRA are a read-across from the GRA as it relates to same-sex marriage. The Minister will know that I and other people think that that legislation is flawed, and that the same flaw therefore appears in these regulations. I accept that this issue should be addressed through primary legislation and amendment to the same-sex marriage Act in so far as it affects the GRA but, when the time comes, this issue should be addressed for both same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnership, for example through my Private Member’s Bill or perhaps through some forthcoming government legislation. I wish that she would understand that.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, it is important and indeed incumbent on those of us who are in heterosexual marriages to express our support for the sentiments uttered by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. That is because it is easy for these issues to appear as though they are being pushed by just one section of society. Therefore, I want to say how strongly I would like to see the elements which still need to be resolved here being addressed in the future. I have a feeling that the Minister feels similarly. In art as in social policy, a leap of a mile is often required to gain an inch. In this instance, the Government have gone a long way further than an inch, but I take this opportunity to encourage them to aim for the mile in the near future.
I will add just a note on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. I have enormous sympathy for his point about siblings, but there is a certain sense of Groundhog Day here because I can remember the same noble Lords talking about this. I cannot help feeling that this is a slightly different issue, although that does not mean that it is not one which the Government should tackle in due course.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am all in favour of civil partnerships for heterosexuals and of them being converted into marriage. However, I am a bit puzzled, because the argument for civil partnerships for heterosexuals is that they want to avoid the patriarchal nature of marriage—but, of course if you enter into a civil partnership, and good luck to you, you will take upon yourself all the financial and other burdens and unfairnesses that come about in marriage if you split your civil partnership; it will be just the same. Still, people should have the choice.
I want to say, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that over the years I too have argued for protection for two people who live together, whether they are sisters, strangers or people in a legal partnership whose financial and social position depends so much on the way the state treats them, through tax law and, especially, inheritance law. I do not accept the argument that to give support to, say, siblings or a father and daughter would in any way undermine the respect due to civil partnerships and marriage.
So I hope that this goes through and that civil partners will be allowed to convert if they want to. I also feel that heterosexual civil partnerships will mean that there will not be any more call for extending the oppressive and unfair law we have at the moment regarding financial provision on split to cohabiting couples. If they choose to cohabit and do not want civil partnerships, which are readily open, good luck to them; they ought to be free of the law.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Barker’s father, my father married a large number of people, although he did so as a Church of England clergyman rather than as a nonconformist minister. I very much support the equality being progressed for opposite-sex partners via this legislation. I also very much support the comments made by my noble friend Lady Barker, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others about it being a shame that the Government did not take the opportunity to go all the way and ensure that there is proper equality.
While we are on the issue of real equality, I will raise an associated issue. When I formed my civil partnership 15 years ago, obviously I did not have the option of a same-sex wedding—but, even today, if I chose to convert it, I would not have the option of that wedding in a Church of England church. My father went to a register office for probably the first time in his life when he came to my civil partnership ceremony. I hope that both the Government and the Church, particularly as it is the established Church, will really reflect on the fact that, not only as a matter of choice by certain members of that Church but by law, a same-sex marriage cannot take place. I hope that they will consider the pain and sorrow that causes and will really think about that position. I recognise that this is not the matter before us, but the amendment expressing regret is about equality, and this is also a matter of equality.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, said right at the outset, the Commons can push things through quickly, but in your Lordships’ House we consider things very carefully before we give them our blessing, as it were.
I will start with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Whatever the outcome of the general election, we as Peers in this House who promote equality will continue to do so cross-party, because that is what we have always done. If we had not approached equality in a cross-party way, we would have made little progress over the last 50 years. So I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House in progressing what is a human right: equality.
Noble Lords’ criticisms have varied from saying that we are rushing things through too quickly to asking, “What on earth has been the delay since the Supreme Court judgment in 2018?” I know that these are meant not as opposition to these regulations but as scrutinising why we have been doing what we have, and why we have delayed in some parts and rushed in others. I totally take noble Lords’ points about not wanting to perpetuate inequality. That is certainly not what either I or other noble Lords wish to do. In progressing equality, we do not want to create the unintended consequence of inequality.
