House of Commons
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Steve Barclay)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on his election to the seat of Warrington South. I look forward to his advocacy on issues relating to our exit from the European Union. We stand ready to work with businesses up and down the country as we mark an important moment in our national history: leaving the European Union on 31 January.
Andy Carter
How will my right hon. Friend ensure that small businesses, which have been, and are, the engine of growth in my constituency, are able to share in the benefits of leaving the EU and in celebrating our departure on 31 January?
Steve Barclay
Before coming to the House, my hon. Friend was a champion of small businesses in Warrington, and I know he will continue to be so during his time in this place. The best way that we will support businesses in his constituency is by having control of our money, borders and laws. That is what our exit from the European Union does, and that is what he should rightly celebrate on 31 January.
Kate Griffiths
Does my right hon. Friend agree that to mark our leaving the European Union, our fantastic local breweries in Burton-on-Trent should brew a celebratory Brexit beer?
Steve Barclay
From the reaction of the House, it seems my hon. Friend has struck an extremely positive note in one of her first contributions. I again welcome her to the House. I know her constituency is famed for its beer, and I am sure that many Members would welcome those breweries celebrating this occasion in such a way, just as I would welcome the fantastic Elgood’s Brewery doing so, which sits in my constituency.
Mark Logan
Will my right hon. Friend consider the idea, as a lot of my constituents have, of commemorating this day of real constitutional importance by having an anniversary on the date every year?
Steve Barclay
I very much welcome my hon. Friend to his place, not least as a fellow Lancastrian; I am sure Mr Speaker knows of our Lancastrian pride. He brings an important suggestion. Again, it is all part of marking this significant moment in our national history.
Daniel Kawczynski
Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that 31 January is a significant day not only for us here in the United Kingdom but for hundreds of millions of Eurosceptics across the continent of Europe who share concerns about the direction of travel of the European Union, including many citizens in my country of birth, Poland? Does he agree that it is important for us to celebrate this day very publicly, as a nation, to give a guiding principle to others in Europe that there is life outside the European Union?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that this is an important day not just for our own citizens but for many elsewhere who recognise the importance of this event in terms of democracy and respecting the democratic decisions that people take, rather than overturning them, as has sometimes been the intention in the past. He has always been a champion of close ties between the UK and Poland, and I think that whatever celebrations there are will continue in that vein.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Do the Government’s plans for the end of this month still include the abolition of the right hon. Gentleman’s Department? If so, which Department and which Minister will take responsibility for the very important negotiations that are about to begin?
Steve Barclay
I pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Gentleman during his tenure as Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee. He knows from his time in Government that machinery of government changes are announced in the usual way by the Prime Minister, and No. 10 has signalled that it intends to do so. He should also be aware, because we publicly stated it, that the Department will draw to a close to mark our exit. It is the Department for Exiting the European Union, and we will have exited and done the job of the Department when we leave on 31 January.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State back to this House. We have always got on very well, and he is much cleverer than me, but I do have a couple of degrees in economics. When the President of the European Commission comes here and says that in any deal, if we do not have free movement of labour we will not get free movement of goods and services, is that not something that we should all be very sad about as we leave the European Union?
Steve Barclay
I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for how he champions his constituents and raises thoughtful points. He is quite right to pick up on what I thought was a constructive speech from the European Commission President at the London School of Economics yesterday and to draw the House’s attention to it. What I took away from her speech was her language about wanting a very ambitious partnership—she referred to
“old friends and new beginnings”
and drew on her own time in London and how much she enjoyed it and valued the United Kingdom. She wanted to see a close partnership, whether on climate change, security or many other issues on which we have values in common with our neighbours.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Will the Government confirm whether they are going to request the chiming of Big Ben to mark 11 pm on 31 January? This is not going to be a moment of celebration for many people across the UK; it will be a moment of considerable concern, not least for my constituents who are European Union nationals. Perhaps we should be asking the Government: if they do want to hear the bell chime, for whom will the bell toll?
Steve Barclay
I welcome this late conversion on the part of the Scottish National party to celebrating our exit and having Big Ben chime. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a decision as to whether Big Ben should bong or not is one for the House authorities and I would not dare to step into such terrain. The wider point, as I think the mood of the House has demonstrated, is that this is an historic moment and many Members of the House wish to celebrate it.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I urge the Government to be careful about the tone that is adopted at the end of January. They will appreciate that there are many who do not see this as a moment for celebration. In particular, may I ask the Secretary of State what measures are being put in place for the large numbers of non-UK EU nationals, of whom there are many in Cambridgeshire, who will feel particularly vulnerable at that point?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Member is absolutely right, and I hope that colleagues across the House will see that I always try to take a tone that reflects that. I have often talked about the fact that in my own family, notwithstanding my personal role, my eldest brother is an official working for a European institution. I know that many families were split on this issue.
To answer the hon. Member’s question directly, one thing that we have done is establish a £9 million fund to support outreach groups and charities. We have worked with embassies in particular. Within that £9 million, £1 million is specifically for the settlement scheme, as I am sure the Minister for Security detailed in Committee on Tuesday, and there have been 2.6 million or 2.8 million or so applications, so the scheme is working very effectively free of charge. But the hon. Member is right that some people will have concerns, and one thing that the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill does is guarantee the rights of citizens and address many of the concerns that some of his constituents have shared.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In celebration of this important occasion in our nation’s history, will the Secretary of State arrange for Union flags to be flown from all public buildings across our kingdom? That would be a fitting tribute to the decision the British people made to leave the European Union. We will remain unafraid of our patriotism, unabashed about our departure and unwavering in our determination to make our future even greater.
Steve Barclay
I know that, like me, my parliamentary neighbour always takes pride in seeing our Union Jack flown, and any opportunity to do so is one that he and I would always celebrate. Given my right hon. Friend’s penchant for poetry, I cannot be alone in thinking that such an occasion might inspire him in due course to write something fitting.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Even the most ardent supporter of Brexit will, I am sure, share a concern that the UK’s departure from the European Union might be depicted as representing insularity and nationalism. It is therefore important that we dispel that sense, and one way in which we could do so is to sign up long term to the vulnerable refugees resettlement scheme and, indeed, to accept in full the Dubs amendment and do our best by the most vulnerable people on this planet, child refugees.
Steve Barclay
I absolutely agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. A big part of why I and many colleagues supported Brexit is that we want to be more outward-looking, global and international; we want to go after trade deals around the world and have autonomy.
On unaccompanied children and the Dubs amendment, we should not talk down the United Kingdom, which is currently in the top three EU countries in terms of the number of unaccompanied children it takes. It takes 15% of the entire total of unaccompanied children. We have a proud record, we have made commitments, and the Home Secretary wrote to the Commission in October on this issue. It is not necessary for it to be in the withdrawal agreement Bill itself. We have a proud record, and we should not talk it down.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Steve Barclay)
The Government have been clear that the future relationship will protect the UK’s sovereign right to regulate, and have no plans to align dynamically with EU employment legislation.
Mohammad Yasin
Since October, the withdrawal agreement Bill has undergone major changes, including the stripping out of previous commitments to workers’ rights. Will the Secretary of State publish a revised impact assessment so that he can be honest with the public about what his Government have in store for them with their hard Brexit plan?
Steve Barclay
The reality is that we actually go beyond Europe in many areas of workers’ rights, including maternity and paternity leave, and we should be proud of that. The hon. Gentleman asks specifically about the change to the withdrawal agreement Bill, but it does not affect the rights of workers. It should be for this Parliament to set the standards. In our manifesto, we committed to having high standards. The real question that should be asked is why a number of member states do not meet the standards set here in the United Kingdom.
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady says that as if she supported the Bill in October, but she did not. She did not support it when those things were in the clause, and now she is lamenting that they are out of the clause that she did not support. The reality is that the purpose of the withdrawal agreement Bill is to implement the international agreement that the Prime Minister has reached with the European Commission. Of course it is for the House, in the course of its business, to determine what standards it wants on workers’ rights, the environment and other areas. The Prime Minister was clear in the manifesto that we are committed to high standards in those areas. I think that is something that the hon. Lady and I can agree on.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) said, we need dynamic alignment like a hole in the head? The purpose of Brexit is to enable us to make our own laws and rules, set our own taxes and chart our own course.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend has championed Parliament’s taking control of these issues for many years, and he is absolutely right: it is for this House to determine the standards, and we should have confidence in its ability to do so.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer on dynamic alignment. As his Department winds up, I thank him personally for leading it with such professionalism, and I thank his team at DExEU.
On dynamic alignment, I ask my right hon. Friend to reflect on the fact that the Brexit vote was about this House being sovereign. For me, as a Welsh Member, that is the Union of the United Kingdom, and this House being sovereign over our alignment.
Steve Barclay
I extend a particularly warm welcome to my hon. Friend on his return to the House, and I thank him for his contribution to the Department during his tenure. He is right both in having confidence in this House setting high standards on workers’ rights and the environment, and in emphasising the importance of that from a Union perspective. Of course, Wales supported leaving, just as England did.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that post Brexit, under a Conservative Government, there will never be a point at which workers in the EU27 enjoy stronger employment rights than they do here?
Steve Barclay
I am absolutely clear that we will deliver on our manifesto—[Interruption.] Members seem surprised that the Government want to deliver on our manifesto. The manifesto says that we are committed to having high standards. As I said earlier, the real issue is that, in a number of areas, EU standards are lower. The UK has three times the maternity entitlement: it has 52 weeks of maternity leave, 39 of which are paid, whereas the EU requires only 14 weeks of paid leave. That is the area that I urge the hon. Gentleman to focus on.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
A Government genuinely committed to workers’ rights would have given a straight yes to that question, but the Secretary of State did not. If he committed to dynamic alignment on workers’ rights, there would be nothing stopping the Government going beyond it in the years ahead. Should we be surprised by their lack of commitment? The Prime Minister said that the weight of employment law was “back-breaking”. Is not the truth that the Government will not end up with stronger rights for UK workers at the end of this Parliament?
Steve Barclay
I really do not think Opposition Members should be talking about a lack of commitment when it comes to the withdrawal agreement, given that their party leader was neutral on the issue during the general election. The reality is that the hon. Gentleman, like so many Members on the Opposition Benches, having said that he would respect the result of the referendum, went back on the manifesto commitment and did not do it. It is now time to listen to the electorate and deliver that. We are absolutely clear that in doing so, as we set out in our manifesto, we will maintain high standards on workers’ rights.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Steve Barclay)
I continue to have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues across Government on all aspects of exiting the European Union. The Government have been clear that we will not weaken our current environmental protections as we leave the European Union, and that we will maintain, and even enhance, our already high environmental standards.
Robert Largan
It is vital that we not only maintain but enhance our environmental protections, and that we enhance our natural environment. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that leaving the EU will not negatively impact on the Nature4Climate fund and the essential restoration of our peat moorlands, including in my constituency of High Peak?
Steve Barclay
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He is quite right to highlight the importance of those protections from a constituency perspective. I draw his attention to the £10 million that the Government have allocated for peatland restoration until March 2021, which I hope will give him comfort, alongside the environmental commitments set out in the Queen’s Speech, such as the independent monitoring of the targets that have been set, and the allocation of funding for that specific issue, which I know he has a close constituency interest in.
Chris Loder
The United Kingdom has some of the highest food standards, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that Her Majesty’s Government will not allow substandard agricultural or food imports after the UK leaves the EU, which it would otherwise be illegal to produce here in the UK?
Steve Barclay
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place —it is nice to have so many hon. Friends to welcome today. I am sure that, like me, he listened to “Farming Today” this morning and heard, in relation to the Oxford conference, a debate on how important it is to maintain high animal welfare standards on imports in any future trade deals. One of the odd points about this debate is that the Government are constantly asked whether we will maintain high animal welfare standards, notwithstanding our manifesto commitments to do so, but there is very little scrutiny of those areas in Europe that have lower standards. I am sure that we will explore the issue during the negotiations.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that the EU’s groundbreaking European green deal includes many policies with which UK alignment will be straightforward. Others will be more challenging. For example, the circular economy action plan will seek to change business models and set minimum standards for producers to prevent environmentally harmful products being placed on the market. He has talked about wanting to lead on environmental issues, so will the Government commit to adopting and keeping pace with the proposed minimum standards on sustainable production?
Steve Barclay
We are very happy to commit to world-leading environmental standards. One of the areas where we are doing so is through our hosting of COP26 in Glasgow, which will be key, and through standards—[Interruption.] I will come on to climate change, but that is integrated in our aspiration—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering away, but I will move on to that. On the specific point about the green deal, he is right that the Commission President specifically referred to the green deal in her speech at the London School of Economics yesterday, and it is something that the Prime Minister and I discussed with her in our meeting. Again, it is an area where the UK has world-leading expertise. Look at our green finance, our green investment bank and the areas where the UK is in the lead. We look forward to working with the European Union on that as we move forward.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) on her election as the first Conservative MP for Great Grimsby since 1945—fantastic!
The withdrawal agreement ensures that the current role of the European Union institutions, including the European Court of Justice, and the obligation to comply with European Union law as it is now end with the implementation period on 31 December 2020. There are limited exceptions, such as citizens’ rights, to give businesses and individuals certainty. The agreement enables a relationship between sovereign equals.
Lia Nici
I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that coastal areas such as my Great Grimsby constituency voted particularly to ensure that we take back control of our fishing laws, and that it is essential, following Brexit, that laws governing fishing are decided here in the UK?
James Duddridge
I agree with my hon. Friend. I recognise the importance of this issue as I, too, represent a coastal constituency. As we leave the EU, we will be an independent coastal state and we will introduce our own independent fisheries policy. We will be able to control access to and management of our waters. That presents opportunities for the UK fishing industry, and the Government are determined to make the most of such opportunities for the people of Grimsby and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Huw Merriman
On 30 January, I shall be holding a public meeting to explain the terms of the withdrawal agreement. When I held my last meeting relating to the previous withdrawal agreement, concern was raised about the European Court’s ability to determine issues that arise. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under articles 167 to 181 of the new withdrawal agreement, while the Court can have matters referred to it, it cannot actually determine, because we will now have an arbitration panel, over which the UK will have a large degree of control?
James Duddridge
I can confirm that the withdrawal agreement establishes an arbitration panel as part of the standard mechanism for settling disputes between the UK and the EU. After 31 December, the Court of Justice of the European Union will no longer be the final arbiter of disputes under the disputes resolution mechanism. I look forward to an invite to my hon. Friend’s event.
Chris Clarkson
I thank the Minister for his assurances on the ECJ. People in Heywood and Middleton voted to leave the European Union by a quite significant margin. Does he agree that the critical reason for that was a wish to take back control of our laws to this place and not to be dictated to by Brussels?
James Duddridge
It is wonderful to see my hon. Friend in the Chamber—he is not the first Conservative MP for his constituency since 1945, but the first ever Conservative MP for Heywood and Middleton. This Government have prioritised negotiating a deal that disentangles us from the European Union’s legal order and does indeed take back control of our laws.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election. His experience as an A&E doctor will, I am sure, pay dividends here. I promised my office that I would make no jokes about his scrubbing up well as a new Member of Parliament.
Ministers from the Department for Exiting the European Union continue to hold regular discussions with Health and Social Care Ministers. The NHS is, of course, of the utmost importance to the Government. As was outlined in the Queen’s Speech, the national health service’s multi-year funding settlement, which was agreed earlier this year, will be enshrined in law for the first time ever.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for that response. I know that my constituents in Crewe and Nantwich are delighted to see the deadlock broken and the good progress that we are making toward delivering Brexit responsibly by the end of the month. Does he agree that significant measures have rightly been taken to ensure the continued flow of medicines after Brexit, and that the NHS will continue to be a fantastic place for EU citizens to work in years to come?
James Duddridge
The Government are moving forward on the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, and we are confident that the deal will be ratified on 31 January. Under the terms of the agreement, we will enter the implementation period following 31 January, during which medical supplies will continue to flow as they do today. My hon. Friend makes a good point about EU nationals working in the health service. Since the referendum, almost 7,300 more European nationals have been working in NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups, which should be welcomed.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
During the election, the Prime Minister promised 50,000 extra nurses. Given a one-third increase in EU nurses leaving the UK, does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister must ditch his anti-immigrant rhetoric, and that there must be improvements to the settlement scheme so that EU citizens feel both welcome and secure in the UK?
James Duddridge
There have been improvements in tier 2 visas and 700 more EU doctors have come on board. The hon. Lady talks about the manifesto and 50,000 more nurses. We will do more on the nurse bursary scheme, as was promised during the general election.
Dr Whitford
My German GP husband, who has been looking after patients for over 30 years, was quite offended by the Prime Minister criticising EU citizens treating this “as their own country”.
There has been a lot of concern about the possible increase in drug prices for the NHS under a US trade deal, but what estimate has been made of the increased bureaucratic customs costs for the 37 million packets of drugs that come from the EU every month?
James Duddridge
The hon. Lady talks about bureaucracy, but one of the reasons why we want to take back control is to reduce that bureaucracy. We will be in control of our own destiny to manage the very issues that she highlights.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the NHS will receive far more than £350 million a week in additional funding as the UK leaves the EU, including in my home constituency of Bassetlaw?
James Duddridge
I welcome my hon. Friend to the House and can certainly confirm that.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
The Secretary of State regularly discusses the rights of EU citizens with the Home Secretary and other Cabinet colleagues. To protect the right to reside, EU citizens who are resident at the end of the implementation period must apply for settled status by June 2021. This is a free-of-charge process, and we have already received well over 2.6 million applications to the scheme.
Philip Dunne
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and obviously I am delighted by the progress that the settlement scheme is making in encouraging EU citizens who are here to remain. In common with many colleagues in the House, I spent a number of days in the last few weeks knocking on doors and talking to my constituents. One of the people I came across was an EU citizen—an Italian who was married to a British lady and had lived here for over 50 years, working all the time and paying his taxes. He wanted to become a British citizen, but is faced with an application fee of £1,700. Does my hon. Friend think that that is fair? Is there something that we can do to encourage people who have lived here for a long time to become British citizens?
James Duddridge
I am more than happy to meet my right hon. Friend to talk about the specifics of that case and the EU settlement scheme. Yesterday the Minister for immigration talked about why that issue would not be covered by the withdrawal agreement Bill, but I am more than happy to chat to my right hon. Friend about that individual case.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Does the Minister have even the tiniest twinge of conscience at the sheer immorality of demanding that somebody pay an extortionate sum simply to be allowed to continue to live in their own home?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
To what extent is the Government’s EU settlement scheme in this country being replicated by the EU27, including with reference to fees and charges?
James Duddridge
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Prime Minister made a big, bold offer for EU citizens, and we urge member states to do the same.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister further outline whether he intends to level the fees between European partners and Commonwealth partners such as Canada to ensure that there is a level playing field for immigration? Is he aware that that would reduce the fees paid by Commonwealth spouses?
James Duddridge
Such issues are for the Home Office, but an advantage of taking back control is that we can look at our relationships with other parts of the world, particularly the Commonwealth, which makes up a third of the world by population.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend assure EU citizens in Beaconsfield that there is no charge for applying for settled status?
James Duddridge
I thank the right hon.—[Interruption.] Sorry, my hon. Friend—the title does not go with the constituency. I do not know her well, but she is already a great improvement, and I agree fully.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Steve Barclay)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on citizens’ rights. The withdrawal agreement will protect the rights of EU citizens who arrive in the UK by the end of the implementation period. As of the end of November, we were already moving towards receiving 3 million applications to the EU settlement scheme.
Wera Hobhouse
Will EU nationals who fail to get settled status by the end of this year become our next Windrush generation, losing their driving licences and jobs, and ultimately facing deportation?
Steve Barclay
I am glad that the hon. Lady asks that question, because it lets me say: first, we have a grace period until June 2021 to address that issue; and, secondly, the declaratory scheme that she advocates would increase the risk of exactly the issue to which she refers.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the fact that 3.5 million EU citizens see the best future for themselves and their families as to remain living and working in post-Brexit Britain is a huge endorsement of our post-Brexit prospects? I wish that that confidence was shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Steve Barclay
I urge Members on both sides of the House to support Third Reading of the withdrawal agreement Bill because it safeguards the rights of the 3 million EU citizens here, as it does those of the 1 million or so UK citizens in Europe. The Bill guarantees the rights of those EU citizens because we value the contribution they make to our homes, communities and businesses.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Refusing to provide paper proof of status, rejecting Labour’s proposal to grant automatic status, granting only uncertainty inducing pre-settled status to people who have been here legally for years and the high cost of applying for citizenship—what part of all that does the Secretary of State believe makes our EU friends and neighbours living in the UK feel truly valued and welcome?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady appears to have missed the debate about these issues in Committee.
Steve Barclay
In which case the hon. Lady should well know that the specific issue of documentation versus digital was raised with the Minister for Security, who was clear that although there will be a letter to provide a document, it would have reference to the digital number. That issue was explored at length. She will also know that citizens do not lose any rights when they get pre-settled status, and that they then move on to settled status. Those issues were debated—that is what a Committee stage is for—and addressed by a Home Office Minister at that time.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Steve Barclay)
I continue to have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues on all aspects of exiting the European Union, including agricultural policy.
Kevin Hollinrake
Our farmers and food producers are required by domestic legislation to observe high standards for the environment, the workplace and animal welfare. Will the Secretary of State confirm that under future free trade agreements, tariff-free imports will be allowed only from producers that also observe those standards?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, about which there has been a live discussion at the Oxford farming conference, as he will know. The UK has always been a leading advocate of open and fair competition. I assure him that we are absolutely committed to maintaining high standards through a robust domestic enforcement regime.
Mel Stride
As this is my right hon. Friend’s last question session as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, may I congratulate him on having served with such distinction?
I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to maintaining common agricultural policy levels of funding for our farmers, but during his remaining days in office, may I urge my right hon. Friend to liaise closely with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make sure that we come up with an excellent deal for our hill farmers, many of whom operate at a level of subsistence yet look after some of the most beautiful uplands in our land?
Steve Barclay
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s kind remarks. He is absolutely right to focus on hill farmers. As he will know, one of the aspects of the Agriculture Bill is the ability to target measures—for example, on the environment—at specific areas of agriculture. Key among those are hill farmers, whom I know he has always championed.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Farmers made it clear in Oxford this week that they simply do not trust the Government’s assurances. Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs give assurances that they will accept the equivalent of my former new clause 1 to the Agriculture Bill, when it comes back? That would ensure no lowering of standards. Will they also agree to the National Farmers Union’s request for a trading standards commission to scrutinise any future trade deals and make sure that farmers are protected?
Steve Barclay
If farmers did not trust the assurances, I am not sure whether another assurance would suddenly become trustworthy.
On the substance of the hon. Lady’s question, I refer her, for example, to the commitment to set up the office for environmental protection, which will be the single enforcement body. Above all, however, I refer her to this House: part of taking back control will be the House’s ability to scrutinise issues, such as the legitimate one that she raises, and to ensure that the Government meet the assurances that they have given.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the importance of the agrifood sector in Northern Ireland. Will he assure the House, and the agrifood sector and associated businesses in Northern Ireland, that his departmental and Cabinet colleagues are very well aware of that importance and can minimise any threats and maximise opportunities as we leave the EU?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of that issue. The former Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee referred to the Department’s disbanding, but what is not disbanding is the expertise within it, which will be shared across Whitehall, including with the Northern Ireland Office. As the hon. Gentleman will know, when it comes to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, that sector and how it plays into discussions within the Joint Committee will be extremely important. I am sure that he will contribute fully to that debate.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
As in Northern Ireland, the agricultural sector is vital to the economy of Scotland, where food and drink account for 18% of international exports. What work is my right hon. Friend’s Department and the Department for International Trade doing to ensure that, in our future relationship with the European Union, the trade in agri-goods is as free and frictionless as possible?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the food and drink sector—not least, for example, when we consider the Scottish whisky industry, which is key. From memory, the UK has 88 geographical indications, whereas Europe has over 3,000: from a negotiating point of view, the European Union obviously has more interest in that issue. From a Scottish point of view, however, the importance of the intellectual protection of Scottish whisky and salmon is huge. We are very alive to those issues.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Steve Barclay
One of the most welcome things about the debate since the general election has been its more positive tone, and one aspect of that has been moving on from the language of no-deal crash-outs. The withdrawal agreement safeguards things such as citizens’ rights. It includes the Northern Ireland protocol and settles settlement. We therefore move into a different phase, in which the risks of no deal that the hon. Gentleman and many others spoke about no longer apply. That is the benefit of the Prime Minister’s deal and it is why the hon. Gentleman should support the withdrawal agreement Bill on Third Reading.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the Government will introduce any changes to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme after the UK leaves the EU? Farmers in my constituency need certainty that they can hire the workers they require.
Steve Barclay
I know from representing a farming area myself the importance of seasonal workers. Obviously, that debate interplays with the expansion of investment in agritech, which brings benefits not only for productivity but in reducing demand. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Home Office has increased the numbers under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to 10,000, but as part of designing our own approach to immigration and having control of our borders, we will be able both to address the concerns of the public at large and to mitigate any specific sectoral issues that apply, for example, to agriculture.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Fifty per cent of Welsh lamb is consumed elsewhere in the UK and 45% of it goes to the European Union, so Welsh hill farmers will probably be the most exposed of all if there is a no-deal Brexit at the end of this year. Will the Secretary of State do everything in his power to ensure that the Government do not sign off on a deal unless it ensures tariff-free access for lamb into the European Union?
Steve Barclay
The whole point of the deal—I hope the hon. Gentleman supports it on Third Reading—is that it ensures that we will leave in a smooth and orderly way. The specific issues of hill farmers are matters for both the negotiation and the Agriculture Bill. I am sure he, among others, will contribute to that debate.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is good to be back—and I do like your socks.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Steve Barclay)
I welcome my hon. Friend back to his place as a great champion of the constituency of Lincoln. We continue to have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues on all aspects of exiting the European Union, including fisheries and marine policy.
Mr Speaker
Topical questions. Nigel Mills. [Interruption.] Sorry—supplementary question, Karl MᶜCartney.
Karl MᶜCartney
And there was me saying I liked your socks.
The good city of Lincoln is not that close to the sea, but further to the Minister’s answer to Question 4, in percentage terms and considering everything we now know, how confident is my right hon. Friend not only that will we leave the common fisheries policy completely, but that we will then be in full control of our fishing areas and quotas, and therefore able to influence international total allowable catches?
Steve Barclay
I am 100% confident on those issues, because page 46 of the Conservative manifesto, which I know my hon. Friend knows in detail, makes it clear that we will leave the common fisheries policy and become an independent coastal state. For the first time in more than 40 years, we will have access to UK waters on our own terms, under our own control, and we will be responsible for setting fishing opportunities in our own waters.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Steve Barclay)
Since our last departmental questions, we have contested the general election, where Brexit was the defining issue, and been given a renewed mandate by the British people to leave the European Union. As a result, we have been able to bring the withdrawal agreement back before the House. As was shown during its Committee stage this week, it is the will of this House that we now implement that decision.
That has been reflected, as referred to by the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), in the decision to disband the Department for Exiting the European Union, as its purpose will have been achieved. I would like to take this opportunity to place on the record my thanks to all the officials in the Department and across Whitehall who have worked so tirelessly over the last three years to achieve this result, and to thank all my colleagues who have served in ministerial roles in the Department.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I met the new European Commission President and the European Union chief negotiator to discuss our shared desire for what the President described as a unique partnership reflecting our shared values as friends and neighbours.
During the three years that the Department has been in place, it has had three Secretaries of State and three permanent secretaries but, since the first departmental questions, just one shadow Brexit Secretary. Throughout my interactions with the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), he has always been both professional and courteous while probing and challenging. Without wishing in any way to jinx his next steps, may I place on the record his contribution to the scrutiny of the Government, which I am sure will continue in whatever role he plays in the House moving forward?
Nigel Mills
Does the Secretary of State agree that close working between UK authorities and their equivalents on the continent is key to making our future relationship work? Now that we have nearly agreed an orderly exit, will he confirm that discussions between tax authorities in the UK and France on ensuring that customs processes are streamlined can start, and will not continue to be blocked by the European Commission?
Steve Barclay
It is not so much a question of whether those discussions need to start; they have started. In our contingency planning for an exit without a withdrawal agreement, there was a lot of discussion on how we would manage frictions at our borders, and much of that can be taken forward, such as the Treasury’s commitment to driving productivity and improving connectivity and flow through our ports. There is work on this already; my hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to it, and we intend to build on it.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words. I appreciate the relationship that we have had, and, in particular, his kindness when my father died at the tail end of 2018, which touched me personally. I welcome the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and all Members, but I strongly dissociate myself from the words of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State about the former right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, who gave distinguished service in this House, including as Attorney General for the Government. I hope that there might be an opportunity to correct the record on that.
Yesterday, the Government voted down the Opposition’s amendment on unaccompanied child refugees. Our amendment would have preserved the victory that Lord Alf Dubs had campaigned for. I have always had a good personal relationship with the Secretary of State, but whatever he says about the wider issues, he must know that the Government have got this wrong. This could be his last Brexit oral questions; is he prepared to reconsider? I urge him to do so.
Steve Barclay
To understand the context, it is important to look at the commitment the Government gave to commencing negotiations on this issue, as reflected in the letter of 22 October from the Home Secretary to the European Commission. As was touched on in earlier questions, the Government have a strong record on this. They take 15% of unaccompanied child refugees; we are one of the top three EU countries in that regard. That commitment on granting asylum and supporting refugees remains; it is actually embedded in our manifesto, on page 23. In the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, we return to the traditional approach, in which the Government undertake the negotiation and Parliament scrutinises that, rather than Parliament setting the terms, as happened in the last Parliament.
Keir Starmer
I am disappointed by the Secretary of State’s reply. Labour will continue to fight to protect the most vulnerable. We may not win many votes in Parliament just now, but we can win the moral argument. I urge everyone who cares about the issue to put pressure on the Government, and urge Ministers to rethink this disgraceful decision. A legal obligation on the Government has been converted into reliance on the Prime Minister’s word. Surely the Secretary of State can see why that gives rise to anxiety among Labour Members.
Steve Barclay
The shadow Brexit Secretary is right: there clearly has been anxiety among Labour Members, but I hope that he takes assurance from the explanation I gave that the commitment is unchanged. That is reflected in the letter of 22 October to the Commission from the Home Secretary, and in the manifesto. The policy is unchanged. It is right that the Bill should, as is traditional, implement the international agreement; that is what it will do.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
May I take the opportunity to say that I have the utmost respect for the previous Member for Beaconsfield? I was simply trying to say that as a Government Minister, I found the particular line of questioning raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) much more helpful to respond to. I hope that the House will take that as an apology to the previous Member for Beaconsfield.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on her question, and on her election to the House. I can confirm that we will pay special attention to the 10-metre fleet; it is an issue that I am aware of, as a coastal MP; in Southend, we have some under-10 metre boats. I also confirm that as we leave the EU and become an independent coastal state, the Government will develop a domestic fisheries policy that promotes that fleet, which is profitable and diverse, and uses traditional practices to protect stocks and our precious marine environment.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has drawn the House’s attention to a sector that is extremely important to the potential of the UK. I have discussed the issue with my ministerial colleagues. As for his characterisation, part of the reason for the withdrawal agreement Bill, which I hope he will support on Third Reading, is to secure the rights of the 3 million EU citizens, many of whom contribute to the creative arts. Future policy, however, is for the immigration Bill, where we will design something that is targeted at talents, including the talents of those in the creative industries.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Steve Barclay
It must be a happy day, and one to celebrate, when there are so many Lancastrians in the House. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the achievements of officials within the Department who have worked so hard to support the Government in getting this deal. It is an important moment, and in part, the closure of the Department will enable us to take the expertise built up by officials over the past three years into those Departments that will be front and centre in the trade negotiations.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
I am happy to guarantee to all those EU citizens living in the UK ahead of our exit that the withdrawal agreement Bill guarantees their rights, among which are their rights to healthcare. That is why I urge the hon. Gentleman to support the Bill on Third Reading.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government are clear that they wish to continue to attract students from the EU and the rest of the world to study here in the UK. The UK’s higher education institutions have long-established traditions of attracting the brightest minds at all stages of their education and research careers, as we saw yesterday with the alumna of the London School of Economics. This being our last oral questions, I thank civil servants for their support. I particularly thank my private office and Cara Phillips. They have been wonderful.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State knows that Airbus contributes billions of pounds in taxation, employs tens of thousands of people and wants business continuity after a short transition period. Will he give an undertaking today that the European Union Aviation Safety Agency will continue as is—rather than us inventing new, bespoke regulatory systems for the sake of divergence—so that Airbus can plan ahead, invest and continue to make its contribution to our economy?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman correctly draws the House’s attention to an important issue, and one for the future negotiations. As he knows, however, in the political declaration there is scope for such participation. What was constructive and positive about the remarks of the President of the European Commission yesterday, which were reflected in the meeting with the Prime Minister, was the desire to build on that close partnership. The sort of areas where there will be detailed discussion will be on aircraft and other such sectors.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to seize the opportunities that Brexit offers, and that is particularly the case in agriculture. He well knows that the bureaucracy of the common agricultural policy was an area of deep frustration, with things such as the three-crop rule dictating to farmers who farm more than 30 hectares what they can and cannot grow. We should be setting farmers free and giving them those opportunities. Through the Agriculture Bill, we will have the chance to seize those opportunities, and I know that my hon. Friend will be at the forefront of that for his constituents in West Dorset.
Football Association and Bet365
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the deal between the Football Association and Bet365.
The Minister for Sport, Media and Creative Industries (Nigel Adams)
I will respond on behalf of the Secretary of State to this urgent question.
Recent reports on the streaming of FA cup matches by online bookmakers have rightly caused concern across the House. They relate to a media rights deal agreed by the FA with IMG in early 2017, within which IMG could sell on live footage or clips of certain FA cup matches to commercial partners. Bet365 and six other betting operators acquired those rights from IMG to use from the start of 2018-19 season.
It is right that sporting organisations have the freedom to benefit commercially from their products and negotiate their own broadcasting deals, but football authorities also have an important responsibility to ensure that fans are protected from the risks of problem gambling. Since the deal was agreed, the FA has rightly reviewed its position on commercial relationships with gambling firms. It has ended a commercial partnership with Ladbrokes and announced that it will be reviewing its processes for tendering rights from the 2024-25 season onwards, and it is absolutely correct that it does so.
The Secretary of State and I made our views quite clear yesterday and have done so previously on the wider responsibilities of sport and gambling sectors to their fans, their customers and our wider communities. We therefore welcome the fact that the industry has responded to public concern by introducing a whistle-to-whistle ban on TV advertising during daytime sport, and that the FA introduced a rule last year that prevents players, managers and members of staff in any capacity from deliberately taking part in audio or audio-visual advertising to actively encourage betting.
While many people enjoy gambling as a leisure pursuit, we cannot forget that it carries a high risk of harm and can have a serious impact on individuals, families and communities. All of us—Governments, gambling companies and sporting authorities—need to keep the momentum going so that we can protect vulnerable people from the risk of gambling-related harm.
Carolyn Harris
Problem gambling in the UK is now so endemic that it should be treated as a public health crisis. It causes untold misery to those affected and their families. Too many times, I have sat with men and women who are cursed with an addiction and who are battling mental health issues. Too many times, I have listened to the heart-wrenching grief of a partner, sibling or parent whose loved one has taken their life because the demon became too big to fight. Again and again, I have stood in this Chamber and vocalised my shock, my anger and my utter disgust at the greed and immoral behaviour of the gambling companies. It saddens me that I am having to do it yet again, yet here we are—the first urgent question of the new year.
Three years ago, it appeared that the FA had turned a corner when it ended a £4 million-a-year sponsorship deal with Ladbrokes, distancing itself from the gambling industry—or so we assumed. However, what has come to light in recent days paints a very different picture.
In 2017, the Football Association agreed a streaming deal through sporting rights agency IMG, which will run until 2024. That deal, thought to be worth in the region of £750 million, allows IMG to sell on live footage from cup matches to bookmakers and betting firms around the globe. Gambling companies can then stream matches on their websites and mobile apps, forcing fans to “bet to view” if they want to watch their team.
We already know of some of the UK-based gambling companies who took part in the deal, but there are likely to be many more, both at home and across the world. I dread to think how many people will take the bait and place their first bet as a result of this deal, and how many could spiral into a dark addiction off the back of it. Just last weekend, Bet365 broadcast 32 FA cup matches online, in comparison with only two on terrestrial free-to-air television. To watch the matches on Bet365’s site, fans had to either place a bet before kick-off or open an account with a £5 deposit. Bet365 heavily promoted the matches on social media beforehand, offering tips to lure potential gamblers. Betting odds then accompanied the live footage, tempting viewers to gamble more.
Everything about the deal is shameful, everything about it needs to be dealt with and everything about the Gambling Act 2005 needs reform. The Gambling Commission certainly needs reform. I thank the Prime Minister for his comments, but I urge the Government to do more to protect vulnerable people.
Nigel Adams
I congratulate the hon. Member, who I know is passionate about this issue and has campaigned very effectively in the House. The Government are also very angry about this arrangement, especially after a weekend when the FA worthily highlighted its Heads Together mental health campaign.
I have spoken at some length to the FA since this broke. The arrangement has been in place for some time; the 2017 contract was a rollover of a deal. The Government have asked the Football Association to look at all avenues to review this element of its broadcasting agreement. This element of the broadcast arrangement is for matches that are not chosen for the FA cup online broadcast or do not kick off at 3 pm on a Saturday, and it does open up the opportunity for plenty of other games to be watched, but we have asked the FA in no uncertain terms to look at the deal and to see what opportunities there are to rescind this particular element. I will be meeting face to face with the FA next week.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this urgent question. I welcome the Minister’s comments following the Prime Minister’s earlier call for this unacceptable deal to be scrapped. It is unacceptable because it goes in completely the wrong direction; it is the gamblification of sport. It seriously damages the reputation of both the Football Association and IMG. Does the Minister agree that the FA should return, as soon as possible, to working to reduce the links between football and gambling, and that it should do away with this deal and avoid the proven risks of relentless online marketing, particularly on young men?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right. I have spoken with him about his constituency concerns about this issue. It is absolutely right that the Football Association and all sporting bodies who, rightly, have links with sponsors across all sectors need to be very mindful of the impacts that such deals have on vulnerable people. We have made that very clear to the FA. As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Swansea East, the FA is looking into how it can alter the arrangements under that deal in the shortest order.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for granting this important urgent question, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for asking it. Many people are outraged that gambling firm Bet365 has won the rights to broadcast FA cup matches exclusively through its website and applications, because we are all too aware of the devastating impact that gambling can have on lives. At the heart of this issue is the cynical way Bet365 hooks people into placing bets and gambling during matches, almost grooming people into becoming gamblers.
We know the link between gambling, mental health and suicide is real. My constituent Kay Wadsworth’s only daughter Kimberly took her own life when she was in the grip of gambling addiction. Her death destroyed her family and brought unimaginable heartache. Think of the hundreds like Kimberly out there who might enjoy football, but find their lives ruined by addiction.
Yesterday the Secretary of State made strong statements, and even Gary Lineker and the Prime Minister agreed that the FA should reconsider. Has the Prime Minister spoken to the FA in the last 24 hours? Will the FA listen to the wishes of the Prime Minister?
Bet365 has stated that those who wished to watch matches did not need to gamble, but they did need to deposit money into an account, which meant that viewers were bombarded with live odds throughout the match. What protections have been put in place for gambling addicts? Is the Minister aware of any assessment that the FA made on the potential impact the deal could have on vulnerable people and the health of viewers? When was the Department first made aware of the deal by the FA, and what was the Department’s response? Was it deemed acceptable or not? Will the Minister commit to write to all our sporting governing bodies and those who sell the rights to sport so that we do not end up in this situation with another sport?
It feels as though most of the House is united on this issue. The Queen’s Speech made a commitment to review the Gambling Act 2005. Will the Minister update us on when that review will begin?
Nigel Adams
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her place. The arrangement through IMG is not solely with Bet365, as six other gambling companies have rights to the broadcasts. I have spoken to the Football Association and the Prime Minister has made his views clear. The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that I have received several commitments from the Football Association: it will not renew the deal when it comes up and it is also looking at all options to see if the current deal can be restricted.
I urge all other sporting bodies to look at their broadcast agreements. My understanding is that similar agreements are in place across all sports, not just football in this country. It is a global arrangement. The Olympics, FIFA and the Premier League do not have such broadcasting arrangements, but just about every other sporting body does. I urge all those bodies to ensure that they review their broadcast deals urgently.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the urgent question, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) tabled a similar urgent question, showing the cross-party concern on the issue.
The deal with Bet365 is distasteful, naive and a long way short of what good governance of sport, especially football, should look like. But it also contradicts previous FA decisions dissociating itself, as the sport’s regulator, from betting companies. Those decisions recognised public concern about gambling in football and dovetailed nicely with the FA’s mental health work. I encourage the Minister not to listen too closely to the FA’s defence on the issue and claims that any renegotiation of the deal will have an impact on grassroots sport. That is something that the FA has regularly claimed in the past, but it is important that it reviews the deal now, to protect people involved in football. Does the Minister agree that that needs to be done urgently if the FA is to regain respect for its previous moral position on the issue of gambling?
Nigel Adams
As the House knows, my hon. Friend has done an incredible amount over the years and she is passionate about this subject. It is fair to say that the arrangements for cutting the stakes on fixed odds betting terminals and tightening the requirements on age and identity verification to protect customers have a lot to do with her work in the House.
It is absolutely right that the FA act urgently on the matter. From our conversation this morning, it is fair to say that the FA is more than embarrassed by the situation. We will make it very clear when we have a face-to-face meeting early next week what steps we expect it to take next.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The deal between the English FA and IMG/Bet365 —and, indeed, six other bookmakers—is, as the Minister has outlined, to be regretted. It shows the danger of selling media rights to third parties without correct oversight of the process. Gambling addiction is on the rise in the UK, so every gateway to gambling and the problems it creates needs to be scrutinised intensely. Online gambling in particular has experienced a huge increase in activity, with more than one third of the EU’s online betting taking place in the UK. There has been progress through measures to address fixed odds betting terminals in the past year—with the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who asked the previous question, at the heart of that move. Do the Government intend to pursue similar proactive measures before the FA’s next media rights review?
A tiny percentage of live football is now available on terrestrial TV. Does the Minister agree that ensuring that more football, and more sport generally, is broadcast on free-to-access television would remove potentially dangerous gambling gateways such as this one?
Nigel Adams
Yes, I do. The hon. Gentleman is correct: we would like to see far more live sport on terrestrial television. However, it is worth pointing out that the games we are discussing are one of three tranches of games. They are not FA cup games that kick off at 3 o’clock on a Saturday. They are not games that are chosen by the broadcasters for live broadcast. As the competition goes on, there will be fewer games. However, that is largely irrelevant. Let me deal with the issue at hand. It is worth pointing out that, as I have mentioned previously, it is an issue across all sports. We want to do all we can to ensure that there is more sport on terrestrial TV, but we have to be mindful of the fact that the rights holders can conduct their commercial deals themselves. However, they have to be responsible. The hon. Gentleman will know that our manifesto said that we would review the Gambling Act 2005. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who is responsible for gambling, is in her place and I am sure that we will come to the House in future to clarify when that review will take place.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on obtaining the urgent question. In a sense, it does not really matter what the FA says to explain. The evidence is clear. The all-party parliamentary group on gambling-related harm conducted a series of inquiries with the chief executives of several gambling companies. The biggest area of risk is their drive to get more and more people into VIP rooms, where they give them incentives, such as tickets for football matches. What we are discussing is all part of that. The biggest abuse takes place in that process, whereby companies drive people who gamble a lot into higher levels of gambling because that is where their profits lie. It is not good enough for the FA to say, “Well, we didn’t really mean this and we’ll review it.” The Government give the FA financial assistance. I urge my hon. Friend, as Minister for Sport, to tell the FA that unless it moves on the matter pretty damn quickly, we will review its financial support.