The first question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, was: why the delay? We announced our intention to gather further evidence in 2018, having previously consulted on whether to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. I know it is frustrating, but consultation and evidence gathering can be quite time-consuming.
Can the Government guarantee equal treatment for same-sex and opposite-sex couples? That was the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. We will absolutely ensure that future regulations on conversion are compliant with the Human Rights Act, as we have to with pretty much all legislation, or indeed secondary legislation, that we enact.
On the opportunity to see the Government’s response, again, it might be frustrating, but, given the limited time available, we waived our right to respond to the JCSI report. Victoria Atkins set out our position in the debate in the other place on 31 October. As noble Lords will know, the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to bring the regulations into force no later than 31 December. As noble Lords have pointed out, a December election puts that at risk. We know that there are couples who are hoping to form a civil partnership early in the new year and that the availability of this new relationship is very keenly anticipated. It may be that couples have spent money and made detailed arrangements with their family, with the expectation that the new rights will shortly be available. We are very keen that that expectation will be met, if possible, and to meet the statutory deadline.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, asked about the consultation timing. As I said, it closed on 20 August and we are considering the responses. In addition to analysing the responses to the consultation, we must ensure that the operational processes are in place for conversions to take place. It is a priority. We will make further regulations early in 2020, to be debated in this House and the other place.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about Scotland and Northern Ireland. On 25 June, the Scottish Government announced that they would introduce legislation extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, and a Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 1 October. The Scottish Government’s Bill provides for opposite-sex civil partnerships registered in England and Wales to be recognised in Scotland as marriages, initially, and as civil partnerships when those relationships are available in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, Section 8 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations so that couples in Northern Ireland are eligible to form same-sex marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships no later than 13 January 2020. The duty came into force on 22 October, after the Northern Ireland Executive did not reform, and my officials are working closely with the Northern Ireland Office towards the deadline.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about individuals who are gravely ill. We are mindful at this stage that, for some people, the need to be able to form a civil partnership is urgent for a number of reasons, including, as he mentioned, terminal illness. Generally, couples must give 28 days’ notice of their intention to form a civil partnership, but in exceptional circumstances couples can seek a reduction in the notice period. There are also separate expedited arrangements for people who are seriously ill and not expected to recover. These processes will apply equally to civil partnerships between opposite-sex couples, meaning that those with life-threatening conditions will likely be able to form a civil partnership, rather than just give notice of it, as soon as the regulations come into force.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, asked me about the General Register Office issuing guidance to local registrars. It has already advised registration authorities to prepare for the commencement of opposite-sex civil partnerships from 2 December. As soon as the parliamentary processes are complete and the regulations are made, the GRO will advise registration authorities that firm bookings can be taken for notice to be given from 2 December and any provisional bookings can be confirmed.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Normally, the Minister would ask me to withdraw my amendment. Perhaps she might like to do so for the record.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I forgot. I got carried away because the noble Lord was so smiley. I am sure the noble Lord will want to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the Minister for those kind remarks. I welcome the assurances she has given us this afternoon, in particular the commitment that the report of the consultation, which was completed in August, is a priority and that we will see revised regulations early next year. That is the fundamental issue that I wanted to address today.
I welcome the debate we have had today. It has been an opportunity to revisit issues and restate principles. I return to the point I made, which was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and many other noble Lords. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, is in her place. I thought she would make a contribution, but I did not realise that she has not made her maiden speech. It must be terribly frustrating for her to sit there. No doubt at some later stage she will have a word in my ear.
We have been on an incredibly long journey. There is still much more to do. The right reverend Prelate listened to our contributions. I know that even in the Church of England there is a positive debate. When civil partnerships were first introduced in this House, the Church took a position against them. Now, I think the Church recognises their value. Certainly, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has written strong and powerful articles recognising the value of civil partnerships and the loving relationships which are so important.
This will be a matter of choice. Heterosexual couples will enter into civil partnerships for all kinds of reasons. I do not accept the argument that marriage is a patriarchal institution that must be condemned. If two women can enter into a marriage nowadays, it is certainly not as patriarchal as it used to be. Marriage has developed and changed. It has strengthened our institutions, and I hope that civil partnerships will do likewise.
I welcome the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. I know he feels very strongly about this issue. We have worked together many times on equality and on ensuring that the injustices of the past are put right. I share his concern about the injustices that siblings potentially face. I beg to differ on the means to resolve them. I urge the Government to think about how they might resolve these very personal, difficult circumstances. To lose a sibling is very painful, but to lose your home at the same time is even more difficult, and I recognise that that is an issue that needs to be addressed.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, the battle for equality throughout the United Kingdom is not over. We still need to see it in one part of the United Kingdom. I hope that we will see it introduced rapidly, in the light of the noble Baroness’s comments.
This has been a good debate. I heard what the Minister said. I welcome those commitments. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Thomas Cook
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Government’s actions to support customers of Thomas Cook.
As the House knows, Thomas Cook entered into insolvency proceedings on 23 September. This has been a hugely worrying time for employees of Thomas Cook and its customers, and the Government have done, and continue to do, all they can to support them. This has included the biggest peacetime repatriation effort ever seen in the UK, with around 140,000 people successfully flown home thanks to the efforts of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and his department, and the Civil Aviation Authority. In BEIS, we have set up a cross-government task force, alongside local stakeholders, to support employees and supply chains.
However, I am sorry to have to inform the House that the official receiver has recently brought to my attention further impacts of Thomas Cook’s insolvency, which I wish to share with the House today. There is an important outstanding matter relating to personal injury claims against Thomas Cook companies, impacting customers who have suffered life-changing injuries, illness or even loss of life while on Thomas Cook holidays.
Thomas Cook took out insurance cover for only the very largest personal injury claims. For agreed claims below this figure, up to a high aggregate amount, it decided to self-insure through a provision in its accounts. As Thomas Cook has entered liquidation without ensuring any protection for pending claims, the vast majority of claimants who are not covered by the insurance, including customers who have suffered very serious injuries or loss of life, will be treated as unsecured creditors. This means that it is very uncertain whether they will receive any of the compensation that they would have ordinarily received against their claims.
This raises a potentially unacceptable prospect for some Thomas Cook customers, who face significant financial hardship through no fault of their own where Thomas Cook should rightly have provided support—customers who have already suffered life-changing injuries or illness and who may face financial hardship as a result of long-term loss of earnings or significant long-term care needs. This is an extraordinary situation which should never have arisen.
While the Government cannot and will not step into the shoes of Thomas Cook, we intend to develop proposals for a statutory compensation scheme. Any scheme must strike a responsible balance here between the moral duty to respond to those in the most serious financial need and our responsibility to the taxpayer. Accordingly, it will be a capped fund, sufficient to ensure that there is support for those customers facing the most serious hardship as a result of injuries or illness for which UK-based Thomas Cook companies would have been liable. We will develop the scheme to ensure that only genuine claims are provided with support. The scheme will not consider routine claims covering short-term problems. After the election, we intend to bring forward urgently the legislation necessary to establish such a scheme, and I am sure that any new Government will wish to do likewise.
I have also written to the official receiver to ask him to take this very serious matter into account as part of his investigation into the conduct of Thomas Cook’s directors relating to the insolvency.
I am sure the House will agree that it was important to act quickly today to give reassurance to those individuals and families who would otherwise be left with unfunded serious long-term needs or other financial hardship as a result of injuries or illness sustained abroad for which Thomas Cook would have been liable. The House will have the opportunity to consider the matter in more detail in the new Parliament.
I want to make it clear to all businesses that the Thomas Cook approach was unacceptable and that we will take steps to require suitable arrangements to be in place to ensure that it cannot be repeated. I have asked BEIS officials to urgently bring forward proposals for speedy action by the new Government in the new Parliament.