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend has a long history of campaigning on this issue, and he is absolutely correct. On his first point, the Gambling Commission is looking into the matter. As for the financial assistance the Government give the Football Association, I understand the Football Foundation receives about £18 million, and my right hon. Friend will be aware of our manifesto commitment to £500 million for grassroots football. I assure him that that will be on my agenda when I meet the FA next week.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The betting companies know there is a problem already, because they have undertaken not to advertise during live football matches, but of course that has not yet been implemented. Does the Minister share my concern that if this development is not nipped in the bud we might reach a position where people can watch sport only if they have placed a bet?
Nigel Adams
I am confident that that will not happen. The hon. Gentleman is correct about the commitment to the ban on in-game advertising, and it is important that we look at the data on that. It has only just kicked in, but we should welcome the fact that the industry has stepped up and introduced that measure. I assure him that we will monitor it extremely carefully.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should work with banks as well as betting companies to ensure that the sort of behaviour that suggests that someone is developing a gambling addition is spotted? I raise that because Bet365 is a major, well respected and responsible employer in my constituency, employing several thousand people. We need to get the balance right in how we tackle this issue and who we talk to, and recognise that there are other issues at stake.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend and new colleague is correct. Bet365 is a significant employer in her area and it is right that it takes its responsibilities very seriously. I urge her to seek a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who is responsible for gambling and who I know will be interested in furthering that discussion.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
This is not about sport any more—we have gone way beyond that. This is entirely about gambling. It is not about the love of the game; it is about the unrestricted greed of Bet365. Right now, it is streaming 21 live events, covering eight different sports. Its design is to get people who have self-excluded from gambling to race to a gambling company and lay themselves open to lobbying once again. People who have identified themselves as suffering from gambling-related harm are being asked to put themselves back in a vulnerable position simply to watch their chosen sports. The Government should stop asking the gambling industry to act; they have to tell the industry what to do. We have to legislate; we cannot kowtow to the industry and let it have authority in this. This place makes the law. The gambling industry has to be brought into line with a completely new gambling Act, and during that process we should consult people who have suffered from gambling-related harm.
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is spot-on. That is another reason why we are going to review the Gambling Act—and the sooner we do so the better as far as I am concerned.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I believe the deal cheapens the FA cup, and I do not believe we should wait four years for a review. If the FA will not change its mind and act soon, will the Minister consider amending the Gambling Act to ban the type of sponsorship deal that requires sports fans to set up gambling accounts simply to watch sports?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right. Nothing is off the table in the review. I can tell the House that this morning the FA confirmed that from next year, 2021, it will show those particular games on its website, so that they are not available exclusively via gambling sites. That is progress, but we have asked the FA to consider all the options for restricting the deal sooner.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Minister has several times mentioned the review he is going to undertake, which was in the Queen’s Speech. Will he tell us when that is going to happen, as he did not answer the question from my Front-Bench colleague?
Nigel Adams
Work has started on the review, but I am not in a position to give the hon. Lady a date. This will be done in due course and Ministers will make the announcement when that is ready.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I sense the frustration of the Minister and the whole House that he has had to come to the Dispatch Box again to explain the actions of these clowns at the Football Association. Does he agree that this is more than goes on in other sports, because the national game permeates right through our society and we must therefore take it absolutely seriously? Will he widen his discussions to look at areas of poor governance in the national game, such as bullying, safeguarding and the poor deal for football fans? There is a canker at the heart of our national game and we need to sort it out.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is correct; we are regularly in conversation with the FA on these issues. I know he is an active member of the Select Committee—at least he was, and he may very well continue to be—and we will ensure that he is updated on the conversations that we have.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that this is just another example, but a serious one, of the FA’s dumbing down of the wonderful competition that is the FA cup? I do not know whether the Minister is old enough to remember, but I am sure you are, Mr Speaker, when most games kicked off at 3 o’clock on a Saturday afternoon in the third round of the FA cup—to suit fans, not to suit the media companies and the betting companies. When he has that conversation with the FA, will he raise that general issue and say that this competition must be about the fans? It is their competition, and the interests of the media and betting companies should not be taken as the first priority.
Nigel Adams
I agree 100% with the hon. Gentleman. I do have fond memories of racing home from playing football to watch the FA cup final and various other matches. There could be an argument for saying that the competition has been watered down in some regards, as we see when we look at what players the teams put out on the pitch. He is absolutely right with his remarks.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I have met far too many families who have been bereaved by suicide as a result of a gambling addiction. I am extremely disappointed that the FA has made lots of nods about looking after mental health and mental wellbeing but embarked on such a partnership. We should give a clear message from both sides of the House that we find this abhorrent.
We have done a lot to make the physical gambling environment safer for users, but the online environment remains like the wild west. I encourage him to use not only his relationships with sporting organisations but digital regulation and those powers to take action to make it safer.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is correct to raise this issue. The history of the broadcasting of these games goes back to the 1980s, when they were shown in betting shops; they were games that people would not see broadcast, so they would go in to get updated on the score, and the pictures would be fairly low resolution. That market has now changed and the pictures—the streams—are now online. That is exactly why we are going to have the review we have announced.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
This has undoubtedly damaged the FA’s reputation. Is the Minister going to meet Bet365? I do not believe that a renegotiation is enough; we need redress. The new accounts set up in the past week were not just about people making bets this week; the company will have harvested the data of those vulnerable users so that it can keep advertising to them for the future. Will it shut down those accounts and give that data back, too?
Nigel Adams
It is worth pointing out again that seven gambling companies are involved in this arrangement with IMG. I know that the FA is in constant contact with IMG, and they have been put in no doubt about our views on the current arrangement.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for what he has said. He is right to highlight the progress that the FA has made on football and betting, but does he agree that bad decisions such as this one are in danger of making that perception of progress disappear in a puff of smoke? Given that there will be an increase in gambling as a result of this deal—after all, that is why Bet365 has engaged in it—there will also be an increase in problem gambling. That needs to be properly monitored, that monitoring will have a cost and that cost should be paid by Bet365 and the FA. If it can be demonstrated that there has been an increase in problem gambling, that should bring forward the review of the deal.
Nigel Adams
The former Secretary of State makes an incredibly good point. As I said to the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), nothing is off the table in respect of the conversations that we will have with the FA.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Child gambling addiction has doubled since 2017 and, shockingly, around 70,000 children are said to be at risk. Is the Minister concerned that this deal will make the situation worse?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Member is correct to raise that point. Gambling sponsorship and advertising must be responsible and must not be targeted at children, so we expect all sports bodies to consider the effect on their fans when they engage in any commercial relationship. I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who was present a second ago but is no longer in his place, because yesterday the NHS and GambleAware opened a clinic in Sunderland to assist those who have gambling issues. I understand that another dozen or so gambling clinics are to be opened throughout the country, which is good progress and will give people the right advice.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The football community has done some excellent work on mental health, including the Take A Minute campaign. Everyone in this place cares passionately about the mental health of all those we seek to serve in our constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that this deal puts that work at risk, and will he join me in calling on the FA to reconsider?
While he is on his feet, will he remember the fans in Scunthorpe and wish Scunthorpe United the best of luck on Saturday?
Nigel Adams
May I welcome my hon. Friend to her place? I certainly will wish Scunthorpe United the best of luck—
Nigel Adams
The hon. Member asks who they are playing; I can tell him that as a youngster I used to be dragged along to Scunthorpe to watch Scunthorpe United. That was some years ago. I was a very lucky child.
The irony of this story having blown up this weekend is that the FA was launching its Heads Together mental health campaign. It could not have been any more badly timed. As I have said, we have given clear instructions to the FA to look into every avenue possible to have this deal changed.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Let us be honest: betting companies disproportionately target low-income demographics and working-class communities. I see that in my own constituency, with three betting shops lined up next to each other in Baillieston Main Street. The Minister continually says that all sports are involved; can he really put his hand on his heart and say that cricket, for example, would have the same disproportionate targeting and investment as we see with football?
Nigel Adams
I understand that similar arrangements have been made in cricket. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman, hand on heart, whether those arrangements have the same extent and the same number of matches. It may be that more FA cup matches than cricket games are covered under these broadcasting deals.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
What is important are measures that actually tackle problem gambling, rather than virtue signalling in this House. People do not have to place a bet to watch these matches. Is it not typical of the metropolitan, privileged outlook of people in this House that there is no urgent question on people having to pay £100 a month for a Sky subscription to watch football matches? There is no urgent question on people paying £35 a month to BT to watch football matches, but there is one on something that allows working-class people to watch these matches free of charge, because some people in this House do not like gambling. Will the Minister look at all this in the round?
Nigel Adams
I think everybody in this House can agree that problem gambling causes mental health problems. Indeed, this House has heard about—and I have spoken to colleagues about—situations when some of these cases have led to suicide. There is a clear link; mental health problems can lead to problem gambling, and can also be triggered by or made worse by it. The Government and the Gambling Commission have tightened protections, and we have committed to a further review of the Gambling Act, as I said in my response to the urgent question.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
This issue is perhaps the most egregious example of how money is ruining football. It is clear that, with one or two exceptions, there is very little support in this place for this arrangement.
I want to follow up on the wider issue of football broadcasting. Last month, three different subscription channels were showing premier league football. How many times do we expect people to pay to watch football? Are we in danger of pricing people out of the game?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We do want to see more live football on television, which makes it more accessible, but it is worth pointing out that the broader FA cup rights are worth around $169 million to the Football Association, much of which—if not most—is ploughed back into grassroots football.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that all our legislation needs to be fit for purpose for the digital age, especially when it relates to online activities and their impact on health and mental health? Does he also agree that the review of the Gambling Act is not only needed, but urgently needed?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Can I pull the Minister up on the point that he just made, when he said that a large proportion of the money from broadcasting rights is going into grassroots football? If only! It is a tiny amount of money. In other countries in Europe, much more significant amounts of money go into paying for local coaches, local facilities and ensuring that there is home-grown talent. Should not we be ensuring—notwithstanding today’s urgent question—that far more of this money goes directly to the small local clubs that are sustained by families, with mums, dads, grandpas and grandmas turning up every weekend?
Nigel Adams
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, but I was referring to the broadcasting rights and the amount of money secured under the FA cup broadcasting deal, not the premier league broadcasting deal, which is an enormous amount of money.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
There is an obvious link between gambling and health, so what are the Minister’s Department and the Department of Health doing to improve medical treatment for those affected by gambling?
Nigel Adams
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He makes a very good point. As I said previously, I am encouraged that the national health service and the Health Secretary have begun to open clinics to provide advice and assistance to those who are affected, in particular targeting younger people who might be having issues with loot boxes or other types of behaviour that could prove addictive.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
This issue raises fundamental public policy questions about ethics, fair rules and controls, and the responsibility of the Government to protect the most vulnerable from exploitation. It also fundamentally calls into question the judgment of the FA. The chief executive officer of Bet365, Denise Coates, was paid £277 million in basic salary in the last financial year. Does that not suggest that something is fundamentally wrong with our gambling system and industry, and again highlight the need for fundamental root-and-branch reform?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady will not have missed the point that I have made on several occasions: we are going to be reviewing the Act. Bet365 does an awful lot of good work in the region that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) mentioned. It is a private company. The salaries of its executives are a matter for that business. My understanding is that the chief executive is resident in the UK and so pays her full share of tax on those moneys. But it is absolutely right that we hold the sporting bodies’ feet to the fire with regard to these broadcasting rights and make sure that they are dealt with responsibly. In this case, that has not happened.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
There is a mental health crisis for young men in our country, and it is clear that gambling addiction is a major factor in that. Time and again we hear that the gambling companies are investing more funds in tackling problem gambling, but will the Minister update the House on whether this investment has actually had any impact in tackling this issue?
Nigel Adams
I do not have the figures that my hon. Friend refers to, but this is an absolutely crucial issue in the sector of society that he mentions, which appears to be the target for this type of advertising. There is indeed a huge crisis in gambling addiction within that age group, and it can lead to some pretty horrific stories that we have heard in this House.
Business of the House
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
May I begin by wishing everybody a very happy new year and welcoming them all back after the Christmas break?
The business for next week will be:
Monday 13 January—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on Britain in the world.
Tuesday 14 January—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on education and local government.
Wednesday 15 January—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on a green industrial revolution.
Thursday 16 January—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on health and social care.
Friday 17 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
Monday 20 January—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on the economy and jobs.
I am pleased to announce that subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the constituency recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 13 February and return on Monday 24 February. For Easter, the House will rise at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 31 March and return on Tuesday 21 April. For the early May bank holiday, the House will rise at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 6 May and return on Monday 11 May. The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 21 May and return on Tuesday 2 June. For the summer recess, the House will rise at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 21 July and return on Tuesday 8 September. Finally, the conference recess will commence at the close of business on Thursday 17 September with the House returning on Tuesday 13 October—which hon. and right hon. Members will know is the anniversary of the birth of the late Baroness Thatcher.
Valerie Vaz
I start by wishing everyone a happy new year—and you, Mr Speaker. I am very pleased that you now have your full cohort of deputies in place. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for his sterling work in the House at business questions and welcome the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who has taken over his post.
I thank the Leader of the House for next week’s business; in fact, we have a week and a day. Will the Prime Minister be making a statement following his discussions with the EU President, as the previous Prime Minister always did? She always updated the House.
The Leader of the House has very helpfully set out the recess dates and sitting days right up until 13 October. It feels a bit mean to ask him for the Christmas dates as well, but it would be very helpful if he could say how long the Session will be and also give the dates of the sitting Fridays.
There are rumours about proposed machinery of government changes. They are just rumours at the minute, but I know that the business managers have been working hard to try to allocate Chairs of Committees. Will the Leader of the House make a commitment that if any changes affect the Opposition allocation, he will honour the commitment to renegotiate that? Please do not be the Leader of the House who does not commit to fairness and the convention.
One Committee that has not been set up yet is the Backbench Business Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) did a grand job as Chair, and I hope he will continue in that post. He and others are keen to get the Committee set up. In the meantime, he has helpfully given the Clerks some subjects for debate that can be rolled over. Could the Leader of the House have a discussion with him? I am sure that my hon. Friend will raise that later.
It is interesting that the Leader of the House has not announced the date of the Budget to the House, but it has been announced outside this place. That is quite concerning. He could have made a statement. He made lots of statements before the House rose, coming to the House practically twice or three times a day.
Another thing that the Government have announced outside the House but not to it is a review, to be concluded by mid-February, of the roll-out of the IR35 tax plan for the self-employed, which is due to take effect in April. May we have a statement on the exact terms of that review and the measures that will be put in place to support the self-employed? The Opposition called for a review during the general election. This is more chaos, and it is disgraceful—and so is the announcement on 23 December by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about the takeover of Cobham.
“This is a deeply disappointing announcement and one cynically timed to avoid scrutiny on the weekend before Christmas. In one of its first major economic decisions, the Government is not taking back control so much as handing it away.”
They are not my words but those of Lady Nadine Cobham, the daughter-in-law of the founder of that brilliant British company. She said it would never have been done by the US, French or Japanese Governments. All Advent has to do is promise to call the Ministry of Defence if it plans to sell up. The takeover does not include a right to veto the disposal of these sensitive defence assets. This is Government asset-stripping Britain instead of protecting British interests. We need an urgent statement from the Business Secretary.
I want to mention our colleague Andrew Miller, who has sadly died. Being a new Member is quite disconcerting. Andrew was here when I was a new Member, and he was an assiduous Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. We must also mention the three British nationals who died in the Ukrainian plane crash. I am pleased that the Government have scheduled a statement on the Australian bushfires. Many people here have friends and family living there who are affected.
On a happier note, I want to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) on the birth of their babies during the election. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Wales is now a grandmother, and we welcome Jesse Thomas Francis Kearney. We wish them well for the future.
The Leader of the House will know, because he tweets, that Gabriella Zaghari-Ratcliffe is now at school here—#pleasebringmymummyback. I hope the Leader of the House will do everything he can to do that.
Finally, I want to thank the staff of the House for staffing the super-hub. It was very effective for new Members and for old Members like me. I used it yesterday, and Members have one day left.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I add to the right hon. Lady’s words about the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who will be very much missed from these sessions? It always amazed me how a man of such gentleness, courtesy and kindliness in private always managed to be so fiendishly angry in the Chamber. I look forward to seeing whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who I know is also a model of kindliness, will be similarly angry when he gets up to speak in a moment, but I look forward to our exchanges.
The right hon. Lady asked 11 individual questions, and I will do my best to answer them all. The House will always be updated by the Government on really important issues. The Prime Minister, in the last Session of Parliament, averaged 36 minutes a day at the Dispatch Box during the time he was Prime Minister, so I think he has been ahead of almost any other previous Prime Minister in his assiduousness.
As regards the Christmas recess—absolutely. We want to ensure that there is reasonable notice for all recesses, which I think is of general help not just to Members but to the staff of the House for planning their lives. This is important for all of us, so we will try to give the longest notice we can, though I cannot yet give the length of the Session—
Mr Rees-Mogg
Rhondda always wants to chip in. We might have thought that, after a little peace and quiet over Christmas, Rhondda would have calmed down, but no such luck. Because there is so much business to be brought forward, and that will depend on the progress of business. That is a completely normal approach.
As for sitting Fridays, we have only just had the ballot, but of course we will bring those forward, and the motion, as soon as is practicable. On the machinery of Government changes, I got a little bit worried by a memo that said, “MOG changes”. I am not necessarily so keen on such changes; I am rather used to being the Mogg that I am. However, I can absolutely assure the right hon. Lady that any changes that are made will lead to consultation with the Opposition about any changes to Committees. It is hoped that the motion in relation to the sharing out of the Committees will be put on the Order Paper by the end of business today. That is not an absolute promise, but I understand that good progress has been made on coming to an agreement.
I am indeed grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for passing on a list of overhanging proposals from the Backbench Business Committee for debates. Whether there will be a lot of time for non-legislative business in the next few weeks, I am not absolutely certain, but it is useful to have that and to be aware of it.
The Budget date—giving people plenty of notice—is perfectly reasonable. I make announcements about the business for a week or possibly for two weeks; I do not intend to announce the business for March, so I think it would be unusual for me to be announcing that. I do hope that in this Session of Parliament my appearances at the Dispatch Box will be once a week to set out the business, rather than once or twice a day, which I think was beginning to pall on everybody in the House.
The IR35 review is extraordinarily important. It is a matter of concern to many of our constituents, and something that came up in the election on a number of occasions. It is important that it is done in such a way that people know what their tax affairs will be in April.
On the takeover of Cobham, the Government have to act within the legal parameters and the approach that we generally take to takeovers, and announcements must be made punctually. Sometimes when the House is in recess announcements still have to be made. Saying it was done just before Christmas is not a reasonable criticism, because business goes on.
May I share in the right hon. Lady’s condolences to Andrew Miller’s family? It is always sad when we lose a distinguished former Member of this House who has invariably been influential and important in the careers of existing Members.
There is indeed a statement coming on the Australian bushfires. I think all of us feel the deepest sympathy for the people of Australia, who for so many of us are kith and kin, and there is therefore always a particular concern with what is happening in Australia.
The Ukrainian plane crash is something that needs to be investigated thoroughly so that we find out what the cause was. Our concern is for the British citizens, but also for all the lives that were lost.
As always, I am so glad that once again the right hon. Lady reminds us about Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and of course all the other dual nationals who are held improperly, unlawfully by the Iranian regime. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Iranian Government on 6 January. The Government are doing everything that we can to secure her release and that of others, but the Government’s power, regrettably, is not unlimited in this area.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the support in all parts of the House and in the country—with campaigners such as Battersea Dogs and Cats pressing hard—for the reintroduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, which was in the Queen’s Speech and was of course lost because of the general election. Can he pledge to introduce the Bill in the next two weeks, and if not, can he tell us what the timetable is for it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that the animal welfare Bill is a priority of this Government. It has not ceased to be a priority of this Government; there is a busy programme of legislation, but this Bill will remain within it.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
There is always a degree of excitement in starting any new job, and I feel I will have to have an ongoing challenge of curbing my enthusiasm for this one, but let me begin by paying tribute and a word of thanks to my friend and colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who preceded me in this role and who for a long shift—four and a half years—stood here every Thursday to represent my party in his own inimitable style. I intend to pick up where he left off, and while the style may be different I assure Members that the message will be the same.
Let me also say that I very much look forward to a weekly verbal joust with the Leader of the House, and I only hope that we do not have a spoilsport Prime Minister who will dash my expectations by an imminent reshuffle and changing that position.
Turning to the business statement itself, I have to observe that, given the times we are in, it does seem a little self-indulgent to be spending six days debating what is essentially a mission statement by the Government rather than any specific legislative proposals. I understand that the Queen’s Speech debate is important, but is it not time to get on to matters of substance? Even for a Government bathing in the afterglow of an election victory that does seem a little excessive.
There are many things we ought to be discussing that are not in this business statement, and let me offer three this morning. The first is the Government’s proposed departmental reorganisation. If this House is to have the role of scrutiny of the Executive, it is clearly important that we understand what the shape and structure of the Executive actually is. This House ought to be kept up to date on the proposals being made for changes in Government Departments so that we can consider what changes we might need to make to our agenda and procedures in order to adequately hold them to account. Will the Leader of the House therefore please update us on what the obstacles to the current reorganisation are, when they might be resolved and when we can expect an announcement?
Secondly, given the events of the last seven days, we can see that there is a very precarious military and political situation in the middle east. Not only that, but we can see how compromised this country is in trying to influence those events. Should not the Government be bringing forward an urgent debate on these matters so that this House can consider how better we can influence these events?
Thirdly, and finally, when are the Government going to hold a debate recognising the consequences of the 12 December general election, which for the first time has created a situation within this island where the two principal countries have a different political mandate? Are the Government going to bring forward proposals in order to acknowledge Scottish public opinion and to accommodate Scottish political representation? If they do not, and if they do not recognise that their mandate ends at the Scottish border then—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, but one of us is going to have to give way. I am being very generous as it is the hon. Gentleman’s first outing, but please come to a conclusion; you are meant to take two minutes, but you are on three.
Tommy Sheppard
Apologies, Mr Speaker; this is my first time, but I was a sentence away from my conclusion, which is simply to say that I caution the Government: if they do not do this and do not recognise that different mandate, they are going to become a recruiting sergeant for those on these Benches who wish Scotland to have an independent, alternative future.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first outing in holding this Government to account and bringing on the fast bowling to start with.
The Brexit Bill started us off, so even before the Queen’s Speech we passed a major piece of legislation, but that does not keep the hon. Gentleman happy; what more can we do?
As I have said, we hope to announce the reorganisation of government today: the share-out of Select Committees begins the process, the Chairmen will then be elected and Committees will be established, and they will be adjusted if there are any changes. This is all perfectly normal. There will be regular statements and oral questions continue. That is all in place; it is there, and it is for the hon. Gentleman to use it.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first go, I do not want to be unkind and point out that, as I said in my statement, we will be debating foreign affairs on Monday. That will be an opportunity to discuss all matters relating to Iran, so I am granting his wish almost immediately after standing up. We also had a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence earlier in the week.
On the consequences of the election, the hon. Gentleman says that we may become a recruiting sergeant for the SNP, which makes me wonder what he is complaining about. If that is what he thinks we are doing, I would have thought he would be quite pleased. What I would say is that he and other SNP Members must not forget that there was a rather important election in 2014, and it was won by people who wanted to remain in the United Kingdom. There is not the division that he talks of. The United Kingdom is united, and that was what the people of Scotland voted for in their wisdom and good sense.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
People opening their new year calendars, and now those who heard the Leader of the House announce the recess dates, will have noticed that the early May bank holiday has moved from Monday 4 May to Friday 8th so that we can, quite rightly, mark the 75th anniversary of VE-day. However, events such as weddings, sporting fixtures and civic events will have been scheduled for Monday 4th and perhaps Sunday 3rd, and they will be adversely affected by the change. What are the Government’s plans to make sure that there is full awareness of the situation? Perhaps the Leader of the House will consider whether it would be in the spirit of a new, forward-looking global Britain that we might have another bank holiday in May and reinstate the Monday, as well as having the Friday.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just advise Members that business questions will finish at 12.15 pm? If we can get through questions quickly, that would be excellent.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I think that bank holidays are one of the things that come under the Lord President of the Council, so this is the first question I have ever been asked while wearing my Lord President of the Council hat. However, there is a great cost to bank holidays and I think the chances of having another one, although we all like to have a day off, is relatively slim, so I would not like to build up my right hon. Friend’s hopes.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
May I join the tributes that have been paid to my predecessor Andrew Miller, who served the constituency of Ellesmere Port and Neston with distinction for 23 years? He was greatly admired and respected by his constituents. As I found when I entered this place, he was also greatly admired and respected across the House for his work during his time in Parliament. He will be greatly missed. He was a friend to many of us here and a real mentor, and my thoughts are with his family at this time. His work in the field of science and technology is well known, but he was also a patron for the charity RoadPeace. In that regard, will the Leader of the House update us on when the consultation that took place several years ago on increasing sentences for death by dangerous driving will actually result in legislation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. The Government take the matter extraordinarily seriously. There were plans in the previous Parliament for dealing with it, and I would be very surprised if they were not revisited soon.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Leader of the House, like other hon. Members, will be aware of the daily work pressures on members of our ambulance services, not least in the east of England, where there were three staff suicides over 11 days in December. May we find time for a debate to highlight the extent of the problem of pressure on ambulance workers and perhaps to try to find some solutions?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by welcoming back my hon. Friend? It is a huge pleasure to see a friend back in the House and I congratulate him on his victory.
My hon. Friend raises a point of great seriousness. It would be possible to consider it during the Queen’s Speech debate next Thursday, which covers matters of health, but this is something the Government must be aware of more broadly. Issues relating to suicide have such a devastating effect on families. They tie in with the Government’s efforts on mental health and increased spending on mental health to try to help people in, or heading towards, that situation.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
We have just heard that Liberty Steel is restructuring, which will inevitably lead to job losses in Rotherham and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). While we will, of course, hold Liberty Steel to account for the long-term future, we also need the Leader of the House to find time in which we can hold the Government to account, because the underlying structural issues, for which they are responsible, have not been dealt with. Please will he find time for an hour and a half debate on this very important topic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Obviously there are time slots available for Westminster Hall debates and Adjournment debates—they are in Mr Speaker’s hands—and I recommend that the hon. Lady applies for one of those. I also remind her that Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions are on Tuesday 21 January. This is such an important issue and it is well worth raising. If there is anything I can do to help to facilitate a debate—not, I am afraid, in Government time, but before the Backbench Business Committee is set up—I will look very sympathetically on it.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I welcome the announcement of the recess dates, which is very helpful for families and everybody else. Can we find time for a debate or a statement on why we are still allowing children aged 16 to get married in this country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think that it is not easy for children aged 16 to get married. As I understand it, they need the permission of either their parents or a magistrate, and the numbers are not enormous. However, it would be perfectly reasonable to ask for an Adjournment debate on the subject. I do not see an obvious opportunity to raise the matter in the Queen’s Speech debate, but the issue—the age of majority in this country—needs to be considered, as many things flow from that.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House was kind enough to recognise that, as the former Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, I wrote to him, but he will also have noted that a number of the main sponsors of the awaited debates are no longer with us. The debates with sponsors who are still Members of the House are on: the impact of diagnosis and treatment of parental mental illness on outcomes for children; the collapse of Thomas Cook and the future of the travel industry; and the value of the arts and creative industries, which are very close to my heart, given that the Sage Gateshead and BALTIC are in my constituency. I look forward to the re-establishment of House business Committees, including the Backbench Business Committee.
Will the Leader of the House also organise a Government statement on the failing—if not failed—Northern Rail franchise? The matter is of great importance to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our constituents across the north of England, who are being badly let down by this failed franchise?
Mr Rees-Mogg
In response to the first half of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I was careful to say that while I was grateful for the list being sent, I was not committing to it, because the Backbench Business Committee of one Parliament ought not to bind a future Parliament for exactly the reason that he mentions: some Members who wanted a debate are no longer Members of the House. It would be wrong to have debates reflecting former Members’ interests, but when Members are still here, that is a relevant factor if any time is available.
I thought that the Prime Minister gave a very clear statement of the Government’s position on Northern Rail at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday: rail franchise companies will have to improve and deliver good services, otherwise the Government will take action.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Government’s ambition is to improve rail services all over the country, and there is a great need for improvement on the Cotswold line in West Oxfordshire, where we require further redoubling. May we have a debate in Government time to ensure that we can make the case all over the country for where we need investment so that we can all get the services that our constituents deserve and require?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Rail is a real issue for many Members of Parliament, given the effect on people of extremely difficult journeys to work. The Government are spending £500 million on a Beeching reversal to restore some rail lines. We are willing to act to ensure that the rail services provided are those that people can have a reasonable expectation of receiving, so what my hon. Friend says is very much in line with the action that the Government plan to take.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House say when we might expect to see the return of the domestic abuse Bill, on which such great progress was made during the last Parliament, so that we can put that in our diaries?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I cannot give the hon. Lady a date for her diary, but the Government are prioritising that Bill. It is on the stocks and ready to be brought back soon—it will certainly be introduced before Easter.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Can we have a debate on rail connectivity with the north of England? My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and I have been campaigning for years for a through train from Grimsby via Market Rasen to London. This is a catchment area of up to a quarter of a million people with no through train. The Government want to introduce projects to help the north of England and they own London North Eastern Railway. Can we get the train done?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, may I add to my answer to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has just issued a written ministerial statement on Northern Rail, which I hope will be helpful to the House.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for his appeal for a through train and for his noting that the Government are trying to improve infrastructure in the north of England. His appeal will be heard, and I shall make sure it is passed on to the Secretary of State. What he is calling for fits in with the thrust of what the Government are trying to do, but that is not a promise.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The statement on Northern Rail should be being made to the House right now—it is that important to that many Members.
Lydiate Primary School in my constituency is in desperate need of a new building. The governors are doing all that they can to make do and mend, but it is simply not economically viable to continue. Despite what the Prime Minister said yesterday, education spending in this country has fallen since 2010, not increased, so may we have a statement on the importance of investment in new school buildings across the country, and can the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Education to arrange a meeting with me about the urgent need for a new building at Lydiate Primary School?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Education questions are a week on Monday, but an extra £14 billion is to be spent on schools over the next three years, which is an extra £150 million a week. Extra money for the physical infrastructure of our schools will be available as part of that. Money is becoming available and expenditure is increasing, which was a commitment prior to the general election and reconfirmed at the general election. I would suggest in the first instance that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter at Education questions and writes to a Minister to ask for a meeting. If he has no success with that, he can come back at business questions and I will see if I can help.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Last summer, dozens of homes and businesses in my constituency were flooded, but they could not meet the criteria for receiving Flood Re insurance or any of the funding available for flood resilience measures, despite some of them having been flooded for the second or third time. In addition, as a further blow, Stockport Council, despite some initial relief, is now charging people council tax on not only their temporary accommodation, but their main accommodation, which is still uninhabitable. May we have a debate in Government time on how we can offer more support, both nationally and locally, to flood victims?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is a really important issue. One would hope that local authorities would have the good sense and wisdom to treat people whose homes have become uninhabitable through flooding with generosity, rather than insisting on full payment of council tax. There will be an opportunity in Tuesday’s Queen’s Speech debate to discuss local government issues, and I hope my hon. Friend will raise this matter then.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Yesterday, the two lorry drivers who sadly died in a road traffic collision near Luton on Saturday morning were named as Surjit Singh and Gheorge Mihai. This followed two other accidents on Christmas eve along the same stretch of smart motorway on the M1. May we please have a debate on and a review of the roll-out of smart motorways across this country, especially in the light of these recent and tragic deaths?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know that the way in which smart motorways have been operating is a matter of considerable concern to the House. I understand that the Secretary of State has ordered a review of them, which was meant to be taking place relatively rapidly, and that he will report back to the House. To consider and debate that in due course, after the report has happened, would be only suitable.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
May we also have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport, as well as an urgent debate, on London Northwestern Railway, whose recent performance has been abysmal, as it is severely affecting the mental wellbeing of many of those who travel on it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is a great commonality of feeling across the House about rail services. Rail companies need to deliver, and to ensure that people have the service that they need and that trains run broadly on time.
The franchising system is being changed and the railway will be improved with an investment of £48 billion, the largest since the Victorian era, which I know many Members think is relatively recent but which was actually well over 100 years ago. There is also a £4.2 billion local public transport fund to enable city regions to upgrade their buses, trains and trams so that they are as good as those in London. This will help every part of the country, and it involves a very, very large amount of money, but I absolutely recognise the problems that are currently affecting constituents across the country.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
We know that the most vulnerable people rely on prepayment energy meters, but I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware that on 1 January British Gas changed its top-up outlets from PayPoint to Payzone, which has 15,000 fewer outlets in the United Kingdom. I have an elderly constituent who, instead of having to walk around the corner to top up her meter, is now faced with a 2-mile walk. May we have a statement outlining what discussions the Government had with Ofgem and British Gas, and what impact assessments were made?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I was aware of that issue, and I know that Members throughout the House are concerned about the effect that it will have on their most vulnerable and least well-off constituents. I think that it is up to all of us to lobby British Gas to reconsider its decision. I will happily take up the matter with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments, because I know that it has attracted cross-party concern and is a matter of considerable seriousness. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we need to look after the least well-off the most.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
My constituency has one of the worst broadband networks in the country in terms of both coverage and speed—particularly the likes of Audlem, Tattenham and Bunbury, which are in the bottom 10%. May we have a debate on broadband infrastructure so that I can question a Minister on how Eddisbury residents will secure their fair share of the £5 billion manifesto commitment to roll out full fibre across the country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I welcome back my hon. Friend, who made such a contribution to the former Government. It was a great pleasure for me to campaign for him when he stood in a by-election some years ago, and he was a great hero for winning it.
Broadband roll-out will involve a major effort by the Government and the £5 billion investment that my hon. Friend mentioned. I fear that I am slightly teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, because he knows all this perfectly well, but questions to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will take place next Thursday, and I think that they will present him with a good initial opportunity to put in his plea for Eddisbury.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Every hour someone in England has a partial foot amputation, and every two hours someone loses an entire leg. Please may we have a debate in Government time on the growing crisis of vascular disease and the urgent steps that the Government need to take to address it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I must confess that I was unaware of those figures, which are absolutely shocking. There will be an opportunity for the hon. Lady to raise the issue during the Queen’s Speech debate on health matters, and I hope that she will do so.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Leader of the House aware that 150,000 people worldwide, mainly children, died of measles last year, and that many children in this country are not protected by the MMR vaccine when they start school? May we have an urgent debate on the measles epidemic that is spreading across Europe, and also New York state, and a discussion about whether it should be mandatory for children attending pre-school and early school to have that MMR protection?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government are doing what they can to increase the take-up of measles vaccines to ensure that as many children as possible are covered. That is tremendously important, and parents have a great responsibility to ensure that their children are vaccinated. Let me add, without going into too much detail, that I, as a parent, have certainly taken steps to ensure that I have fulfilled my responsibility. The Government will be pushing for this, and there is next week’s Queen’s Speech debate in which to raise it, but public health depends on people’s use of the vaccines that are available to them, and that should be encouraged.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
May we have a debate on championing apprenticeships and skills? Although we have over 900,000 apprentices, the highest number in our nation’s history, we need to look at how we can get more young people doing apprenticeships and more people doing degree apprenticeships. Will the Leader of the House also look to work with the Speaker on introducing an apprentice scheme in Parliament to help parliamentarians to employ apprentices?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I understand it, apprentices have a chance at the age of 28 of earning significantly more than graduates do. I think it is 25% more. It is a really remarkable success for apprenticeships. They ought to be encouraged, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely brilliant at doing this. He was one of the most successful Ministers in advancing the cause of apprenticeships. His idea about apprenticeships within the Palace of Westminster is very well timed and, Mr Speaker, if you think it is agreeable, perhaps that is something we could discuss at the Commission on Monday.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Would the Leader of the House consider making time available to highlight the plight of residents and small businesses in Arundel and South Downs who were impacted by the recent floods just before Christmas and, in particular, to discuss what steps the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), will take to ensure that the risk of flooding is reflected when future development is contemplated?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I welcome my hon. Friend to the House. It is a great pleasure to see him in his place after all that he has done for the Conservative party in his distinguished career. The Government naturally sympathise with those people who have been affected by the recent flooding and the terrible impact that has on their lives. As we were hearing earlier, we have put in place a wide range of recovery schemes for affected homes, businesses, farmers and communities, and £2.6 billion is being spent in over 1,000 flood schemes across the country, which will protect a further 300,000 homes by 2021. I think that in this case prevention is better than cure. There will be relevant questions to the Local Government Secretary on Monday.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
May we have a debate about standards in public life and the consequences when Members of either this place or the other place abuse staff or each other? Following the incident that I raised on the Floor of the House this week, I have had a number of members of staff raise concerns with me about the way they are treated. Further to that, I am sorry to say that the Member from the other place who I have complained about has now launched a homophobic attack on me in the press. This will be reported to the police, and I know that I and others consider this to be a hate crime.
I know that the Leader of the House and the Speaker take this matter very seriously. I have a position of great privilege and I am able to raise this, but we must set the best possible standards from this place for other LGBT people and, indeed, our staff, to ensure that we send a message to say that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable here or anywhere else.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hope that I will not breach the normal order of this House if I say that the attack on the hon. Lady was utterly disgraceful and that she is clearly owed an apology by the noble Lord for what he said about her. I think that everybody who heard about that was shocked by the comments that he is reported to have made and has not denied. I think they are really appalling. I know that we are not allowed to criticise Members of the other place except on a specific motion, but I think that under these circumstances we are allowed to stretch the rules.
As regards the initial complaint, everybody should treat our members of staff politely and with normal good manners. The staff have a duty to look after us and protect us, and we must respond to them in kind. The purpose of this place is to facilitate legislation. We are here as legislators, and it is incumbent upon us to lead by example. That is why the behavioural code has been set up as it has. Everyone should be respected and valued. We should recognise that, by virtue of our office and by virtue of the 70,000 people who have sent us here, we have a status that we must not abuse through ill manners. Indeed, the greater one’s status—you are a model of this, Mr Speaker—the more important it is to show good manners to those who are working on one’s behalf. There is a helpline that people can call, and for any members of staff listening to this—I hope hon. Members will pass this on to their staff—it is 0800 028 2439. I hope that the security staff who were abused will ring the helpline so that the House of Lords authorities can look into the matter.
While I am paying tribute to the staff, I want to add one thing on a happier note. Two members of our security staff—this shows us how lucky we are—Ron Dowson and Habibi Syaaf rescued a man who had fallen into the Thames earlier this week. That is a reminder of how well we are served and, therefore, of our even greater duty of good manners.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Government have many important priorities, but nothing can be more pressing than the safety of our children. There is clear data that children as young as eight are regularly viewing pornography online—often extreme pornography —with no legal consequences for website operators. When will the Government turn their extremely good “Online Harms” White Paper into a Bill to address the issue that can be debated in this House?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my right hon. Friend for her campaigning on this matter. Any parent with children getting to the age when they start going online worries about what content may appear and how effective or ineffective filters may be to protect their children or, indeed, how clever one’s children may be at getting through the filters that one tries to put on.
The Government are committed to ensuring that children are protected from accessing harmful content online. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport outlined in her written statement to Parliament on 16 October that we want to achieve the most comprehensive and coherent approach to protecting children online. We have decided to deliver these protections through our wider online harms regulatory proposals. The Secretary of State’s statement outlined that the age verification provisions in the Digital Economy Act 2017 will not be commenced and, as a result, the British Board of Film Classification has been de-designated as the age verification regulator for online pornography, but there will be a wider strategy to protect children.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Fire service men and women take risks to save lives on a daily basis, yet there is increasing concern about their own wellbeing and the links to cancer that arise from exposure to chemicals through their uniforms. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time to discuss the matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is an important point and should be a matter of concern to us all. The people who risk their lives for us ought to have equipment that protects them, rather than increases the risk to them. Housing, Communities and Local Government questions are on Monday, which would be a good initial opportunity to raise the matter. It would also be sensible to ask Mr Speaker for an Adjournment debate, which is often a good way of starting the discussion on such important matters.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The great services available at the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby are rightly cherished by local residents, but Rugby is growing fast. We are delivering houses at three times the national rate, and many people are concerned that additional services will be needed to support that growing population. Can we have a debate on how the Government health infrastructure plan will support smaller hospitals in growing towns such as Rugby?
Mr Rees-Mogg
On 29 September, the Government announced our new health infrastructure plan to ensure that our health infrastructure works for decades to come. At the centre of the plan is a new hospital building programme, and the Government announced six new hospital schemes that are receiving funding to go ahead now and to be delivered by 2025 and a further 21 schemes across 34 hospitals that will start the next stage of developing their plans between 2025 and 2030. There is a clear NHS capital funding plan to ensure that the health infrastructure is there, and I commend my hon. Friend for standing up for his hospital in Rugby. Local hospitals are cherished by residents up and down the country.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
As I am the fifth Member to ask about rail, the Leader of the House can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling on both sides about transport infrastructure. Can we have a Transport Minister before us so that we can question them on details of the recent announcements on the reopening of lines closed under Beeching? I am particularly keen to raise the reopening of the line to Fleetwood.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Congratulations, Dame Rosie, on your unanimous re-election yesterday as Deputy Speaker, having been elected by acclaim.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) raises an important point, as have other hon. and right hon. Members. There is a £500 million pot to reopen lines that were closed under Beeching, and there will potentially be an opportunity to discuss it on Monday 20 January in the debate on the economy and jobs. Rail is an important part of the economy, and that debate will be the first occasion to raise it.
I reassure the House that I am not the deaf adder. I have heard very clearly the widespread concern about rail, and it will have been heard by the Government and the responsible Ministers, too.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I add my congratulations on your welcome return to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker?
The Leader of the House will be aware that Monday is the statutory deadline for getting the Stormont Executive back up and running. The talks are under way, and we all hope they are successful over the coming days. They will reach a conclusion, one way or the other, this weekend, so can he confirm that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be making a statement to this House on Monday, either to announce that the Executive is back in operation so that Northern Ireland is properly governed or else to set out what steps the Government will take to ensure that the very serious issues for the operation of Northern Ireland’s public services can be properly dealt with?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is working extremely hard, and worked hard over the Christmas break, with all the parties in Northern Ireland to try to ensure that the Assembly is up and running on 13 January. Progress has been made, but it is not possible for me to say where that will conclude or what statements there will be on Monday. It is important that this work proceeds and that the Assembly is reassembled. [Interruption.] I see nods from Northern Ireland Members, and I think there is a widespread feeling that the lack of an Assembly has gone on for much too long.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) mentioned, today Liberty Steel announced job losses in Newport, Rotherham and elsewhere. Our thoughts are with those who are affected. The Orb steelworks in Newport was mothballed before Christmas, and there were worrying signs from Tata in the press over the weekend. I reiterate the call for an urgent debate in Government time on steel so that we can ensure the Government are proactive at this time.
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is obviously a very important issue, and very important for the people whose jobs are involved, for whom it must be a very troubling time. I reiterate that there are Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions on Tuesday 21 January, and an application for an Adjournment debate may see something discussed even sooner.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The recent treatment of the 19-year-old British national in Ayia Napa and the failures of the judicial process follow on from the failure of the judicial system in Cyprus to bring to justice the killers of my constituent George Low, who was murdered in the same town in 2016. Can we please have a debate on the safety of British subjects visiting Cyprus on holiday and whether any further precautions or advice are needed?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Both cases are matters of considerable concern, and they have been of concern to the Government. I note that the lady returning from Cyprus is being helped by the police and viewed as a victim of a sexual assault. That tells us something important about how the British authorities view the case. We have to bear it in mind that standards of justice across the world are not necessarily as high as they are in the United Kingdom. It is one of the primary duties of any Government to ensure the wellbeing of their citizens when they are abroad, or that justice can be done if anything goes wrong when they are abroad. The Government take that duty extraordinarily seriously. Hon. Members of all parties may rest assured that, if they have constituents who needs assistance, the Foreign Office is there to help them.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It is very nice to see you back in your place today, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Leader of the House has been asked a number of questions about rail today. I am sure that he knows that TransPennine Express has had to offer a rebate of 3% on its fares because of its latest timetabling fiasco. That goes alongside its failure to run Hull station properly: we have a leaky roof and appalling toilets. May we have a debate about whether we should introduce management productivity clauses into the franchise so that, for example, TransPennine’s managing director, Leo Goodwin, could refund perhaps more than 3% of the £331,000 salary he receives after a recent 44% pay increase?
Mr Rees-Mogg
On my own behalf and that of the Government, I congratulate the hon. Lady on becoming a Dame and on all she has contributed to Parliament, for which it is a due and proper reward. She comes up with a novel solution—it may be rather a good one—that people should have performance-related pay and that if the performance is bad, perhaps the pay should go down. That is not something, as a capitalist, I am averse to.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I am sure that there is cross-party consensus in the House that the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom is West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. That beauty was enhanced last year by the flowering of rare aspen trees on the Muir of Dinnet nature reserve. Would my right hon. Friend consider a debate in Government time on the importance of nature reserves, as a way of thanking all those who volunteer and work to protect our great flora and fauna across the United Kingdom?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If my hon. Friend wants to get a debate out of me, he will have to say that Somerset is the most beautiful county; he will not get it by saying that his own constituency is. However, he raises an important point. The work that people do to ensure that the natural beauty of our country is enhanced is important. I am not sure that I can promise him a debate, but his point is extremely well made and I thank him for all his work to ensure that our country remains the most beautiful in the world—something I think we can all agree on.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The UK Government already had a woeful record on shamefully backsliding on commitments to child refugees, but to vote to prevent unaccompanied child refugees from being reunited with their families is a new low. Will the Leader of the House make an urgent statement on exactly what assessment the Government made of the impact of their shameful decision on those most vulnerable children?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is under a misapprehension. There is no change to Government policy. The decision to take the provision out of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill was made because it is not right to put negotiating mandates in an Act of Parliament in that way. The Government remain committed to supporting and aiding child refugees.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
The Leader of the House will know that our manifesto says that we will review the Gambling Act 2005, and he will have heard, from standing at the Bar of the House during the urgent question earlier, that it is an analogue Act in a digital age. Given that the work will require a laborious Whitehall process, we in Parliament can help it along. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House give the House the opportunity to start the discussion by granting a debate in Government time on what we would like to see in the review of the legislation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend for her brilliant work in bringing problem gambling to the attention of the House and the country at large. Without her work, the problem would have been less noticed and more swept under the carpet. As the urgent question showed, it worries hon. Members across the Chamber, and many of us have seen in our constituencies the problems that arise from addictive gambling. The Government did indeed say in our manifesto that we will have a review, and that will be delivered.
I do not think I can promise a debate because there was such a full discussion of the subject shortly before I got to my feet that I think it has in some sense been covered, but the knowledge that the House and the Government are concerned, and the strength of the position taken by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport in his answers, will, I think, be noticed by the gambling world. I hope the industry will put its own house in order; otherwise, it might find that its house is put in order for it.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Last month, the Prime Minister said,
"We should bring electrification of Midland Mainline back and do the whole line through to Sheffield”,
but given that the two previous Tory Prime Ministers made precisely the same promise, only to backtrack just a few weeks after the election, may we have an urgent debate so that those very busy Transport Ministers can be challenged on precisely when and how they will deliver that vital investment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have a certain sympathy because the great western line was also meant to be electrified, but then it was found to be too difficult to do around Bath, which is the station I use—
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am always getting heckled from Rhondda! Everyone else is so well behaved in this new Parliament. We have this new image and row upon row of people who sit there politely listening, other than the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) raises an important point. There will be oral questions to Department for Transport Ministers in due course, and I think that is the right time to raise the subject initially as it may not constitute a full debate on its own, but it will also be possible to raise the matter at various points in the debate on the Queen’s Speech.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I add my congratulations on your re-election, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Government have announced that there are to be further town deals. My constituency already benefits from the Greater Grimsby town deal. May we have in Government time a debate in which the Government set out more details of their proposals and I am able to outline the benefits that have come to Cleethorpes?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am glad to say that Midsomer Norton and Keynsham in North East Somerset are also benefiting from a deal. Previous town deals are benefiting many of us, up and down the country. I can answer my hon. Friend’s wish because I can give slightly more detail, which may save the House the time that would be taken by a full debate.
On 27 July, the Prime Minister announced that a £3.6 billion towns fund would support an initial 100 town deals. The Government have announced 100 places that will be invited to develop proposals for deals, including some that have been the birthplaces of industry, centres of commerce for centuries, or bastions of the maritime economy along our coastline. The Government will work with local people from the 100 communities to agree proposals to spend up to £25 million in each place. The Government are committed to decentralising funding and decisions away from Whitehall. We have invested in the growth of local economies, developing powers through green, ambitious city growth deals, devolving more than £9 billion of funding to local enterprise partnerships, and introducing eight metro Mayors in England. This is all part of a general programme, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is pleased with the success of the Greater Grimsby deal.
Chris Bryant
For a start, the name of my constituency is pronounced Rhon-tha, not Rhon-da. I hope the Leader of the House will practise in front of a mirror later today.
I am not an unreasonable man, so I am not asking when the next Prorogation of Parliament will be, but I am asking how long the Government intend to run the Session in the broadest sense. It would be perfectly legitimate to run it to next November and return to the old system of having State Opening in that month. May is a daft time to have a State Opening, because the Government are caught in purdah thanks to local elections, making it much more difficult to do it properly. Will the Leader of the House give us a clearer idea of the Government’s broad intention, not least because we would like to make sure that we get 20 Opposition days a year, and not just 20 a Session?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Patience! The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), when I was newly elected, very generously took me to the Smoking Room and gave me a couple of glasses of Scotland’s finest produce to help me to learn how to pronounce his constituency, whereas the hon. Member for Rhondda merely bellows at me across the Chamber. For that reason, I may try harder with Na h-Eileanan an Iar than I do with Rhondda.
Regarding the length of the Session, if the hon. Gentleman were to divide the number of Bills listed following the Queen’s Speech by the average number of Bills passed during the course of a year, he might get a rough idea of how long the Session is likely to last, other things being equal, but that is not a promise.
Australian Bushfires
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you returned as first Deputy Chair of Ways and Means. With your permission, I will update the House on the bushfires in Australia.
In the past four months, bushfires in Australia have killed at least 25 people and displaced thousands more, with over 1,900 homes destroyed. Millions more people have been affected by poor air quality as a result of fire smoke, with 10 million acres of land burnt. Meteorologists predict that the fires will get worse before they get better, as peak summer temperatures are yet to come. This crisis has been devastating and our hearts go out to the Australian people.
The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Commonwealth, the UN and South Asia, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, have been in contact with their Australian counterparts to offer our condolences and stress our readiness to help in whatever way they need. Furthermore, our high commission and consulates general are in close contact with Australian authorities at federal and state level, exploring how the UK can support them and what assistance they would find most useful.
The Australian Government have agreed an offer by the Foreign Secretary to deploy an expert support and assessment team of specialists from defence, health and fire. We have deployed this team to meet Australian officials, and they will be on site in the coming days. The team will include a senior member of the UK fire and rescue service, a medical specialist in trauma and mental health, and a military liaison officer. The team will work with Australian colleagues to establish the types, extent and duration of support that will be of most use to Australian emergency responders, and ensure that such contributions are fully integrated with Australian efforts. The specialists will liaise with regional co-ordinators as well as with the central Australian Government. The important point is that the help we are giving is the help we have been asked for.
Such is the nature of our close relationship that co-operation between the UK and Australia is taking place all the time. Across the globe, UK forces are deployed alongside Australian counterparts. The recent radio interview with Lieutenant Grimmer, a Royal Navy pilot on exchange to the Royal Australian Navy who has been working on evacuation operations, demonstrates how we are already helping through our established relationships. The close ties between the UK and Australia are of course mirrored across families and friends in both countries, which makes this a very personal tragedy.
As ever, our greatest and most immediate concern is the security of British citizens. We are grateful to the Australian authorities for the timely and professional advice they are providing to help keep British visitors to Australia safe. We also pay tribute to the heroism and professionalism of Australia’s emergency services, many of whom are volunteers, and some of whom have lost their lives as they tackle an unprecedented level of bushfire destruction. I am sure that the whole House will join me in extending our sympathies to the people of Australia, given what they are going through. The stories of valour that are coming out of Australia, which we have seen in the media and on an individual level, have been deeply moving.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) has pointed out on social media, fighting sustained crises is exhausting and we should support one of closest allies at this time. She has also rightly drawn attention to the impact on Australia’s unique wildlife, including koalas. The Government recognise that the environmental and agricultural impact of the bushfires is staggering. Almost half a billion animals are thought to have perished, and there are concerns that some species found only in certain areas of Australia may have been wiped out altogether. We stand ready to support Australian authorities to address the ecological damage in due course, and this is something that our support and assessment team will cover.
Australia is one of our most valued allies, partners and friends. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with the people of Australia and are ready to help in whatever way they need. The UK deployment this week reflects our measured approach, which will ensure that any assistance is appropriate and meets Australia’s specific needs, but the UK support is ongoing and long-term, reflecting the deep ties between our countries. The Australian authorities, from the Foreign Minister to Emergency Management Australia, have expressed how welcome our enduring assistance remains. I commend this statement to the House.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Like all colleagues, let me welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker, following your unopposed election as Deputy Speaker. I also thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I am grateful for her assurance that support is being given to any British nationals and tourists who have been affected, and that support has also been offered to the Australian authorities. However, like her, my thoughts are with our Australian cousins who have lost their homes, jobs, communities and, in some tragic cases, their lives as a result of the fires. Like her, I applaud the astonishing efforts of the Australian firefighters and other emergency services who have been trying to tackle this crisis, and I applaud too all those ordinary Australians who have so movingly and selflessly risked their own lives to save koala bears and other creatures whose populations have suffered such devastation as their natural habitat has been devoured by the flames. I understand that to date up to 1 billion animals may have perished.
What we have seen in recent weeks has been nothing short of a catastrophe, for not just Australia but the whole world, and I wholeheartedly share the Minister’s words of sympathy and solidarity with our close friends for what they are going through at the moment. But when the fires are finally extinguished, it would be remiss of us if we did not discuss the underlying causes of these unprecedented events; 2019 was the second hottest year on record, and the past five years fill the top five positions as the hottest years on record. Any group of individuals who can look at those figures and continue to deny that global warming and climate change are real issues are equivalent to those people who still insist that the world is flat. Yet, sadly, such individuals include the current President of the United States, Donald Trump; the current President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro; and— I say this with great regret, given what his country is currently experiencing—the current Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison. There is something bitterly sad about the fact that those three leaders have all seen raging wildfires in their countries over the past year—in California, in the Amazon and now on the eastern coast of Australia.
So the question we all face is how we address the challenge of climate change, how we keep the Paris agreement on track and how we stop our world reaching the point of no return on global warming, where events such as those we are currently seeing in Australia become the new normal. Facing a challenge of that scale, we have to recognise one thing—that what we do alone in the UK will make not a jot of difference to the global problems we all face.
What we need instead is what my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary called for a year ago:
“the globalisation of the green new deal”.
The proposition is that we help every country in the world, and indeed use our weight at the UN to oblige every country to use the natural resources at their disposal, whether it be wind power, tidal power or solar power, to move rapidly towards a zero-carbon economy, in the process creating millions of new jobs. Britain led the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. We are in a very good position to lead this green revolution, and I urge the Government to take that lead.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much indeed for that. We are grateful to him for laying out his thoughts. I do not think he actually asked me a specific question, and I am grateful to him for that as well.
Mrs Wheeler
Of course, the hon. Member asked about climate change. On that, the most important thing is that we are going to be chairing COP26, so we have ambitious climate change targets for all countries going forward. When I go on trips to other countries, I am looking forward to asking all of them how ambitious they are going to be. On money, specifically, we are increasing our international climate finance offer from £8.5 billion between 2016 and 2020 to £11.6 billion over the period 2021 to 2025, in order to help developing countries take action.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Minister’s statement and I am very grateful that the Prime Minister has made the offer to his opposite number Scott Morrison. I also welcome the partnership the Minister has spoken of, but is there more we could do? I ask that because the Foreign Office has such excellent links with the Australian Administration—indeed, we were one and the same until about the 1960s. We have several members of the Commonwealth of Australia sitting on these Benches, and it is a pleasure to have them here. Can we look at co-operating with regional partners, bringing together an alliance of others not just to engage in Australia but to deal with the forest fires we are seeing around the world?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is perhaps soon again to be the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. [Interruption.] I said “perhaps”. One thing that was really helpful when Lord Ahmad was out in Australia was the fact that we hold the Chair-in-Office of the Commonwealth at the moment. One thing we are doing as part of the Commonwealth is getting member states to work together on this matter, through initiatives such as the Blue Charter and the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy. So we are there as a group promoting environmental protection across the world.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has been very hard watching Australia burn in the past few weeks. I am fortunate, in that most of my friends and family are concentrated in the west and so are suffering less, but my thoughts, my love and my heart go out to all of those who are in harm’s way across the continent. It is difficult for most people here to appreciate the size of the fires and to appreciate the size of Australia to begin with. These fires have covered an area twice the size of Wales. The fire front in one state, New South Wales, is thousands of miles long. There is always a bushfire season, but not like this. As has been pointed out by others today, Australia is not alone; 4 million hectares of Siberian forest burned a few months ago, and there were fires in Greenland, Alaska and Canada too. Again, fires in the Arctic are normal, but not on this scale, and now the ground itself is starting to burn. In both hemispheres, climate change is driving this. Philip Higuera from the University of Montana describes it is a switch: reach the tipping point and Arctic tundra burns. So although kind words and support for those battling the fires are very moving and of course greatly appreciated, they are just one thing—action to address this climate emergency is another.
There will not be any slowdown in burn rates unless we reverse the causes, so I must ask: when will we see real action from this Government on the climate emergency? The Environment Bill that flickered briefly in the last Parliament missed and hit the wall. Will we see something of substance in this Parliament? The science is 250 years old, the term “greenhouse effect” was coined nearly a century ago, even Thatcher called for climate action and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns us of the dangers repeatedly, yet the UK stands virtually still on this issue. That must change. There must be no more woolly words and no more waffle—it is time for real climate action. When will we see a ban on fracking, incentives for renewable energy production and a roll-out of electric vehicle charging stations? Where is the support for electric aviation and VAT exemptions for home insulation—not a reduced rate but exemptions? Why are we not seeing urgent action? In short, if the Government want to do something about the fires in Australia, in the Arctic and on England’s moors in years to come, they must do something now about the climate emergency.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Lady: our hearts go out to her friends and family in Australia. Sometimes in the Chamber, speeches and questions are quite difficult to make and ask, but it is great that she is here to give that extra oomph.
We have the chair of COP26 with Italy, so we are absolutely taking climate change as the No. 1 priority. In every embassy around the world, every ambassador and every high commissioner has it as their No.1 priority to talk to other Governments and encourage greater and more ambitious targets for those countries. In particular, we will continue with the Paris agreement and make sure that those commitments are guaranteed going forward. President Claire O’Neill, late of this parish as the Member for Devizes, recently met other energy Ministers at COP25 in Madrid to bang the drum and make clear that this is our No.1 priority.
In respect of any changes to financial matters, I am afraid the hon. Lady will have to wait for the Chancellor’s Budget, but that is not very far away in March.
On the roll-out of electric charging points, I am proud to have two charging points in Swadlincote in South Derbyshire, and £4 million has been put to one side for councils to bid for so that they can have charging points.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Would the Minister like to say how many Britons have been killed or otherwise caught up in this emergency?
Mrs Wheeler
I am really pleased to say that no UK nationals have been killed and we are not aware of any who have been injured. In fact, only one British national has been in touch to ask for advice and support. We ask everybody—visitors and people living there—to pay close attention to the updated advice from local authorities.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
When the fires are extinguished, there is going to have to be a moment for learning lessons and drawing the links between these incidents and climate change. Our Government should take a leading role, but we would be better able to do so if we had not ourselves just announced that a review of the net zero carbon target had been put off until autumn. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Treasury about bringing that review forward?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I will of course do that.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you back in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What has been obvious from constituents in Romsey and Southampton North is the outpouring of affection and support that they are expressing for our friends and allies in Australia. I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend’s comments about the practical support that the Government are giving, but my constituents’ question is about what they can do as individuals. I would be delighted to hear what advice my hon. Friend can give them.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my right hon. Friend—who is a very good friend—for that question. Interestingly, sometimes in times of adversity really nasty people come out of the woodwork. I do not want any help that the British people give via charities in Australia or whatever other method to be affected by scammers, so if British citizens want to give or help in any way, will they please double-check that any charity they give money to is registered with the Australian Charity Commission? It would be a tragedy if the good will of people in this country was abused.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was really quite shocked that in her statement the Minister did not mention climate change once; it is surely the context in which all this is happening. When my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) did raise the issue very eloquently, the Minister had to rummage in her folder to find something to say. The fact is that Australia is the largest emitter per capita of any major nation, yet its Government are still not committed to decarbonisation. The COP25 talks were a complete failure, and we have not even had a written ministerial statement on them. When are the Government going to step up to the plate, show leadership, talk to Australia and say that it has to get with the agenda?
Mrs Wheeler
Please forgive me for suggesting that talk is cheap. Australia is a signatory to the Paris agreement and is committed to a 26% to 28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on 2005 levels by 2030. In addition—because there are intelligent people in this room—a number of Australian states have already committed to net zero by 2050. Ahead of COP26, we will look forward to working with all Paris agreement signatories to increase global climate ambition in line with that agreement.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome you back to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does the Minister agree that this is the time not to be criticising Australia but to be helping them? Does she agree that we need to see close allies such as ourselves, the Americans, the Canadians and the New Zealanders coming together to give Australia the package of help that it desperately needs? Does she also agree that individual citizens who want to help can look at the appeals by the Salvation Army in Australia and by the Australian rural fire service, and make donations to them rather than the sort of dubious organisations that may emerge?
Mrs Wheeler
I could not agree more with my right hon. and learned Friend. My constituent Helen Jackson is raising funds for koala care, and I have made it clear to her that she must send the money she raises to the appropriate people, exactly as my right hon. and learned Friend has outlined.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and direct my remarks to you in the Chair, because with these difficult long-term issues there is a real role for Parliaments. Greta Thunberg came to our Parliament and it is this gathering that has taken up the mission and is leading it on; it is not just about the Executive Government. The all-party group on Australia, of which my friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and I are members, along with the chairs, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), has come together to encourage all Parliaments around the world —the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is clearly a key friend—to take some responsibility for keeping this on the agenda, because in the end Executive Governments change, but we remain. I hope we can keep that in our thoughts. May I also thank the Speaker’s Office for contacting the Australian Parliament? I know from parliamentarians there just how much that meant to them.
Mrs Wheeler
It is great to hear of how much work is going on behind the scenes in Parliament, but I stress again that is a No.1 Government priority and all our embassies are on it. It is a great honour to host COP26 with our Italian friends, and it will be the success that it needs to be.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I welcome you back to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We should remember that on new year’s day National Grid announced that this country just had the first ever year in which the energy from zero-carbon sources exceeded fossil fuels—it is the first time in our history—so we are doing our bit. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not be lecturing Australia when it is in the middle of a national emergency if it is not yet doing the same? As she rightly says, we should be giving it all the support we can. Will she confirm that if the fires worsen, we stand ready to provide whatever help is needed, should the Australians request it?
Mrs Wheeler
Those are wise words from my hon. Friend. The UK policy on climate change has been dramatic: we are setting out legally binding targets to eliminate climate change by 2050; we have been the fastest in the G20 to decarbonise since 2000; and since 1990 we have reduced our emissions by more than 40% while growing our economy by two thirds. We can get the message out to other countries that it can be done and it does not affect the economy. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, National Grid’s use of energy from renewable sources is leading the way as a great example to others.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The suffering in Australia is almost unimaginable. Scott Morrison has finally committed around AU$2 billion for bushfire recovery, but that is dwarfed by the AU$29 billion that the Australian Government spend on fossil fuel subsidies every year. Public money is in essence being spent to turbocharge the climate emergency. We do it here in the UK, too: we spent around £10 billion on fossil fuel subsidies last year. Will the Minister agree that it is time to stop throwing money on the fire? Will she commit to ending public financial support for the fossil fuel industry?
Mrs Wheeler
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is asking the wrong person that question.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is good to see you back in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The upcoming foreign policy review is important. Can the Minister confirm that climate change will feature in that review? If it is not going to, may I suggest that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consider it as part of its global review?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend—a candidate to be Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—for that interesting question. As I have tried to stress and am more than happy to say again, climate change is the No. 1 priority for all our embassies across the world, and is part of our plans now and going forward.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I welcome you back to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The huge scale of the fires must leave us in absolutely no doubt of the urgent and radical action that is needed on climate change, so I was also absolutely shocked that I did not hear the Minister even mention the words “climate change” in her statement. Yet, behind the scenes, UK Export Finance schemes are handing out billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to develop fossil fuel projects, locking countries into high-carbon energy for decades to come. Will this Government put their money where their mouth is and end UK Export Finance’s support for fossil fuels?
Mrs Wheeler
The hon. Lady asks a very intelligent question. The answer is that I cannot give her that assurance right now. We have green finance deals and ocean deals. We are so committed to helping countries around the world to move on to renewable energy projects, and I think that is the way forward.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Congratulations on your return to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I strongly welcome the UK Government’s enduring commitment to support Australia, but will my hon. Friend tell us for specifically how long the experts who are currently there plan to remain in the country?
Mrs Wheeler
It is my pleasure to try to answer my hon. Friend. They are there for a five-day period, meeting all the experts in the region with three sessions covering the three different areas that they are visiting. They will then do a rapid assessment of the assistance that Australia is asking for, and we are ready to assist in any way we can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Congratulations on being re-elected, Madam Deputy Speaker; we are very pleased to see you in the Chair.
I thank the Minister for her statement on the Australian wildfires. If the area of land that has been burning was imprinted on the United Kingdom mainland map it would reach from Newcastle straight across and halfway down, as far as London—a vast area. Soil will need to be resown, trees replanted, animals replaced and farms restocked. What help can the United Kingdom Government give Australia, given that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has great expertise in abundance?
Mrs Wheeler
The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. We know that of the animals affected a number are cows that produce milk. That will obviously affect Australia’s economy and is an absolute tragedy for the local farmers. We do have expertise in this area; whatever help Australia asks for in which we have expertise, we will help if we can.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is great to see you back as part of the Speaker’s team, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Would the Minister and her Department work with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association? Prime Ministers come and go—as we know in this country—but, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, parliamentarians tend not to. Could we urge the CPA to work closely with Australian Members of Parliament to make them much more aware of the problems of climate change in their country, as well as in the world?
Mrs Wheeler
My hon. Friend—my Derbyshire friend—makes an interesting suggestion. We have great ties with the CPA. Lord Tariq Ahmad in the other place looks after the Commonwealth side of things, and I am sure he will gladly take her suggestion forward.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, how thrilled I am to see you back in the Chair—your rightful place in this House.
I am grateful to the Minister for her statement. I speak as someone whose mother grew up in Western Australia. I have family living in Victoria and in New South Wales, so I feel the pain of that country maybe as much as other Members of this House. The reality is that when friends speak, they also speak with some honesty. Prime Minister Morrison has ignored the climate issue for a number of years, as other Members have pointed out. The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is coming up later this year. I accept that it is not part of the Minister’s responsibility, but may I ask her to make representations to the relevant Minister, the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister to prioritise climate change as part of that meeting? We must learn lessons. The situation in Australia should be a warning that the world is burning, and the Commonwealth must play a much more significant role in tackling the impact and realities of climate change.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Gentleman—I hope I may also call him my friend—for his question. Interestingly, because the UK is Chair-in-Office at the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth has actually been a long-standing champion for environmental protection and climate action since its first official mention in the Commonwealth Langkawi declaration on the environment in 1989. We will take this matter seriously and it will be on the agenda for CHOGM.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I offer my deepest sympathy at all those in Australia affected by this terrible fire? I spent a year and a half out there as a much younger man and experienced the intense heat myself, working out in the bush. Can the Minister help us understand how these fires started? Arson plays a role. Does she have any evidence or feedback from the Australian Government on how the fires physically started?
Mrs Wheeler
Very regrettably, it is widely reported on social media that 75% of the fires were started by arsonists.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to see you back in your rightful place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I spent one of the happiest years of my life living in Melbourne, and would be the last person to criticise Australia. However, my friends who live in Australia are very concerned about the current Government’s lack of appreciation of the impact of climate change on the disaster they are now facing. What can the Minister and the Government do to persuade their sister party in Australia to take the science of climate change seriously?
Mrs Wheeler
My sympathies are with the hon. and learned Lady’s friends who are out there right now. It is without doubt clear that the UK and Australia have their own approaches to climate change. As chair of COP26, the UK looks forward to continued discussions in the run-up to that conference. We hope to work with Australia and others to increase their ambition in line with the Paris principles. I stress again that, because of Australia’s federal system, there is a really interesting dynamic there right now, whereby states are already saying that they will be decarbonise by 2050—the same as us—so all is not necessarily painted as black as we think.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Congratulations on your re-election, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Australia is a vast country that is suffering a terrible tragedy, and I have two nephews who live in different parts of that country. Large numbers of UK citizens will go on tours of Australia over the coming weeks and months that might be disrupted because they might be going to areas of danger. Will the Minister update the House on what advice the FCO is giving to travel companies and individuals?
Mrs Wheeler
I hope that my hon. Friend’s nephews in different parts of Australia stay safe. I am glad he asks his question. UK nationals should follow the FCO travel advice. It was updated on 30 December and we will continue to keep it under review. We have not advised against going to Australia for tourism, to visit family or for business, but we do request that visitors pay close attention to the updated advice from local authorities. One of the great things that has happened through our connections with all the different groups, as well as the embassy and the consulate general, is that really good local advice is being offered. We ask people to keep abreast of that advice as well as with the FCO’s advice.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Welcome back to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I declare my interest as set out in the register, not least my personal connection by marriage to Australia, with many friends and family members across that continent. I echo comments from colleagues across the House and send our prayers to those fighting, suffering and surviving the heartbreaking events on the continent of Australia.
Does the Minister agree that in the year that the UK hosts COP26, we need to re-embolden our climate diplomacy? One practical suggestion might be about coupling industrial strategy with climate diplomacy on decarbonising power generation, because in Australia 75% of power generation is still dependent on coal. Indeed, when I was in Australia for my honeymoon, Prime Minister Scott Morrison was waving coal around in its House of Commons. Can we share our expertise and lessons learned in the UK?
Mrs Wheeler
I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s wife’s family are safe. I am sure he is in constant contact.
The hon. Gentleman makes a really interesting suggestion. Interestingly, DFID official development assistance money is being used particularly in Brazil to look at decarbonising its energy production. We cannot use ODA money for Australia because obviously it is a first-world nation, but perhaps we can find another way through the prosperity fund or something like that. We will take that idea away. We are always happy to receive good ideas.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your re-election to the Chair.
I was in Victoria last week, and I was very moved by the remarkable resilience of our friends and family, the Australian people, in dealing with the bushfire crisis, which is awful, as we know, with many lives and homes lost, but also up to 500 million animals—farm animals and indigenous creatures as well. What particular assistance can the United Kingdom give in terms of ecological, and perhaps veterinary, support to help with the natural disaster that has happened?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend for his up-to-date information, he having visited so recently. I have asked the same question myself, particularly about veterinary support but also agricultural support afterwards. Part of the brief for our specialists on the team that has been deployed is to ask what Australia would like us to do.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
May I, too, congratulate you on your re-election, Madam Deputy Speaker?
As others have said, these devastating bush fires have been exacerbated in both extent and intensity by the consequences of global warming. The Minister has already intimated this, but could she confirm that in the light of this catastrophe, UK foreign policy will make international co-operation on efforts on decarbonisation its highest priority?
Mrs Wheeler
That is absolutely key. As has been alluded to, COP25 was perhaps not as successful as it might have been—[Interruption.] Well, we have to be kind. We therefore have every incentive to make COP26 a success. Part of that will be using the expertise that we have in emerging countries to help them to make the step change to renewable energies and decarbonising. It is a really exciting time for this country to take those measures to help other countries. Exactly as the hon. Gentleman says, this is the No. 1 priority for all our embassies around the world.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I welcome the news that the Minister has given. Having also lived in Melbourne in Australia and having friends who are still living out there, this has been a great concern to me and also to residents in Meon Valley. What medical assistance are we providing to the Australians, both now and in future, with smoke inhalation and other issues that might have been caused by the smoke?
Mrs Wheeler
I know that a number of my hon. Friend’s constituents have written to her, and they will have a reply from me specifically. As regards medical expertise, some of our rapid deployment team were medical experts. We were perhaps initially concentrating on mental health issues arising afterwards. However, the five-day deployment team will ask the questions of Australia, and if there are specialisms that we have in this country that it needs extra help with, perhaps regarding people who suffer from asthma, I am sure we will oblige, if it asks us to do so.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Congratulations on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that your generosity to Northern Ireland Members will be unmatched by anyone else who takes the Chair, so thank you very much indeed.
I welcome the statement by the Minister. Indeed, I spoke yesterday, and before then, to the authorities at Australia House, who have also welcomed the immediate support that the United Kingdom Government have given to, as she rightly said, our closest friend, Australia. That is very important. Following on from the questions about lessons learned, surely action must be taken to help Australia with the reforestation of its wonderful land and protection of species in future. We must go on to ensure that any expert help that can be given from these islands is given and that Australia is encouraged to redevelop and regrow in areas that have been burned.
Mrs Wheeler
Absolutely. I cannot thank the hon. Gentleman enough for that very good question. We all know that we need to have that canopy of trees to help with decarbonising for the whole of the world, so it is important to give any assistance we can with that. I am sure that my civil servants are now going to blanch, because he has given me a good idea. We have great relationships with Kew, which has world experts in planting, seeds and whatever else might be needed. I will to ask to see what connections and suggestions Kew might have, subject to Australia asking for such help. That was a great question and I thank the hon. Gentleman.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
May I add my welcome and congratulations to you on resuming your post, Madam Deputy Speaker?
The Singapore air force has offered support with two Chinooks, and the New Zealanders have offered some troops as well, but the Royal Air Force has the lion’s share of Europe’s strategic air lift capability. Will the Minister undertake to see whether there is any aviation assistance that we can supply?
Mrs Wheeler
My hon. Friend asks a question that I asked my officials earlier, so it is clearly one of the best questions that has been asked today. Most importantly, one of the deployment team is from military liaison. I am not sure whether we have equipment anywhere nearby at the moment, but if, not so much even acting with Chinooks right now, we can find a way to back-fill other areas of the Australian armed forces, that might be the way forward. Again, when Australia asks we will fulfil its requests.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and commend the support that we are offering to our allies. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) about the vital role of Parliaments and parliamentary engagement, especially around the issue of climate diplomacy. Might the Minister want to say to all new hon. Members that joining the CPA and getting involved in having those relationships with parliamentarians not just in Australia, but across the Commonwealth, would be a very good idea?
Mrs Wheeler
I am so delighted that the hon. Lady has been made a dame in the new year’s honours—quite right too. We once had a really interesting trip to Jordan. She acted as a lady then and she is a dame now, so that is very good.
On the hon. Lady’s point about joining in with the CPA, there is actually the Inter-Parliamentary Union as well. We have lots of new Members and there may be opportunities for the majority for a bit of slipping and pairing—you never know. Yes, I would encourage all Members, particularly new ones, to find out about opportunities with the CPA and the IPU. I am sure that those teams would welcome some new blood coming through as well.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Congratulations on your re-election, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Like so many, I have family members who live in Australia, and over Christmas I was with my daughter in Melbourne, so I really appreciate the statement and the expressions of support for Australia today. Australia is likely to face more out-of-control blazes tomorrow, and there is a prospect of entire ecosystems being lost. The support being given at the moment is hugely important, but when the fires die down, will the Government have talks with Scott Morrison and the Government of Australia about the environment and how we can help in future, for the good of not only Australia but the rest of the world?
Mrs Wheeler
Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point; if she will forgive me, I will face the Chair. If I have not said it enough, I stress that this is the beginning of the help that we are offering Australia. We realise that the bushfire season is only just beginning, so this will go on for some time, and then there will be the pressing issues of the regeneration of trees, forest and the scrub that the cows and sheep need to eat. Whatever technical and professional assistance Australia asks us for, we stand ready to help.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Welcome back, Madam Deputy Speaker.
While we sympathise with those caught in this environmental disaster, we know that this is a climate change emergency issue. The last six years have been the six hottest on record, which underpins the problem we have. In the 2020 climate change performance index, Australia is ranked bottom, with the US ranked second from bottom. We know that the US has pulled out of the Paris agreement. We keep hearing about the new global UK, so can the Minister advise what influence she has in those two countries and what climate change policy changes the UK is pushing for with them?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He has moved to where one of the microphones is, so I heard his question, which is great. With regard to the conversations we have been having, our embassy and our consuls general are talking all the time to the Australian state and the federal states, some of which are already declaring that they will decarbonise by 2050. I think that we are pushing at an open door. Australia has not resiled from the Paris agreement. We will keep them there, and we will ask them to be more ambitious. On every visit that I make as Minister for Asia and the Pacific, whether it be to Singapore or Seoul, it is part of my brief to ask the country to be more ambitious.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
We have heard much about the scale of the fires in Australia. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the bravery shown by the Australian firefighters in trying to tackle them?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and welcome him to this place. I will indeed join him. The stories that we have heard about the huge valour and the trauma that the firefighters—so many of them reserve firefighters, just looking after their villages and townships—have been quite incredible, and our hearts and love go out to those brave people.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
We are a nation of animal lovers. Our first concern, of course, is always the impact on people and their properties, and I thank the Minister for what she is doing on that, but will she join me in thanking Redditch Pets at Home, which is leading on an initiative to donate up to £100,000 nationally to the World Wide Fund for Nature, enabling local people in Redditch to play their part and help with the devastating loss of animal life?
Mrs Wheeler
Indeed. Having mentioned my constituent Helen Jackson, I am very grateful to the constituents of Redditch and Pets at Home for that initiative, but I again ask everybody to ensure that, whatever donations they make, they please check that it is to an organisation registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. I would not want this tragedy to be made worse by scammers getting involved and making money out of it.
Bill Presented
Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Theresa Villiers, supported by the Prime Minister, Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Steve Barclay, Secretary Simon Hart, George Eustice and Rishi Sunak, presented a Bill to make provision for the incorporation of the Direct Payments Regulation into domestic law; for enabling an increase in the total maximum amount of direct payments under that Regulation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 13 January, and to be printed (Bill 5) with explanatory notes (Bill 5-EN).
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Thursday 9th January 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 8 January 2020 - (8 Jan 2020)
16:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 62 / Noes: 329 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Scottish National party.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill will implement in UK law the withdrawal agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, ensuring that the United Kingdom departs from the European Union with a deal at the end of this month. We are delivering on our promise to the British people. It was a pleasure to spend yesterday afternoon in Committee of the whole House, and I would like to pay tribute to Members across the House for the contributions they have made throughout the debates and the constructive spirit, particularly more recently, in which everyone has engaged. I have no doubt that today’s proceedings will be of a similar calibre, and the Secretary of State, who is in his place, and I are very much looking forward to today.
I would like to thank the Public Bill Office for its support to all Members and officials across Government, not just at the Department for Exiting the European Union, for their hard work in ensuring the delivery of this Bill and for supporting Ministers throughout, many of whom have contributed behind the scenes rather than at the Dispatch Box. I would also like to thank the three knights of the realm who stood in as Deputy Speakers in Committee and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
This Bill is essential in preparing our country for leaving the European Union and will ensure that the deal that has been reached can be implemented. It also ensures that we can protect the rights of citizens who have made their lives here, that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland and that we take back control of our money and our laws. The Bill will shortly move to another place, with its substantive stages beginning on Monday, and I know that the House will be watching its progress with great interest.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I notice that today, the President of the European Commission is reported as saying that it will be virtually impossible to conclude a trade deal within a year. Given that we start off with exactly the same regulations and tariffs, I am mystified as to what the problem is. What does the Minister think the problem is, given that we are going to protect workers’ rights? Unless they want to shackle us forever with business rules, what is the problem?
James Duddridge
I have seen that report, but from my discussions with the Secretary of State, that does not reflect the tone of the meeting with the Prime Minister. There is a political declaration and an interest to move forward and sort this within 11 months.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister mentioned the fact that the Bill will be going to the other place and the much more positive atmosphere that has applied in this place. Does he believe that that sends a message to the other place as to how they should conduct themselves, and does he have any reservations about the fact that the unrepresentative make-up of the other place, in respect of the over-representation of remain forces, might derail the hitherto smooth progress of this excellent Bill?
James Duddridge
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Just as we will be watching the House of Lords carefully next week, they have been watching us carefully during the Bill’s passage. They will have listened to the change in tone and seen the majorities by which votes were won, and I am sure that they will reflect on that in their deliberations, doing a proper job of scrutiny as part of the whole democratic process. Mr Speaker—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—
James Duddridge
I will give way, because it will give me an opportunity to get the sex of Madam Deputy Speaker right the second time.
Mr Perkins
The Minister might have said in his answer to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that if he thinks the other place is unrepresentative, there is a way that we could deal with that and ensure that they are elected by the people, like we are.
James Duddridge
We do like elections on this side of the House at the moment, but I am not going to be drawn into reform of the House of Lords, which is slightly out of scope of the withdrawal agreement Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an historic milestone—leaving the European Union with a deal on 31 January. It will soon be upon us, and I am delighted that we can then move on to other national priorities and help the country come together. I commend this Bill to the House.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I join the Minister in thanking the panel of Chairs for presiding over the Committee stages and the work they did in preparation for the debates we had, the staff in the Public Bill Office for the work they did over the Christmas recess and all Members who contributed to the debate in Committee.
The last two days have had their highs and lows. On the one hand, there have been very many thoughtful and considered contributions, and on the other hand, there has been a disappointing and resolute refusal of the Government to seriously consider any amendments however constructively intended. The Minister is right that there was a different tone to the debate, and that is clearly because everybody recognises that the result of the general election means we are leaving the European Union in 22 days’ time. But I think there was also a recognition, I hope on both sides, that leaving the EU does not mean that we will have got Brexit done. We will have completed the first step, departure, but the difficult stage is yet to come: agreeing the new relationship not just on trade, but as many pointed in Committee, on security crucially—but much more besides, from data sharing to research collaboration and more. These are in many ways more complex issues than those we have wrestled with over the last three and a half years, and they are issues with deeply serious consequences for the country.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
May I thank my hon. Friend for his speech and add to his list the anguish that many of my constituents are feeling—not just EU nationals, but those whose neighbours or family are EU nationals? This is, for many, quite a difficult moment.
Paul Blomfield
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is a difficult moment for many, and I will come on specifically to some of the issues involving EU nationals that were not resolved by our discussions in Committee.
As we move into this next stage, I would urge the Government not to overinterpret their mandate in the general election. Yes, they have clearly secured an overwhelming majority of seats, but not of votes. Most people in this country voted for parties that did not support the principle of getting Brexit done at any price. As the Prime Minister observed, many of those who voted for him and colleagues had lent him their vote. I hope, and I sense, that part of the different tone—the subdued mood of those on the Government Benches—was a dawning realisation that they may find it hard to deliver on the high expectations that they have created over the last three and a half years. The Prime Minister has talked about bringing the country together—the Minister echoed that—and we all share the hope after the divisions promoted by the debates of the last three years. However, I have to say that it will need a different approach from the one we have seen over the last couple of days. It needs open ears and a willingness to reach out.
I understand why the Government rejected some of the amendments that we and other opposition parties tabled, but not all. Many were simply restoring previous Government commitments and others were to improve the Bill; none was to frustrate Brexit. In the short debate on the Bill in Committee, we as an Opposition pressed five main issues that in our view reflect the serious problems with both the withdrawal agreement and the way in which the Government have chosen to implement it. Over 100 amendments were tabled in Committee, but not a word of the Bill has changed, and we will therefore be voting against its Third Reading today.
Our first issue with the Bill is that, despite all of Parliament’s efforts to avoid a no-deal Brexit last year, it introduces a trapdoor to no deal at the end of December 2020—something that the Brexit Secretary appeared quite relaxed about in his reported comments following yesterday’s discussion with Ursula von der Leyen. Other Conservative Members over the last couple of days have expressed total confidence—total confidence—in the Government’s ability to secure trade and security deals by the December deadline, citing the EU’s commitment to use its best endeavours and good faith to agree a future trade treaty. That good faith was evident from Mrs von der Leyen yesterday, but I hope Members have also heard her warning, which was echoed by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that it would be impossible to reach a comprehensive trade deal by the end of 2020.
I hope Members will reflect on whether it really is wise for the Government to have added clause 33, barring Ministers from extending the implementation period. Of course, this is just a gimmick, and with their majority, the Government could at any point repeal that clause and negotiate a short extension. However, whatever our views on these issues, we should all be concerned that this Bill removes any role for Parliament in shaping that decision, so if the Government have not concluded and ratified an agreement with the EU on our future relationship, the supposed sovereignty reclaimed for this Parliament will be meaningless. We will have no say on whether we crash out on World Trade Organisation terms, even if the Government are days away from securing an agreement with the EU.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
It occurs to me, as I listen to the hon. Gentleman, that foreign policy is often common ground between successive Governments of different parties. I wonder if it has occurred to his party to take such an approach here: to recognise that the political declaration on the future relationship is now agreed between the EU and UK, and to get behind it as the Labour party, so that there can be absolutely no doubt in the mind of the Commission that where we want to go as a nation is the landing ground that is now common territory between both negotiating parties. Does he not agree that that way we could go forward as one United Kingdom and succeed?
Paul Blomfield
I will come on to my observations on how we could have gone forward much more successfully as one country in delivering on the mandate of the referendum in 2016, but I think—this reflects the comment made earlier by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough—that the whole problem with the way in which Conservative Members talk about the ease of moving forward, because we are starting from a point of convergence, is that the objective of this Government is to seek divergence, and that is precisely why these negotiations will be so difficult.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Could we just dispense with this one country, one nation business? The United Kingdom is a Union of nations, and all of them have a particular set of views about Brexit. In Scotland, we overwhelmingly reject their Brexit, and that has to be recognised in the way we go forward from now on. I hope the Labour party takes that on board; I am beginning to sense that it is. Does the hon. Gentleman understand it, and will we now stop all this talk about one nation, one UK? It is a Union of nations with their own particular set of views.
Paul Blomfield
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point that we are a country of nations and regions and I hope, in relation to the comments I was making to Ministers, that in reaching out they will seek to reach out and obtain agreement and understanding on the way they move forward across the entire country of nations and regions.
Paul Blomfield
It would not be the same debate if I did not. I am happy to do so.
Sir William Cash
I refer to what has just been said from the Scottish nationalist Benches because in fact this is about the United Kingdom, which made the treaty in the first place and abdicated its responsibility and its sovereignty, but is now reasserting its status within the United Kingdom. It is about parliamentary sovereignty, and it is also about democracy because that decision was taken by the British people in the full knowledge of the voters of the United Kingdom, not any one part of it.
Paul Blomfield
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We had a whole debate around sovereignty in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) made some very astute observations, but the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise my underlying point: the decision of the general election is not a mandate to bulldoze through a particular version of Brexit at any cost on all the peoples of the United Kingdom, and the next few months must be approached with sensitivity and caution if we are to stay together as a United Kingdom.