I am very grateful to the official receiver for bringing this matter to my attention and for all his efforts in this case. It is critical that we act to provide support to those who, through no fault of their own, have been severely impacted by the collapse of Thomas Cook. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. The collapse of Thomas Cook is turning into an issue that needs to be carefully reflected on. It is a tragedy that it happened at all, but the more information that becomes available about the actions of the directors, and the action that they should have taken but perhaps did not, the more we are concerned about it.
There were 8,000 job losses. At the time it was widely reported that Ministers and BEIS officials had little or no discussion with the company before it entered liquidation. However, in the six days leading up to its collapse, government Ministers from Germany, Spain, Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece all made personal contact with the company with the aim of trying to rescue it. Reports from Unite the Union and Syndex have shown that £188 million would have been sufficient to prevent the collapse of the company. Yet we have heard that the Government have spent over £600 million —a lot more than £188 million—on compensation and the successful repatriation of the 150,000 stranded holidaymakers.
We have not had the benefit of a report from the BEIS Committee in the other place; it has not been able to complete its inquiry because of the Dissolution. However, I hope there will be more detailed investigations when we get back, and that we will get an idea of the proposals that might be necessary. Some issues include: audit quality problems, revealed by the fact that the auditors were not able to get to the bottom of this before the liquidation; the struggles that the auditors seem to have faced over how to value some of the financial instruments in the contracts; the fact that the same auditors had been around for far too long; and teams not using their own judgment but tending to accept what they were told by management, possibly because they were so conflicted by their having additional consultancy work. These findings have not been reported by Parliament but by the Financial Reporting Council, as I am sure the Minister is aware.
We have a bit of a mess here. Having said that, it is wonderful to hear that the Government have decided that the outstanding matter referred to in the Statement—the impact on customers who have suffered life-changing injuries or loss of income while on Thomas Cook holidays—cannot be allowed to pass. We will support that decision in any way possible if it is necessary to do so after the election.
The Minister mentioned in the Statement the success of the repatriation; we should perhaps record that too. He paid tribute to the Secretary of State, but the main burden of heavy lifting fell to the Civil Aviation Authority, which booked the planes and arranged the logistics so successfully that customers who could have been stranded for weeks, if not longer, got back within a few days of their original bookings. We should be very proud of that; the success of Deirdre Hutton and her team should be recognised.
On the substance of today’s announcement, it seems extraordinary that this should have been allowed to happen at all. The first question we need to ask is: how could it be that a company of such status and standing as Thomas Cook, which was in operation for nearly 200 years, let itself get into a situation where it deliberately insured itself against the tragedy and therefore abandoned its rationale for existing—the good care of its customers —as it went into liquidation? It is unlikely that any payments will be made to those who will be treated as unsecured creditors. We all know that. Compensation is going missing; the Government have recognised that this needs to be sorted out, and we are very grateful for that.
Can the Minister give us some idea of how this kind of situation will be prevented in future? Clearly, this was something that lay within the remit of the company’s own decisions. The fact that it had insurance cover for the very high end of the spectrum suggests that it was aware of the insurance requirement, but that cut-off is too high. Does the Minister have any ideas about how this might be addressed? I presume he is thinking about future legislation.
The statutory compensation scheme is a great idea and I am pleased that it is happening, but questions arise about how it will be financed and organised. Will it be based on ATOL and ABTA-type approaches or funded directly by the Government, or will some form of co-funding be laid against the other travel companies? If so, does the Minister have any ideas about this?
On the question of whether the official receiver would be passing on matters relating to the actions of the directors, that is clearly not a matter that we can deal with in this House. However, can the Minister say whether he has in mind that a criminal offence may have taken place? If so, it would be useful to know that this is the way the wind is blowing. If not—or if it is not possible to say—can he confirm that the legislation he is considering will ensure that companies trading on a near or actual insolvency basis will not be empowered to pay bonuses to themselves? We should be quite clear that that is what we are talking about at this stage.