Mr Perkins
May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend as we approach the end of this Bill on the incredibly gallant and diligent work he and his colleagues have done in attempting to investigate and scrutinise this legislation? It is tremendously sad that the Government have, in the minds of many people who voted leave, successfully brought forward the idea that any kind of scrutiny and any kind of amendment to their legislation is somehow disrespecting that mandate, as though whatever the Government say is what that vote back in 2016 meant. I accept that we are leaving the EU and I think we need to get on with that process, but it is extremely regrettable that under the guise of taking back control they have sought to disrespect parliamentary scrutiny in the way that they have done, and this will have serious consequences for us in the future.
Paul Blomfield
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments, but also endorse the point he makes, and it has been a constant strand of the discussions over the past two days.
Paul Blomfield
Yes, three years.
Through our new clause 4 we tried to offer a way of giving Parliament the role for which we were elected—and it is the role that my hon. Friend describes—without requiring an extension to the transition that is longer than necessary. Some Conservative Members who are not here today expressed sympathy with that approach, but not with our specific formulation, so I hope that this issue will be revisited when the Bill moves to the other place.
The second point that was a key concern to us was citizens’ rights. Colleagues from all Opposition parties set out why we believe that a declaratory system is essential to deliver on the Prime Minister’s commitment to EU citizens during the referendum campaign and subsequently, and to avoid a repeat of Windrush. This came up this morning in Brexit orals. In the Committee debate, I was pleased to get an important clarification from the Government on appeal rights, but I am afraid that I did not find the Minister’s speech on the broader issue of citizens’ rights at all reassuring. In a relatively convoluted argument—which the Secretary of State to a degree repeated this morning at Brexit questions—the Minister attempted to put the blame for the Windrush scandal on the safety net that ensured that victims could seek recourse against the treatment that they endure from immigration legislation and argued that the way to avoid a Windrush scandal for EU citizens was to take away the safety net provided by guaranteeing their rights.
We have already seen that almost half of applicants to the EU settlement scheme have not been granted settled status; they have been granted pre-settled status. Ministers have told us that we should be relaxed about this, claiming that pre-settled status is an automatic pathway to settled status. I am afraid we have every reason to be concerned, because it is not.
Catherine West
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real risk here that once again the Home Office is making a pig’s ear of this whole thing?
Paul Blomfield
Well, the Home Office has got form on these things, hasn’t it?
Let me explain why I am concerned specifically on this issue. Pre-settled status is intended for those EU citizens who have been living in the UK for less than five years. However, many EU citizens who have been living here far longer, many for decades, are being granted pre-settled status. They will be required to reapply to the scheme before their five years of leave under pre-settled status is up. If they do not, they will lose all their rights in the UK and, as the Home Office Minister pointed out, be liable to deportation.
Despite these risks, my understanding is— I would be very happy to be corrected— that the Government have no plans to notify EU citizens when their leave is about to expire, and prompt them to apply for settled status. If they do not even know of the need to reapply, many EU citizens will face the same difficulties evidencing their five years’ residency, so in any closing remarks from the Government Front Bench I would be grateful if Ministers can tell us what will happen to EU citizens who are granted pre-settled status for five years, then reapply to the scheme for settled status but are not able to evidence the required five years’ residence, which was the basic problem leading to their being granted pre-settled status in the first place.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the limitations of pre-settled status, but does he agree that there is as a gender element to this, too? Women, and particularly older women, who may have had many years of caring responsibilities and who may not have had their own bank accounts or paid the bills in the household may find it even more difficult to evidence that now and in the future?
Paul Blomfield
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and it came up in Committee. That is why I have pressed Ministers time and again to release their equalities impact assessment of the settled status scheme, which they have refused to do. That failure presents real worries.
The scheme is clearly open to error—and, as has been pointed out, the Home Office has form on these things. It has already thrown up problems, and it is therefore crucial that there is proper and independent monitoring. The independent monitoring authority was set up in the withdrawal agreement, but schedule 2 to the Bill makes it far from independent from Government. I hope this issue will be re-examined when the Bill moves to another place, to ensure that the Government are not allowed to mark their own homework.
The third, and most immediate and outrageous, consequence of the Bill will be to remove the commitments on unaccompanied child refugees. This was a heartless move by the Government, signalling their intention to abandon our moral commitments to the most vulnerable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was right to point out yesterday that this move is troubling because the measures on unaccompanied children in the EU withdrawal Act were previously supported by the Government and by this House. There is no good reason for them to be removed at this point.
Moving to the fourth point, we have had significant discussion on this and we saw a remarkable moment in the House yesterday. All the Northern Irish parties represented here joined together to table an amendment on the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol in response to the overwhelming calls from the business community there, who fear the deep and long-lasting effects of this agreement. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) was absolutely right to express her concern that in the two hours allocated to discussion of the protocol only one representative of Northern Ireland was given the chance to make a speech. By voting against new clause 55 yesterday and rejecting Labour’s amendment 1, the Government confirmed that they intend to avoid transparency about the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol and will continue to cut out the people of Northern Ireland from Brexit negotiations. There are clearly serious concerns across the House on that.
Finally, there were amendments on the future relationship with the European Union. The Bill paves the way for the UK to leave, as the Minister pointed out, on 31 January, but that is only the first part of the story. In our negotiations with the EU on our future relationship, Labour has consistently argued for a close economic partnership with our nearest neighbours and our biggest trading partner.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I would like to echo the comments about the diligent way in which he is going about this task. Does he agree that 52-48 was a mandate to move house but stay in the same neighbourhood? if we are actually about respecting the democratic mandate from 2016 that is about leaving the European Union—yes, leaving the political project—we should be staying aligned on workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer standards? That is respecting the democratic mandate from 2016.
Paul Blomfield
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which anticipate a point I was just about to make. He is absolutely right. Throughout this process we have called for alignment on workers’ rights, environmental standards, equalities and human rights not simply because that is right—although that is hugely important—but because it provides the basis for the close relationship on which our trade and our economic partnership with the European Union depends.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Gentleman’s decision to oppose the Bill today, since the consequence of the Bill going down would be us not leaving the European Union on 31 January, which is clearly still Labour policy. Is he actually saying that he wants, once we have left the European Union, future laws in this country on employment rights and the environment to still be decided not by this Parliament but by the European Union, without us having any involvement whatever in the shaping of those laws?
Paul Blomfield
I will explain precisely what I mean by my comments, which echo the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).
The last four years have divided our country like no others. It did not have to be like that. If only, after the referendum, when David Cameron ran away from the crisis he created, the then new Prime Minister had been straight with the British people. If only she had said that our country is split down the middle; it has voted to leave but by a painfully close margin of 52:48, which is a mandate to end our membership of the EU but not to rupture our relationship with our closest neighbours and most important trading partners. If she had said that we would leave but stay close—aligned with the single market in a customs union, and members of the agencies we have built together over 47 years—we would have supported her. She could have secured an overwhelming majority within this House. She could have brought the country together again after the divisions of the referendum. Instead, she pivoted to those whom her Chancellor—not those on the Opposition Benches but her Chancellor—described as the Brexit extremists in her party, risking the economy and security of our country. The Bill continues on that path. We have consistently rejected that approach, and that is why we will do so again today by voting the Bill down.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
May I welcome you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to your place? I look forward to your wisdom and benevolence.
In our age, hyperbole is commonplace. Exaggeration permeates debate and colours discourse. Superlatives litter our language. Yet there are few in this House who would disagree with my claim that it is almost impossible to exaggerate the significance of the Bill and what it facilitates—our departure from the European Union. The case I make today is that even more important than the Bill’s provisions is its purpose. Even more important than leaving is the reason that we are leaving. That is the people’s rejection of the prevailing political paradigm that the chatterati and glitterati, the denizens of the liberal elite, believed for years was beyond question. At the core of this perversity was an attachment to pan-nationalism and a consequent affection for supranational governance. This led, among the liberal establishment, to a diminished sense of meaningful place. They came to regard it as not just permissible but desirable to erode the familiar touchstones of enduring certainty.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Hayes
I won’t right at the moment; perhaps a little later. I know the hon. and learned Lady will want me to repeat that poetic phrase: the familiar touchstones of enduring certainty, epitomised by a spirit of local allegiance and a sense of national pride. The truth is that the bourgeois liberals—and at that point I give way to the hon. and learned Lady.
Joanna Cherry
I am not going to deny that I am a bourgeois liberal, but many people in Scotland who are not bourgeois liberals voted to remain in the European Union. Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the situation he is describing pertains in England but not in Scotland, where 62% of the population voted to remain and where my party, which I do not think really could be described as a bourgeois liberal party but does contain some old bourgeois liberals like myself, won 48 of the 59 seats? Will he do us the courtesy of acknowledging that he is talking about England, not Scotland?
Sir John Hayes
I congratulate the hon. and learned Lady on her honesty. She separates herself not only from most of her party but from most of the voters. She says that she is part of the bourgeois liberal elite, but they are not.
Joanna Cherry
The right hon. Gentleman has made a very personal comment about me separating myself from most of my voters. Would he like to explain why, if I have separated myself from most of my voters, my majority over the Conservative and Unionist party went from 1,000 to 12,000 votes in the general election?
Sir John Hayes
One day, if the hon. and learned Lady continues, and maybe she will for many, many years, she just might attain the 30,000 majority that I got in South Holland and the Deepings, but I think it is very unlikely indeed.
As I say, the bourgeois liberals find it hard to stomach that hard-working British patriots do not share their affection for globalisation and their preoccupation with diversity.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Hayes
No, I won’t give way, because I want to make some progress as others want to speak.
Those hard-working patriots prefer tradition, order and established values to the politically correct, poisonous cocktail of egalitarianism and assertive individualism. This paradigm shift is at the heart of the message broadcast first in the 2016 referendum and then still more loudly in the general election at the end of last year. GK Chesterton spoke of the people who had “not spoken yet”. Well, the people have now spoken. They have spoken loudly, clearly and decisively. They have sent a message that this House had better hear. On the Conservative Benches I think we have. Indeed, not only have we heard it, we have rearticulated it and we are proud to do so.
Sir John Hayes
I have the greatest regard for the hon. Gentleman and so on that basis alone I will happily give way to him.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is being very kind in giving way. I would not want to puncture his balloon too much, but here goes. The reality is not as he paints it. The reality is that 43% of people voting in a first-past-the-post system is why all this is happening. It is not that the great British whatever he wants to call them decided it, but that 43% in first past the post and the winner takes all. It is not the great sweep of the proletariat or the bourgeois, or whatever he wants to call it.
Sir John Hayes
I do not want to go off on a tangent. Despite what I described earlier as your wisdom and benevolence, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would not let me, but I will just say this to the hon. Gentleman. This Prime Minister went to the people, at some risk to himself and to others on the Conservative Benches, and put a very clear message to them. He essentially said, “I cannot make progress in the current parliamentary arrangement because of the arithmetic. Do you want me to deliver Brexit? Do you want to get Brexit done or don’t you?” The British people said, “That is exactly what we want you to do.” They have sent us here to do just that. Any further prevarication or hesitation will, frankly, ring hollow in the ears of those people. I simply advise the hon. Gentleman that in victory the test of character is humility, but in defeat the test of character is being wise enough to learn the lessons of that defeat. One or two people on the Opposition Benches have learnt those lessons and have made that clear, but others need to do so very quickly indeed.
I know that others want to contribute, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion by saying this. The Bill is the first step not on a trip to a different place but on a return journey: a return journey for this United Kingdom to hope, to patriotism and to greatness.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Third Reading to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill because the Scottish Parliament has not consented to those parts of the Bill which encroach on devolved competencies, and because it fails to take into account the fact that the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union; and further believes that the Bill is not fit for purpose as it continues to undermine the fundamental principles of the Scotland Act 1998 by reserving to the UK Parliament powers that would otherwise be devolved to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the European Union.
I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your new position in the big comfy chair—hopefully you have your feet up on the footstool.
I thank all the staff of the Public Bill Office and the Clerks for the support that they have given right across the House in helping to put the Bills together and in helping Members to draw up and submit amendments, which is no easy thing for many of us. They have had to do that through all the stages of Brexit legislation, and all of us should thank them for their work.
Despite all the understandable triumphalism after winning the election in England, we see in this Prime Minister’s deal the potential of a repeat of the Brexit saga of the last three and a half years, as through hubris he is making similar mistakes to his predecessor. She painted herself into a corner with her red lines before carrying out an economic assessment to decide what form of Brexit would be least damaging. There has been no economic assessment of this deal. The last one was in 2018, on the Chequers “cake and eat it” plan, which was such a fairy tale that we could hear the unicorns galloping down Whitehall.
The former Prime Minister launched the article 50 process, with its fixed end-date and the clock ticking all the time, without a scooby as to what the UK actually wanted to ask for from the EU. This Prime Minister has made it illegal to extend transition despite the fact that 11 months is a ridiculously short time to negotiate even a basic free trade deal, let alone the complex shopping list of the political declaration.
The former Prime Minister kept her cards close to her chest, so Parliament had no input or influence on the withdrawal deal as it developed. The removal of clause 31 from the Bill means that Parliament, and indeed devolved Governments, will have no influence on the future relationship with the EU, despite the impact on all our constituents and local industries.
The former Prime Minister was then terribly shocked that, when she finally produced her deal, it was such a flop, drawn like a lifeless rabbit out of a hat and rejected by those on both sides of the Brexit debate, including the current Prime Minister. Members of this House are being sidelined and can therefore only wonder what the future relationship will look like when it is eventually unveiled in December.
Sir William Cash
I say, first, how much I respect the hon. Lady. She sits on the European Scrutiny Committee, which I have had the honour to Chair for some time.
On the question of how the negotiations were conducted—as she knows, we have been conducting our investigation into that—a very important point that we made was that the terms and conditions were set by the European Union and accepted by the UK. That will change now because of the general election result—I just thought that I would make that observation.
Dr Whitford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I think that the tone was set when we saw the former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), turn up to the first meeting with not a piece of paper in his hand to meet the EU negotiators. That was rather naive.
Early in her premiership, the former Prime Minister spoke of consulting across the House, and across the UK, before she went to Europe, but she never did. This Prime Minister has sought no common ground, within this Parliament or with the devolved nations, despite the fact that two of them voted to remain.
Brexit was never defined during the referendum. Indeed, Nigel Farage and some of the most ardent Brexiteers suggested that of course the UK would stay in the single market—that it would be madness to leave. They just wanted to get back to a common market.
The Scottish Government’s report, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, put forward as early as December 2016— three months before the article 50 letter was sent—the compromise proposal that the UK should stay in the single market and customs union. With a 52:48 referendum result, that might even have provided the basis of a compromise between leavers who did not want closer political union and remainers who wanted to keep as many EU benefits as possible. However, if England and Wales wanted to diverge further, the proposal was that Scotland and Northern Ireland should be allowed to stay in the single market and customs union, which would have respected how those nations voted.
Sadly, the proposals were dismissed by the Government out of hand, and the fact that 62% of Scottish voters voted to remain has been completely ignored, with no quarter given and no compromise offered. Indeed, Scotland and the majority of her elected representatives have been treated with growing disrespect in this place over the last three and half years. I gently point out that we do actually have television and the internet in Scotland and that this is being seen by the Scottish people.
Our request for a devolved or, at least, regionalised immigration process after Brexit has also been dismissed, despite Scotland’s demographic need for immigration. We have to be able to ensure that EU citizens, who have made their home in Scotland—including my other half—can stay without being exposed to the notorious hostile environment of the Home Office, but, in future, we also need to be able to attract immigrants from Europe and across the world. With the risk to our public services and key industries such as tourism and farming, and the threat of depopulation in the highlands and islands, this UK Government are certainly not acting in Scotland’s interests.
The UK Government have already taken the overall power to set the rules in 24 areas of devolved competence. All that the Scottish and Welsh Governments requested was that any new UK frameworks should be agreed rather than imposed, but the Tory Government refused—hardly the respect agenda that we used to hear so much about. With the inclusion of fishing, farming, food standards, food safety and food labelling, as well as public procurement, it is clear that this is about being able to tie up Scotland and sell it out in a trade deal. This power grab already drives a coach and horses through the Scotland Act 1998, but in voting down yesterday my simple amendment to protect the devolution Acts from sweeping delegated powers we saw a Government taking power to alter the devolution settlement without even parliamentary scrutiny.
Last night, the Scottish Parliament voted by 92 to 29 to withhold legislative consent from the Bill, due to the risk that it poses to Scotland and the current devolution settlement. Ignoring this voice and riding roughshod over the legislative consent process after 20 years of devolution will undermine the very Union that Conservative Members protest to hold so dear.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I heartily congratulate you on your re-election, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I wish you and the new team the very best of luck in your endeavours as you work with the new House.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on her speech. She made her points very well, but she will not be surprised that I disagree with virtually every single word. Above all, I disagree with her attitude and the gloom and the misery on the Opposition Benches, when I see this as a day of great celebration.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) on coming top of the private Members’ Bill ballot today; I hope he chooses a subject that gets agreement across the House. A long time ago, in 2005, I came 16th in the ballot. I must acknowledge the part played by my near constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He and I worked together closely drafting a private Member’s Bill, the European Communities Act 1972 (Disapplication) Bill, in which was used the memorable “notwithstanding” phrase, in clause 1(2):
“This subsection applies to any enactment which includes the words: ‘The provisions of this enactment shall take effect notwithstanding the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.’”
Sir William Cash
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wording of this Bill’s parliamentary sovereignty clause, clause 39, which is about to pass its Third Reading, is exactly the same as that in our private Member’s Bill and in the amendment I tabled in 1986?
Mr Paterson
With great prescience, my hon. Friend makes exactly the point I was about to make. Here we are, 15 years later, and, moved by the Government, the “notwithstanding” clause is going into law, subject to the other place being sensible. I pay tribute to him. He has been mocked, traduced and insulted, but he has stood for the simple democratic principle that members of the public, every few years, are given the opportunity to vote for individual human beings to come to this place and make laws. If those laws are satisfactory, they will get re-elected; if not, they will get booted out. They will be sent here to raise money by extracting it compulsorily, by law, from people’s bank accounts—that is what taxation is—and if that money is well spent, they will be re-elected; if it is not, they will be kicked out. It is an incredibly simple, basic idea. I find it staggering that we are still today listening to miseries from the Opposition Benches cavilling about this simple principle.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I will give the right hon. Gentleman something joyous to think about: 57% of the people of the United Kingdom did not vote for him or his Government, yet because of our dodgy system, as the 43% and people across the world can see, the Conservative party is in charge—winner takes all.
Mr Paterson
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not mention that 56% of the votes in the recent general election were for parties that wanted to keep Scotland inside the United Kingdom.
I have made this point many times, so I will be very brief. How many more times do the people have to be listened to? We had the Cameron referendum promise, which granted a very clear in/out referendum. We had the referendum itself. [Interruption.] It’s no good the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) shaking his head. Four times the people have spoken. The result of the referendum was clear: 17.4 million people voted to leave. We then had the 2017 election, when the Labour party and the Conservative party stood on a platform of honouring the referendum result, and 80% of the votes went to parties who promised that. Still the people did not get what they wanted.
With the complexities of the last Parliament, we had the creation of the Brexit party. Incredibly, that party, from nowhere, came top in the European elections. The Conservative party managed to come fifth behind the Greens, which was a remarkable achievement. Then we had the recent election. Yet again, people were bombarded with propaganda, and told they were racist and stupid, and again they voted in huge numbers for the very simple principle that they should send Members of Parliament here to make their laws and that if they cannot make satisfactory laws, they can be removed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Paterson
No. I’m not giving way. We know where the Scottish nationalists are coming from, because they make the same point every time. Just to keep them happy, though, I will give them a little anecdote.
In the town where I was born, Whitchurch, we have six polling stations in one building, the civic centre. On referendum day, people came up to me off a building site, covered in dust, and said, “It is good to see you here, Mr Paterson, because it’s about them”. I asked, “Who’s them?” They said, “We can get rid of you, we can vote you out, but we cannot get rid of them”, and then they made the very telling point, “You can do nothing about them either”.
We had an interesting debate yesterday about this. We can do absolutely nothing about European law, which is imposed upon us. I had the honour to serve on the European Scrutiny Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. One day, a Labour Member was ill and a Liberal Democrat got stuck in the lift and we managed to vote that a measure on the dairy industry—of great interest to my constituents—would be passed for a vote on the Floor of the House. It would not have been amendable, but we could have made our points. What happened? The Leader of the House at the time, the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), turned up at business questions and said, “You’re not even having a debate”. That was the amount of scrutiny we had. I find it extraordinary that people do not welcome the chance to scrutinise Ministers. From now on, they will be able to harpoon Ministers who make bad decisions. They can have Adjournment debates and criticise law. We can get law amended and repealed. None of that will apply to European law until we pass the Bill.
There are so many areas where European law has damaged this country, but the winner by a mile is still fish. In 2005, as shadow Fisheries Minister, I wrote a green paper called “A Consultation on a National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters”. It is the paper on which we fought the 2005 general election. For the first time, a serious political party proposed repatriating a power. I come from North Shropshire. One of the most fascinating experiences of my 22 years here was going all around the coast of the UK—right up to Whalsay, right down to Cornwall and Dover—but above all going to the maritime nations of Norway, the Faroes, Iceland, Newfoundland in Canada and then down the east coast of the United States. I also went to the Falklands. It was extraordinary to see how modern techniques could bring thriving fishing communities—some of the most remote communities in the world—wealth, prosperity, jobs and investment.
By contrast, in this country we have utter devastation. This wonderful occupation delivered wealth and jobs for centuries until we were stupid enough to give the power to the continental level, and we now have the shameful, wicked waste of 1 million tonnes of fish thrown back dead into the sea as pollution every year, and yet Opposition Members this afternoon are defending staying in the EU and the common fisheries policy.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend will remember that I was shadow Fisheries Minister before him. I was very good and he was even better. The truth is—this is the question that Opposition Members in particular need to answer—that the CFP was not only disastrous for fishing communities and fishermen; it was also a conservation disaster for our oceans. Anyone who signs up to the EU signs up to the CFP and the decimation of our oceans.
Mr Paterson
My right hon. Friend is quite right. The opening line of my paper said:
“The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform.”
Today we are giving ourselves the power to reform it and take back this power. I would like those on the Front Bench to remember that this is a crucial, totemic issue. We have to take back full power and complete control over our exclusive economic zone and all the marine resources within it.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Given his previous experience, I am sure my right hon. Friend was coming to this point, but does he agree that in the negotiating phase, which we would have been into 10 months ago had Opposition Members voted for the original deal, we must not trade access to our waters for a free trade agreement, and that, despite the scare- mongering—perhaps even wishful thinking—from Opposition Members, there is no evidence that the Government will do that?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend, who speaks with great knowledge of this subject and represents his constituents so well, has just spoken with total wisdom. It is fundamental that we do not make the mistake of the 1970s, and allow the allocation of fish resources to be a trading card in these negotiations.
We have said that we will take back control, and I am looking at the Secretary of State. We will take back full control, and we will then behave like a normal independent maritime nation. We will have the very best bilateral relations with our neighbours, exactly like Norway and exactly like Iceland, and, on an annual basis, we will have discussions and possibly do reciprocal deals with them. Let me say emphatically that we must not allow fisheries to be snarled up in these negotiations.
I was disappointed yesterday that President von der Leyen—in what I thought was a very interesting speech, much of which I welcomed—talked of a
“partnership that goes well beyond trade”,
and mentioned fisheries. That is unacceptable. As my hon. Friend has just said, it is absolutely essential that we take full, total, sovereign control of the EEZ and all that is within it, and that from then on we negotiate as an independent maritime nation.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will, of course, recall that prior to our accession to the common market, there was no common fisheries policy. It was concocted entirely in anticipation of our accession, so that our waters could be plundered.
Mr Paterson
I want to move on, because others wish to speak.
I really hope that Ministers take this on board. It is fundamental that we take back full control, and, however much pressure we are under from our current European partners, regain our status as an independent nation, partly because of the environmental harm—the shocking shame of throwing back a million tonnes of fish.
There is one other issue which we did not have time to discuss fully yesterday, and which I hope very much will be resolved in the negotiations. That is the essential benefit of a comprehensive free trade agreement whereby Northern Ireland will be level-pegging with the rest of the UK on every aspect of policy, which will mean that we can drop the current protocol. As the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), agreed yesterday in reply to me, the current protocol is a fallback position. With a comprehensive free trade agreement, all the complexities such as the worries of the Northern Ireland business community—mentioned yesterday by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield)—will fall away, and we will also have a great opportunity to embrace growth around the world.
It is worth pointing out that our exports to the EU grew by 1.3% last year and now total £296.8 billion, while our exports to non-EU countries grew by 6.3%, reaching £376.7 billion. The European Commission itself has said that 95% of world growth over the next 20 years will be outside the European Union, which is why the International Monetary Fund predicts that soon the only continent with a slower rate of growth than Europe will be Antarctica. This is a great day for our economy. This is a great day to escape all the rubbish on the other side about gloom and doom. If we do a proper, comprehensive deal, we will have opportunities to work with the 11 countries in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—which represent 13.4% of GDP—and, of course, we will have a huge opportunity to do a deal very rapidly with the United States.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
If we can just assume that the right hon. Gentleman’s Brexit utopia will not happen, we are only 11 months away from a no-deal crash-out. We have 11 months in which to agree and ratify all the trade agreements with the EU. The right hon. Gentleman is a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Can he tell us what is the magic technology that is available to man the borders and prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal crash-out, bearing in mind that it has been said that there will no infrastructure at the border either?
Mr Paterson
We have done much work on that, assessing alternative arrangements, and I have fed into this. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, these issues have been massively exaggerated. There is a border today for VAT, there is a border today for excise duties, there is a border today for alcohol duties, and there is a border today for currency. It works perfectly smoothly with modern technologies, and that will continue.
Yet again, the Scottish National party is anti-business, cavilling away and looking for problems. There are fantastic opportunities for Scotland. Our largest export industry is food and drink, and a large element of that is Scottish whisky. When I was in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we calculated that if we did a deal with India, where there are currently duties of up to 550%, and we got duties down, there is not enough distilling capacity in the whole of Scotland to satisfy thirsty Indian quality whisky drinkers.
On that happy note, let me add that the other great opportunity is of course the United States, and I urge the Government to move rapidly. From 1 February we should be negotiating rapidly in parallel with the 11 countries of the CPTPP, and we should be moving rapidly to a deal with the United States. I met President Trump in October. For all the colourful aspects of his character, which are much criticised, he is probably the most pro-British President we have had for decades, and we have an extraordinarily well-informed and active US ambassador in Woody Johnson. We will never have another team that is so well disposed towards us. However, the window is tight, given the presidential election timetable, and I strongly urge the Government to push on rapidly. As we saw yesterday, the European Union wants to drag its heels. If we can do a deal with the CPTPP and the United States, that will probably shame the EU into doing a deal with us.
I wish the Bill well, but, touching on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), I give a very clear warning to those who will deal with it in the other place. They are overwhelmingly for remain, and many of them benefit from their previous employment in the European Commission. However, they should respect four massive votes from the people. The Bill has gone through this House rapidly. Notwithstanding the bleating from the official Opposition, we did not use the time available in the last two days: on both Tuesday and Wednesday, we bunked off early because the Loyal Opposition could not come up with enough good arguments or speakers. Indeed, they can hardly man their own Benches. I hope that those in the other place have watched what has happened.
The Government have a clear and determined goal, which is to honour those votes, honour the result of the general election, and ensure that we leave the European Union at 11 o’clock on the evening of 31 January. I look forward to voting for the Bill’s Third Reading tonight.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to see you back where you belong, Mr Deputy Speaker—in the Chair—and I congratulate you on your stunning success in securing that position. I think that we have a fantastic team of Deputy Speakers, and I look forward to serving under you for years to come.
I wish I could say that it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), but it is not. I think that I represent the almost extreme other side of the Brexit debate. I usually say that it is good to speak in a Third Reading debate, but unfortunately I cannot say that either. This is something that the people of Scotland will very much regret and mourn. We are not “leaving” the European Union; we are being taken out of the European Union against our national collective will, and believe me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is something that will not stand.
As is conventional on Third Reading, I shall offer my congratulations to a series of speakers. I congratulate the Secretary of State—who has just departed—and his team on getting the Bill through the House of Commons. He is the one Secretary of State to be actually attuned with his Prime Minister, unlike a succession of others who did not quite see to eye with their Prime Ministers and the direction in which their Brexit was travelling. I also pay tribute to all the Opposition teams, and, in particular, to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who has just assumed her new role and who, as always, has led our debate with such distinction and articulateness.
The people I most want to congratulate, however, are the real winners of today, the hard Brexiteers and the Farageists. Their success has been total, brutal and absolute. Not only have they managed to secure the hard Brexit that they have craved for years, but, with this Bill, they have kept in place the bullseye, the gold standard, of all hard Brexits—the possibility of a no-deal departure from the European Union. Their anti-European obsession will be quenched today: insatiable lifetime ambitions of wrenching this country out of the EU will be realised. Their victory is even more impressive because they started as a small, insignificant, cult-like fringe on the edge of the Conservative party. Such is their tenacity and commitment to the cause that they have now gone mainstream. Just one generation ago they were the B-A-S-T-ards of John Major folklore. Now they run the country. Their commitment to the cause has been so absolutely determined that they were prepared to bring down their own Prime Ministers to get their way—[Interruption.] And I shall give way to one of them now.
Sir William Cash
I thought it might be helpful if I could distinguish ourselves from what the hon. Gentleman described as the Farageists, for the simple reason that UKIP and now the Brexit Party were never going to form a Government. They could therefore never negotiate, nor could they legislate and nor could they deliver Brexit. They have now been reduced to dust by the decision that was taken by the British people, including in Labour leave marginal constituencies. It is the Conservative party that has now come back into its own and is doing the right thing for the right reason in the national interest.
Pete Wishart
I am so grateful to the high priest of hard Brexiteers. The reason that UKIP and the Farageists—whatever incarnation they are on just now—have disappeared is that they have become the Conservative party. Their whole agenda has been accepted and subsumed into the Conservative party so that it is almost impossible to tell the modern Conservative party from the UKIP and the Farageists of the past.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
That victory is so complete that, on 43%, their utter arrogance is such that they never need to go back and check with the people that they are doing the right thing. In Scotland, on 45%, we demand a referendum, not to do what we want but to ask the people if they want independence. But that is not for the Brexiteers, oh no; on 43% they will do what they want. The arrogance is massive on that side.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend makes a good and concise point. I want to return to some of these issues, and I hope that he will come back in, because I think that this is worth being aired, discussed and debated in this House. It is an important key issue—[Interruption.] I can tell that the high priest wants to come back in again, and I will obviously indulge him.
Sir William Cash
The Maastricht rebellion took place in 1992-93, long before either UKIP or the Brexit party was even really thought of.
Pete Wishart
There is a fascinating journal, account and book to be written about this, and I am looking forward to the hon. Member’s memoirs after all this.
I want to pay tribute to some of the other people who have won today, in the great victory of this Brexit. I know that the Conservatives will, uncharitably, not do this, but somebody has to congratulate Nigel Farage. It is his vision that has been realised today. Without Nigel Farage, there would be no Brexit. Without the pressure that was put on the Conservative party from whatever incarnation of his party existed at the time, there would not be the hard Brexit that they are all celebrating today. Come on, Conservatives—give the man a peerage, for goodness’ sake! He, more than anybody else, deserves it. And wouldn’t it be comedy gold for a man who rails against unelected politicians to be given an unelected place in the legislature? Please do it, just for the comedy value.
We are not just passing a piece of legislation today. We are actually entering into a new age, a new epoch: the age of hard Brexitism. Everything that this House does from this point on will be informed and directed by this new atmosphere, culture and direction of the United Kingdom. I am trying to think of a poster boy for the new hard Brexit age, and the only thing that comes to my mind is the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) in combat casuals flying a Spitfire to the sound of hope and glory heading straight to the ground because his aircraft has suffered engine failure. That is the image that comes to mind in the new Brexit age, and God help us as we go forward. It is viciously right-wing and isolationist, and takes no account of the views of anywhere else around the whole world today. It is this new age of hard Brexit that we are now entering into.
I am looking around for some of the other hon. Members on the Conservative Benches. Obviously the right hon. Member for North Shropshire is here, but I am looking for the newly knighted dark lord of Brexit austerity, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He is not in his place, and neither is the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who so excited us with his tales of English nationalism. None of them is here, but all of them have to be congratulated. They are now the mainstream of the Conservative party. They effectively manipulated what was a moderate centrist party to become this party of Brexit extremists. They booted out all the moderates; none of them is here now. There is no debate or discussion, or any sort of contradiction of the views of hard Brexiteers any more, because they have booted all the moderates out. This is the new Conservative consensus, and I hope that the party today in the Bulldog Club is generous and full of largesse, and that they very much enjoy it.
Sir Desmond Swayne
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) spoke of the gloom and doom on the other side of the Chamber, and I think that the hon. Gentleman put his finger on it in his complaint about the hardness of this particular Brexit. What was clear throughout the Committee stage was the harking back of Opposition Members to a previous Bill that did not make it through this House in December of last year. It did not make it through this House because those Members voted against the programme motion, and they now feel guilt for having delivered the very situation about which he complains, but which we rather regard as the intervention of providence.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know he is tempting me to speak about the Labour party, but that is just cruelty. I will resist the opportunity to say a few words to Labour Members, other than: for goodness’ sake get your act together, because you have to be an Opposition. Not one of their Back Benchers is standing to be called in this debate today, which shows how humble they have become in this whole debate. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a bit rich blaming a useless Labour party for sinking that last Brexit deal, because it was the hard Brexiteers who brought it down. They were prepared to sink their own Prime Minister and reject a deal because of their ultimate vision, objective and all-consuming obsession with the hardest of hard Brexits, which is what is being delivered today.
Alan Brown
It is ironic that the Conservatives are now saying, “You should have voted for our crap deal, but now we’ve made the deal even crappier, so get it up ye.” Does that not sum it right up?
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend has a very delicate use of phrase, and I have to say that nothing could be put more elegantly than that. That is well understood from this side of the House.
The Brexit deal could have been anything. It could have involved a customs union or single market membership. It could have been Canada-plus-plus-plus or Norway-minus-minus-minus, but it is none of those. It is the hardest of hard Brexits because nothing else was good enough for the Conservatives, and that is what is being passed today.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Not only that; their victory has been so total that it has also been a victory over arithmetic. They know, or they should know, that their Brexit is going to damage GDP and economic growth by 5% to 6%, and that even if they get a trade deal with every country in the world, they can only make up 1.4% of that. America is only going to give them 0.2%, or a thirtieth of the damage they are going to do. To make up this damage, they are going to have to find 47 planets populated with people as rich as Americans today. That is the level of damage and arithmetical oversight that the hard Brexiteers have achieved in their victory. Numbers do not matter to a Tory party that was once obsessed with numbers. This is just the sweep of Brexit harking back to the 19th century and probably to opium wars and gunboat diplomacy. That is where their minds are stuck, sadly. The unfortunate thing is that the rest of us across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are going to pay a very heavy price for their lunacy.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very brief intervention. All I can say to him is that they couldn’t care less about the economy or about the damage to the UK. They couldn’t care less about our relationship, about isolationism or about all the other things that this Brexit does. The only thing they care about is their hard Brexit. That is the only thing that has underpinned their whole approach in the course of the past few years. That is the only thing they wanted. Nothing else mattered other than securing a hard Brexit, so there will be huge celebrations down the Bulldog Club tonight and I hope the champagne tastes good. Will we be celebrating in the White Heather Club in Scotland, or here? Nobody bothered to ask me. Well, no, we will not. We most certainly will not be celebrating this Bill passing today.
The Government may have won their hard Brexit, but they have most definitely lost Scotland. Nothing could sum up the alienation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom more than the passing of this Bill. This Bill symbolises the difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I sometimes think this House forgets Scotland’s relationship with this Brexit disaster and chaos, so let me gently remind Conservative Members what happened. One MP was voted from Scotland with a mandate for the EU referendum, and one MP from Scotland voted for the Bill that allowed a referendum to take place. When Scotland was obliged to vote in an EU referendum that it had nothing to do with, we voted 62% to remain.
Now, people may have thought, given all that has happened, that Scotland’s voice would be accommodated, listened to and somehow taken account of—not a bit of it. Every representation was rejected. Everything to try to minimise the blow to a Scotland that wanted to stay in the European Union was ignored out of hand before the ink was even dry. Everything that we brought forward that said, “Listen. Maybe we have a different view about Brexit than the rest of you down here,” was totally and utterly ignored and disrespected.
That is why yesterday, when the Scottish Parliament was asked to agree to a legislative consent motion to allow the Government to progress and pursue this hard Brexit, the Scottish Parliament overwhelmingly said no, and only the rump of Scottish Conservatives in that Parliament voted for it. Will that matter to this Government? Will that be listened to? Absolutely not. It will be rejected, ignored and disrespected. I say to Conservative Members that that is what is driving the new demand for Scottish independence. We will no longer be ignored, disrespected, and rejected out of hand. That is why we are back here with 48 Members. That is why we have 80% of the vote. That is what the people of Scotland voted for.
Pete Wishart
I am going to enjoy this intervention from a representative of the Scottish Conservatives, who lost half their seats. Why did that happen?
David Duguid
I just want to gently correct the hon. Gentleman. I do enjoy hearing him speak, and we have been known to share a stage together, in fact, because I enjoy his entertainment that much. I will gently correct what he may have said inadvertently. He said that 80% of the vote in Scotland—
David Duguid
—80% of the seats—[Interruption.] Listen, I have absolutely no compunction about accepting that the SNP gained seats in Scotland during last month’s UK general election. We lost some seats, but it was ultimately a general election to form a Government in this place, not a general election in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon is not the Prime Minister. On the percentage of the vote, I gently say that 55% of people in Scotland voted for Unionist parties, not for the SNP—[Interruption.] I have made my point.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is of course right that the SNP won only 80% of the seats, and I am glad that that is on the record. I say ever so gently to him that it is all very well him standing up and telling me to correct all that, but his party in Scotland has one message—I do not expect him to dispute this—and all the signs in the fields of Perthshire and Banff and Buchan and all the leaflets that went through every door said, “Vote Scottish Conservative to stop indyref 2.” All he needs to do is shake his head. That was the main message.
Pete Wishart
No, he should just let me finish, then I will let him come back in. That was the main message put out by the Scottish Conservatives at the general election. The result was that they lost more than half their Members of Parliament. They said, “Send Nicola Sturgeon a message,” and the Scottish people did. The message they sent was, “We want to decide our own future.” The hon. Gentleman must be a little humbler about what happened. He must accept his defeat and understand the reason behind it because at some point—not today, next week, or next month—he will have to respect Scottish democracy. He will have to say that it is up to the Scottish people to determine their own future.
David Duguid
On the subject of democracy, this should be well known, but I point out to the House that each and every SNP Member has two main jobs. One is to speak for their constituents, of which the SNP has more because it won more seats. The other is to speak for their party. It is not necessarily their job, solely, to speak for Scotland. The SNP does not represent Scotland. I am just as much a Scottish MP. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I accepted my defeat, but I won my seat. I am here with an increased majority, thank you very much.
Pete Wishart
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that, but he really must accept what is happening in Scotland. Something dramatic is going on. I think all of us agree that there will be another referendum at some point, because things are totally and utterly—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are saying no. Did my hon. Friends hear them?
Pete Wishart
We heard them say no, but whenever they say no to Scotland and say that they will deny Scottish democracy, the only thing that that does—this is a note of caution to Conservative Members—is drive support for Scottish independence. The more they say no to us, the more we will assert our rights, and the idea of Scottish independence will continue to grow and will overrun and consume them.
My little bit of advice to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is to say, “Just get on with it.” Just give us that independence referendum and acknowledge that we are on a different trajectory to the hard Brexit UK that they want. They can have their hard Brexit. If that is what they want, and if they want an isolationist United Kingdom, please have it. That is their choice and their democratic right. Nobody is preventing them from doing that, and I will be the first person to say, “Good luck.” Let us hope they get on and make a success of it, but do not hold my country back, do not subsume my country into what they are trying to achieve. We do not want it, and we have told them that on numerous occasions. It is over. Scotland will be an independent country, and the sooner this House recognises that, the better.
I will finish now, because I realise that I have kept the House attention’s for long enough. The battle for hard Brexit is over, and Conservative Members have won, but the battle for Scottish independence has just begun.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is good to see you return to your place, as have I. I know that you will correct me if I say that I am making my maiden speech, but it feels a little like that. With your Welsh heritage, I hope that you will allow me a little leeway to talk about my new constituency and pay tribute to a person whom we will all miss: my predecessor, Glyn Davies.
I wanted to make my non-maiden speech on the Third Reading of this Bill, because I was reminded by a colleague that they had looked me up on TheyWorkForYou and saw that I done little speaking for two and a half years, so I hope that I can correct the record, because I have very little opportunity to do so. I have worked with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Front-Bench team for several months in different guises, and I pay tribute to him and his team for their diligent professionalism. He has overseen a very difficult situation over the past six months.
This feels a little like Groundhog Day—not giving another maiden speech but talking about this particular subject. I recall being encouraged to leave Parliament by a different constituency when we were on this subject, and I have now returned with a healthier majority while we are still on this subject, and I appreciate that we can now get it done.
If I may say a bit about my home, the seat I now represent is not just my constituency but my home—born and bred. Montgomeryshire is incredibly important to me and was important to my predecessor. It is an old county of Wales and forms the gateway to mid-Wales, covering an area from Welshpool over to Machynlleth, which was the seat of the Welsh Parliament in days gone by, to Llanidloes and Llandinam. It is good to see my neighbours by my side, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones). It is truly wonderful—other Members across the House will feel the same—to represent somewhere that I call home.
There are issues—they will, of course, be pertinent to this Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker—that I will look to champion, and it has been terrific over the past month to see so many opportunities and ideas come to the fore as we settle the Brexit issue.
I have been given many ideas by organisations, such as opening the Montgomeryshire canal to the network. The Welshpool and Llanfair railway campaign captured the spirit of both Montgomeryshire and this country, and it received the Queen’s award for voluntary service. This week—just to reinforce the fact that Powys and Montgomeryshire are not complacent on any issue, despite our being the safest place in England and Wales—we received the knife angel, which is touring the country to demonstrate and reinforce the message that we need to engage with the community on knife crime and other serious crime to minimise it as much as we can.
I hope the House will forgive me for spending some time paying tribute Glyn Davies, my immediate predecessor, who is a great man. He has 50 years of public service to date, and it is not capped. I know Glyn and, in fact, I was with him on the weekend as he continued his public service. I am sure he will continue in some guise. I know the House will miss him, but I can assure the House that I will not miss him because he will continue to guide, advise, inform and, I am sure, take part in Montgomeryshire life.
Glyn’s passion for representing his home, his passion for Welsh politics and his passion for his nation, Wales—and for the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, before my Celtic cousins start—inspired me early in life, and he is one of the reasons I got involved in politics. He is one of the reasons I stand before the House again, representing my home seat. That other true son of Montgomeryshire, who I am sure will either read or listen to this debate, can be very proud of what he has achieved, having been an Assembly Member, a councillor and a Member of Parliament. At his tender age, which I will not mention, he is fit and able. I will send the House’s good wishes to him.
This Third Reading debate is a significant moment for the House and the country, and it presents me with an opportunity to talk about some of the issues I will seek to champion during my time as the Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire. I represent one of the most rural seats in England and Wales—I would be immediately corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire if I claimed it was the biggest in England and Wales—and it has both agriculture and tourism, with the former being primarily affected by this Bill.
I was taken by the exchange at DExEU questions this morning, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) spoke precisely about the challenges and opportunities facing hilltop farmers as we leave the EU. He spoke about how the Brexit vote and bringing sovereign power back to this place, which we are doing right now, will mean that we can do things differently. I am heartened to see us moving straightaway on our manifesto commitments on agricultural funding to 2024, and I will be working with the Assembly Member for Montgomeryshire, Russell George—he is a Conservative Assembly Member, so I had better mention him—and the Welsh Government to ensure that that funding and support continues and gives certainty to farmers.
Agriculture is important, but so is tourism. This Bill will now provide certainty. For those who have not visited Montgomeryshire, I give a special shout out to Lake Vyrnwy. The private investment in the hotel and the wider developments at Lake Vyrnwy will push on at pace now that we have certainty on where this country will be going next. That certainty on opening up infrastructure is important to a rural area.
I will mention my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire one last time because I want to work with him on opening up the important Pant-Llanymynech bypass. I will continue apace so that Mr Deputy Speaker does not notice my getting that into this debate.
Finally, the Union is incredibly important to me. I realise that this is not a maiden speech and Members can intervene—I will tiptoe around it so that my SNP colleagues will be kind—but the Union is important to Montgomeryshire and the Welsh Conservative party. It is important to think about the Union in relation to the withdrawal agreement.
When we joined the European Union, the United Kingdom’s powers on agricultural support were given to Brussels en bloc as we joined a bigger single market. We are now leaving, and we will be forming a single market between the four nations of the United Kingdom. It is incredibly important to the farmers, businesses and residents I represent in Montgomeryshire that there is a united and regulated framework that allows us to keep our porous border between England and Wales and to continue as one of the most successful Unions in the world.
I will continue to champion the role of Wales, as my nation, in the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I will build on the work of my predecessors, such as Glyn Davies and Lord Carlile. So many things have changed over the two and a half years that I have not been here, but there are many similarities. It is good to see Lord Davies of Gower in the Gallery, as it was a privilege to watch his maiden speech in the other place yesterday. I am heartened to see him return favour.
So many things have changed, but there are some similarities. I am delighted to represent my home, and I am delighted to take part in this important Third Reading debate. I pay tribute to all the parliamentarians on both sides of the House, the civil servants and the other bodies that have got through what looked from the outside, at times, like quite a challenging two and a half years. I hope we can now move on, and I am glad to have given my semi-maiden speech on Third Reading.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the honour of calling me to give my maiden speech, especially on this European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill that has dominated our political life for years and will dominate and define our country for a generation or more. There could not be anything more important to speak about.
I start by thanking God, and I start as I mean to go on by thanking the residents of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields for putting their faith in me and for electing me to represent them. I also thank my family for all their support.
I pay tribute to my predecessor Justine Greening, who is held in very high respect for being a hard-working local MP. Many people told me during the campaign and before that she made their issues her own. She championed local causes and, nationally, she championed the cause of social mobility. She represented our views on Brexit, even when it cost her politically. We can always have a few more independent-minded female MPs, and I wish her and the Social Mobility Foundation all the very best.
Putney, Southfields and Roehampton are fantastic places to live and work. We have the best of urban London life, the river and brilliant green spaces. For any new MP looking for their London home, I cannot imagine anywhere better. Please come to Putney.
We have a strong community. We have faith groups, residents associations, great pubs to meet up in and community organisations that bring people together, including—I hope the House will forgive me for indulging a few local organisations—the Putney Society; Regenerate and Regenerate RISE; the Independent Food Aid Network; local food banks; Growhampton—doesn’t that sound fantastic?—Green the Grid; Abundance, which makes cider; the tidy towpath group; the Roehampton cultural centre; the over-60s lunch club in Roehampton; and over 20 rowing clubs and the most famous boat race in the whole world.
I have been running a local community centre for three years, so I know how important and how threatened community spaces are, and I will continue to champion them. Clement Attlee is one of Putney’s most famous former residents. He was born in Putney in 1883, when it was in Surrey, and he went on to be Labour Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951. He also went into politics because of his experience running a London community centre, so we have much in common. His Labour Government founded the welfare state—both the NHS and the benefit system—which defines us a country. To this day, it is one of the jewels in our crown, which I will make it a priority to defend.
But the current welfare state is failing families in my constituency. One in three children is in poverty and 30% of families in Roehampton live in overcrowded homes, most of them hard-working families. More than 3,000 children in Wandsworth borough are homeless, living in temporary accommodation. The Alton Estate and Putney Vale include areas that are among the most deprived 10% in the country in terms of income and housing. It is not all about the boat race. Two of the most important marks of the Government’s success or failure in the next five years must be whether they reduce child poverty and end the need for food banks.
Before I turn to the subject of the debate—I know that we are talking about Brexit; I will get there—I want briefly to highlight some important issues for Putney and the country. The first is the environment. This must be the climate Parliament. I have worked with aid agencies around the world, and in Bangladesh I have sat down with communities of women whose jobs, livelihoods and ways of life have been devastated by rising sea water as a result of climate change. It is already happening. I have also met parents, like me, who know that our London children have permanently damaged lungs because of our air pollution. In both situations, it is always the poorest who are most affected. We need urgent action on climate change. We cannot wait five years.
Housing is a major issue. Overcrowding, uncertainty for private renters, leaseholders’ rights, lack of social housing and homelessness must be a priority for the next five years.
Youth services and youth centres are closing across our country. More than 700 have closed in the last nine years. Together with school cuts, that takes away opportunities for our young people. Roehampton youth centre was closed just last summer.
Adult social care is beyond crisis. It came up time and again in all my seven hustings during the election campaign. It needs urgent action. Joining up the NHS and community care services is essential. We do not need just a cross-party wish list, but urgent action. I know that that was in the Queen’s Speech, and we will have to see what the result will be.
The NHS, crime, transport, daily commuter misery, saving our high street, international development and saving the Department for International Development, not merging it with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, are all issues that I will return to in future debates.
And so to Brexit. It was the main issue of the election in Putney: 74% of Wandsworth residents voted to remain—an even higher figure than in Scotland. More than one in 10 constituents in Putney are from other EU countries and are a very welcome part of our community. I believe that Brexit is an act of monumental self-harm. In Putney, I have spoken to people who have burst into tears on the doorstep, not just from seeing me, but because of their heightened anxiety about their rights and status as EU citizens, no matter how many years they have been here. I have met NHS workers who are struggling to cope at work because so many other staff have left and returned to other EU countries, and people whose businesses have been damaged and even closed—and we have not even had Brexit yet. We know the risks. We know that Brexit will not be done for many years, so my mandate to protest against the harm that it will do is certainly not over.
The Government have made big promises over the days of the debate, which I do not believe, given their track record in the past nine years, but I hope they prove me wrong. For a start, there are promises that there will be no regression on environmental standards. We must have a UK version of dynamic alignment on environmental policies. I know that the Government do not want dynamic alignment because it means that we are in hock to the EU, but there must be a UK version, whereby we do not end up with zombie policies and stay backward while the EU moves forward. We must always vie to keep outdoing the EU on climate action. We must phase out diesel and petrol cars, bring in eco-friendly homes and achieve 100% clean energy. I hope that all those policies will be in the upcoming Environment Bill. The measure must have teeth to match the European Court of Justice.
There have also been promises that workers’ rights will be retained so that we will not have a race to the bottom. I have worked with countries around the world on trade negotiations at the World Trade Organisation and I have seen, time and again, how free trade fails communities and is especially bad for women. We need to know the impact, including the gender impact, of future trade deals.
There have been promises not to have a no-deal Brexit, but we could still face that at the end of the year. We are just pushing it down the line. There have been promises of rights to stay for EU nationals, with yet more paperwork and checks for pre-settled and settled status and issues that are not yet resolved.
There have been promises that the rights of vulnerable refugees—children, whose rights have been removed from the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill—will be enshrined in the immigration Bill. Why take reuniting children with their families out of the Bill? I am as flabbergasted and perplexed as everyone else on the Opposition Benches. Families belong together. The policy had cross-party agreement. It is not many children. I have seen the conditions in which young refugee children live and I have seen the traffickers circling and preying on them. Those children are amazing. My children often cannot find their way from the table to the dishwasher to put their plates away, but those children have found their way across Europe to other countries, desperate to return to their families here, who are just as desperate to see them. Yet we have closed the door on them. I do not understand why and I hope that it is not a sign of the kind of country we are going to become.
There have also been promises that the NHS is not for sale to the US. Well, we’ll see. The Bill is a huge power grab, with the Government running scared of scrutiny and transparency, yesterday rejecting all the amendments that would have meant that we as elected Members rightly saw the aims, objectives and progress of negotiations.
We are leaving, but our role now is to define what leaving means: what our values are and what nationalism means. There is a high risk that racism and discrimination will be given permission by the Bill. I have seen it happen. It happened straight after the referendum and it has happened since. It is therefore important to say here, in this place, that we may be leaving the EU, but we are proud of our place in Europe and the world. We must be a society that is ambitious for everyone, welcomes diversity and is open to all. We must both take pride in our country and define that pride as being more internationalist than ever. That will make us all stronger.
I thank the people of Putney again for electing me. It is such an honour. I promise that I will work hard every minute of every day to serve and represent you.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your successful re-appointment. Thank you for everything you have done for us in the past.
I welcome the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) to the House of Commons. Her speech was very measured. I do not agree with much of it, as she will expect, but it is a pleasure to have her in the House. I worked extremely closely with her predecessor, Justine Greening. The hon. Lady may not know this, but the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, which I introduced as a private Member’s Bill, got through despite being 16th in the ballot largely because of the support I had from her predecessor, as well as Opposition Members and many others, including Glenys Kinnock and Mariella Frostrup. Justine Greening put real effort and determination into getting the Bill through and it was a real privilege for me to work with her. The purpose of the Bill was to make sure that women and children in the third world and developing countries were protected against female genital mutilation and things of that sort. In saying all that, I want to make it clear that there is a degree of continuity of some sort between the hon. Lady’s speech and mine, although I have to dissociate myself from remarks of hers on which I will not comment right now.
I always enjoy speeches by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—they are such fun. He comes at us 100% and there is never any let-up. I pointed out that we Maastricht rebels—I had the honour to lead that rebellion in 1992-93—acted as we did because for us it was about democracy and the benefits that will now come to us as we leave the European Union. The European Union was going to take the democratic decision making of this country and hand it over to what was, in effect, a European government. As I said yesterday, parliamentary sovereignty and democracy run together. We are not “hard Brexiteers”; we are democrats. We are people who believe that this country should be governed by the people, that people should be governed by themselves, and I would have thought that SNP Members, above all others, understood that.
Sir William Cash
In a minute. It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that, while I am a fervent believer in the United Kingdom, which includes Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, I do understand, for reasons not far removed from my reasons for wanting the UK not to be subjugated to the European Union, why the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire and his colleagues indulge this passion—understandable but wrong—for leaving the United Kingdom. I understand where they are coming from, so to that extent I appreciate some of the remarks he made, but I disagree fundamentally regarding the outcome they desire. It would lead to a lot of trouble for Scotland were it to leave the United Kingdom, as the referendum demonstrated.
The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill is not just about Brexit. It is primarily about the United Kingdom and our future. The reason why we adopted the position we took on Maastricht, and later on Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, and in the debate of the past few years and on the referendum, hinges on one simple principle: the ability of the people of this country to govern themselves through their elected representatives on the basis of their free choice in general elections. We are not little Englanders or trying somehow to make our country less democratic. We fought this battle for democracy and the rights of our own people, our own voters. That is why I am delighted that we now have a significant majority and will be able to put into effect the right of the British people to govern themselves through a range of policies, unconstrained by the European Union and the European Commission.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The argument the hon. Gentleman is making about voters getting who they vote for and governing themselves is pertinent in Scotland. His party have been rejected by 75% of the people of Scotland. We have an unelected Tory Government governing Scotland. Surely he sees the justice of being able to ask the Scottish people whether they want to continue with a Government that 75% of them have rejected, and what they want to do about the European Union, where 62% of them want to remain.
Sir William Cash
If the people of Scotland ever were to obtain independence and stay in the European Union, the extent to which they would be subjugated in a range of areas—fishing and many others—would become very apparent to them. That would be extremely damaging to the Scottish economy. Through the qualified majority votes of other countries, Scotland would find that, as a relatively small country, the experience would not be at all advantageous.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Is it not so nice, after so much anguish over the past three years, that tonight we are at last delivering on the result of this referendum, a democratic vote that we are now respecting?
Sir William Cash
I so much agree with what my hon. Friend has said, because he has been with us right the way through the passage of this over the past decade and more. People on this side of the House have fought, sometimes against the establishment, in order to achieve this objective. I can only thank the British people with all my heart for the decision they have taken. We have been the catalysts. We have tried to present the arguments. If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire is right at all, it is about the fact that there has been a victory in the general election: the British people have spoken and they have supported the idea of leaving the EU, and we will do so accordingly on 31 January.
I wish to make a further point. The decision to leave was taken by the British people, but not on a party political basis. The argument in this House always gravitates around party politics, but the decision in the referendum was taken by the British people in their individual homes; at breakfast or on the night before they sat around and talked to one another, asking, “What are we going to do tomorrow?” They made that decision but then found that remainer MPs, whether on the Opposition Benches or even on our Benches, were repudiating the decision that the individual voters had made, whether they came from Labour, Liberal Democrat or, more likely, Conservative constituencies. They deeply resented the fact that they had decided, with their families, to go to the ballot box to vote to leave the EU in that referendum and then found, to their intense annoyance, fury and disappointment, that their Member of Parliament had used the position they had in this House to frustrate the decision that the people had taken. That is why so many Labour Members lost their seats. People in this House did not appreciate the fact that in Labour leave marginals—in particular, in places north of Coventry in coal and steel communities—the European Coal and Steel Community and the massive subsidies given to the other countries had deprived people of their livelihoods, with much of the collapse of the steel and coal industry being driven by the anti-competitive nature of the European Coal and Steel Community framework. If we were to take a map of the UK and superimpose upon it the coal and steel communities, we would see a direct correlation with the decisions taken in the general election, when people drove out Labour Members of Parliament because they were not doing what voters wanted them to do. They wanted to leave the EU, and the Labour Members who were driven out had refused to allow them to determine their own constituency and national interest. That is where the problem lies. The Labour party simply cannot bring itself, even now, to understand the feelings of the people north of Coventry and in other parts of the country who found that their own Member of Parliament had let them down.
There was a simple reason for the referendum: it was clear that the collusion between the two Front-Bench teams in 1992-93 would lead to our having to stay in the European Union and accept the Maastricht treaty. That was what the referendum was all about. We now have a huge opportunity, in a completely new environment where we take control of our own laws in this House in accordance with proper democratic principles, to create a new global trading relationship to ensure that we are able not only to govern ourselves but to work in co-operation with other countries on our own terms, not on the terms that were laid down by the European Union. I look to the Secretary of State in the full knowledge that he and the Prime Minister, and any other Ministers involved in developing policies on the European Union over the next year or two, will do so on our terms and conditions and not those imposed upon us by the European Union.
This is a great moment in our democratic history; furthermore, it is a great tribute to the British people, who listened to the arguments that were presented to preserve their democracy. I have said this before and I will never apologise for saying it: the decisions were taken for democratic reasons. That is why we have ended up getting back our sovereignty, which we abdicated in 1971, after which we gradually gave up the veto. We will now be able to govern ourselves. It is a great tribute to the British people, and to the Members of Parliament who were returned in the election, that they will, through the majority we now have and with our Prime Minister, guarantee that this country will have a bright and effective future.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Like others have done, may I welcome you back to your restored position in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker? We very much look forward to your presence moderating our proceedings in the years to come.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on her maiden speech, which was a very accomplished contribution. There are a number of conventions and courtesies that need to be observed, but, as well as managing to observe them, the hon. Lady had something of substance and significance to say. I am sure we look forward to hearing her future contributions in the House.
A number of contributors to this debate have spoken about the way in which the tone of the debate has changed in the past few days, and that is a fair point to make. Some of that change in tone relates to the inevitability of the fact that the Bill will gain its Third Reading tonight. Another quite remarkable aspect is that there has been, if anything, an even greater inflation of the claims made about what will be possible. On that, time will tell.
Listening to the speech from the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who was present until a minute or two ago, I was struck by what he said about the fishing industry and the opportunities that would be open to it outside the common fisheries policy. I have heard him make that speech many times over the years. It would, of course, have been a done deal had the Government led by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) done what they said they were going to do and put the UK’s removal from the common fisheries policy in the withdrawal agreement and not in the political declaration. Had that been the case, we would be looking at an exit from the common fisheries policy at the end of the month. Of course, they did not do that, despite their promise. They did not do it because, frankly, they did not have the political will to do it.
The removal of the United Kingdom from the common fisheries policy remains in the political declaration. It is not in the agreement that was negotiated by the Prime Minister either. Although we have never heard the reason why, I presume that there was not the political will to put it in the withdrawal agreement. As far as the claims made on behalf of Brexit regarding the future of the fishing industry are concerned, we shall have to wait and see. It will require the political will to deliver these promises, probably at the expense of commitments made to other communities and sectors.
David Duguid
The right hon. Gentleman and I obviously share a lot of interests in the fishing industry, as he has one of the largest ports in Scotland—but not the largest—in his constituency. Does he not agree that by virtue of leaving the EU, we have no option but to leave the CFP? We leave the EU, we leave the common fisheries policy—no ifs, no buts.
Mr Carmichael
That is absolutely the case, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that he will never get me to defend the common fisheries policy. But what follows thereafter will be down to the political decisions made by this Government and others, and to whether they have the political will to deliver the things that they have promised. He will remember the damage that was done to his party by a previous generation of Conservative Ministers who, at the time of our accession to the EEC in 1975, regarded the fishing industry as expendable. That is why the promises become ever more extravagant, but the more extravagant they are, the greater the consequences will be if they are not kept.
The Liberal Democrats will vote against the Bill on Third Reading, because we believe that this is a bad deal that risks the future integrity of the United Kingdom as a single unitary state, principally and most immediately because it risks the possibility of leaving Northern Ireland subject to different regulatory arrangements from the rest of the United Kingdom. That was something against which the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), warned, along with Ruth Davidson, the then leader of the Scottish Conservatives. Those warnings were good and the former Prime Minister was wise to heed them, but the current Prime Minister has ignored them. If after 31 December we do find ourselves in the situation I have described, the future of the United Kingdom as a unitary state will be that much more bleak—and that is quite apart from the division and discord that we have heard mooted from the SNP Benches today.
I am also concerned that this deal very much leaves open the possibility of a no-deal Brexit at the end of 2020. In fact, the inclusion of clause 33 makes it that much more likely. My views on a no-deal Brexit are formed and reinforced by the businesses that come and talk to me. I think of one significant food-producing company in Orkney that directly employs 23 people, which may not sound like a great deal, but it is also an important part of the supply chain for farming in Orkney. Farming, of course, is the staple that keeps our economy in the Northern Isles stable and growing. That company tells me that for the past 20 years it has done everything that any Government would have asked it to. As a food producer, it has not gone for the low end of the market, but for the top—the niche market and the high-quality produce. Part of the reason that it went for that high-end product is that it was able to export. If its exports are now going to be put at a competitive disadvantage as a consequence of tariffs coming from a no-deal Brexit, the future of those 23 jobs and the farms around Orkney that supply the company will be bleak to say the very least.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman is making a point that pertains to my community in Na h-Eileanan an Iar as well. I heard Conservative voices saying that today the anguish will end. The anguish might end for those in the Conservative party and their psychodrama, but with this Brexit coming—and there is no good Brexit—the anguish is just beginning for an awful lot of people outside this Chamber.
Mr Carmichael
I fear that the hon. Gentleman may well be right on that. As I said in relation to the fishing industry, time will eventually tell. I fear, as I say, that he is probably right. The worst of it is that I really hope he is not, because the people who will suffer are not the people sitting in here but those in the crofts, in the hill farms and in the fishing communities around his constituency and mine.
Another reason we consider this to be a bad Bill is that it is another step in the walk that the Government are taking away from commitments they have previously given on environmental protections, labour rights, food standards, and—worst of all, in a really quite mean-minded step—the protections that would be given to refugee children. If ever there were an illustration of the way in which we risk diminishing our standing on the world stage, that is most surely it.
As we have heard, the Secretary of State’s Department is due to be wound up after the end of the month, but there is no doubting that even after that—even after 31 December—Brexit will continue to be a political phenomenon that will have a dominant effect on our politics for years to come. I make this plea today to those on the Treasury Bench: even if there is not to be a Department for it to shadow, this House should continue to have a Select Committee to look at the nature of the impact that Brexit has on our economy and our society.
The mantra on which the Government won their majority was that they would “get Brexit done”. The Prime Minister told us that he had an “oven-ready” deal. I think that to describe it as oven-ready was actually untypically understated for the Prime Minister. Many of us on the Opposition Benches see it in fact as being more half-baked than merely oven-ready. Ultimately, however, it is a deal that is going to leave us poorer and more isolated on the world stage, and it will affect us all.
Like many in this House, I am the first generation of my family to have had the opportunity to come here and to serve my community in this way. I did that because I was given opportunities principally by access to higher education, which I and my sisters all had. As a result of those opportunities, I have been able to develop whatever talents I have had. It grieves me enormously that the opportunities that we will now pass on to my sons—the next generation of my family—will be lesser than those that we inherited. It is for that reason that we shall vote against this Bill on Third Reading.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The European Union was a subject of enormous interest to my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Nick Hurd, and indeed to his father, Douglas Hurd, who served this House with distinction and was the Foreign Secretary who took the United Kingdom into the Maastricht treaty through discussions that we have heard a great deal about in the course of the debate on this Bill. It was my great pleasure to work over many years with Nick as a local councillor in the constituency. I always found him to be someone who was hugely engaged and passionate about the interests of his constituents. I have been very struck by how hon. and right hon. Members of this House on all sides, in all parties, have fed back what a pleasure it was to have him as a colleague, and I am sure we all wish him well as he moves on to new challenges.
It has been a great honour to be elected Member of Parliament for the constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, where I have been a councillor since 2002. Among the many characteristics of that outer London suburb is its long history as a place of settlement for those who have sought refuge in our country from persecution elsewhere. In particular, we have very large communities of those Jewish people who fled to the United Kingdom during the second world war and those Polish service personnel who came to this country to join our armed forces in that period and who subsequently settled and are still very significantly represented among our local population today.
The constituency is part of the London Borough of Hillingdon, of which I remain the deputy leader for another few days. Hillingdon is distinctive, among other things, for the fact that it is a gateway authority—one of the ports of entry into the United Kingdom—by virtue of the fact that we have Heathrow airport. Since the 2003 Hillingdon judgment, which clarified the legal responsibilities that local authorities in this country have under the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 for unaccompanied young people in this country, it has been an area of great personal interest for me because of the impact on my home area. For the past decade, I have had the privilege of leading the national work across local government on the resettlement into the United Kingdom of refugees and, in particular, child refugees, alongside politicians from all the nations of the United Kingdom and representing all the political parties that are found in those nations. Over that period, we have seen more than a doubling in the arrival rates of child refugees into the care of local authorities, and we have seen our Government play an ever more active role alongside the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, with schemes such as the vulnerable persons relocation scheme from Syria and the vulnerable children’s relocation scheme.
When I turn to clause 37 of the Bill, which has been the subject of comment and attempted amendments during its passage, it is clear that issues around the resettlement of vulnerable children are very much in the minds of many Members of this House. But it is vital that we recognise the strength of both the Government’s and the United Kingdom’s position when it comes to ensuring in practice the safety and wellbeing of refugee children. Border policy is, and has always been, a national competence, not one of the European Union. It is absolutely right that the opportunity to fully debate these issues will come in due course, when an immigration Bill comes before the House. But those of us closer to the sharp end of refugee resettlement will welcome the rejection of the amendments to clause 37, and I will briefly explain why.
The family reunion provisions are only relevant to a very tiny minority and to those children who are already in the care of authorities in other European countries. Those of us who had the opportunity to visit the Jungle camp in Calais and see the traffickers circling like sharks among nearly 10,000 vulnerable and destitute people will recognise that those provisions have long been seen—in the case of the United Kingdom, because of our geography—as an exploitable route for traffickers to create the opportunity of family reunion and encourage people to consign vulnerable people, sometimes children, to the backs of lorries and to dinghies across the channel in an attempt to open a family reunion route. We hear Members talking with concern about the hostile environment, but I think we have seen in the past few months that there are few environments more hostile than those when it comes to the life and wellbeing of vulnerable refugees.
The second reason that we need to be pleased that those amendments have been rejected is the issue at the heart of family reunion provisions, which is parental responsibility. It has been said by many Members, and it is said a great deal in the media, that we want to reunite children with their families. But those of us who have experience of those provisions have found that, in practice, what tends to happen is that young people are brought to the United Kingdom to be linked up with a distant cousin—maybe a teenager—and they almost immediately become an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, and therefore in the care system of this country.
That really links to the third reason, which is that young refugees who are in the European Union are already within countries that have child protection systems that are very similar or equivalent to—in some cases better than—our own. The arrangements that the European Union, supported strongly by the United Kingdom, has in place, in particular with Turkey but also with other countries around the middle east and north Africa area, mean that there is usually a very real prospect of reuniting those young people with those with parental responsibility—either mum or dad, or at least close family members—who are in a refugee camp in the system in one of those countries. So it is going to be extremely rare that the best interest test will be passed in demonstrating that someone is better coming to a distant cousin who cannot look after them in the UK, rather than being reunited with mum and dad who may be in a refugee camp in Jordan or, indeed, in Turkey.
In conclusion, our local authorities in the United Kingdom have long battled with the consequences of the exploitation by traffickers of some weaknesses in our border system, and they do a remarkable job in challenging circumstances when we look at the outcomes that those children and young people go on to achieve. The UK has a huge reservoir of good will, and that good will is reflected in the actions of both this Government and previous Governments when it comes to support for child refugees, but our communities expect, in order to maintain that good will, that there will be robust, effective, efficient and just arrangements that minimise the risks to children. Clause 37 of this Bill, as proposed by the Government, opens the possibility of such arrangements when the immigration Bill comes forward. It is in practice a more compassionate and more pragmatic way forward on this issue than anything that I have heard proffered by the Opposition. It is one of many reasons to support this Bill, and I commend that clause to this House and to all Members with an interest in refugee children.
Notwithstanding the overwhelming numbers on this side of the House, many of us are listening with close attention to the points that are being made across this debate and we will be pressing to ensure that, when this Bill is passed today, it is not just the end of something, but the start of a new, constructive and positive relationship with our allies in the European Union.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your restoration to the Chair. I am pleased to speak after the new hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I wish I could say that I agreed with more of what he said. I do not for a moment doubt his personal commitment to refugee children, as I hope he will not doubt my own, but I think we have very different solutions to how we would address their plight. Frankly, I think our country has an awful lot more to do to honour our obligations to refugees, and in particular to child refugees, than perhaps was reflected in his words this afternoon.
I want to say a few words about the withdrawal agreement that is to be passed, I fear, later this afternoon, and I want to summarise some of the reasons why I will be voting against it. It does still contain this trapdoor to no deal at the end of this year, and despite everything that has been said from the Government Front Bench, I fail to understand why they are so doggedly remaining with this 11-month period—an entirely arbitrary period—and saying that that is the period within which they want to have agreed a new trade agreement. The President of the Commission said just yesterday that that is not going to yield the kind of deep agreement that apparently the Prime Minister wants, so it is very hard to see how this is actually in the best interests of the country.
Secondly, I worry deeply about the race to the bottom on social and environmental standards, which I think is at the heart of this withdrawal agreement. We heard again yesterday, when we raised these in the debate, that there is no guarantee against regression on environmental standards. There is certainly no dynamic alignment being suggested. Indeed, I fear we will see a wrecking ball being taken to the precious environmental standards in particular, which we have been absolutely dependent on our negotiations in the EU to achieve. The Prime Minister has of course famously said that Brexit is an opportunity to, in his words, “regulate differently”. When he says that he wants to regulate differently, I find it very hard to believe that he actually means improving regulations when it comes to the environment in particular.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Lady is raising two very important issues—their importance is, I think, recognised in all quarters of the House. I just wonder on what she is basing these fears. Is it from what she has heard in debates or read in our party manifesto or in anything else? On what is she basing these fears, other than shroud-waving and her own prejudice?
Caroline Lucas
I am basing my fears on the fact that, for example, I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years and regularly saw how the British Government, or not necessarily the Government, but Conservative MEPs, were the ones who were watering down. [Interruption.] I appreciate it was a Labour Government; I misspoke. I meant—[Interruption.] It feels as if the Conservatives have been in power for so long that it is easy to forget that they haven’t been. What I want to say—let me say this correctly—is that what I witnessed over my 10 years in the European Parliament was Conservative MEPs constantly trying to water down the positions on the environment that the European Parliament was taking and therefore—
Caroline Lucas
Not until I have finished answering the previous intervention. What I want to say in response to the first person who intervened on me, and who I have not yet finished answering, is that my concerns about what will happen to environmental standards under the withdrawal Bill are not being dictated by dogma; they are being dictated by my experience over 10 years in the European Parliament, watching Conservative MEPs constantly trying to water down environmental regulations.
Caroline Lucas
As the hon. Lady is a former MEP, I happily give way to her.
Vicky Ford
As a former Conservative MEP and as a former member of the environment Committee of the European Parliament and a former Chair of a Committee of the European Parliament, may I completely refute the allegations the hon. Lady has just made? It was Conservative MEPs who led the negotiations on the Paris climate change conference that led to the global commitment to deal with the emissions that are threatening our planet, and it will be a Conservative British Government who will lead the negotiations for the next global climate change conference that will save our planet.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Lady doth protest a little too much, because the reality is that again and again I saw the briefings being provided by the Conservative party to Conservative MEPs, and they were all about watering down key environmental legislation. I was the rapporteur, for example, for a piece of legislation around illegally logged timber, and I can assure the hon. Lady that Tory MEPs and many others were watering it down.
Caroline Lucas
No, because this is not a very constructive conversation. I am very sure about the position that I am taking.
Caroline Lucas
No, the hon. Lady can sit down.
The fourth thing I want to say is that, as well as being deeply concerned, on the basis of evidence, about the very real risks of the Conservatives watering down environmental legislation, there is the issue that many have returned to again and again today: the cruel and hostile position on refugees in general and on child refugees in particular. Frankly, I thought that what happened yesterday, watching the Tory MPs troop through the Lobby to vote against provisions that would have protected child refugees, was quite shameful.
I want to focus on parliamentary sovereignty—an issue that should be, I would have imagined, a concern to all of us in this place. Surely we ought to be able to agree that, irrespective of our very different positions on Brexit or even on environmental standards, we do want a voice and a say for MPs in this place. For almost four years we have heard that leaving the EU would mean taking back control, and yet it is now clearer than ever that that control will not rest with communities, regions or even Parliament, but will be almost entirely in the hands of No. 10 Downing Street.
For this Government, democratic scrutiny is apparently a mere inconvenience, so MPs are to be denied a say over our most important post-Brexit trading relationship. So let us be very clear: this is an Executive power grab. Indeed, ironically given all the rhetoric about taking back control, this withdrawal agreement Bill gives MPs in this place less of a say over our trade with the EU than Members of the European Parliament will have in Brussels, who have a guaranteed vote on trade deals as well as sight of the pre-negotiation mandate.
Trade agreements may not always be headline-grabbing news, but they are very far from just being a dry subject about tariffs and taxes. They now have a profound impact on our efforts to tackle the climate crisis, and on our food standards, workers’ rights and vital public services. Our future relationship with the EU should be open to scrutiny and approval by this Parliament. We should be able to prevent the setting of a dangerous precedent of MPs being denied any oversight not just of this agreement but of future post-Brexit trade deals, such as that to be concluded with the US. Significantly, as we heard yesterday, the Prime Minister’s previous EU withdrawal agreement did include much-needed provisions for parliamentary scrutiny. They were outlined in clause 31. They gave MPs oversight of the negotiating objectives and a vote on the final deal, and required regular reporting during negotiations. That clause is conspicuous by its absence from the new Bill.
There is to be no parliamentary scrutiny of the future relationship with the EU, which is by far our largest trading partner. Indeed, any transparency will be entirely dependent on the good will of the Executive. We should have had an obligation for the Government to publish their negotiating objectives. They should have been unable to proceed with those negotiations until they had been approved by this House. We should have had real transparency during negotiations. Texts should be published after each round of negotiations, giving MPs the opportunity to review progress. The Government have often sought to reassure the public and parliamentarians alike about trade negotiations, but unless we have full transparency those reassurances are worth nothing.
We should have had a meaningful vote on the deal itself and, of course, it should have been on an amendable motion before any final deal was ratified. The lack of scrutiny afforded to trade agreements is a relic of a bygone era. Today, trade agreements permeate every element of our lives, from the food we eat, to our environment and labour standards to the protection of public services such as the NHS, yet it is staggering that MPs have less of a say over trade agreements than far narrower policy initiatives. Last, but not least, we should have had a comprehensive impact assessment that is available for proper review. So far, the Government have completely failed in their duty to assess the impact of Brexit. In the amendment that I moved yesterday, I proposed an independent body to consider the impact of any new deal on climate change, human rights and the economy. It seems a great shame to me that that amendment was defeated.
All I am asking for is that we should have our democracy upheld, so that MPs can do their jobs and hold Government to account. Significantly, the other place did pass an amendment to the Trade Bill in the previous Session, which would have given Parliament a say over post-Brexit trade deals, including on transparency during negotiations, a vote on the mandate and a final vote on the deal. The other place seems to be doing a better job of standing up for all our interests than we are doing here ourselves. We should not be letting this go through without parliamentary scrutiny. We should not be setting a precedent for Parliament to be denied scrutiny, not just of this agreement but of future trade agreements too.
The final point that I want to make is that clearly, under our rotten electoral system, the Government won the election with a majority of 80 seats. However, that does not reflect the public’s views on the deal, and, indeed, on the confirmatory referendum. I accept that under this electoral system they have a majority of 80, but that gives them particular responsibilities—[Interruption.] One of which might be to actually listen to what someone on the Opposition Benches is saying. A majority of 80 gives the Government particular responsibilities. Those responsibilities are to address the very many reasons that people voted to leave the EU. I have been travelling around the country listening to leave voters on the many reasons they had for voting leave. Of course, yes, some of them did indeed vote that way because they have fundamental disagreements with the EU, but many, many people I spoke to voted leave because they wanted to send a clear message to all of us here.
The message they wanted to send was that they believe the status quo is intolerable. To that extent, they were right. The social contract is broken, and the power game is rigged. The referendum outcome was a resounding radical rejection of the status quo, of an economy that brutally fails so many, forcing parents to use food banks to feed their children, demonising immigrants and condemning us to climate breakdown. It was also a powerful and furious comment on our broken democracy.
All too often, it feels to people—particularly those who are more distant from London—that politics is something that gets done to them rather than by them, or with them. Brexit laid bare the extent to which our governance structures are derelict. When citizens were deprived of a credible representative power that clearly belongs to or is accountable to them, it led to anger with the most remote authority of all. The EU was effectively blamed for the UK’s structural elitism and held responsible as the source of all powerlessness.
The Bill shows no sign of giving us back control, or crucially, of giving back control to many of the people who voted leave in good faith, expecting that that was what it was going to be about. There is no sense here that there will be any change to the settlement on the way we are governed. There is no sense that this Government will be one who, as well as redistributing financial resources, might just consider redistributing power. Those are some of the many reasons why I will vote against the Bill today.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
I congratulate you on your re-election, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on becoming the first woman ever to be Chairman of Ways and Means—you make us all very proud.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Something that she missed out of her speech—inadvertently, I am sure—was that the Prime Minister’s father led the way on landmark legislation. He led the habitats directive through the European Parliament, showing that Conservative leadership on the environment runs in the family.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on his excellent maiden speech, showing not only that he understands in great detail the plight of refugees, including child refugees in particular, but that he has the experience and some of the solutions to make sure that we keep those people safe. We in the Conservative party always want to keep children—particularly refugee children—safe.
I am delighted that the Bill finally paves the way for the UK to build a relationship with the European Union that is based on a free trade agreement. After nearly three years of being stuck—effectively re-running the result of the referendum—this Parliament is free to take a significant, positive step forward. Once we pass the Bill, a horizon of opportunity is in front of us. The political declaration set out our aim to have no tariffs, no fees and no quotas in the economic relationship. I take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and his ministerial team for their relentless determination to deliver on the referendum result. That is what we have been trying to do for the last three years, and I know that he has worked incredibly hard and taken hundreds of flights. It is very much appreciated by me and the British people.
As someone who has worked for decades in impacted industries, including car manufacturing, banking, fintech and travel tech, I am pleased that we will leave with a deal, in an orderly way. This Government’s ambition is to ensure that we not only maintain but build on our relationships with our partners across the channel. It is often said that trade negotiations take many years and that it is therefore overly ambitious to try to conclude an agreement by the end of the year, but there has never been a trade negotiation like this one in the history of the world. We start from a position of 100% alignment. We need to agree where it makes sense to stay aligned and how we do that, and where we want to diverge. It seems to me that this is a perfectly achievable objective, given good political will on both sides of the negotiating table.
Regulatory alignment is a complex system of product standards, safety standards and type approval processes. I want to speak about that as I believe that some of the rhetoric on legislation has been unhelpful. We can all remember talk of bendy bananas, curved cucumbers and unhappy hoovers, but in reality, the vast majority of regulation facilitates trading safely and fairly, especially within the manufacturing sector, where international and EU standards have remained stable for many decades. The vast majority of them are driven not by Government or in Committee rooms but by industry. Most trading arrangements aim to optimise interoperability through the recognition of other parties’ standards and agreements on equivalence and adequacy. This is standard in global trading arrangements.
Alan Brown
If, as the hon. Lady says, all these regulations and agreements are actually driven by industry, what is there to be gained from leaving the EU? The Conservatives claim that the Government are taking back control, but according to her, industry drives all this regulation.
Gillian Keegan
Yes, but it drives standards. There are three global standards across the world—one from the EU, one from the US and one from China—and they do not always have to be the same. They largely do align, but there could be differences based on geography and specific things we want for our industries. As we move forward, we might want to diverge in some areas, particularly in emerging technologies. Yes, industry drives them, but industry will be talking to us here, probably encouraging us to align in areas where there is no reason to diverge, but in other areas there will be opportunities to diverge. I can think of some areas where we could enhance things in a way that the EU has not been able to do. [Hon. Members: “Where?”]
Rolls-Royce is based in Chichester. Like all car manufacturers, it relies on just-in-time supply chains, with parts and components moving across the channel from country to country several times during the manufacturing process. Such frictionless movement requires regulatory alignment or recognition of equivalent standards. This ensures quality, safety and environmental mitigation. It also avoids the need for car manufacturers to invest in large stock levels of critical components, which is important because it enables safe sustainable profit margins in a highly competitive market. We understand this. There is no need to go backwards and put barriers in the way of highly integrated UK-EU manufacturing, but we must work with the industry on both sides of the channel to put new IT systems in place to automate these new arrangements.
Despite my firm belief in recognising and standardising regulations, I recognise that they can stifle growth if they are not implemented carefully, particularly in fast-evolving sectors. Tech is a prime example—another area where I have spent many decades in my career. The UK has a significant advantage in tech and some of the world’s finest academic institutions—we now boast three of the top 10 universities worldwide—and our pool of top talent is world class. Developing and retaining employees with key skills is critical for our knowledge-based economy. We are home to many new businesses, with digital venture capital investment exceeding £6 billion in 2018 alone—the highest in Europe. The UK is one of the world’s largest technology ecosystems.
To ensure that we keep our competitive advantage, I urge the Government to review techUK’s recommendations on our future digital trade policy to ensure that we continue to lead in the global digital landscape. The UK is a global leader in fintech, biotech, environmental tech, which is sometimes referred to as green tech, and education tech—to name just a few fast-growing areas. We are the best country in Europe in which to start a technology business and must continue to be so. To prevent the rise of too many new barriers, we must adapt our regulatory frameworks as new and exciting technologies emerge and we change our interactions with them. That is the opportunity.
Simultaneously, we must be vigilant against the threats that new tech can bring. We must enable cross-border data flows in a way that protects our citizens’ data without impeding business growth. Here we must collaborate internationally, not just with the EU but with the OECD and the G20, and avoid digital protectionism. For example, the forced localisation of data—[Interruption.] Hon. Members asked for advantages, but they do not seem to be listening. I am giving an example of an area where we could improve. We must avoid the forced localisation of data, the imposition of tariffs and the enforced mandatory transfer of source codes, algorithms or encryption keys as conditions of market access. We must also acknowledge where the EU has got it right and co-operate with it. Some of us might have found the recent GDPR legislation a bit tricky in our personal lives, but it is an example of protecting citizens’ rights in the digital space.
In accepting that dynamic alignment in some sectors such as the automotive sector may be advantageous for the UK, I would argue in the same breath that greater divergence will be vital in future emerging technologies. For sectors focused on artificial intelligence, cyber-security, data mining or the internet of things, speed and time to market are key to enabling emerging technologies, and we will have the opportunity to build simpler processes that work for the UK market.
Opportunity awaits the UK, and only by passing this legislation can we get there. I hope that when we do, Members throughout the House will call for compromise, and will take an informed approach to regulation that protects existing industries while creating competitive advantage in emerging ones.
Finally, let me say this, as someone who voted to remain in the referendum of 2016 but has voted to support Brexit ever since—five times, and counting. The step that we are taking in leaving the EU is a major change, and with change comes some risk but also opportunity. We must all show leadership; we should not be scaremongering. The whole of the UK, including all its constituent parts, is a dynamic, agile and trusted global partner, and we are already a global leader in foreign direct business investment. We have so much to build on. I look forward to supporting the Government and colleagues across the House to make Brexit both a reality and an opportunity.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Let me begin, Madam Deputy Speaker, by congratulating you on your recent election. It is a matter of some regard that we now have the first female Chair of Ways and Means.
It feels as though we have been at this for quite a long time. Here we are at, perhaps, one minute to midnight, and we have probably the penultimate opportunity to discuss these matters before the deed is done. It is a matter of some sadness to me that the proposals before us today are an even more myopic, small-minded and miserable set of proposals than the ones that were mooted at the beginning. I was sent here at the election of 12 December to oppose them, which is why I will vote for the amendment and against the substantive motion this evening.
There are many reasons why that is so, but I shall touch on just four. First, this course of action diminishes the character of the people who live in these islands. It makes us seem selfish, unco-operative and insular, and I do not believe that that accurately characterises the people who live not just in Scotland, but in England too.
Secondly, these proposals make foreigners out of many of our neighbours who have lived among us for a generation or more. In my own city, tens of thousands of people who were born in mainland Europe but have made the decision to raise their families and build their homes and careers in our communities will lose their status, or have it fundamentally altered. More important, in the longer term, the loss of freedom of movement will pose an existential threat to the future prosperity of my country.
Thirdly, the proposals represent a fundamental shift in the relationship between the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom and the central Government. That is not to say that when we talk about a power grab it means that some responsibilities are being taken away from the Scottish Government. I do not say that. The responsibilities remain, but the power to act in those areas is being severely constrained and curtailed by frameworks and statutes set by this Parliament—even to the extent, in these proposals, that United Kingdom Ministers are taking the power to make secondary legislation in areas that this Parliament has decided should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
Finally, I am against the proposals because they will impoverish the people whom I represent. I do not say that this catastrophe will be visited on us the day after exit day; I do not even say that it will happen in the weeks and months after that; but there will be a slow, insidious, grinding reduction in the living standards of the people of this country, until we wake up in a few years’ time and realise that we are so much poorer than we might have been, and so much poorer than similar communities in mainland Europe.
Mr Perkins
The hon. Gentleman and I have voted in the same way on many parts of this Bill. He is right to say that all the forecasts suggest that Brexit will make people in Britain poorer, but those same forecasts say that Scotland leaving the UK will make Britain poorer, so why is he in favour of that?
Tommy Sheppard
They do not say that. I will happily supply the hon. Member with lots of compelling evidence as to why Scotland would prosper as an independent country rather than being dragged down by the central Government of the United Kingdom.