I have one final question. Clearly the Government do not intend to become the lender of last resort for companies that get into trouble over travel arrangements, but this will possibly not be the only example of such things happening. Can the Minister offer some reassuring words about being prepared to look again at the wider context, should this turn out to be a more common issue? That would be helpful. Also, will this be a permanent arrangement, or just temporary until things become clearer?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It raises some very serious issues. I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and his inquiries about how Thomas Cook came to be in this very risky situation—risky for its customers. Is it because the law simply has no coverage of this area for companies? In other words, do we need to start absolutely from scratch in terms of legal requirements for companies? Or is it that Thomas Cook actually cut corners and could potentially be judged to be on the wrong side of the law in due course?
It is absolutely appalling that people who have suffered very serious injury, and indeed died, as a result of incidents when they were customers of Thomas Cook could find themselves in this very difficult position. We all know that when a company goes into liquidation, it takes years to sort it out, even in the best of circumstances. As it stands, who has priority as creditors for Thomas Cook? In addition to that, what are the Government’s plans for plugging the gap that clearly exists in this situation after the election? The Government are looking to add a capped fund. Of course, that means there will be people who remain badly out of pocket. They will not be compensated as they should be when things have gone wrong. The official receiver is conducting an inquiry into the situation for Thomas Cook. Can the Minister explain how long it is likely to take for the inquiry to report?
I want to raise one or two other issues of concern, following the demise of Thomas Cook. They are not of the order of magnitude of what was in the Minister’s Statement, but they are still serious. The CAA has done some amazing work to repatriate so many people. I know that CAA staff were literally sleeping in the office, because they were being called on to work such long hours. This is the second time in as many years that they have had to do this job and they are clearly getting quite practised at it. It is not acceptable that staff are being put under such huge amounts of stress. Are the Government considering additional resources for the CAA so that staff are not put under quite so much pressure when this happens again, as it almost certainly will?
There are still almost 2,000 Thomas Cook customers who paid by direct debit and have yet to receive their refunds. The original promised date for refunds was 14 October. These customers are a small percentage of the total, but this is a bad time of year for people to be owed money—significant amounts of money. I would like an explanation from the Minister as to whether the Government or any agency are able to provide support to those who are now having to fill in forms. There might well be vulnerable people who find this process extremely complex and our experience is always that the most vulnerable people find it most difficult to complete bureaucratic processes such as this.
Finally, the Government promised a review of insolvency legislation following the Monarch financial crash, the purpose of which was to enable companies to continue to trade long enough to bring customers home so that that responsibility did not fall on the Government again. It has happened again, and I would like to follow up with the Minister whether that work is still ongoing and whether the Government intend to introduce a change to insolvency rules to clarify that situation.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I will begin at the beginning, if I may. The viability or long-term prospects of Thomas Cook are on many people’s minds. Of course, the question is: could the Government have intervened in such a fashion that could have saved Thomas Cook? I fear the answer is no. The more investigations are undertaken by the official receiver, the more we begin to recognise the scale of the debt Thomas Cook was sitting atop—£1.9 billion, which is an extraordinary amount of money.
I appreciate that when an institution of such age falls, there are always questions about whether more could have been done. I suspect that more could and should have been done by the directors themselves. I hope that the official receiver’s investigation will reveal exactly where the fault-lines lay when it sets out how this went forward. I do not have an answer for the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about when we will be able to expect that; I am afraid that it will rest in the hands of the official receiver, but I would like to think that it will not be long delayed. We deserve an answer to that. A significant amount of public money has already gone into the various elements of this process, with more yet to come. I would like to get to the bottom of that question because we need to understand exactly what has gone on.