I know that many people are looking to the future in this debate, and that many envision this as a bright new dawn for the United Kingdom. They see a world where the authority and status of this nation will be restored in the eyes of the world. I know that people genuinely think that—I do not say that they are insincere in this belief—but I do say that it is a delusion, a mirage, to suggest that this will happen. If you want evidence for this, look no further than what has been happening over recent months. A compromised United Kingdom Government, understanding that their ability to negotiate a trade agreement with the United States will be so much more diminished compared with their ability as part of a major European bloc, have got themselves into the embarrassing situation of demonstrating servility to the Trump Administration in order to try to protect their future economic prosperity. That is what the future holds. We will have to make unholy alliances and awful justifications for doing deals with certain people in order to get trade agreements.
I am sure that there are Conservative Members who have sympathy with some of the points that I have made but they are not going to express them today, because that great political party—arguably the greatest, historically, in Great Britain—has got itself into a situation whereby it is impossible to progress in that party unless one evangelises the cause of Brexit. Dissenting voices are no longer allowed. The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) is typical of many whose joy and enthusiasm for what is about to happen are unbridled. He cannot wait to pop the champagne corks and break out the bunting in celebration, but I am afraid that the future is nowhere near as rosy as he expects. He and others who have chosen this path are going to be severely disappointed.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member agree that, regardless of our political views on whether Brexit is good or bad, the reality is where we are? Does he also agree that all Members need an evidence base on which to make informed decisions? Does he share my concern that the Regulatory Policy Committee report that was issued in October stated that the Committee did not have sufficient time to make a proper assessment of the impact and that it had not been able to meet Ministers? Surely there has been sufficient time between October and now to rebuild that impact assessment so that we may all know what we are voting for.
Tommy Sheppard
Throughout this entire process, we have been asked to take decisions without adequate information, so that is entirely consistent with the way in which this matter has been conducted.
I want to move on to consider the question of political mandates, which are quite important in this discussion. To do that, we have to consider the election that took place on 12 December, in which people were asked their view and Brexit was very much the central issue of the campaign, certainly in most of the United Kingdom. Others have said—my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) has said it repeatedly—that a majority of the people who voted in that election throughout the United Kingdom voted for parties that either wanted to stop Brexit altogether or wanted a fundamental re-examination of the terms on which it was being proposed.
Tommy Sheppard
I did not think that there was a factual dispute about that, but I will happily be corrected if I have got it wrong.
Alex Chalk
On the issue of factual disputes, is it not also right to take into account the fact that in Scotland 55% of people voted for parties that are Unionist and want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom?
Tommy Sheppard
If the hon. Gentleman had had the patience to wait for another couple of paragraphs, he would have allowed me to develop my point. I will address explicitly what he says.
The point is that we have a Government elected on 43% of the vote in an electoral system that I believe corrupts the expression of popular opinion across Parliament, rather than allowing it to be deliberated. But rules are rules, and we all went into the election understanding the rules of engagement and what the contest would be. I am not in any way saying that I do not accept the result and the Government, even with 43% on a first-past-the-post basis and a majority of more than 86, have a legitimate democratic mandate not just in principle to leave the European Union, but to deliver Brexit on the terms that it proposed to the electorate. I accept that.
However, I do not accept—this is my central contention—that that mandate runs in Scotland. The 12 December vote was very much a tale of two election campaigns. The Conservative party won the campaign in England, which was dominated by the relationship that this country will have with the European Union. The SNP won the campaign in Scotland, which was dominated by whether Scotland would have the right to choose to go down the path set here by the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I am being heckled by the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), who I think is still a co-chair of the Conservative party, so let me explain and offer some rationale. I do not say these things glibly.
Others have talked about statistics. The Scottish National party won the election in 80% of the areas in which it was contested in Scotland, and 80% of the Members of Parliament returned here from Scotland are from the SNP. We won 45% of the popular vote, and the central proposition that we put to the electorate was that Scotland and the people who live in Scotland should have the right to choose how they are governed and whether they want to go down the path chosen by the United Kingdom Government.
There are echoes and similarities between what happened in December 2019 and what happened in May 2015. Then, as now, a Conservative Government were returned with a majority. Then, as now, the SNP won an overwhelming majority of seats in Scotland. The difference is that in 2015 we did not seek a mandate from the people of Scotland in relation to the constitutional position or how the country should be governed. We did not do that because the election took place just months after the 2014 referendum, when the electorate made a choice and decided to remain in the United Kingdom. That does not apply now, because in December 2019 we went to the Scottish electorate and explicitly asked them to endorse the proposition that people who live in Scotland should have the right to choose how they are governed and whether they wish to go down the Brexit path being offered by the United Kingdom Government.
Tommy Sheppard
If the hon. Gentleman wants to dispute that that was the central part of our campaign, I will happily take his intervention,
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who came into the House at exactly the same time as I did. Unless I was living in some parallel universe, I seem to remember hearing loads of speeches from SNP Members immediately after the 2015 election arguing for and advocating Scottish independence. What he has just said is therefore not actually a correct reflection of history. As close as the 2015 election was to the referendum on independence, his party was advocating it loudly and with great passion from those Benches.
Tommy Sheppard
I am unsure whether the hon. Gentleman is listening. I am saying that the SNP put a proposition before the people in a democratic election and they voted for it. Just to be sure, when I talk about this mandate, it was not only the SNP that talked about this matter. The central proposition of the Conservative party in Scotland was, “Say no to indyref 2.” The Conservative party in Scotland asked the people of Scotland to reject a referendum on independence, but the people of Scotland instead rejected the Conservative party. That is the truth of the matter, and that is why that party now has less than half the Members it had four weeks ago.
We have a new situation in these islands. For the first time in history, in this Chamber, which is charged with representing the whole United Kingdom, are Members elected from the two principal countries within the United Kingdom who have different mandates for the constitution of the country. I invite the Government to say—this will not go away—how they will respond, how they will acknowledge Scottish public opinion and how they will come to an accommodation with the political representatives of Scotland. The start of that process will be to understand what their response will be to the approach from the First Minister of Scotland, who has asked for negotiations with a view to transferring powers to the Scottish Government so that they may consult the people on how they are governed.
To be crystal clear, we are not asking the Conservative party or this Parliament to agree with the notion of Scottish independence. We are not even asking them to agree that there should be another referendum. We are simply saying they should agree that when and whether that happens should be a matter for the people who live in Scotland, and no one else. The decisions on these matters should be made by the people via their elected representatives in the national Parliament of Scotland in Edinburgh and not here in the Union Parliament in London.
That is the central proposition and, in making it, we are consistent with the claim of right for Scotland, which was debated in this very Chamber in July 2018 and endorsed by the House without opposition. I know that many Conservative Members did not really support it and thought the better option was to ignore the debate and pretend it was not happening, but it did happen and it will happen again.
If the request from the First Minister of Scotland and the request from the Scottish Parliament are denied and ignored, it will be inconsistent with the claim of right for Scotland. It will mean this House does not agree that it is a matter for the Scottish people to determine their own form of government. That would be a very serious position, because it would mean this Parliament is advocating that this United Kingdom should continue to include parts of this island even against the wishes of the people who live there. That would undermine the fundamental principle of consent on which this constitution has so far been based.
We would no longer be talking about a Union of equals, or a Union at all; we would be talking about the subsummation of Scotland as a territory into a wider political territory known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is a different constitutional position. If people want to argue it, we are happy to take them on and have that debate, but at least be honest about it.
The most important people in all this are not those who voted for the Government or for the SNP in opposition. The most important people in this debate are those who voted for neither. Many people, including in my constituency, put their faith in the capacity of the United Kingdom to reform itself and to give voice and expression to their needs and fears within this Union Parliament. They voted in significant but not overwhelming numbers for the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in particular, and many of them are now asking themselves whether, indeed, the type of society they wish to live in can be delivered by this Union Parliament and this Government, or whether it would be a better course of action to consider Scotland becoming a politically independent country capable of setting its own priorities and giving vent to the aspirations of its own people.
They have not yet made that decision. They are on a journey and the debate, my friends, is wide open, but one of the key things that will focus that debate is the attitude and reaction of this United Kingdom Government. If the Government decide to keep their head in the sand and to pretend that this did not happen north of the border, if they pretend it is business as usual, if they use their 80-seat majority to railroad stuff through Parliament, if they drag Scotland out against its will, if they refuse to give Scotland a say and if they refuse to make any accommodation, they will become the best recruiting sergeant for the cause of independence in Scotland. We look forward to explaining to the people of Scotland the consequences of the Government’s actions.
We will be voting against this miserable set of proposals because we have not voted for them, the people we represent have not voted for them and the Scottish Parliament will not consent to them. These proposals are wrong and they do not represent the aspirations and the character of the people of Scotland. That, in the long term, will be represented much better by Scotland becoming an independent European nation in its own right.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—patience pays in this House. Congratulations on being elected not only as Deputy Speaker but as Chairman of Ways and Means. It is a great privilege to have you in that role.
This afternoon, we have had three maiden speeches. First, there was my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), whom I very much welcome to the House. I also pay tribute to his predecessor, Glyn Davies, whom I worked with a great deal on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and elsewhere. There is huge interest in Montgomery in farming, especially sheep farming. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) made a very good maiden speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who brings to the House huge expertise on migration and dealing with those whose families are seeking to come to this country.
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate because it is a historic moment. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his team, not only for what is happening now—it is much easier now we have a majority of 80 to win some votes—but for his patience and tenacity through the hours of debate that went on for several years. I pay tribute to Opposition Members who opposed the Bill because they did not like the type of Brexit, but many Opposition Members opposed it because they just did not want Brexit. That is what the British people worked out in the general election. There are no two ways about it. When we were on the doorstep, it was clear that they had worked out that Brexit needed to be done. I therefore welcome the Bill.
I also welcome the fact that the Government will take Executive powers to negotiate in Europe. In the past two and a half to three years, we were dogged by the fact that while we were busily trying to negotiate with the European Union, this British Parliament was busy undermining our negotiations and our negotiators. Did people think that the European Union and the European Commission were not watching what was going on? Were they feeding into it? I do not know. Perhaps that is one conspiracy theory too many and I will leave such matters to the Leader of the Opposition.
To be serious, we are at a moment when we can deliver Brexit. In a way, the two great planks of the European Union are the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. I have had direct experience of chairing the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for two years. Do hon. Members honestly believe that we cannot create a better agriculture policy for the four nations of the United Kingdom instead of the one for 27 or 28 countries in the European Union, from the north of Finland to the south of Greece? Of course we can. Why do we have a three-crop rule that makes us plant all sorts of crops that we do not necessarily need in this country because we grow a lot of grass, which is excellent for the environment? It is because east Germany grows nothing but maize, maize, maize, year in, year out. That is why we have the three-crop rule.
With all those matters, we can make things simpler. We can even help our friends north of the border. We can do all sorts of things to create a better agriculture policy once we have got the Bill through.
Neil Parish
I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to almost a friend on the other side of the Chamber.
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent and impassioned speech. Does he agree that as part of creating a better agriculture policy, we can include restoring, promoting and incentivising biodiversity so that we have a richer, more diverse and secure countryside?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is not only about the Agriculture Bill; it is about the Environment Bill and how we link the two together. It is about the way we deal with our soils and plant trees. Everybody in this place and outside wants to plant more trees, but let us plant them in a smart way so they hold our soils and prevent flooding. Let us do all those things so that our biodiversity increases. Then we can make sure that we keep good agricultural production and good soils, which are key.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I will go a step further than “almost a friend” and say that I am grateful to my friend for giving way. Dropping the friendliness for a moment and bringing the politics back into it straight, surely the hon. Gentleman would respect the devolved competences of the Scottish Government in agriculture and fishing in the new way of negotiation that the British Government plan to use to handle things in Brussels? We would not want to see the rise of a UK centralised superstate, would we?
Neil Parish
A superstate is precisely what the European Union wants to make itself into, and that is one of the reasons why we are leaving. To throw the ball straight back, as the hon. Gentleman knows I can, although we do not want to create a United Kingdom superstate, as he puts it, what we do want is some similarity between agricultural policy north of the border and south of it. We do not want to create huge competition in different policy areas. Let us work together to deliver a policy that works. I am not arguing against having an English policy or a Scottish policy, but let us work together to produce a policy that works.
Neil Parish
I had better let the hon. Gentleman, who was on the EFRA Committee, speak next.
Alan Brown
The hon. Gentleman must know he is undermining his own argument about taking back control in saying that we cannot have divergence between Scotland and England. We now face 11 months where there is the risk of a no-deal crash-out. Will he confirm that the EFRA Committee he chaired and which I sat on heard evidence that if we were to trade on World Trade Organisation rules, we could not stop the import of chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef because of most-favoured-nation status? We could not prevent that under environmental standards. Did we not hear from the farming industry that the big concern was the market being flooded by Argentinian beef, which would ruin our industry? We can have any policy we want, but if we trade on WTO rules, farming is finished.
Neil Parish
The answer is clear. We now have a clear mandate to leave the European Union, and we can negotiate with the EU having the ability to walk away if we choose. That is precisely why we will get a trade deal with the EU. We have spent three years tying the hands of the Government’s negotiators and making sure that that deal does not happen. I am a farmer, as the House well knows. I know that either you decide to do a deal and shake on it, or you decide the price is too high and walk away. Parliament has spent all its time tying our hands. It is now time to get that deal. I have every confidence in the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to deliver that deal. Opposition Members have spent the last three years thwarting us, and the British people have finally worked it out.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend has chaired the EFRA Committee. Can he confirm that in relation to sanitary and phytosanitary standards, each country that chooses to import grants a licence specific to the product, so whatever we choose to import, it is down to DEFRA to grant the licence and has nothing to do with WTO rules? It is to do with the individual country’s sanitary standards.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend is right. With chicken, the issue is not the use of chlorine gas in the processing—in fact, only about 20% of American chicken is dealt with in that way. The point is the Americans rear broilers at probably three or four times the density that we do and they use far more antibiotics, and they use the chlorine process to enable them to bring their chicken to the market. All we have to do as we do a trade deal with the European Union is lay down the rules on the welfare of chickens. We are actually proposing higher welfare standards in the Agriculture Bill. That is how we deal with it. Chlorine is not necessarily the issue.
Deidre Brock
Let me return to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the NFU and common frameworks that were discussed when we considered the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament. I was surprised to hear those comments because all the NFUs that gave evidence to the Committee were telling us that they wanted to see their ability to differentiate the different jurisdictions maintained and that frameworks should always be agreed between the four NFUs, not imposed. What does he say to them?
Neil Parish
I have no problem with that proposal, but this is about how people work together. For example, we would not want a beef special premium being paid north of the border and some sort of area payment being paid south of it, because that would immediately create competition in the British market.
Neil Parish
No, I am not going to give way again, because I have been very generous. The key is getting the farming unions to work together in order to say, “Let’s have a policy that has some similarities.” I accept that it will have differences, but we have to make sure that we have a policy that works for the whole of the United Kingdom, because the Conservative party is not the party that wants to break up the UK.
I wish to go on to fishing—
Several hon. Members rose—
Neil Parish
I have given way four or five times, so I will keep going because the Deputy Speaker is saying that at some stage we might like to vote this evening. Do we really believe that there will not be much greater access to fish and fishing rights? Do we not believe we will be able to have a better environmental policy than the common fisheries policy?
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what we have found when speaking to real fisherman, as he and I have, over the past 30-plus years is that all they have said is that they want to withdraw from this terrible policy, whereby in the south-west 8% of the cod comes to the UK and almost 80% goes to France?
Neil Parish
If anyone can speak for the fishing industry in this House, it is my hon. Friend, who has huge experience of this, as did her previous husband. I pay a huge tribute to that. We need to leave the CFP. As we set our new policies for fishing, we will get greater fishing rights, because the problem in 1972-73 was that the fisherman were sold away and we had terrible quotas. That needs to be put right and I know that she, like me and many others in this House, is determined to ensure that those wrongs are put right. Not only will we be able to address fishing rights and the amount of fish, but there is also the possibility of having much better environmental management. We will be able to examine the types of nets being used and to make sure that we sort out many of the issues relating to porpoises, dolphins and everything that is caught in bycatch. So there are many positive sides of leaving the CAP, the CFP and the EU.
I wanted to make this speech today because I have listened for three years as the opposition of all sorts of shapes, sizes and colours have thwarted Brexit in this House. They put forward all sorts of reasons, some spurious, some right and some not, in order that we would not leave the EU. Now we will leave it and let us be positive. We can get this trade deal, an agriculture policy that works and a fishing policy that works. We have an Environment Bill coming through whereby we are going to put an office for environmental protection in place to make sure that our rules are not only as good as those of the EU, but better. Let us be positive tonight. Let us actually believe in this great United Kingdom. The best union of all is not the European Union but the United Kingdom, so let us not destroy that. Let us go forward and, together, this Parliament will deliver. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State and Ministers exactly how we are going to do it. I have every faith in not only the Secretary of State and Ministers, but the Prime Minister being able to deliver a good deal for the UK. For goodness’ sake, let us once and for all actually leave the European Union.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It is a pleasure to call to make his maiden speech Mr Stephen Farry.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I should say that I have already had that privilege, before the Christmas break. None the less, thank you for the entreaty.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I sincerely apologise to the hon. Gentleman. It will be obvious that I have been absent from the Chair for a few weeks. Given that the hon. Gentleman is not making his maiden speech, he can take lots of interventions and everyone can shout at him.
Stephen Farry
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for setting me up in that regard. May I pass on formally our congratulations on your election as Deputy Speaker?
I wish to introduce Northern Ireland into the debate, given the fact that it has been so central to the Brexit process so far. There are still so many unresolved issues and questions and it is important that we reflect on them as the Bill passes Third Reading, because there is still a long journey ahead.
Before I do that, I wish to make some general comments and to share in the concerns expressed by many Opposition Members about where we are with the Bill. There is uncertainty as to whether a trade deal can be done in the next 11 and a half months; there is the risk of no deal; there is the nature of the future relationship to consider; and there are issues of the parliamentary scrutiny, or lack thereof, of where we go from here. Of course, there is also more general regret about the Brexit process, which is going to leave the UK in a worse position overall in terms of the economy, society, security and the environment. That is particularly true of my own region of Northern Ireland.
I wish to focus on the unresolved issues. Brexit throws up a unique set of challenges for Northern Ireland, because, perhaps more than any other part of the UK, we are part of that wider network—that integrated framework across these islands. We are interdependent in terms of our trade and our society, both north-south on the island and in the wider whole-UK context as well. The problem of Brexit is that, whatever way it falls, it entails some degree of new barriers, borders or friction. In the context of Northern Ireland, that creates a sense of win and loss, in terms not only of the economy but of wider society and the emotional and psychological impacts. We also need to be acutely aware of the potential political ramifications in the medium to long term.
That said, we saw this week the almost remarkable situation in which, across the political divide in Northern Ireland, we had all the parties coming together behind a common set of amendments, which were also backed by—and, indeed, in many respects driven by—the local business community in Northern Ireland, which has itself come together in an almost unprecedented way because of the huge importance of the issues before us. I remain very much convinced, as do my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party, that Northern Ireland’s place is as part of the European Union. The Democratic Unionist party comes from a leave, pro-Brexit perspective. Regardless of how we reached this point, we all share the desire to ensure that we have the seamless, unfettered trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain that was the theme of the amendments, to protect the wider UK internal market and to ensure that the GB-to-Northern Ireland interface can be managed successfully.
Several wider points need to be made about the context. First, we should not see emerging—or indeed being forced on us—a choice or a trade-off between some sort of border or interface on the island of Ireland and a border or interface down the Irish sea. We want to avoid both those possibilities, but there will be a huge challenge in the way things have fallen in that respect. Indeed, the Assembly has almost been set up with this choice to make in four or eight years’ time: whether to maintain ongoing regulatory alignment for goods on an all-island and European basis, or align with the rest of the UK. It is not a choice that anyone particularly relishes and it builds a degree of instability into our political structures. Members will be aware that talks are ongoing back in Belfast as we speak to try to restore the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly—I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for his work in that regard over the past months—but Brexit adds a new layer of complexity to that wider context.
The focus of the debate and the amendments has largely been the interface between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, mainly because that is much more under the control of the UK Government. However, the process from Great Britain into Northern Ireland—and, indeed, beyond into the European Union—is just as important, if not more so. I think that those plans were not tested so much through amendments because that work depends on the outworkings of the future free trade arrangement. In that regard, it is worth stressing that a free trade agreement—even one that is very far reaching and inclusive—is not the same as the arrangements we currently have as part of the European Union; it is not the same as a customs union and a single market. A free trade agreement is a qualitatively different concept. We currently have a free trade arrangement through which we can access trade agreements with the rest of the world, and that is what we are giving up for an untested future.
There is ambiguity about where Northern Ireland will sit with respect to these future trade relations—whether we are part of a wider European Union framework when it comes to goods, or whether we are part of the wider UK trade policy. There was a time, particularly under the proposals of the former Prime Minister, when Northern Ireland could have had a foot in both camps, and the business community was embracing that. The danger now is that Northern Ireland could be marginalised and peripheral in both UK and EU trade terms, with local businesses facing considerable ongoing economic costs. In particular, there may well be barriers to accessing certain markets or attracting investment, because people will just see Northern Ireland as a complicated place and think that it is too difficult to engage with us. Our economy, which is already struggling from a low starting point, will continue to be marginalised.
As we look to a future relationship, it is important that we bear in mind the importance of integrating goods with access to labour; I am particularly thinking about ongoing freedom of movement and the service economy. It is very difficult to uncouple the four freedoms of the European single market. We need some degree of new deal for Northern Ireland because local businesses are going to face considerable economic costs. There will be a need for financial support as mitigation, or to support the transition as local companies adjust to the new arrangements and the new market frameworks.
Let me return to what happens as we look ahead to the next phase. There is a gap between: the rhetoric, declarations and promises of the UK Government and Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister; what we have been told by a range of different experts; and the reality of international and European law on customs and regulatory matters. That is an ongoing challenge which needs to be addressed, but Northern Ireland businesses want to see the commitments to unfettered access being honoured. We want to ensure that there is no discrimination against Northern Ireland goods, and it is important that we assess on an ongoing basis the economic impact of the Northern Ireland protocol.
My final point is that there has been a lot of focus on the joint report as being the almost magic solution to every unresolved question at this stage, as well as on the free trade agreement and negotiations. Given the very particular circumstances faced by Northern Ireland, my appeal would be for Northern Ireland representatives to be integral to those discussions and for there to be a proper feedback loop to the Northern Ireland Assembly, Executive and whatever democratic structures we can put in place back in Northern Ireland.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. You recently enjoyed a landslide victory of your own, so huge congratulations to you on your appointment.
We finally reach the end of the beginning stage of Brexit. It is a huge matter of regret to me that this Parliament and its predecessor have failed to compromise and the remain camp in the United Kingdom has learned the same lesson that the pro-Union camp did in Scotland: first past the post can be pretty brutal when only one party is on one side of a binary issue. Whereas Scotland, a country that voted against independence, keeps electing pro-independence MPs, at least in the UK there was a majority in favour—
Mr Perkins
Let me make a little progress and then I will give way.
At least in the UK there was a majority, albeit a very narrow one, for leaving the EU.
It is a tremendous failure that the 2017-19 Parliament was unable to agree on a settlement that respected both the referendum and the 2017 general election result. I regret the decision the British public took, but I accept it. I also accept that the indecision and uncertainty that dogged the 2017 Parliament was deeply damaging for businesses and for confidence in this institution. It is tremendously regrettable that the former Prime Minister, having held a general election that she did not need to, refused to negotiate with the Labour party leader and was then put under tremendous pressure by the Eurosceptics in her own party when she did attempt to negotiate. I also regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) decided to pursue a second general election rather than attempting to get the Brexit matter resolved. Ultimately we are weaker as a result of that.
Alan Brown
The hon. Gentleman correctly said that the SNP have 80% of seats and we favour independence, but a key plank of our mandate was actually Scotland’s right to choose, so it does not matter what our views are on independence. He clearly has a different view. Does he not agree that the mandate we have is for the people of Scotland to choose either independence or to reconfirm that they want to stay in the Union?
Mr Perkins
We had a referendum. I went up to Scotland, as many other people did, during that referendum. It was very interesting that a few moments ago one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues proudly said, “We got 45% of the vote.” I thought, “45%—that sounds familiar”, and of course that is because it is precisely how many people voted for independence back in 2016.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Perkins
That matter is settled and I am going to deal with the matter that we are dealing with today.
However, I would just say this on Scotland. When people hear Scottish National party MPs stand up and say that the SNP is representing the people of Scotland who all voted in favour of staying in the EU, they should remember that the SNP spent less than 10% of the money on the EU referendum that they spent on the independence referendum. The SNP got exactly the result it wanted, which was that Scotland voted to stay in the EU but the UK voted to leave. The biggest priority for the SNP has always been independence, and that is why it took the position it did.
Mr Perkins
No, I am going to make some progress.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) claimed that it was the uncertainty that we had in the last Parliament that undermined our negotiations. Well, now we will see, because now there are no excuses for Conservative Members. There is no sense that Parliament’s position is unknown. It is clear that we are going to leave the EU, and now they have no one else to blame. It is entirely their responsibility, and the fishermen, the farmers and the car workers up at Nissan will see whether it was this Parliament that was preventing the Government from getting the deal that they promised during the referendum.
As we vote on this tonight—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) rightly said, this is only the first part of all this and we will get on to the detail after that vote—I am minded to remember that Vote Leave promised us during the last referendum that
“we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave”.
That was one of the central promises of the Vote Leave campaign. When we vote tonight, we will be voting against that promise made by Vote Leave—we will be leaving the EU and then deciding on what basis we leave. But let us see if the Government are able to negotiate this much better deal. I confess that I will feel a huge sense of relief when the Bill passes tonight, so that we can move on to the next stage, and we will see whether the Government are able to deliver in any way on the promises that they made.
The future relationship is not sorted, and it is now for the Conservative party and its MPs to decide what that future relationship will be. They may well do it without Parliament having much of a say. Opponents of the new Tory Eurosceptic consensus have been swept away, and the supine, obedient group of Europhobic robots that we see in front of us have taken their place. Like lambs, they will lead us in whichever direction is ordered by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who will receive his orders from Dominic Cummings. We will see what direction they take us in.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On the UK’s future relationship with the EU, the hon. Gentleman is content to leave it to the Tory Government, but on Scotland’s future relationship, all we get is being patronised; we cannot decide ourselves. The reality is that, in 2014, we were promised a guarantee of our place in the European Union by staying in the United Kingdom. That promise is null and void. We cannot have any more non-Scottish MPs patronising the Scottish people. Their mandate must be respected. We must have a referendum, and the Scottish people must decide—not non-Scottish MPs, who think this is better for Scotland. Scotland needs to decide.
Mr Perkins
The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I have already responded to that, and it does not take us any further to go on now.
I voted for the amendments that my colleagues tabled, and we were right to seek to improve the Bill. I regret that the new orthodoxy recognises no value in the Erasmus programme, which enables young people without huge wealth to enjoy some of the opportunities that young people with wealth will continue to enjoy. It was triumphalist and not sensible to remove the assurances from the Bill that the Prime Minister put in place on its Second Reading in the last Parliament. It is ultimately for the victors to decide who they want to appeal to—it is for the Conservative party. It has got the Brexit it wants now, and it can decide, but a party that refuses to try to speak to those who voted against it will find itself in an ever diminishing pool. The next leader of the Labour party will also need to learn that lesson.
I will not oppose the Bill’s Third Reading today, because the desire to get beyond this stage is powerful and palpable. Businesses and communities wish for the Government to map out the future that we foresee for our country after Brexit, but the Government are foolish to continue to pursue the very narrow Brexit that they have suggested.
Our country has a long history of being a global player. We have taken an active interest in global affairs and made a contribution that far outweighs the size of our nation throughout history. Leaving the European Union does not have to mean relinquishing or reducing that global role. It does not have to mean retreating into narrow nationalism, but many who support it want that future for our country. The Conservative party has ceased to be a broad church. Only rampant Europhobia is to be tolerated now. I have never seen a less broad church—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are pointing at the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) to describe what a broad church they are; that is how desperate it has got.
It is now for my party to become a broad church again and recognise the reasons why communities who voted Labour for decades chose to seek a future outside the EU. We need to seek a co-operative and internationalist path for our country. The Labour party will not win votes in this Parliament, but we can, if we choose, lead the way to a different but still close relationship with our nearest neighbours—one that eschews a mean-spirited approach to the most vulnerable people and seeks still to offer the opportunities to the next generation of young people that so many of our generation enjoyed.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, my congratulations on your election to your new post—a historic appointment—and welcome back.
First, I will say that we in Her Majesty’s official Opposition will be abstaining on the SNP amendment tonight, because while we are sympathetic to its aims, our objections to this Bill are far wider. We object to so much in this Bill that we cannot confine ourselves to voting just for the reasoned amendment. We will be focused entirely on voting against the entire Bill on Third Reading—and no, that is not voting against Brexit; it is voting against this Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
Some hon. Members appear to think we are still in the Christmas pantomime season; we are not. Just saying that does not make it clever and does not make it right. All the Conservative Members who think they are about to vote to get Brexit done must know what lies ahead. They know—they must know—that trade negotiations take time. They must know that even if we are in alignment now, the Government’s stated intention is to diverge. So be in no doubt: trade negotiations will take longer than the precious few months that the Government have allowed. Getting them done at historic speed does not look very likely when the EU itself has already warned that it will take longer than that.
Whoever’s responsibility this is, the Government with this Bill—clause 33—have boxed themselves in so there is absolutely no get-out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has said, clause 33 is a gimmick, but it is a gimmick at the expense of the people of the United Kingdom. At the end of this year, if we are just days away from agreeing a trade deal or a few weeks away from sorting out the arrangements for moving medical devices or airline parts between the EU and the United Kingdom, it will make no difference: this Bill has bound the Government’s own hands. There will be no extension, and that is why we call it a cliff edge.
We did not need to be here. This Opposition have accepted that Brexit is happening on 31 January. [Hon. Members: “Hurrah!”] Triumphalism is not terribly seemly in this circumstance. We also did not need to be in a position where we are letting down child refugees. Let it be on record that the Opposition stood up for child refugees. We stood up for child refugees in trying to hold the Government to their own commitment to Lord Alf Dubs. They have no mandate for doing this. It is mean-spirited and morally as well as politically unjustified. I hope in the other place that their lordships will restore our amendment, which is actually about restoring the Government’s own commitment that the Prime Minister himself agreed should be in the previous version of this withdrawal agreement Bill. I hope they will restore it, and that we will stand up for child refugees in that House and in this.
I come to the maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) showed the people of Putney that they made an excellent choice. She clearly already knows and loves her constituency and understands the lives and values of her constituents. She has already been a strong voice for them this afternoon. She covered an enormous amount in her first speech, and I salute her ability to do that with clarity and great voice. I am already delighted to have her as a colleague, and I look forward to working with her. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) also made his maiden speech, and I congratulate him as he also showed his care for his constituency and his clear commitment to represent his constituents and their values in this place.
To the Government and to the Prime Minister, the Opposition say: this is now on them. Despite the lack of provision for scrutiny in this Bill, we will still use every tool we can to scrutinise the progress of the negotiations on the future relationship. Obviously, Conservative Members believe this is a great future. If that is a great future, I will happily stand here and be corrected.
Several hon. Members rose—
Thangam Debbonaire
No, I will not give way.
If, however, trade negotiations do not get concluded with record speed over the next few weeks and months, we will be holding this Government to account. We will expose the consequences to the people we were sent here to represent. We will expose the Government’s actions. We will use every tool that we have in order to do that. We owe it to the people of the United Kingdom to show them that we stood up for them today and every day, so we will vote against this Bill tonight.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Steve Barclay)
During the Committee stage this week and today on Third Reading we have had good debates on the withdrawal agreement Bill. This Bill will implement in UK law the withdrawal agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, ensuring that the UK departs the EU with a deal, getting Brexit done on 31 January, as we promised the British public we would. It will once and for all deliver on the mandate given to us not once but twice: in June 2016 and again in December 2019.
I would like to thank Members across the House who have contributed to the Committee stage over the last two years—two days. [Interruption.] Sometimes days can feel like years, but the new tone of this House obviously makes time seem to pass much quicker. I also add my thanks to the Clerks and officials in the Public Bill Office, who consistently provide invaluable support to Members in the House.
We have had three excellent maiden speeches in this debate, which also saw the very welcome return of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) to the Chair, continuing the Lancashire theme that we had at departmental questions. There was also the welcome election of the first female Chair of Ways and Means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) gave an excellent maiden speech—although he does have the benefit of having done it before. He spoke with warmth and passion about his home seat. He rightly paid tribute to his much-loved predecessor, who has given 50 years so far of public service. Having worked closely with him as my special adviser in the Department, I know that he will champion Wales throughout his time in the House, and I look forward to resuming my conversations with him on agriculture, and I am sure on rugby as well.
The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) gave a very good maiden speech, showing her passion for her constituency, and for the community groups and the community spaces with which she has worked. She referenced Clement Attlee and gave a speech that I am sure he would have been very proud to hear. She is right to highlight the value of the European Union citizens in her constituency. That is one of the safeguards that this Bill delivers, because we value their contribution not just in Putney but across the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) gave a first-class maiden speech, which displayed his clear and detailed knowledge and experience of immigration issues, and indeed it was clear that he held the attention of the House. It signalled the valuable contribution that I know he will make to forthcoming debates.
We also had a number of very powerful speeches from some of the most experienced Members of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) spoke of the importance of place and the people who have spoken within that place, and with his 30,000-plus majority they certainly have spoken very clearly on behalf of my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) spoke about the importance of democratic accountability and of restoring control over our fishing, an issue that he has championed throughout his time in this place. We will restore to this country the advantages of our spectacular marine wealth through this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) spoke of this as a great moment in our democracy and it being a tribute to the British people. I gently say to my hon Friend that it is also a tribute to him, who, despite criticism over the years, has stuck fast to his principles, and that is reflected in this Bill.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I entirely endorse that tribute. Under the Bill, and specifically under article 50, we will leave the European Union at 11 pm GMT on 31 January. As we leave at a precise specified time, those who wish to celebrate will need to look to a clock to mark the moment. It seems inconceivable to me and many colleagues that that clock should not be the most iconic timepiece in the world, Big Ben. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the House of Commons Commission, whose decision it is, that Big Ben should bong for Brexit?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend will know that my opposite number often talked of a clock ticking. He will also know that that decision is for the House authorities, but I am sure they will have heard the representations he makes. This is an important moment in our national story, and I am sure they will want to reflect that in the appropriate way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) gave a very insightful speech, reflecting her detailed commercial expertise. She is particularly right to draw the attention of the House to emerging technologies as one of the key opportunities unlocked by taking back control of our trade policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke with the experience of a former Chair of the European Parliament’s agriculture committee. As a farming constituency MP myself, I know that when he talks about what the National Farmers Union calls the “utter madness” of the three-crop rule, dictating to our farmers what they can and cannot grow, he speaks powerfully of the opportunities that the Bill will unlock.
This evening, the Bill will pass to the other place with a very clear mandate from this House that now is the time to move forwards. I anticipate constructive scrutiny, as we would expect of the other place, but I have no doubt that their lordships will have heard the resounding message from the British people on 12 December and that they will have seen the clear will of this House as expressed by the sizeable majorities in the Committee votes. The other place has, on more than one occasion, shown itself capable of acting at remarkable speed when it considers that it is in the interests of democracy and votes in this House. Given that, it is my sincere hope that their lordships will now give due regard to the clear majorities in Committee and establish their endorsement of the Bill in a similar timely fashion.
The Bill will secure our departure from the European Union with a deal that gives certainty to businesses, protects the rights of our citizens and ensures that we regain control of our money, our borders, our laws and our trade policy. Once the Bill has been passed and the withdrawal agreement ratified, we will proceed swiftly to the completion of a free trade deal with the EU by the end of December 2020, as laid out in our manifesto, bringing the supremacy of EU law to an end and restoring permanently the sovereignty of this place.
The European Commission President yesterday gave what I thought was a very thoughtful speech at the London School of Economics, speaking of old friends and new beginnings. She expressed her desire to establish a future relationship that is “unprecedented in scope”. In our later meeting with the Commission President, the Prime Minister made it clear that we share her desire for a relationship based on our shared history, interests and values. That is what we intend to build as a consequence of the Bill.
Three years ago, Parliament entrusted the decision of our relationship with the EU to the British people. By passing the Bill, we will send a clear message that we have listened and we have acted. In doing so, we will restore trust in this House and in our democracy. Once Brexit is delivered on 31 January, we can turn our eyes towards our other national priorities: education and skills; making our country safer; investing in the future of our much-loved NHS; and levelling up all parts of the United Kingdom. This is what people care about. It is what this people’s Government cares about. Passing the Brexit Bill will unlock the time and energy to make those priorities a reality.
It is time to get Brexit done. The Bill does so. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a historic moment for all of us. We must reflect on the fact that this is the first time that a part of the Union—a country of the Union—is having something done to it that it resents. The Scottish Government and the Scottish National party made it clear over the past three and a half years that we were seeking to compromise and to ensure that what the people of Scotland voted for—staying in the European Union and our rights as EU citizens—was respected.
It was interesting that when the Secretary of State summed up the debate today, he made no reference to my colleagues’ powerful speeches about that desire for our rights to be respected and the fact that we do not consent, under any circumstances, to the people of Scotland and our country being taken out of the European Union against our will. Let us make no mistake: that is exactly what is happening. Yesterday, the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly not to give its consent.
This is a constitutional crisis. We will not and cannot accept what has been done to us. I say to the Prime Minister and the Government—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. That was not me saying “Sit down.” The right hon. Member can finish his point briefly.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an important point. In the election in December, the people of Scotland stood by the Scottish National party on the basis of our right to choose. We will not accept being taken out of the European Union, and I say to the Prime Minister, “Respect democracy. Respect the election result. Respect the right of the people of Scotland to choose our future.” We will have our referendum, Prime Minister, and Scotland will remain an independent European country.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows and the House knows that that was not a point of order but a point of debate. In the circumstances, I allowed him to make his point. I am quite sure that he will find a way to continue the debate, and that the Prime Minister will find a way to continue to answer the points he raises.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may not be aware that Hitachi at Newton Aycliffe, which employs many of my constituents, has today announced that it is making a third of the workforce redundant, meaning that 250 jobs are to be lost. The company says that the restructuring is not being taken lightly, but reflects the need to remain competitive and put the factory on a more sustainable footing for the long term by winning more manufacturing orders in the future. The lost jobs could be the thin end of the wedge, as the announcement could have a knock-on effect on jobs in the supply chain. Do you know whether the Government intend to make a statement on the job losses and on the action they plan to assist the company at this difficult time?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. I deduce that what he is really saying is that he wishes to bring a Minister to the Dispatch Box to answer his eloquently made point. I suggest that, at the beginning of next week, perhaps by way of an urgent question or some other means, he will find a way to ensure that this important issue, which I am sure the House appreciates matters enormously in his constituency, is discussed properly in the Chamber.
Hospital Improvement Plans: VAT Rules
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am pleased to have been granted this debate at a significant time in Parliament, following this evening’s votes. I hope to shed some light on how complicated VAT rules, which have evolved over time in the NHS, are now creating incentives for trusts to behave contrary to the Government’s objectives, in particular those relating to capital investment and the implementation of the long-term plan.
I am pleased to see the Minister for Health here to answer the debate. My expertise in the finer aspects of taxation policy and its operation is fairly limited, and I do not believe that he is a tax expert either, but before I came to this place I spent most of my professional life as an NHS manager so I know a lot about planning and delivering health services, including new hospitals. The Minister has clear policy objectives as the Government work to implement the NHS plan, which is predicated on place-based commissioning and improved capital infrastructure. I believe that, as the Minister for Health, he has an obligation to support NHS leaders by providing greater clarity on how the rules operate. Indeed, the Office of Tax Simplification agrees with me that this is a problem, with its 2017 report recording frustration
“about a number of cases where the VAT position was unclear…with HMRC and government tendering departments having differing interpretations.”
It noted that
“VAT liabilities should be clearly outlined during the tendering process for public services and contracts.”
The Government also appear to agree, and the spring statement announced a policy paper, although it was vague on details. The announcement was for:
“A policy paper exploring a potential reform to VAT refund rules for central government, with the aim of reducing administrative burdens and improving public sector productivity.”
The 2019 OTS update noted that that spring statement had involved a commitment to
“a policy paper on VAT Simplification and the public sector”.
It is essential to raise this issue now, because as we move towards implementing the NHS plan we all need to understand exactly how the Government will allocate the necessary funding for hospital improvements and other infrastructure projects. The potential of VAT savings will increasingly become a major consideration for trusts up and down the country. Capital investment is always to be welcomed and it is long overdue. Whether we think we will have 40 or six new hospitals, my sympathies are with the finance directors and managers in trusts who are faced with the task of maximising these investments, and managing the competing interests of recruiting and retaining staff, developing integrated local health systems and securing local public trust in their plans. It is my belief that the underlying problem here is that the priorities of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department of Health and Social Care are not in alignment.
The problem manifests itself in a number of ways. First, a decade of underinvestment in our health service has led to NHS trusts desperately trying to recover whatever finances might be possible. Some of the VAT rules and debates go back decades. I hope the Minister does not rise to say that the last Labour Government used rules to involve the private sector and are responsible for some of this, and I respond by saying that it all started under Margaret Thatcher’s outsourcing, and we simply do not help anyone. I hope we can be more helpful than that. That was the last comment I had back, so I am just stemming that off at the pass.
The real explosion in this issue came from the direction of the coalition Government and the creation of contracted-out services regulations. The HMRC manual “VAT Government and Public Bodies”, from 2012, states:
“Government departments and health authorities have been encouraged to contract out services to the private sector which would have traditionally been performed in-house”—
over many decades.—
“It is recognised that many of these services would be subject to VAT and where they were acquired for 'non-business' purposes, the non-reclaimable VAT could act as a disincentive to contracting-out.”
That was then the policy of the Government. The manual continues:
“It was therefore decided to compensate government departments and health authorities by a direct refund mechanism, which is provided for in section 41(3) of the VAT Act 1994. Under this provision, the Treasury issues a Direction, commonly known as the 'Contracting Out Direction' which lists both the government departments and health authorities that are eligible to claim refunds of VAT, and the services on which VAT can be refunded.”
For lay people, myself included, that in essence means that under these regulations full VAT could be recovered on the cost of a managed service which provided premises that could be used for delivering healthcare. Of course, the private sector was pleased, as it meant it could now, as it saw it, compete on a level playing field with the public sector. But really we should view any tax breaks or loopholes with extreme suspicion, as they lead to reduced revenue for the Exchequer. There should always be a compelling public interest for any tax breaks or loopholes. After this direction and as austerity has bitten, more and more complex arrangements have been set up.
Following the OTS 2017 report, I am sure many in the accounting departments across the public sector were relieved to hear last year's spring statement, when the then Chancellor announced a consultation on VAT in the public sector. This could mean a potential reform to VAT refund rules to reduce administration and improve public sector productivity. However, concerningly, the language of the spring statement, and the background to it, appear to suggest a widening of VAT refunds for those engaged in services—that, again, is reducing the amount of VAT paid by public sector contractors back to the Treasury. I am worried that the Treasury are going to make the situation worse.
My good colleague in the other place, Lord Hunt, followed up on the whereabouts of the review in October, when he asked for an update on the review’s progress. He was told by the Earl of Courtown to expect a policy paper for public consultation “in the coming months”. I know we have all been busy, but the world awaits and it would be helpful if the Minister provided the House with an update on that review, either tonight or in writing afterwards.
The area of VAT avoidance that has attracted a great deal of attention, and that myself and many colleagues—including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist)—visited the Treasury to talk about last year, is the establishment of wholly owned companies in NHS trusts. Such companies can be seen up and down the country, from Northumberland to Yeovil. They vary greatly between those that try to remain part of the NHS and those that position themselves as separate corporate businesses only loosely connected to patients and the public. Most are set up to deliver a full range of facilities management services—including cleaning, catering, porters and security—and then charge the parent trust for this managed service on a private finance initiative-style unitary fee basis.
We have heard that, to avoid charges of tax avoidance, which created a degree of media discussion, the new arrangements are supposed to be better from a service-delivery point of view. Ostensibly, they are solving problems with estates and facilities management and how staff are managed, but there is no evidence of that. In every case, almost all the benefits, some of which are considerable financial benefits for the trust, appear to come from tax changes, not service improvements. Many of the schemes have resulted in thousands of NHS staff being taken out of the NHS and transferred against their will into wholly owned subsidiaries. This increases fragmentation, and there are examples of companies falling out with their parent trust. There are also arguments about which organisation is responsible for what and who pays.
Far worse is that in some cases the use of a separate company is used to undermine national agreements on terms and conditions. Around 50 such proposals have been progressed or are in the pipeline, and it is highly worrying that they were advanced in secret, without consultation with patients or the workforce involved. When freedom of information requests were made for access to the business cases that sought to justify the changes, trade unions and others were denied access, with claims that the information was commercial and confidential.
Just this week, The Pharmaceutical Journal reported that 34% of trusts had outsourced their pharmacy service to a commercial firm and 16% have created wholly owned subsidiaries. The practice is now widespread. Despite that, the recent examples at the Bradford Trust and the Frimley Health Trust have been vigorously opposed, particularly by Unison, and it appears that both proposed schemes have been stopped. That is good news for thousands of low-paid staff who wish to remain NHS employees.
Thanks to the considerable pressure put on NHS Improvement, trusts must now in effect ask for permission before they create a subsidiary company, although far from being a device to prevent the practice, the seeking of permission appears more like a scheme to embellish some badly written business cases so that the changes can go ahead with a veneer of justification. Under some pressure, that process is being reviewed.
Although in the short term it appears that individual trusts will gain through tax advantages offered by the wholly owned companies, other trusts will not, and it means less VAT for the Treasury. But the Treasury seems unconcerned about the lost income. The practice is not a strategic, collaborative or positive solution to the problems that trusts face, and it is not about better employment. The NHS has agreed national terms and conditions for a good reason: because overall it works. All these schemes try to undermine the national agreements and offer staff less favourable terms to save money.
Having two-tier workforces is not a good way to progress. A few years ago, I made that point successfully in my own area of Bristol. The North Bristol NHS Trust, which was at the time under considerable financial pressure, was considering adopting a wholly owned company but, following local discussions, including with Unison, it recognised that in the local, highly competitive market for staff, at a time when the trust needed to start to collaborate on service development, it needed not to outsource. The creation of a second and third-tier workforce made no sense operationally and gave the wrong messages to staff and the public about valuing the all-important workforce across the entire Bristol health economy, so the trust did not do it.
As I touched on in my opening remarks, the controversy over VAT and how it applies in the NHS is relevant to infrastructure investment, because the temptation for the trusts set to benefit from the new capital—I accept that there is new capital, and that is good—will be to avoid paying VAT to reduce significantly the direct ongoing costs. That is why it is so important that the Government give careful consideration to how the investment is going to be made.
I believe the choices made by the Government on this issue will reflect how well they understand both the importance of the NHS estate itself, as part of the health ecosystem, and the direction of the long-term plan. I cannot emphasise enough—and I do think hon. Members understand this—that capital is not a technical, dry subject, but is crucial to the delivery of quality healthcare. It is not a burden on the system. It is time for us all to show we understand that we need a joined-up strategy and proper investment.
The thing I kept at the forefront of my mind as an NHS manager, and do so now as a local representative, is that the health service is wholly funded by the taxpayer, and the public have a great attachment to people and place when engaging with healthcare. Buildings are so much more than a pile of bricks of which to sweat the assets, or empty vessels to lease for maximum return. Buildings really are a physical manifestation of local people’s love for and connection to their local health service. Local people are not over-concerned with how services are developed, but they do not expect their health service to behave in such a way as to constantly try to exploit tax loopholes or penalise staff.
For 15 years or so I have been a supporter of the concept of place-based commissioning, by which I mean local collaboration across the public sector, making good use of the publicly owned estate to deliver quality health services and maximising the value of the taxpayer’s pound. Place-based commissioning has been the direction of travel for some time. It was knocked off course by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, but there is hope of getting it back on track once the long-term plan is in place.
I understand that the setting up of a subsidiary might make sense in the short term for individual trusts, but it makes no sense for the wider health economy or the whole NHS. We must move from a competitive, short-term, market-driven approach at a micro level to a collaborative approach focused on overall gains. The logic of the VAT exploitation and WOCs practice is based on the old idea of trusts having autonomy, behaving like businesses and competing, but this is out of date and directly at odds with the NHS plan, which is built around place-based solutions like sustainability and transformation partnerships and integrated care schemes. On the contrary, the fundamental principle underpinning these initiatives and the Government’s own strategy is much greater collaboration across the system, which absolutely includes the use of buildings and any capital investment.
Another example of what those running the health service are trying to grapple with is GP commissioning and the new primary care networks. One of my last jobs before coming to this place was running a GP commissioning group, so I understand how difficult it is to get practices to work together and align their businesses. Last summer the NHS published a document called “The Primary Care Network Contract DES and VAT”, referring to the way in which the health service funds these proposals. The document sought to give guidance about VAT in the new primary care networks. The author goes to some pains to set out over several pages what NHS England “expects” will be the best approach—and then comes the following caveat:
“Although we anticipate the VAT treatment to follow the above analysis it is not straightforward. Practices should note that HM Revenue & Customs has not agreed the position described in this document and that they are the authority responsible for agreeing, administering and collecting VAT.”
If the Government and NHS England are publishing guidance on how to set up these new organisations without really knowing how HMRC is going to treat them, how on earth can we expect people in the frontline to develop good services?
Let me mention another issue, which is local to my constituents and which I have been working on for some time: GP employment status. For the last five years, HMRC has been reviewing the employment status of GPs who provide NHS out-of-hours services, which are now called integrated urgent care services. During this period, demand for GP services has risen and the need identified by NHS England for a substantial—that is, 5,000-plus—increase in the number of GPs has not yet been met with wholetime equivalent resourcing. Based on arrangements in place since the formation of the NHS, GPs have continued to work on a self-employed basis, and this remains the desired option for many of them. This has been the subject of some political debate over a number of years, but it is the position as people understand it.
BrisDoc is a local GP organisation based in my constituency that provides urgent care services to the NHS. It has been faced with five years of uncertainty regarding its workforce because HMRC does not accept the legitimacy of independent GPs working on a self-employed basis, even though this correctly reflects the way services are contracted based on professional and legal advice. How they are funded is a separate debate, but if HMRC changed GPs’ status, it would increase the risk that GPs would not be willing to work and would increase the cost to the NHS. Both of these have a negative impact on NHS services, reducing GP capacity at a time when we need more, and costing more, which will ultimately lead to a greater cost for the Treasury.
The priority has to be on patient safety and care, and the provider, BrisDoc, has continued to fight for this focus in order to maintain the best possible level of GP availability. However, HMRC states that its focus is simply on “employment status” and not any wider implications of any change, whereas NHS England indicates that it cannot get involved with determining employment status for GPs, who are an essential part of the NHS workforce. This leaves BrisDoc vulnerable to financial and workforce loss while doing everything possible to maintain the service. Its plea, and my plea on behalf of my constituents, is this: can the overall strategy for the GP workforce be reviewed to ensure that the key priorities and objectives are aligned with regard to any change in employment status? It is unacceptable nonsense for it to spend five years between the two Government Departments. Will the Minister be willing to meet me and BrisDoc to better understand the problem?
I hope that I have impressed on the Minister not only the preposterous nature of this VAT problem but how critical it is that we sort this loophole out now through proper consultation with the NHS and an urgent publication of the VAT review. Finance directors in particular need the support to make decisions that align with the strategic vision of the long-term plan, not that are at odds with it. To do this, the guidance from HMRC and the policies of the Department of Health and Social Care must be joined up. If the Government are, as they have indicated, supportive of the strategic direction of the NHS plan, then this must mean supporting local health economies to flourish through the collaborative partnerships integral to STPs and integrated care systems. They simply cannot work if trusts, and other delivery partners, are in competition with each other.
After a decade of fairly imprudent underinvestment and failing policy, we really are at a crossroads, and we need to get this right. If we can level the playing field for all trusts through proper funding, and consistent, sensible VAT rules that do not divert time and effort from the objectives of the trusts to serve their local patient population, we could have every reason to be positive about the potential of local place-based commissioning for success.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair in your new role as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) on securing this debate. I know this is an important subject for her, as she has raised it on many occasions, but she is right that capital—the buildings our NHS operates out of—is actually an important subject for all of us. While it is a shame that there are not many Members in the Chamber, I hope that quality makes up for a lack of quantity. That is certainly the case with her speech, but it is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist)—who, if I recall correctly, held a debate on this subject almost a year ago—here as well.
The hon. Member for Bristol South was perhaps being unduly modest in her opening remarks about her knowledge of this subject and expertise in this area. While it is always a pleasure to see her speak about it, I always watch with a certain degree of trepidation, because she does know her subject extremely well. My knowledge of VAT and tax rules is rather more limited. Although I spent a period of time as a member of a primary care trust board many years ago, I suspect that my knowledge base will not be as deep as hers. However, I will endeavour to respond to all the points she has made. I recognise that the article she wrote that was published this morning on PoliticsHome highlights a number of these issues as well.
I will start by addressing the capital investment programme that the Government have set out and the impact of VAT on that, and then move on to the hon. Lady’s points about wholly owned subsidiaries and some of her subsequent points. In respect of the VAT position with the new health infrastructure plan hospitals—the new 40 hospitals we will be building—under the tax code VAT will be payable by hospital trusts involved in construction, reflecting that these are new builds and we would expect the appropriate HMRC regulations to be adhered to. However, as the hon. Lady touched on in setting out the background to the VAT rules, VAT chargeable on supplies of goods and services in the UK is collected by HMRC on behalf of the Government, so all moneys received in that way are reinvested in public services.
In addition, the funding provided for the 40 new hospital build projects and other capital schemes includes provision for the VAT charged by the suppliers involved in the developments. There may also be scope for an element of VAT reclaim on aspects of those projects, which will be determined and calculated on a case-by-case basis and in line with VAT regulations and rules. The overall funding allocation for the HIP has been built up by overall cost estimates of the schemes, inclusive of VAT. However, the final amount of VAT payable will be determined once the individual schemes have been fully scoped and costed. Current VAT rules will apply, and VAT recovery will be assessed for each scheme in line with the rules set out in section 41 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the Treasury’s “Contracting Out Direction”. In broad terms, we have made allowance for VAT within the estimated costs of those schemes.
As the hon. Lady noted, it was outlined in the spring statement of 2019 that longer-term plans are currently being considered by Her Majesty’s Treasury to review the section 41 VAT rules, to potentially either allow for full VAT reclaim for NHS bodies on all their purchases of goods and services or remove VAT reclaims entirely from them. The VAT review or policy paper will publish a call for evidence in due course. While I know she would like me to give an exact date, I hope she will forgive me for not making announcements that are possibly more appropriate for Treasury Ministers to make. I will ensure that her request to know that date is conveyed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I hope that he will be able to respond to her swiftly with further information. In the context of the forthcoming call for evidence, I encourage her and others to contribute. She has a lot of knowledge and expertise in this area, and I suspect that in encouraging her to contribute I am pushing at an open door, because she will certainly do that. I know that the Financial Secretary will be pleased to hear from her.
The hon. Lady focused in both her article and speech on wholly owned subsidiaries, as did the hon. Member for Blaydon in her debate a year ago. While there can be VAT advantages of forming wholly owned subsidiary companies, we are clear that they cannot and should not be set up for the purposes of VAT avoidance, and we wrote to all provider trusts in September 2017 to remind them of their clear tax responsibilities. I may provoke the hon. Member for Bristol South, given her plea earlier, by saying that the origins of this position date back to 2004, subsequently consolidated in the National Health Service Act 2006, but she is right to highlight the changes in the 2012 Act. The position has evolved under Governments of both parties, but she is right to look at the future rather than where we have come from.
We expect all NHS providers to follow the guidance when considering any new arrangements or different ways of going down the wholly owned subsidiary route. There can be advantages in that route, as my predecessor, who is now the Brexit Secretary, set out, for employees in terms of flexibility and choice. There can also be commercial advantages for the NHS bodies setting them up, including things such as enabling providers to employ staff on more flexible and, in some cases, more generous terms and conditions—I emphasise the words “in some”; I see the hon. Member for Blaydon watching me carefully—as well as providing more efficient services in some cases to other trusts, being able to attract staff from the local employment market and giving greater flexibility to the operation of that organisation.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister said carefully that “some” staff may be advantaged. Does he accept that the vast majority of staff in low-paid jobs—often women—are not benefiting from this and are in fact losing out in pension contributions? When we met Treasury Ministers last year, we were told that it was for the Department of Health and Social Care to decide what its policy is. Will he now commit to redressing that?
Edward Argar
I thought I was going to provoke the hon. Lady to intervene, but it is none the less a pleasure that she has done so. She does highlight disparities, but I would say that it is wrong to suggest—even taking out wholly owned subsidiary companies within the NHS more broadly—that there is an exact commonality of terms and conditions, pension arrangements and so on; there are differences already.
What I will commit to do—I was going to mention this at the end, but I will say it now—is that I am very happy to meet both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bristol South to discuss this more broadly in the context of Department of Health and Social Care responsibilities in the NHS, as well as the point the hon. Lady made about self-employed GPs and independent GPs. I am very happy to have that meeting with them. We may have to revert to the Treasury at some time on technical points, but I am very happy to have that meeting. I am very conscious that, in the two minutes or so I have left, there is a limit to how much I will be able to say, but I am happy to pick up other points in that subsequent meeting.
The hon. Lady is right about buildings. It is right that we are building 40 new hospitals and that we are investing capital in our NHS infrastructure, but she is also right to say that, yes, we shape those buildings, but in talking about place-based approaches, they shape us too and they shape our communities, so it is absolutely right that we get this right. On place-based commissioning, I was a cabinet member on Westminster City Council for many years—in the dim and distant past, when I had more hair and it was not grey—and I sat on the PCT at the same time, and where it works for local circumstances, there are clearly opportunities there as well. However, I do think that autonomy remains important, because while consistency and clarity are vital, so too is enabling local autonomy to address local needs and specific local circumstances, and I think we need to be a little bit careful about that.
I will conclude—with about a minute to go before you stop me, Madam Deputy Speaker—by saying I am sorry that we do not have more time for this debate, because it is an important debate. I am sorry there are not more Members here because it is something that would benefit all Members to be involved in. I look forward to any future such debates. I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this forward. She is right to highlight this issue, and I hope she will take an active part in putting forward her views to the Treasury review and call for evidence when that comes forward. As I say, I very much look forward to continuing this discussion—if not on the Floor of the House, in a meeting subsequently—and I hope and believe that we will be debating this at some point across the Floor of the House in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Direct Payments Funding
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Rishi Sunak)
The Treasury has confirmed £2,852 million of funding across financial years 2020/21 and 2021/22 to replace funding from the European Union and allow delivery of direct payments 2020 for farmers at the same level as the 2019 scheme.
The 2020 direct payment scheme across the EU is funded from the next multiannual financial framework, which means that in the UK, the 2020 scheme will be funded domestically by the UK Government. To provide certainty for farmers, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations, the Treasury has announced that the following funding will be allocated:
£1,751 million in 2020/21 and £92 million in 2021/22 for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
£449 million in 2020/21 and £24 million in 2021/22 for the Scottish Government;
£231 million in 2020/21 and £12 million in 2021/22 for the Welsh Government; and
£279 million in 2020/21 and £15 million in 2021/22 for the Northern Ireland Administration.
This funding will be ring-fenced for direct payments and is based on an exchange rate of €1=£0.89092, the same rate as used for direct payments 2019.
[HCWS25]
Media Matters: iNewspaper
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Sport, Media and Creative Industries (Nigel Adams)
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has today written to Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) and JPI Media Publications Limited, the current and former owners of the i newspaper, to inform them that the Secretary of State for DCMS is “minded to” issue an intervention notice. This relates to concerns the Secretary of State has that there may be public interest considerations—as set out in section 58 of Enterprise Act 2002—that are relevant to the recent acquisition of the i newspaper by DMGT and that these concerns warrant further investigation.
A “minded to” letter has therefore been issued to the parties on one public interest ground specified in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002:
(2B) The need for, to the extent that it is reasonable and practicable, a sufficient plurality of views in newspapers in each market for newspapers in the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom
It is important to note that the Secretary of State has not taken a final decision on intervention at this stage. In line with the statutory guidance on media mergers, the “minded to” letter invites further representations in writing from the parties and gives them until 13 January to respond. The Secretary of State plans to make her final decision, which needs to be made on a quasi-judicial basis, on whether to issue an intervention notice no later than week commencing 20 January.
If the Secretary of State decides to issue an intervention notice, the next stage would be for Ofcom to assess and report to the Secretary of State on the public interest concerns and for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to assess and report to her on whether a relevant merger situation has been created and any impact this may have on competition. Following these reports, the Secretary of State would need to decide whether to refer the matter for a more detailed investigation by the CMA under section 45 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
DCMS will keep Parliament updated on progress with this media merger case.
[HCWS27]
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Children outside the UK
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Today the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse has published its latest report, which can be found at www.iicsa.orq.uk.
This report relates to its investigation into children outside the UK. I pay tribute to the strength and courage of the victims and survivors who have shared their experiences to ensure the inquiry can deliver its vital work.
The Government will review this report and consider how to respond to its content in due course.
I would like to thank Professor Jay and her panel for their continued work to uncover the truth, expose what went wrong in the past and to learn the lessons for the future.
[HCWS26]
Town of the Year Competition
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Today I am announcing the opportunity for towns across England to compete in a new town of the year competition. The competition aims to celebrate towns’ achievements in areas such as entrepreneurship, technology, community, enterprise, and integration. This will help deliver on the Prime Minister’s bold agenda for the future, making this decade a time of renewal for towns and communities.
In the months ahead, I will complete a countrywide tour of all the 100 areas receiving funding under the £3.6 billion towns fund. This will ensure these places are receiving the practical support and investment they need on the ground so we can help local communities to deliver real change.
Some £16 million of funding has now been delivered to local authorities to help develop new innovative proposals in the 100 areas across England, as part of the towns fund. Each place will have the opportunity to bid for funding of up to £25 million.
To assist with this, I will establish a new towns hub’ within my Department, which will work to develop each town’s investment proposals. The hubs, based across the country will have a named representative from the Department, supporting local people on the development of their plan. They will also evaluate the emerging town investment plans, share best practice across towns and build on the towns fund investments for potential future support to towns from across Government.
Finally, today I am also announcing a new expert-led advisory panel, which will be convened to advise on how we can revitalise our towns over the next year. The specialists, including entrepreneurs and people who have delivered real change, will help shape this Government’s policy to support the growth agenda.
These announcements reaffirms out the Government’s ambition to level up the country. It sets out how we will help restore the fabric of our towns and cities and give local people far more control in how they are invested in, and to hear directly from people in these communities on the specific support and investment they need.
[HCWS28]
Contingency Fund Advance
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I hereby give notice of the Department for Transport’s intention to seek an advance from the Contingencies Fund. The Department requires an advance to meet its cash requirements pending parliamentary approval of the Supplementary Estimate 2019-20.
The Department is operating within the budget agreed in the Main Estimate, however, we will be seeking an increase in our net cash requirement in the Supplementary Estimate. Accessing the contingency fund is to allow the Department to move cash around the group to support existing expenditure consistent with existing Parliamentary Estimates and does not represent additional spending.
When the Main Estimate was submitted for approval, part of Network Rail’s (NR) grant-in-aid was excluded. The grant funding for NR in control period 6 was agreed shortly before the Main Estimate was finalised and in the transition from loan funding to grant funding the full value of the required grant was not captured in the Department’s net cash requirement. It was the Department’s intention that the final classification and cash requirement would be covered by the Supplementary Estimates process.
The advance will be repaid immediately following approval of the Supplementary Estimate. We have taken steps to review our processes and capture lessons learned, to prevent any similar issues from happening again.
Parliamentary approval for additional cash of £3.6 billion will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the Department for Transport. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at up to £3.6 billion will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS23]
Northern Rail
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Passengers in the north have had to put up with unacceptable services for too long. We understand how frustrating this has been for people and we are taking action to make sure that performance improves.
On 16 October 2019 I informed the House, through the Transport Committee, that I had issued a request for a proposal to the current Northern franchisee, Arriva Rail North (ARN) and to the operator of Last Resort as the first phase of securing options for the continuation of passenger services on the Northern franchise. This was triggered by concern over the financial position of ARN.
It has now been confirmed to me from the most recent available financial information that the franchise will only be able to continue for a number of months. The proposal I requested from ARN is being evaluated. Following completion of this process I will consider whether to award ARN a short-term management contract or whether to ask the Department of Transport’s own operator of Last Resort to step in and deliver passenger services. Longer-term decisions on the franchise will be made in the light of the recommendations of the Williams Rail Review.
My decision on which short-term option to choose will be made in accordance with the key principles set out in the statement on how I use my rail franchising powers. This includes:
protecting the interests of passengers
ensuring business and service continuity
preserving the interests of taxpayers by ensuring value for money
the continued quality of the franchise proposition;
In order to inform this decision, the Department will assess the extent to which each option performs against these principles. Our value for money assessment will be based on a number of criteria, including which option returns most money to the taxpayer, the risks attached to each, and the value of any improvements in passenger services. I intend to announce my decision before the end of January 2020.
To clarify, the current financial position of the Northern franchise will not impact on the railway’s day-to-day operations. Services will continue to run and there will be no impact on staff.
[HCWS24]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
National Health Service Infrastructure
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the consequences for patient safety of the backlog of maintenance and repairs to National Health Service infrastructure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that the quality of infrastructure, including backlog of maintenance, can pose challenges to the efficiency, safety and quality of NHS services. That is why we have launched the Health Infrastructure Plan, which includes the biggest hospital building programme in a generation. This substantial investment will support many of the hospitals facing the biggest challenges from their estates.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. NHS Providers says that the cost of the backlog is now £6.5 billion, and last year 15,844 patient incidents and 4,810 clinical incidents were caused by estate and infrastructure failure, and there were 1,500 fires in which 34 people were injured. The backlog includes wet walls in wards preventing babies’ incubators being plugged in. This is extremely serious. Will the Government provide the necessary funding to catch up—I am not sure that it is available yet? What is the timescale for catching up with the backlog—not building necessarily the 40, or six or however many, new hospitals that have been tendered?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The department acknowledges that parts of the NHS estate do not meet the demands of a modern health service and that there is unmet need for capital within the NHS. That is why we announced £2.1 billion of capital for health infrastructure in August and a further £2.8 billion injection in September. This is to ensure that staff are safe to deliver the world-leading health service that they should in a modern, efficient environment. We are also going further by reforming the capital regime to establish a clearer set of capital controls and the right incentives for organisations in respect of their infrastructure. The Chancellor has also confirmed that DHSC will receive a new multi-year capital settlement in the next capital review. Backlog of maintenance across the government estate will be a key theme of the spending review.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in relation to emergency medicine. Will the Government undertake to look specifically at the problem for emergency departments, given that many of them do not have enough cubicle space for the number of ambulances that arrive and the number of patients who are blue-lighted in? Staff do not have enough space to take a short break from the front line of some of the most harrowing cases that they have to deal with.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is very expert in this area, and she is absolutely right that the NHS estate must prioritise areas of most need. This is why we have put in a serious amount of investment. NHS Improvement is also conducting a backlog review to understand where the areas of greatest need are and to assist NHS trusts in prioritising capital spending over the next few months and years.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, equipment such as CAT scanners also comes from this source of income. Many are now not operating properly or are out of action awaiting repair. How many days of treatment are lost each year as a result of this?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
Data on the proportion of capital equipment that is out of action or on days lost is not currently collected and the responsibility for that is with local NHS organisations, but the Government have recently supported investment in new diagnostics. As outlined in our Health Infrastructure Plan, we have invested £200 million to deliver new state-of-the-art diagnostic machines, such as MRI machines, CT scanners and breast-scanning equipment, to 78 trusts. We recognise that we need to improve the number of scanners that are younger than the “golden rule” of 10 years old.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government scrapping car parking charges, which will support people who are caring. I also welcome the new money that will be put into the infrastructure project, which is vital, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has pointed out. Can my noble friend say, however, whether AI and new technology will be used, and whether funding will be put in place to help carers and people living in their home?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank my noble friend for her question. She is absolutely right that we want to prevent people from going into hospital in the first place. We have made a £200 million investment in the AI lab to reduce the burden on doctors in the first place and to make use of the benefits of AI in diagnostics. A number of centres up and down the country are trialling this to reduce the burden on clinicians so that they can become more human and work on their caring responsibilities. We are also trialling a dementia care test bed, so that there is support for carers and so that people with dementia can remain in their own home. This is going on in Surrey and has been hugely successful; it is a very exciting development.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, given that the NHS is seeking to shift to being a more community and primary care-based organisation, can the Minister say more about what investment is going into community and primary care in capital terms?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
We have been looking at providing additional funding and support to councils to meet the rising demands and to continue to stabilise the social care system. We announced access to an additional £1.5 billion of funding for adults and social care, and we will be considering this further in the spending review.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that there was a spike in the incidence of flu just before Christmas; I do not know whether it has diminished, but it certainly was quite high. As a consequence, a number of people who perhaps would have much preferred not to go to hospital were forced to do so. She might like to know that, in one London hospital to which one of my family was obliged to go, the queue for A&E was out into the street. Many of those people were ill and should not have been outside in the cold. The reason for it was partly to do with availability of staff but more to do with the availability of chairs. Does she understand that hospitals need capacity beyond what their expectation might be of how many people will turn up, precisely to cope when there is a spike of this kind?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is right that there has been a significant increase in demand over recent years. That is partly why we have secured the significant funding increase from the Treasury of £33.9 billion, which we will be enshrining in law for the first time to give certainty to hospitals. It is why we are increasing the capital investment, which will address some of the challenges that she has raised, and it is also why we have run a vigorous flu vaccination programme to prevent people from getting into that problem in the first place. We recognise that we need to reduce the demand from those going into A&E unnecessarily and to support those very hard-working staff who were in those situations over Christmas and the new year. We thank them for their hard work over that period.
Fracking
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the moratorium on fracking will become a ban.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to turn the moratorium on shale gas extraction into a ban. The Government have always been clear that we will be led by science, will continue to take a precautionary approach and will support shale gas exploration only if it can be done in a safe and sustainable way. The moratorium is intended to give a clear message to the sector and to local communities that fracking, within the current corpus of scientific evidence, will not be taken forward in England.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The very welcome delay to carrying on with fracking means that we have to move a bit faster in reducing our dependence on gas, so will the Government ban new builds having gas central heating and perhaps look at subsidising heat pumps and renewable energy? It is all in the Green New Deal, if the Minister would like a copy.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness raises an important point. Let me stress at the beginning that we need to decarbonise, and moving from coal to the lighter hydrocarbons is one way of doing so. It has ensured that the US has met and measured its own decarbonisation very well. We will look at how to decarbonise our internal central heating processes and anticipate putting new ideas forward very soon.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is it sensible for the Government to continue with the moratorium when we are so dependent on gas supplies from the Middle East? Are we not lucky that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was not here when we discovered North Sea oil?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I would not like to comment on the age of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in this regard—I mean that in a complimentary way. We currently have a number of sources of gas to ensure that we are not dependent upon any one. We have our own domestic, indigenous gas from the North Sea; we have piped gas, LNG; and of course we bring in gas from the Middle East. We have such a broad base that we are not wholly dependent upon any one and therefore we can be sure that we will be safe into the future.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
The Government may not ban fracking, but do they agree with the National Audit Office’s recent report that states that fracking has no demonstrable benefit for local people, communities or the environment?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
It is a question that I cannot answer, because at present there are no fracking sites in the United Kingdom that are in any way functional. The question of how we invest in local communities has already been realised by the onshore wind sector; we have seen significant benefit to local communities through investment in those communities by companies that have located their wind farms there.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a strategic benefit in being able to produce gas ourselves? At the moment we see that Germany, for example, is in a very poor position, because she is reliant on gas from Russia. It puts her in a poor strategic position.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The answer to that question is yes. Many years ago when I was a geologist I found myself digging out fossil insects in central Colorado. That was designated a strategic naval reserve, because it was oil shale and in a crisis it could be removed for the US Navy. It is vital.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on introducing this moratorium. It is great news for North Yorkshire, particularly where fracking was going to be considered in a national park, which I believe is totally inappropriate. Will the Government look at energy from waste and the work going on at the Allerton Park facility? This is generating huge amounts of electricity from household and other waste, but it is going into the national grid. To make energy from waste more palatable for local communities, will the Government allow the electricity that is being generated to go to houses that lie closest to Allerton Park itself?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
To answer to the first part of my noble friend’s question, waste will become an important generator of electricity and we need to recognise its value. We need to consider how district heating may be based upon such approaches, which may indeed benefit those in the proximate area—the local community—and we will give further consideration to that.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
The Government have indicated that the moratorium could be temporary if new research can show that fracking can be carried out safely. What exactly would the Government like to see for fracking to be able to restart?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
There is a long and short answer to that. I shall try to give the short one. We would need a geo-mechanical survey of the specific basins concerned and the Oil and Gas Authority would have to oversee the determination of the criteria for such an examination. We would have to make sure that whatever emerged from that would guarantee the safety and sustainability of the resource and of the local communities. At present, it is not the intention of the Government to commission such work, but we understand that certain companies may themselves undertake it. They must do so within the limits set by the Oil and Gas Authority.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, could the Minister as a fellow Scotsman clear up a mystery for me? Is the position of the Scottish Government a ban or a moratorium?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I would not like to inquire too far into the mystical workings of the Scottish Government. As the noble Lord will be aware, the situation is clear: they have declared it to be a ban but have been shown in court to be guilty only of a moratorium.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, there has been speculation that there might be more support for nuclear, which is a zero-carbon source of energy. Could the Minister comment on that?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Yes, nuclear must be part of our wider energy mix. It is a zero-carbon approach and we will continue to invest not just in the plants we have seen so far but in different smaller-scale investments. We are also very interested in fusion and will continue to be so.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, given that the moratorium seems to be going on for a long time, what can local residents around the Preston New Road site in Lancashire expect to happen in the near and medium term? Also, are the areas that have been given licences for exploratory drilling, which is not fracking per se, still able to go ahead with that?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Cuadrilla has removed all its fracking equipment from the Preston New Road site and no work whatever is anticipated to continue there. The noble Lord will be aware that drilling can take place for a whole range of reasons, not just for the wider energy world. We will continue to monitor it to the highest possible standards where it can continue to be done.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, could the Minister advise the House of Her Majesty’s Government’s view on tidal energy?
Children: Rights and Well-being
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following their ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, what plans they have to promote children’s rights and well-being across government departments in this Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, we remain strongly committed to delivering a framework of actions across government to promote children’s rights and well-being. We have successfully delivered a range of measures, including establishing a UNCRC action group and launching a children’s rights training package and an impact assessment template across the Civil Service. We will continue to promote these tools during 2020, including via the action group.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which I find worthy but somewhat incomplete. Is he aware that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the UK ratified in 1991, had its 30th anniversary last year? Is he also aware that in 2016 the Committee on the Rights of the Child reviewed the UK’s record of achievement in relation to the convention as regards, for example, children in care, child mental health, youth justice and child poverty? We were criticised for having no overall strategy or action plan for children, as recommended in the convention. The next review of the UK’s achievement will be in 2021. Will the new Government take the opportunity to set up before 2021 a committee to form an action plan and strategy for children across government departments, with a lead Minister to oversee it, to assess and improve our performance in helping children thrive and achieve? There is much support and enthusiasm for such action across the children’s sector. How will the Government respond?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, there is a broad range of work across government that promotes children’s rights and well-being, which is set out in the report that we provided to the UN in November last year at the conference to mark the 30th anniversary of the UNCRC, as the noble Baroness mentioned. The report summarises the work of 14 government departments. My department has strong working relationships with other departments on children’s rights. I am confident that these will continue in the run-up to the next reporting cycle in 2021.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of Feeding Britain. We recently saw new and disturbing academic research. Children in Britain who are on free school meals are allocated £2.20 or £2.30, depending on where the school is. It has come to light that councils are now so broke because of the cuts that they are taking around 50p of that allocation for their needs. When the money then gets to the school, it is also so broke because of budget cuts that it nicks another 50p. This is not malice but just need. In too many instances now, the actual value of the food that we are serving to our hungry, needy kids—as is their right—is 82p. Can the Government assure us that they will look into these figures and ring-fence that amount? Food is always the bit that gets cut, either by a hungry mother or, in this case, a hungry council.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I am certainly happy to look into the figures that the noble Baroness refers to. If she has any example of a local authority where she feels that excessive amounts are being top-sliced away from food provision, I would be interested to hear of it. I have not seen examples of that myself.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, I have two particular groups of children in mind whose well-being is often compromised. The first are those who have a parent or other primary carer on the cusp of going into custody. What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to ensure that sentencers, including magistrates, are aware of the new guidance from the Sentencing Council on this matter? On looked-after children, what intentions do Her Majesty’s Government have to further promote the vocation—it is a vocation—to become a foster carer or an adopter?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
On the right reverend Prelate’s first question, I will certainly check with officials that the justice system is aware of the provisions that he refers to. Looked-after children is an issue of increasing priority for the Government, as was mentioned in our recent manifesto, and I completely agree that they are one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. One of the initiatives that I have encouraged, for example, is the far greater use of local authorities teaming up with boarding schools which offer 40% bursaries to encourage some of these vulnerable children to join their institutions. We have seen evidence of a dramatic improvement in the life chances of those children.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, with a 28% increase in the number of children in care, a 53% increase in the number of children on child protection plans and, as we heard yesterday, a 70% increase in the number of children being excluded from school, are we taking our obligations seriously?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we are committed to social care; it is one of our top priorities. In the settlement for 2020-21, we see the largest rise in core spending since 2015; a real-terms increase of 4.3%. On top of that, we are investing £84 million in targeted, evidence-based interventions to improve the support provided to vulnerable children and their families and to enable more children to stay at home, thriving with those families.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, in 1996, I had the privilege of representing this country at the congress that took place on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Stockholm. We in this country were proud of our presentation on that occasion, and we should continue to be proud of the efforts we have made in relation to the rights of the child, both domestically and elsewhere. Is it not a good idea that we should perhaps have a more comprehensive review, to make sure that we bring together in a more co-ordinated fashion all the elements throughout our departments which protect children?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I agree with my noble friend that this is a continuous effort that needs to go across government. We know that government can be weak across departmental initiatives, and I completely agree that we should do everything we can to strengthen that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the recent High Court judgment that the exorbitant fees charged to children who register that they are entitled to citizenship are unlawful because due regard was not given to the best interests of the child, what steps are the Government now taking to ensure that all government policy-making gives primary consideration to the best interests of children, in line with the UN convention?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we are confident that we comply with all the main conventions of the UNCRC. A recent CRAE report praised the work that we are doing in government. I quote from its summary report:
“More encouragingly, the Department for Education … has taken positive steps to raise awareness and understanding of children’s rights across Whitehall and to encourage policy makers to take children’s rights into account in decision-making.”
Sexual Violence Overseas: Treatment of Victims
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the treatment of British victims of alleged sexual violence in foreign countries, following the recent case in Cyprus.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we take any report of rape or sexual assault seriously. Our staff explain local policing and legal procedures. We can attend the police station with and support victims and ensure that they can access medical care. We also work with specialist support organisations, such as our funded partners, and fund bespoke projects to improve the treatment of victims by authorities in other countries.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. The media reports of this young British woman convicted in Cyprus have caused alarm in many circles. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that this does not deter victims in this country coming forward to the police when they need to report something? Secondly, and more specifically on the case of the Cyprus woman, we were in touch with her lawyers yesterday. They are positive about the support given by Her Majesty’s Government but there is the question of what support she will now be given for her appeal to clear her name. What can Her Majesty’s Government do to help her with that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on the second question asked by the right reverend Prelate, obviously I cannot go into specific details because it is ongoing. He raised the important issue of ensuring that, because of the experience we have seen from this case, no victim of sexual violence—be it at home or abroad—feels that there is a barrier or, indeed, feels reluctant to come forward. It is clear that if someone is sexually assaulted or raped, they should come forward. Abroad, we will offer full support, as we have done in this case; here in the United Kingdom, I know that my colleagues at the Home Office will take the issue very seriously. If you have been assaulted, come forward and report it.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, as a criminal lawyer, I have some concerns about some aspects of this case. Can the Government tell us what advice can be given on expediting the appeal?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Obviously, the noble and learned Lord speaks from experience. I have already alluded to, and I am sure he will respect, the fact that I cannot go into specific detail. I can say that the FCO provides full consular support to any individual who has gone through such an experience. This case was no exception; indeed, we offered full consular support to the individual and her family in both the United Kingdom and Cyprus.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend go any further in explaining: what specific support was given to this particular victim and her family; whether, as in other cases, any support was given to the police in investigating this matter; and whether, as well as supporting the appeal process, the Government will make any representation to the Cypriot authorities as to whether it is possible to reopen the original investigation and allegation of rape?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend asks some important questions. Of course, first and foremost, we welcome the return of the victim. As I said, there is a limit to the detail I can go into but, as the victim’s family has acknowledged, the FCO provided strong support in Cyprus. We are also considering what more we can do with the authorities in Cyprus and in other countries to ensure what we have here, which is a victim-centred approach to the criminal justice process. I know that my noble friend has raised concerns, particularly about some of the processes that the victim was involved in in Cyprus; they are a matter of concern for all of us.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said in his opening response to the right reverend Prelate that the high commissioner there could, and did, offer support during the investigation. However, reports I have read and reports from my contacts in Cyprus indicate that the young woman—the teenager—involved was questioned by the police for some nine hours with no legal representation. What support did the high commission provide and what representation did it make to address what appears to be a grotesque miscarriage of justice? What advice is being given to young people travelling to places such as Ayia Napa on how they can best safeguard themselves and what they can do if they are victims of sexual violence?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness has raised valid concerns which are being looked at directly, but I cannot go into further detail about the process as it is still ongoing. I assure her that while the particular lady concerned was in Cyprus, full support was offered to her family here in the UK as well as directly to her in Cyprus. The issues around the case are obviously of deep concern. On the noble Baroness’s wider question, we recognise how vulnerable those who have been sexually assaulted in a foreign country can be and therefore we provide support tailored to the individual circumstances of each case. As I said earlier, our approach is victim-led and is based on the person’s needs. For example, we provide information on what professional help is available locally and in the UK, and we are providing funding for a rape crisis organisation to ensure that it can act as a means of support wherever victims are in the world.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government think about what happens after a court case? My experience over recent years of several organisations working with young women who have been subjected to sexual exploitation, grooming and so on in this country is that once the court case is over, the availability of resources to support those then very damaged young women is missing because the state feels that its responsibilities are finished. Will the Minister have a look at this issue because clearly this young woman and lots of other young women, having suffered what they suffered, will need support for years to come?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Baroness that anyone who has been through any kind of assault or sexual violence needs support. In this case, allegations of rape were raised quite directly. Sexual assault is serious and is not something that ends for the victim once the court case has been resolved. I will certainly take back the helpful remarks made by the noble Baroness. For her information and indeed for the House in general, we also look at how we can improve processes on the ground, so we are now funding specific projects in different countries to train local authorities on issues around language and cultural sensitivities and to train the police in the collection of evidence.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Thursday 9th January 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Financial Services (Duty of Care) Bill [HL]
Thursday 9th January 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]
Thursday 9th January 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Access to Palliative Care and Treatment of Children Bill [HL]
Thursday 9th January 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Marriage (Approved Organisations) Bill [HL]
Thursday 9th January 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]
Thursday 9th January 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That, in the event of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill having been brought from the House of Commons:
(1) Standing Order 40(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 15 January and Tuesday 21 January to enable proceedings on that Bill to be taken before oral questions on those days;
(2) Standing Order 40(4) (so far as it relates to Thursdays) and (5) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday 16 January to allow proceedings on that Bill to have precedence over other motions and orders that day; and
(3) Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) and Standing Order 48 (Amendments on Third Reading) be dispensed with on Tuesday 21 January to allow the Report stage and Third Reading of that Bill to be taken on that day and to allow manuscript amendments to be tabled and moved on Third Reading.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I will make a brief business statement about the consideration of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. I stress that the arrangements for the Bill were advertised before Christmas and discussed and agreed through the usual channels.
The Bill will receive its First Reading later today. Thanks to the arrangements put in place by the Legislation Office, noble Lords will be able to table amendments for the Committee stage from 10 am tomorrow. The Bill will have its Second Reading on Monday 13 January. A speakers’ list is still open, and noble Lords can sign up in the usual way until 4 pm tomorrow. The Bill will then be in Committee on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The House will sit at 11 am on Wednesday 15 January to provide some additional time. Oral Questions will take place at the usual time of 3 pm. Proceedings on the Bill will then continue the following week, with the Report stage on Monday 20 and Tuesday 21 January and Third Reading also taken on the 21st. The House will meet early, at 11 am, on Tuesday 21 January—again, to provide some additional time. The full arrangements for the tabling of amendments have been published via this week’s Forthcoming Business.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have another short statement to make this morning, about recess dates. A note of all the dates I am about to announce is available in the Printed Paper Office. For the record, the following dates are, of course, subject to the eternal Chief Whip’s caveat that they are dependent on the progress of business—and I expect the House to be busy this year.
We will rise at the conclusion of business on Thursday 13 February and return on Monday 24 February. For Easter, we will rise at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 1 April and return on Tuesday 21 April. There will be a long weekend for the Victory in Europe Day anniversary when, unusually, the bank holiday is on Friday rather than Monday; we will rise at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 6 May and return on Monday 11 May. For Whitsun, we will rise at the conclusion of business on Thursday 21 May and return on Tuesday 2 June. We will then rise at the end of business on Tuesday 21 July for the Summer Recess and return on Tuesday 8 September. For the Conference Recess, we will rise at the conclusion of business on Thursday 17 September and return on Tuesday 13 October. I hope that giving as much notice as possible of the expected sitting pattern for the majority of 2020 will assist all noble Lords.
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed as the panel of members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this session:
Andrews, B; Ashton of Hyde, L; Brougham and Vaux, L; Dear, L; Faulkner of Worcester, L; Finlay of Llandaff, B; Fookes, B; Garden of Frognal, B; Geddes, L; Haskel, L; Henig, B; Kinnoull, E; Lexden, L; McAvoy, L; McIntosh of Hudnall, B; Morris of Bolton, B; Newlove, B; Palmer of Childs Hill, L; Pitkeathley, B; Rogan, L; Simon, V; Ullswater, V.
House of Lords Commission
That a Select Committee be appointed to provide high-level strategic and political direction for the House of Lords Administration on behalf of the House and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Doocey, B; Evans of Bowes Park, B; Fowler, L. (Chair); Judge, L; Laming, L; McFall of Alcluith, L. (Deputy Chair); McIntosh of Hudnall, B; Newby, L; Smith of Basildon, B; Wakeham, L.
That Liz Hewitt and Mathew Duncan be appointed as external members of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.