I welcome the support of both noble colleagues this afternoon for the issues we have had to take forward on the wider repatriation and so forth. If I might draw it down to the compensation scheme, clearly that will have to be done after the election. I welcome the commitment from the other side that we would stand united in moving forward with this, irrespective of the outcome of the election. It is important for the victims to hear that loud and clear. At present, we anticipate that that money will be met primarily and solely through a government fund. It will not come through ATOL, which has a number of restrictions placed on it that will not allow it to compensate in this regard. The wider question as to how we are in a position to do so and identify will be important. We will make sure that very clear instructions will be on BEIS’s website, but also on that of the official receiver and so on, for those who are, in essence, the unsecured creditors, because they are in many respects often at the very back of the queue during a liquidation. In this case—the official receiver has already identified this to us—we want them to be aware of the situation, with very clear guidance on what they have to do next to be prepared.
I should draw your Lordships’ attention to one simple fact: there will, of course, be an interregnum between the point at which I make this Statement and when we can create such a scheme post the election. There will need to be clear guidance to help direct people towards other sources of government support during this difficult intervening period. The guidance should reveal exactly what that is. Once we pass through the storm of the election and return, the question will be how to design the programme so that it can be quickly instituted and implemented. It will need primary legislation, so we will have another opportunity to come back to and explore this.
It will necessarily be a capped scheme. The noble Baroness is of course right that some people will not receive compensation. To some degree that is inevitable depending on the severity of the situation we face. We wish to ensure that those whose experiences are the most severe are fully compensated through this approach. Those who are experiencing other elements of that compensation will not be able to secure it; it will be judged on severity. We will have a chance to look at the criteria when we return. It begs a bigger question which we need to look at: who else is doing this and how safe are they? In the next Parliament, we will need to look very carefully at this whole story to see whether lessons can be learned. The ability to self-insure but not then ring-fence the funds from which that insurance can be drawn is wrong and is creating the very problems that we are seeing here. We will need to revisit this; that will be right and proper. I do not wish to prejudge exactly how we will do it, but it will be through primary legislation. We will need to act very carefully to avoid a situation, in the ever-volatile travel sector or elsewhere, where individuals who are due significant compensation for serious injury or loss of life are placed in a predicament where they are wondering whether that money will continue to come towards them. That would be wrong. I hope that we can do something about that. The official receiver will look into how on earth Thomas Cook, a company of such standing, could reach the predicament that it found itself in. That will involve looking at the question of bonuses and each of the other elements within the wider director’s role. We will need to be cognisant of what that will be. Once we receive that report, we will need to be alert to what it might mean for a wider question going forward, regarding legislation that may be required elsewhere.
On the question of support for the CAA staff, there is indeed no doubt that they have gone above and beyond. I will commit now to look what they need and how to be helpful. I will talk to my colleagues and the Minister at the Department for Transport to understand better how we may be able to afford that. The question of the nature of the forms will, I fear, be a perennial one. There are, necessarily, bureaucratic elements, much as I would wish to say otherwise. The guidance that we issue must be as clear as we can make it, and we must ensure that those who are experiencing any difficulty in completing those forms can secure the assistance that they require. I will take that away and give it some thought, to ensure that no one is, through the bureaucratic challenge, unable to access necessary funds in this situation.
I think I have covered all the issues; if I have not, I hope that noble Lords will alert me, and I will be very happy to write to them directly.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, the collapse of Thomas Cook has had tragic ramifications for many parties, none more so than the group that the Minister identified in his Statement. Can he tell us what value the official receiver has placed on the category of obligation that he has outlined in respect of personal injury? He talks of an uncapped fund: how are the Government going to establish the quantum of that cap?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
It is an important question to understand. The notion of a cap is to look at it the other way around. We need to look at the definition of the challenges which are being experienced and let those be the criteria by which the ultimate cap is established, because the important thing is to work out who falls into the category of those severely injured, incapacitated or who have lost life. That would be assessed first, and will ultimately determine the cap, but it cannot be open-ended, because by its nature it must balance out the needs of taxpayers alongside our commitment to those who have suffered through this. Regarding the wider question of the evaluation, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will write to him specifically on that point, as I am not clear on the answer.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Can my noble friend tell us the nature of the liability that was not covered by insurance? People need to know that; after all, some will be going on their Christmas holidays in circumstances such as this, and some may be going earlier for other reasons. We need to know exactly what gave rise to this uninsured liability. I do not know whether Thomas Cook did, but most travel agents require you to have travel insurance. This must be some kind of claim outside the scope of ordinary travel insurance. If there is an identifiable category that is apt to recur, people need to be warned of it.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble and learned Lord raises a point the sad answer to which is straightforward: in this regard Thomas Cook did not set out categories but quantums. Any bills above a particular quantum would be met by the wider insurance, if they were particularly high, but those which fell below, it self-insured. The law allows it to self-insure, so the problem we have now is that, while I wish I could identify individual instances where this could be done, sadly that is not possible. This is why in the new Parliament we will have to look at this very carefully, to ensure that we have an answer to the very question that the noble and learned Lord asked. If we do not do that, of course people will be travelling without the confidence that they are insured when they believe that they are.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, as someone who was caught up in the Thomas Cook situation, I add my commendation to the CAA for the work that it did; it was remarkably smooth. Is it not possible that some of these people may have a claim against not only Thomas Cook but the ultimate hotel or travel provider, or wherever the accident happened? If that is the case, what help can the Government provide to those people to make that claim, rather than the original Thomas Cook claim?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord is right that there are issues around more than just the component parts of the holiday because, as an entity, Thomas Cook is not just a single company. It has different named brands that sit underneath that name. The important thing for us here is that this will be through those who have booked a holiday with Thomas Cook, and have experienced severe injury and so forth as a consequence of that booking. In many instances, these are historic payments that will be halted because of the situation. They are not ongoing future payments, although some fit into that category. What is important here is that the manner in which Thomas Cook sought to address those questions will have been part of the initial settlement that Thomas Cook reached. The question we are then taking on is: how do we compensate and match a measure of the liability that was experienced? It will be done through the criteria that we set in primary legislation, which we will afford your Lordships an opportunity to examine in greater detail.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that we will take great encouragement from the fact that he is involved in helping to solve this very difficult problem? We are all grateful to him for the way in which he led on the Northern Ireland Bill, which has just gone through the other place and is now the law of the land. He has shown commendable leadership and initiative. We have been glad to give him support and I hope that he will be reassured that we want to do the same for the expeditious legislation that will be necessary at the beginning of the new Parliament.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord is very kind and generous. A number of your Lordships were involved in the Bill on historical institutional abuse. It is now the law of the land, and we can all take heart from that. I will be as diligent in this regard as I can be and will do all I can in the new Parliament, if I am spared, to do this.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, can I raise a subject which I am sure is not in the Minister’s brief and on which I therefore do not expect a reply this evening? Perhaps he will look into this and write to me. It is on the question of the Thomas Cook archives. Thomas Cook was a company founded in 1841, originally to take temperance supporters on holiday by train in the Midlands. It grew very rapidly into the world’s leading travel company and pioneered journeys to places such as Khartoum, to help with the evacuation, as well as holidays to Switzerland and all sorts of other places. The Thomas Cook archive is priceless. It is based in Peterborough and everything in it needs to be preserved as part of the history of the industry. It is indeed a company that for many years was state-owned, after the nationalisation of the railways in 1948. So could the Minister look into the question of the Thomas Cook archive? I will be happy to send him a letter that Sir Peter Hendy has sent to the chairman of the Business Archives Council, in which he lists the case for this archive to be preserved. It is really worth doing.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord is of course correct that I do not have before me the answer to that particular question. But I recognise that the archives of Thomas Cook, stretching as far back as they do, will be absolutely invaluable to understanding the evolution of our country and how Thomas Cook began to show the world to the people who travelled. So I look forward to receiving the letter that the noble Lord will forward to me. I will, in due course, respond directly and place a copy of that letter in the Library for all to see with regard to the historical archive.
Royal Assent
Tuesday 5th November 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text