Communications and Digital Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the media, digital and creative industries and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Allen of Kensington, L; Bull, B; Colville of Culross, V; Gilbert of Panteg, L. (Chair); Gordon of Strathblane, L; Grender, B; McInnes of Kilwinning, L; McIntosh of Hudnall, B; Meyer, B; Quin, B; Scott of Bybrook, B; Storey, L; Worcester, Bp.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
Conduct Committee
That a Conduct Committee be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Anelay of St Johns, B; Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, L; Donaghy, B; Hussein-Ece, B; Mance, L. (Chair);
That the following be appointed as lay external members of the Committee:
Cindy Butts; Mark Castle OBE; Andrea Coomber; Vanessa Davies.
That the quorum of the Committee shall be three Lords members and two lay members;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
Constitution Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the constitutional implications of public bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution and constitutional aspects of devolution; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Beith, L; Corston, B; Drake, B; Dunlop, L; Faulks, L; Fookes, B; Hennessy of Nympsfield, L; Howarth of Newport, L; Howell of Guildford, L; Pannick, L; Taylor of Bolton, B. (Chair); True, L; Wallace of Tankerness, L.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed:
(i) To report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny;
(ii) To report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under or by virtue of:
(a) sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006,
(b) section 7(2) or section 19 of the Localism Act 2011, or
(c) section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004; and to perform, in respect of such draft orders, and in respect of subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the functions performed in respect of other instruments and draft instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and
(iii) To report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under or by virtue of:
(a) section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,
(b) section 17 of the Local Government Act 1999,
(c) section 9 of the Local Government Act 2000,
(d) section 98 of the Local Government Act 2003, or
(e) section 102 of the Local Transport Act 2008.
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Andrews, B; Blencathra, L. (Chair); Browning, B; Goddard of Stockport, L; Haselhurst, L; Haskel, L; Meacher, B; Rowlands, L; Thurlow, L; Tope, L.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
Economic Affairs Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider economic affairs and business affairs and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Bowles of Berkhamsted, B; Burns, L; Chandos, V; Cunningham of Felling, L; Darling of Roulanish, L; Forsyth of Drumlean, L. (Chair); Fox, L; Harding of Winscombe, B; Kingsmill, B; Livingston of Parkhead, L; Skidelsky, L; Stern of Brentford, L; Tugendhat, L.
That the Committee have power to appoint a sub-committee and to refer to it any of the matters within the Committee's terms of reference; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chair of the sub-committee;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on the Committee or a sub-committee;
That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees be published, if the Committee so wishes.
European Union Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed:
(1) To consider European Union documents deposited in the House by a Minister, and other matters relating to the European Union;
The expression “European Union document” includes in particular:
(a) a document submitted by an institution of the European Union to another institution and put by either into the public domain;
(b) a draft legislative act or a proposal for amendment of such an act; and
(c) a draft decision relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union under Title V of the Treaty on European Union;
The Committee may waive the requirement to deposit a document, or class of documents, by agreement with the European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons;
(2) To assist the House in relation to the procedure for the submission of Reasoned Opinions under Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
(3) To represent the House as appropriate in interparliamentary cooperation within the European Union;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Brown of Cambridge, B; Cavendish of Furness, L; Couttie, B; Donaghy, B; Faulkner of Worcester, L; Hamwee, B; Jay of Ewelme, L; Kerr of Kinlochard, L; Kinnoull, E. (Chair); Lamont of Lerwick, L; Morris of Aberavon, L; Neville-Rolfe, B; Oates, L; Primarolo, B; Ricketts, L; Sharkey, L; Teverson, L; Verma, B; Wood of Anfield, L.
That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to them any matters within its terms of reference; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairs of sub-committees, but that the sub-committees have power to appoint their own Chairs for the purpose of particular inquiries; that the quorum of each sub-committee be two;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on a sub-committee;
That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committees;
That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees be published, if the Committee so wishes.
Finance Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to support the House of Lords Commission by:
(1) Considering expenditure on services provided from the Estimate for the House of Lords,
(2) Reporting to the Commission on the forecast outturn, Estimate and financial plan submitted by the Management Board,
(3) Monitoring the financial performance of the House Administration, and
(4) Reporting to the Commission on the financial implications of significant proposals;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Colgrain, L; Collins of Highbury, L; Cope of Berkeley, L; Courtown, E; Cromwell, L; Cunningham of Felling, L; Doocey, B. (Chair); Goudie, B; Kerslake, L; Stoneham of Droxford, L.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.
Hybrid Instruments Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:
Addington, L; Dykes, L; Grantchester, L; Harrison, L; Jenkin of Kennington, B; Swinfen, L.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
International Relations and Defence Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the United Kingdom’s international relations and issues relating to UK defence policy and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Alton of Liverpool, L; Anelay of St Johns, B. (Chair); Blackstone, B; Fall, B; Grocott, L; Hannay of Chiswick, L; Helic, B; Mendelsohn, L; Purvis of Tweed, L; Rawlings, B; Reid of Cardowan, L; Smith of Newnham, B.
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
Liaison Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for select committee work and to allocate resources between select committees; to review the select committee work of the House; to consider requests for Special Inquiry Committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of members to serve on committees;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to the Committee:
Bradley, L; Hayter of Kentish Town, B; Howe, E; Judge, L; Lang of Monkton, L; Low of Dalston, L; Smith of Hindhead, L; Tyler, L; Walmsley, B.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) Board
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):
Haskel, L; Oxburgh, L; Patel, L; Winston, L.
Procedure Committee
That a Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:
Ashton of Hyde, L; Bew, L; Eames, L; Evans of Bowes Park, B; Foulkes of Cumnock, L; Fowler, L; Geddes, L; Harris of Richmond, B; Judge, L; McAvoy, L; Mancroft, L; Morris of Aberavon, L; Newby, L; Smith of Basildon, B; Stoneham of Droxford, L; Thomas of Winchester, B; Ullswater, V; Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
and that the following members be appointed as alternate members:
Browning, B; Finlay of Llandaff, B; Scriven, L; Turnbull, L.
That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairs of sub-committees;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.
Science and Technology Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Borwick, L; Browne of Ladyton, L; Hilton of Eggardon, B; Hollick, L; Kakkar, L; Mair, L; Manningham-Buller, B; Patel, L. (Chair); Penn, B; Ridley, V; Rock, B; Sheehan, B; Walmsley, B; Young of Old Scone, B.
That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairs of sub-committees;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on the Committee or a sub-committee;
That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committees; That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees be published, if the Committee so wishes.
Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to scrutinise secondary legislation.
(1) The Committee shall report on draft instruments and memoranda laid before Parliament under sections 8, 9 and 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall lapse upon the expiry of the power to make instruments under sections 8, 9 and 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
(3) The Committee shall, with the exception of those instruments in paragraphs (5) and (6), scrutinise—
(a) every instrument (whether or not a statutory instrument), or draft of an instrument, which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be, or might have been, taken in either House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament;
(b) every proposal which is in the form of a draft of such an instrument and is laid before each House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament, with a view to determining whether or not the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (4).
(4) The grounds on which an instrument, draft or proposal may be drawn to the special attention of the House are—
(a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;
(b) that it may be inappropriate in view of changed circumstances since the enactment of the parent Act;
(c) that it may inappropriately implement European Union legislation;
(d) that it may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives;
(e) that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation;
(f) that there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation process which relates to the instrument;
(g) that the instrument appears to deal inappropriately with deficiencies in retained EU law.
(5) The exceptions are—
(a) remedial orders, and draft remedial orders, under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998;
(b) draft orders under sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, and subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001;
(c) Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made, and drafts of instruments to be made, under them.
(6) The Committee shall report on draft orders and documents laid before Parliament under section 11(1) of the Public Bodies Act 2011 in accordance with the procedures set out in sections 11(5) and (6). The Committee may also consider and report on any material changes in a draft order laid under section 11(8) of the Act.
(7) The Committee shall also consider such other general matters relating to the effective scrutiny of secondary legislation and arising from the performance of its functions under paragraphs (1) to (6) as the Committee considers appropriate, except matters within the orders of reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to them any matters within its terms of reference; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairs of sub-committees; that the quorum of each sub-committee be two;
The Committee’s power to appoint sub-committees shall lapse upon the expiry of the power to make new instruments under sections 8, 9 and 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and shall lapse entirely upon expiry of the last such remaining power;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on a sub-committee;
That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee and its sub-committees have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee and its sub-committees be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committees;
That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees be published, if the Committee or its sub-committees so wish.
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, B; Chartres, L; Cunningham of Felling, L; Faulkner of Worcester, L; Hanworth, V; Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. (Chair); Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L; Lindsay, E; Lisvane, L; Sherbourne of Didsbury, L; Watkins of Tavistock, B.
Services Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to support the House of Lords Commission by:
(1) Agreeing day-to-day policy on member-facing services,
(2) Providing advice on strategic policy decisions when sought by the Commission, and
(3) Overseeing the delivery and implementation of both;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Ashton of Hyde, L; Borwick, L; Campbell-Savours, L; Judge, L; Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L; Laming, L. (Chair); Morris of Bolton, B; Stoneham of Droxford, L; Touhig, L; Wheeler, B.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.
Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee
That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private bills be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:
Fellowes, L; Geddes, L; McColl of Dulwich, L; Naseby, L; Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L; Simon, V.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, in order to provide a supersonic start to the establishment of Select Committees, I beg to move the 18 Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Football Association and Bet365
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I will repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question asked earlier today in another place. The Answer is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, recent reports on the streaming of FA Cup matches by online bookmakers have rightly caused concern across this House. This is relating to a media rights deal, agreed by the FA with IMG in early 2017, within which IMG could sell on live footage or clips of certain FA Cup matches to commercial partners.
Bet365 and six other betting operators acquired these rights from IMG to use from the start of the 2018-19 season. It is right that sporting organisations have the freedom to benefit commercially from their products and negotiate their own broadcasting deals, but football authorities also have an important responsibility to ensure that fans are protected from the risks of problem gambling. Since this deal was agreed, the FA has rightly reviewed its position on commercial relationships with gambling businesses. It has ended a commercial partnership with Ladbrokes, and it has announced that it will be reviewing its processes for tendering rights from the 2024-25 season onwards—and it is absolutely correct that it does so.
The Secretary of State and I have made our views quite clear, yesterday and previously, on the wider responsibilities that both the sport and gambling sectors have to their fans, to their customers and to wider communities, so we welcome the fact that industry has responded to public concern by introducing a whistle-to-whistle ban on TV advertising during daytime sport, and that the FA introduced a rule last year that prevents players, managers and members of staff, in any capacity, from deliberately taking part in audio or audio-visual advertising to actively encourage betting, because, while many people enjoy gambling as a leisure pursuit, we cannot forget that it carries a high risk of harm and can seriously impact individuals, families and communities. So all of us—the Government, gambling companies and sporting authorities—need to keep this momentum going so we can protect vulnerable people from the risk of gambling-related harm.”
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I can only say that I am flabbergasted by all that this imports and how it impacts upon us. Goaded by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the question of gambling in various forms and its dangers have been aired and debated in this House. A committee is currently looking at the harm that gambling does, and it can be quantified and dealt with in other parts of our organisation.
I could not give a fig about the commercial or contractual relations between gambling companies and the way that this matter has been siphoned down from one holding body to seven different gambling companies. That is far too theological for me, and I will leave it to members of the church by law established. However, in the Statement, there is a recognition by the Football Association that it must review its processes of tendering for the 2024-25 season, and we expect, from the notes that we are hearing, that things will be different thereafter.
Not only that, Her Majesty’s Government have recognised the correctness of that procedure and we must therefore expect concord between the Government and the FA at that time. But if it is going to be wrong then, it is wrong now. It should not have happened, and I would like to hear a note of urgency in the way that the Minister replies to this debate. She must bring out all her guns in order to bring together the top people in the major organisations that are implementing all of this in order that they understand that this House thinks very ill of this proposal and wishes it undone.
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord makes important points about the timing of all of this, and I acknowledge the important role that your Lordships’ House has played in bringing issues of problem gambling to the fore. I am sure that noble Lords will continue to do that. The noble Lord talked about timing. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport in the other place spoke to the FA this morning and will be meeting its representatives next week. He made it extremely clear that he expects them to explore every possible avenue to bring this situation to an end as quickly as possible.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the general tone of what has been said so far about gambling being potentially damaging and that we should not be advertising it on something that is seen by many of the young. But will the Government undertake to remove some of the financial burden that falls on groups such as the FA to make sure that we can play grass-roots sport? The FA has to fund and support grass-roots pitches when, in places such as Germany, local government does that. Will the Government look round and see that government action will make this sort of activity more likely if you are mean with supporting things such as grass-roots sport?
Baroness Barran
The Government have taken the issue of grass-roots sport very seriously and recently announced more than £500 million of investment in exactly that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, 25 years ago, when I was in charge of gaming, among other things, at the Home Office, the rule was that operators were not allowed to stimulate demand. Bookmakers were not even allowed to be in the Yellow Pages. This has now got completely out of hand and we need to return to that system. The National Lottery was supposed to be just about the National Lottery—but, if you try to buy a ticket online, all sorts of instant gaming solutions are available. The Government need to grip this and go back—if not to 1996, then certainly to bring in restrictions on misuse, of which this is just the most egregious example.
Baroness Barran
My noble friend had an even more interesting career at the Home Office than I imagined. We have announced that there will be a review of the Gambling Act. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport said this morning that nothing was off the table in terms of that review, and we also announced in the manifesto that we would address the issue of using credit cards to gamble. So the Government have heard this loud and clear and are keen to act.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the huge rise in what many campaigners are calling the gamblification of sport is happening rapidly before our eyes. The Gambling Commission itself has identified 55,000 teenagers in this country suffering from gambling-related harm and 430,000 adults. Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS, has pointed out that it is costing a hard-pressed NHS up to £1.2 billion a year. Just yesterday, a new gambling clinic opened in Sunderland funded by the NHS. Will this review, which we are grateful that Her Majesty’s Government have promised, include the issue of the gamblification of sport and look at things such as logos on shirts and wraparound adverts around pitches—all of which are excluded at the moment, which make a mockery of the whistle-to-whistle ban that we were promised?
Baroness Barran
I can only repeat that nothing is off the table in the review of the Act, so I would assume that exactly those issues of the gamblification—if that is a word—of sport and the examples the right reverend Prelate gives will be addressed. To be clear, the issues that came up over the weekend do not apply to under-18s—but, even so, I take his point.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I grew up in a household where football dominated our weekends. We were football fanatics, and I am afraid that has lived with me. That is true for a lot of children and young people. As the right reverend Prelate said, my home city of Sunderland is suffering from this. People do not start out as vulnerable. In my day, nobody associated gambling with football. It was not an issue. I grew up in a Methodist household, so that made it a bit easier. We never did raffle tickets, and I have never placed a bet in my life. However, for young children growing up now, it is seen as part of football. That is what the Government have to tackle so that young people do not see it as a normal thing that, if they are interested in football, they get involved in gambling. That is what the Government have to tackle.
Baroness Barran
The Government are going to try to tackle that. There is wide acknowledgement that the gambling regulations were set up for an analogue age. We are now in a digital age and the goalposts—not to make too awful a pun—have moved substantially. Perhaps I can in some small part reassure the House in that the FA will be broadcasting those games that are currently available only through betting sites in 2021 on its own site. I know that does not address the noble Baroness’s point, but it will happen and will mean that young people will not need to go to a betting site to view those games.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, how quickly is this review going to take place?
Baroness Barran
I apologise, but I cannot give a definite date—but there is a clear sense of urgency.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, this Urgent Question reflects how much has changed since this third-party contract was signed in, I believe, 2014-15 and was rolled forward in 2017. When the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport sit down next week with the FA, will they urgently review what changes to the Gambling Act are necessary? In the meantime, will they also approach Bet365, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Forsyth as stimulating demand. That company has revenues of £3 billion. The conditionality attached to this contract is that people have either to place a bet or to put £5 into a new account 24 hours before kick-off. Could the Government ask Bet365 immediately to rescind those two conditions, which stimulate demand?
Baroness Barran
On my noble friend’s first point, I repeat that that will be part of the review. On the conversation directly with Bet365, I will need to check. When my honourable friend was asked on this point in the other place, he responded that the FA was in constant contact with Bet365. I am genuinely unclear to what extent we can interfere in an existing commercial contract—but we are very clear with the FA, and will be again next week, that we wish it to take every possible measure to deal with this as quickly as possible.
Queen’s Speech
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to open this debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. I am delighted to be joined by my noble friend Lord Younger, who will, I know, brilliantly close what I am sure will be a constructive and lively debate. We will consider in detail the Government’s proposed approach to economic affairs, business and public services. The key theme linking all those areas is the overarching objective to invest in our future prosperity. Given that, I am sure that there will be unanimous support for that priority across the House, and I look forward to hearing your Lordships’ expert contributions on its implementation.
There is no question but that the gracious Speech sets out an ambitious agenda for reform. There might be some who will be tempted to give an opinion on that but I will not apologise for what is a challenging and bold approach and for a Government who are restless for opportunity and renewal. This is a Government who are re-energised, reinvigorated and refocused on the right priorities, with a driving purpose to deliver real change for British people up and down this country.
If we put aside for just one moment the small matter of Brexit, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that there can be no higher priority than the NHS. It is therefore my pleasure to open this debate by updating the House on the Government’s plans for improving healthcare.
As noble Lords will no doubt be aware, we have already committed to increase NHS funding, amounting to an extra £33.9 billion in cash terms annually by 2023-24. This is the single largest commitment to the health service ever undertaken by a peacetime British Government. Furthermore, in the first 100 days of this Parliament, we will bring forward legislation to enshrine this multiyear funding settlement in law. This is the first time that a Government have delivered such a commitment in legislation and its purpose is to give unprecedented financial certainty and to allow the NHS to plan with security for years to come.
The NHS long-term plan has been drawn up by those who know the NHS best, so that we can guarantee that it is not just about money but about how we spend it effectively. It has been drawn up by health and care staff, and patients and their families, along with experts in their fields. It sets out an approach for making sure that this extra funding goes as far as possible, ensuring that every pound is invested in the things that matter most.
Supporting the NHS in delivering the long-term plan is a priority for the Government and we are carefully considering options for targeted legislation to enable this. These targeted changes will reduce bureaucracy and improve collaboration across the NHS, ensuring that it evolves to meet the challenges of prevention, integration and technology, and enabling local partners to work together to deliver a healthier nation where we can care for people throughout their lives.
A key part of this strategy is, as we have debated many times in this place, fixing our social care system, which is clearly under pressure and which, in turn, contributes to the unprecedented demand on the NHS. To meet this rising demand, we are already providing councils with access to an additional £1.5 billion for social care next year. This comprises an additional £1 billion of grant funding for both adults’ and children’s social care, and a proposed 2% to enable councils to access a further £500 million from 2020-21. Of course, this is not only about money. We are determined to find a long-term solution to meet the challenges in social care to ensure that every person is treated with dignity and offered the security that they deserve. Therefore, alongside the additional funding, we will seek to build cross-party consensus to bring forward the necessary legislation to implement social care reform. For the avoidance of doubt, we have pledged that these reforms will ensure that no one needing care will be forced to sell their home to pay for it.
Furthermore, the Government have promised to put mental health on an equal footing with physical health. As the Mental Health Act is nearly 40 years old, modernisation of this Act is critical. Therefore, we will publish a White Paper early this year, setting out the Government’s response to Simon Wessely’s independent review and our vision for wide-ranging reform. We will then bring forward a new mental health Bill to amend the Act. This work is important but it is also complex. Given our experience—in this place particularly—with the Mental Capacity Act, I think we can all agree that it is right that these long-term changes are made with care and consensus. Through these reforms, we hope and intend to empower patients and remove inequalities in our mental health system.
In my role as a Minister for Health, I have particular responsibility for promoting innovation across the industry. We all have reasons to be grateful for the medical innovations that have become available through the NHS over its 70-year history, from the first clinical trial into scurvy, to proton beam therapy and mass vaccination programmes. The Medicines and Medical Devices Bill will give us the necessary powers in UK law to update the current regulatory systems for human and veterinary medicines, clinical trials and medical devices. The Bill will enable us to cement our position as a world leader in the licensing and regulation of innovative medicines and medical devices after we leave the European Union, and will ensure that we have a regulatory system with robust standards and patient safety at its heart. The Bill is very much part of our agenda to modernise regulation, supporting early clinical trials and the production of personalised medicines but also the development of ever more sophisticated and safe medical devices.
I am proud to say that Britain is a nation of innovators, with many world-changing innovations and inventions pioneered here in the United Kingdom. The Government are committed to continuing to push the frontiers of science and technology via boosting R&D funding and developing proposals for a new, high-risk funding body to ensure that we remain at the forefront and competitive globally. We are equally ambitious in the scale of our commitment to the environment. We are the first country to legislate for long-term climate targets; we are world leaders in offshore wind and green finance; and there are now nearly 400,000 jobs in low-carbon industries and their supply chains. We will continue to lead the way in tackling climate change, encouraging new industries that will boost our productivity and growth as an early supplier of new, low-carbon technologies globally.
Our future, though, depends on the strength of our great cities. We have promised a White Paper on devolution, and I think all of us in this place agree that there is a powerful case for empowering every region and levelling up opportunity across every corner of this country. To unleash the potential across city centres in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we need to invest in the factors that contribute to economic growth: a strong labour market, education, land for housing, infrastructure and more.
Our labour market is in its strongest position in years, with a UK employment rate of over 76%, almost three-quarters of which is in full-time jobs, but we are committed to going even further. This Government are determined to make the United Kingdom the best place to work in the world. Through the employment rights Bill, we will continue to deliver on our pledge to bring about the greatest reform of workers’ rights in 20 years. The gracious Speech confirms the Chancellor’s promise that the national living wage will increase and that, provided economic conditions allow, it will reach two-thirds of median earnings within five years. Also, within five years, the Government plan to expand the reach of the national living wage to everyone aged 21 and over. Taken together, we expect these changes to benefit 4 million low-paid workers. As assured in our manifesto, the Government will also increase the national insurance threshold to £9,500 next year—a tax cut for 31 million people, with a typical employee paying around £100 less in 2020-21.
Record numbers of people are now working and saving for retirement, with 87% of employees saving into a workplace pension in 2018, an increase of 55% since 2012. This shows that people are preparing for their future but, even with this success, we know that we must do more. Everyone in this place has commented on this in my hearing. That is why the Pension Schemes Bill will put protection of people’s pensions at its heart and sets out the next phase of pensions reform, building on consensus across the pensions industry and the political spectrum. On a personal level, I also very much welcome the urgent review undertaken by the Department of Health and Social Care and HM Treasury into the annual allowance taper to fix the pensions system so that senior clinicians can take on extra shifts without the fear of an unexpected tax bill.
Our nation’s productivity is no more and no less than the combined talents and efforts of people up and down this country. Therefore, the next part of our plan to make Britain fit for the future is to improve the quality of our education system. Importantly, the OECD’s PISA results show that the UK already outperforms the OECD’s average for reading, maths and science, and that performance has recently improved significantly in maths. It is especially welcome that this has been driven by improvements for lower-attaining pupils. However, our work is far from finished. That is why we have announced a cash boost to schools of £2.6 billion next year, rising to an additional £7.1 billion in 2022-23. This means that per-pupil funding in every school will increase in cash terms, and it will rise higher than inflation in most schools. The settlement underlines our determination to recognise teaching as the high-value prestigious profession that it is. It ensures that pay can increase for all teachers, with teachers’ starting salaries increasing to £30,000 by 2022-23. That represents an increase of up to 25%. On further education, we have already introduced the first part of the national retraining scheme and we will invest an additional £3 billion in the National Skills Fund, which will build on existing reforms to ensure that British workers are equipped with the skills they need to thrive and prosper for a lifetime in work.
Key to ensuring a lifetime of prosperity, to recruitment and to raising the productivity of our country is building more homes and creating a fairer property market. We know that this is true. In the last year, therefore, we have delivered over 241,000 additional homes. That is the highest level in over 30 years. During this Parliament, we will implement measures to encourage shared ownership, help local families on to the housing ladder and speed up the build of affordable housing. This Government are working to deliver a rental system fit for the future, which is why we are introducing the Renters’ Reform Bill to protect tenants and support landlords to provide the good-quality homes that we know this nation needs. It is also necessary that we undertake urgent action to respond to Dame Judith Hackett’s independent review of building regulations and fire safety. Working together to learn the lessons of Grenfell, we will bring forward a building safety Bill and a fire safety Bill as soon as possible. I know that the House understands the urgency of those steps.
Turning to transport, Her Majesty’s gracious Speech contained a series of measures to tackle urban congestion and transport links—it is no good trying to boost productivity if people cannot get to work on time—both here in the UK and with trading partners around the world. Our ageing airspace system has not been updated since the 1960s, so the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill will bring forward measures to modernise airspace, making flights faster, cleaner and quieter and giving the police greater enforcement powers to effectively tackle the unlawful use of unmanned aircrafts, including drones.
Earlier this year we successfully brought home 150,000 Thomas Cook passengers stranded overseas in the largest ever peacetime repatriation. But that operation was complex and costly, so we will bring forward a number of reforms to deal with airline insolvency that will provide oversight of airlines in financial trouble and help passengers to return home speedily and efficiently. Furthermore, we are determined to protect passengers from the misery of transport strikes, so we have announced plans to keep a minimum number of services running during transport strikes, ensuring that unions can no longer hold the travelling public to ransom. We will also implement widespread reform to the rail industry, following the Williams review, to improve performance and reliability, simplify fares and ticketing and introduce a stronger railway commercial model.
This Government are steadfastly committed to a path of budget responsibility in the context of what I have outlined as an ambitious reform agenda. Our economic plan will be underpinned by a responsible fiscal strategy, investing in public services and infrastructure while keeping borrowing and debt under control. As a country we are in a strong position, not by accident but by design. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that this year the UK economy will grow faster than those of France, Germany, Italy and Japan. The deficit has reduced by four-fifths since 2009-10. We have seen the economy grow every year since 2010. There are 3.7 million more people in work now than there were in 2010, and the proportion of low-paid jobs is at its lowest in 20 years.
All this is good news that I am sure will be welcomed by every Member of this House, and thanks to this we can now invest more in growing our economy and public services. That is why this Government are proposing a step change in infrastructure investment to deliver sustainable and inclusive growth. We will implement an infrastructure revolution, helping to ensure that productivity and opportunity are spread to every part of this country. That is why the gracious Speech has confirmed plans to publish a national infrastructure strategy, which will act as a blueprint for the future of infrastructure investment across the whole of the United Kingdom. It will examine how, through infrastructure investment, we can address that most critical and pressing of challenges—decarbonisation—and set out plans to turbocharge gigabit-capable broadband rollout and improve energy and transport infrastructure.
In closing, it is my fervent belief that Her Majesty’s gracious Speech affirms our commitment to invest in an ambitious agenda and level up opportunity and quality of life in every corner of the United Kingdom. We will invest to reform education to deliver social mobility. We will invest to build homes, infrastructure and economic opportunity to help raise living standards. We will invest in our NHS to make it the most sustainable and high-quality healthcare system in the world. I know that as legislation comes forward there will be expert and challenging debates in this place in which the collective wisdom and experience of the House will be called on to the full. I also know that in this place we share a common commitment to a fairer, more innovative and prosperous Britain. I look forward to delivering on that with each and every Member in this Chamber.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, following her remarks on the NHS, can she tell the House whether the Government propose to leave the European Medicines Agency? If so, will pharmaceutical companies registering a new compound, having gone through the procedure with the European Medicines Agency, have to replicate the process and cost by going through the same procedures here? Or will the Government accept the EMA’s registration, even though we no longer have any influence over the management, policies or strategy of the agency?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I apologise, but I think the noble Lord slightly missed his moment and I had sat down. However, I know my noble friend Lord Younger will respond in his closing remarks.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness for the wide-ranging announcements in the speech she just delivered. I rise with some trepidation and no little sense of honour and privilege as I introduce our side of this debate.
We have a new Prime Minister. He has certainly earned the right to sit in the driving seat—we cannot deny that—but our job on these Benches is to remind him to fasten his seatbelt. We are all passengers on board now and must remain vigilant.
So many subjects crop up in this compendium agenda item, but I will limit myself to just three. My noble friends will no doubt pick up on others, and expert interventions from around the House will deal with a great deal. I will concentrate on education, the internet and transport.
I have been a school governor, a trustee and, for the last 10 years—and here I declare an interest; it is all in the register—chairman of the board of the Central Foundation Schools. I want to say that, because I believe it has given me a front-row seat, allowing me to see and be part of the reinvigoration of failing schools that have risen to take their place among the best schools in the country through initiatives such as Teach First, City Challenge and the establishment of academies in their first iteration.
We must also acknowledge the contribution made by the Liberal Democrats through the introduction of the pupil premium in their time in the coalition Government and thank them for this. In London and other cities I know, those initiatives and items have turned schools that were at a loose tether and in measures into front-ranking and high-achieving schools. It has been an honour for me to put in the spadework to achieve those objectives.
In doing so, we have been able to define a model for education that works. We do not have to invent anything de novo. Just as much as a rail system, an airport terminal, broadband accessibility or other things mentioned in the Minister’s speech, I believe that education simply has to be viewed as part of our national infrastructure. It is not just roads and bridges; if you have an infrastructure strategy, it must include education.
From my own personal involvement in education over the decades, I can attest that investing in education yields measurable and immeasurable outcomes of the first order: skills, efficiency, culture, productivity, aspiration, mobility, personal development, well-being and citizenship. All this and more can be directly attributable to a properly focused and functioning education system. Alas, we have lived through 10 years when a lot of the progress looks to be coming towards disintegration. I have heard the measures proposed. The proposal to
“ensure every child has access to a high-quality education”
was clearly stated, with some figures put on it by the Minister. But the promise to
“increase levels of funding per pupil in every school”
while being welcome will leave us by 2022-23 only just at the levels that the Labour Government left as per-pupil expenditure in 2009-10. We have to recognise that what seem like alarming increases are increases of a relative nature.
At the same time, school budgets are having to pick up extra costs such as national insurance and pension increases. Pupil premium inputs have not increased with inflation and changes to the benefit system have diminished the number of people premiums without significantly compensating the families concerned. While we acknowledge the proper demands and expectations of Ofsted—of course we do—schools are telling me that they do not have the financial resources to implement them. Budgets for schools in the maintained sector are set in April, but in September for academies, while changes in teachers’ pay are decided in the summer. A simple thing could bring both budgeting exercises in line with each other, which would be an achievement in its own right. So budgeting becomes very hazardous for maintained schools, which have to take a guess at what the salaries are going to be later in the year.
“Education, education, education” is a mantra that we do not have to attribute to its source, but from an interview in the current number of the New Statesman I can add another sophism:
“Social mobility is something I care passionately about”,
says the subject,
“and the key to social mobility is education.”
All I can say is that that can be attributed to someone who I want to call my noble friend, although he usually sits on the opposite Benches: the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne. We were at school together and know the advantage in mobility that education can provide.
All of us want education to improve. Can the Minister who replies let us know, I wonder, whether he is aware of the factors that have led to the success of London schools? Will he be prepared, instead of levelling things down from an admittedly unequal distribution of resource so that everybody gets the lowest common denominator, to level up to the success levels that we can now quantify and recognise from good practice over the last 10 years?
It was spelled out in the manifesto or the Queen’s Speech that
“We will legislate to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online—protecting children … and … the most vulnerable … and ensuring there is no safe space for terrorists to hide online”.
The duty of care has been well delineated in the online harms White Paper; of course we welcome these commitments and will do our best to support them. But we are not best assured by the turnover of those holding office as Secretary of State for this part of the Government’s work. It seems to be a launching pad for people with aspirations beyond DCMS—but what am I? I do not know anything about politics.
Nor do we feel able to continue the fruitful conversation already begun in this area until we have sight of the results of the consultation which, let us remind ourselves, ended in July last year. I attended seminars and conferences. I have held discussions with various interested parties throughout the period and since. We are told that more detailed discussion between the Government and unnamed “stakeholders” has been going on. This is a matter that demands cross-party, non-partisan collaboration. It is too important an area of our national life for it to become prey to the goings-on of party politics. I do not like being kept out of the loop. I hope that the promised pre-legislative opportunity will materialise before a final shape emerges in the form of a Bill. We need to get this provision right, or as right as we can make it, and it is vital for us not to cut corners as we find our way forward. I must plead with the Minister to give us some timetabling precision on this point.
The Government have pledged
“to bring full fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the UK by 2025”.
I thought that I had a good vocabulary; it has been enriched since people put me in charge of this brief. We ought all of us to gasp with astonishment at this seemingly simple promise for two reasons. First, the Government have brought forward their previous commitment from 2033 to 2025—by eight years. That means that if the target stated is to be reached—while I am not very good at internet gigabit stuff, I got 100% in arithmetic at O-level, so I can do this bit—BT’s current rate of progress, at 80,000 homes per month, will have to be increased fivefold to 400,000 homes per month. Have the Government received the nod from BT Openreach that this is achievable? Has it been costed? Will the £5 billion mentioned in the Conservatives’ manifesto be enough to do the job? There is so much more that needs to be said on these matters that I leave it to other noble Lords who will surely follow on later.
I come finally to transport, and I am not going into the aeroplane side of things. The proposed railway minimum service legislation sets a dangerous precedent on the right to strike. Nobody likes to be inconvenienced by strikes, especially on the railways. I am a regular user of Southern Railway and have been as frustrated as many others in this House by these actions, but this Government’s attempt to restrict the collective bargaining of rail workers, to scapegoat them, is reprehensible. Surely it is time to sort out the mess of underfunding and franchising that has characterised the entire history of our railway system since its privatisation in the early 1990s. Here is another Tory mess, I am afraid to say, that needs to be looked at in the round rather than dealt with by populist measures aimed against the workforce. Can the Government assure the House that we will not see a race to the bottom of deregulation and a slashing of workers’ rights in this and other areas, especially in the post-Brexit era?
The arguments for and against the continuation of the HS2 project have been very much in the news, and I commend the dissentient report made public earlier this week by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. However that project turns out and whatever decision is made—high speed, high cost; that is what it seems like—it should not be at the expense of the vast improvements needed in the commuter and inter-regional networks around our major cities in the Midlands and north of England. This is a time for joined-up thinking to produce joined-up transport systems. There can be no serious regeneration without adequate infrastructure of this kind. The House will welcome some reassurance and commitment on these points.
I look forward to sitting through the next endless number of hours as I listen to other people’s more splintered views, as I have been able to luxuriate in a few extra minutes. With that, I take my leave.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, after what might be described as a sluggish arrival of Bills and legislation to your Lordships’ House over the past few years, the Queen’s Speech sets out a dazzling array of Bills and legislation, which the Chief Whip said he expects to keep us very busy. We should welcome the fact that we are moving to address legislation because it quite rightly deals with some very important issues for this country.
After the dazzling speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and with regard to the 70 other people who will follow me, I will have a self-limiting ordinance and will try to speak quickly and limit what I say around the business, energy and industrial strategy portfolio that I represent. Others on these Benches will of course cover other areas. I am trying with this speech, in the spirit of positivity, to get more information and some sense of how this legislation will flow and about some of the unanswered questions that have come up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, spoke with great brio on the employment rights Bill. Indeed, if it is as good as she tells us it will be then I am sure we will all welcome it. However, I share some of the reservations that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, just set out, in that once these measures start to come before your Lordships, there will be a reining back. This is, as the noble Baroness knows, an area in which the EU has had a strong influence over the United Kingdom’s rules. We will be judging this Bill not just by what it contains but by when it comes. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, can give us some idea of the conveyor belt of these Bills and of what will be coming when. That will give us some sense of the priorities within the lump of Bills in this Queen’s Speech. The background notes for the Bill state that the purpose of the employment Bill is to
“protect and enhance workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU”.
As far as I can see, the list of main elements of the Bill does not include the protection of retained EU workers’ rights. Perhaps the Government can clarify where they stand on that.
The financial services Bill aims to maintain the UK’s regulatory standards and ensure that we remain open to markets when we leave the EU. This is “remain” and “maintain”—in other words, we are pushing toothpaste back into the tube. I will avoid the obvious Brexit jibe here, but does the Minister think that we will in fact maintain the access we currently enjoy to the European financial services market? What grounds does the Minister have for that opinion?
The national security and investment Bill seeks to establish a notification system whereby businesses would flag transactions with potential security concerns. This is something we should all be concerned about, and indeed have been in the past. Given Her Majesty’s Government’s recent conduct—as Ministers will remember —around waving through the Cobham deal and its takeover by a US investor, I think I join other noble Lords in being sceptical about the Government’s intention. It is all very well increasing the Government’s powers and giving them the ability to apply conditions, or indeed to block deals, but if the Secretary of State chooses not to do that and to bend the knee to the market, then those powers are essentially useless. Perhaps the Minister can help me with a thought experiment: can the Minister name one British business that would be protected by this rule that would not, or could not, in fact be protected by existing legislation?
The science, space and research Bill is really important, and elements of this Bill have been perhaps the most trailed in the newspapers. I speak of the Government’s so-called ARPA approach to a big investment. We are told that there will be £800 million invested in something, and that that something will be in the north. The details will follow, no doubt, in this Bill. However, what has not been mentioned is the role of UK Research and Innovation. As noble Lords will remember, we went through a very long legislative process to establish UKRI. It was given a co-ordinating role in order to simplify and focus the research activities of this country. If noble Lords want to see how complex the current research and development funding structure in this country is, there is a report from the Science and Technology Select Committee that has one of the most mindbendingly complex box-and-wire diagrams imaginable. This seems to add more complexity and to call into question the role of UKRI. Can we have some clarification around that? In any case, £800 million does not reproduce the level of investment we are getting through the European Union, particularly through Horizon 2020 looking forward. Will Ministers also guarantee that, beyond the current assurances, which have been very well accepted by the research community, research organisations will have access to at least as much as the total funds that are coming from Europe?
While we are on the subject of UKRI, two words that have been all over other Queen’s Speeches we have heard but have not appeared in this one are “industrial strategy”. I do not see those two words in conjunction anywhere in the Queen’s Speech. Is this a slip of the drafting pen? When the current Chancellor of the Exchequer was briefly Secretary of State for BEIS, he proscribed the term. Are the Government proscribing the words “industrial strategy”, or are they merely hiding their light under a bushel? The Queen’s Speech does mention a couple of new sector deals. If there is not an industrial strategy, in what context are those sector deals to be delivered? I seek some clarity. Industrial strategy was, or is, the purview of UKRI, so what is its role going forward, particularly in the context of this ARPA-style research organisation that is coming? Where does industrial strategy lie? While we are in this area, what is the status of existing sector deals? Will they be honoured? Many of them stretch far into this Parliament and, indeed, probably beyond, so where are they and will they be honoured?
The Made Smarter review was very important in the area of revitalising regional economies, but it too was not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, so what is its status? I shall not go into the details of the national infrastructure strategy Bill, but the area I would like the Government to focus on is energy strategy. It is absolutely clear, even before the targets we have set ourselves on zero carbon, that this country is bereft of an energy strategy. We absolutely need a stand-alone energy strategy, so can the Minister fill us in on when we might expect that process to start, when we might actually have that debate and when the industries that will have to deliver this strategy can actually start work? It is already too late in many cases, and we need to move. Leaving aside conversations about all the other elements of infrastructure, that should be top of this Government’s pile.
By any measure, this package is formidable in terms of objectives. I am sure that if this were “Yes Minister”, the civil servant would say, “Very ambitious, Prime Minister”, yet the election campaign stoked expectation even higher, and this will be the challenge. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, talked about challenges. The challenge is going to be public expectation of delivery—that is the phrase du jour that we must use. Those expectations will have to be delivered in a difficult climate. Not only are all these Bills coming, but there is the small matter of free trade agreement negotiations going on, at least with the European Union, if not with other parallels. They are designed simply to reproduce what we have already or to deliver the equivalent economic basis. Meanwhile, economic growth, with all due respect to the other numbers trotted out just now, slowed to about 0.4% between the second and third quarters of 2019, with construction and manufacturing struggling in particular, and the service sector essentially holding its breath at the moment to see what happens.
National expectations have been pushed up, and we on these Benches will work hard with the legislation that comes our way and do our best to make sure that these Bills get the scrutiny that the country deserves.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak during this debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. I note my interests, which I have declared, and I will limit my comments purely to health and social care.
I welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s focus on the NHS: health, social care and the workforce. I also welcome the additional funding. However, we must not be misled into thinking that this is a funding bonanza; it will serve only to stabilise NHS services. Between April and September, for all nine NHS cancer targets the lowest percentage of patients was treated on time since the standards were introduced. All 118 A&E units fell below the 95% threshold in November as the NHS posted its worst performance since targets were introduced more than a decade ago. We have a long way to go simply to stabilise the status quo. Are Her Majesty’s Government confident that the action outlined will make up the ground that is required?
The NHS is only as good as its workforce, and I am glad to see the focus on recruitment, training and immigration. However, issues related to immigration must be acted on as soon as possible. The new NHS visa is welcome, but it is a limited response to the need to recruit international staff to meet pressing workforce shortages. Health workers coming to the UK still need to pay the immigration surcharge, which is set to increase to £625 per person every year, on top of £464 for a visa. I wonder whether more needs to be done.
The Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to bring forward draft legislation to support the implementation of the NHS long-term plan is to be commended. As already mentioned, this should be based on the targeted proposals NHS England has developed. This will make it easier for NHS organisations to collaborate with not only each other but their partners in local communities to improve services for the people they serve. However, as any nurse working in a hospital today knows, too often patients, many of them vulnerable, cannot be discharged, despite being medically fit, because they have nowhere safe to go. A strategy for social care and its workforce is also needed.
The additional £1 billion is welcome, but in a sense it may give only a short-term boost to social care services for adults and children. I wonder whether it is enough to meet the rising demand for care while maintaining quality and accessibility of services. I am reassured to see that there is a cross-party approach to seeking consensus on social care reform, but it will take tremendous commitment, tenacity and creativity if the Prime Minister is going to honour his promise to fix the social care system once and for all and to bring forward meaningful proposals for reform. I look forward to lending my support to this work.
Would Her Majesty’s Government consider bringing forward proposals for health and social care integration? As the British Medical Association states:
“Challenges for Britain’s health do not end in GP surgeries or hospitals and the Government needs a credible long-term plan on how to care for people at home and in communities.”
Given the scale of the task of merely maintaining the current situation and the combined demands on healthcare needs, such a plan is increasingly important. Plans should be there to see health in its wider community context.
The diocese of London is collaborating on a pioneering project with Health Education England to place mental health students in faith communities in the Grenfell area to enable mutual learning. We need more such initiatives. They free up capacity, relieve pressure on various parts of the NHS and also contribute to the health of the community. I wonder whether more progress could be made to commission, partner and champion with local charities and churches to provide services to support the vulnerable and at-risk groups and to look at health and well-being in broader terms.
Finally, I hope that the implications of the European Union withdrawal Bill on policy and legislative business do not distract from improving the NHS, health and social care. Improving health and social care is good not just for the individual but for the nation.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, in the days following Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, noble Lords may have missed the announcement of 0.3% as UK statistic of the decade. It represents UK productivity’s average annual growth, down over 10 years from 2%. According to the Royal Statistical Society’s Hetan Shah, it is
“the most important boring statistic that you have never heard of.”
Productivity did not feature much in election campaigns, but it should have. High productivity growth leads to higher wage growth and more money for public services. Shah is not alone in linking low productivity with social discord. The University of Sheffield’s Richard Jones suggests that it is not
“far-fetched to ascribe our current dysfunctional and bitter political environment … to a decade of stagnation in productivity growth.”
I therefore welcome the commitment to boost productivity through new investment and R&D tax incentives. As the notes on the Speech explain:
“R&D is vital to a productive economy—firms that invest in R&D have around 13 per cent higher productivity than those firms that do not”.
The Government intend to
“prioritise investment in industries of the future where the UK can take a commanding lead”—
life sciences, clean energy, space, design, computing, robotics and AI. But in focusing on the cutting edge, they need to take care not to ignore everyday and foundational areas where poor productivity is a drain on the economy: low-wage, low-skill industries such as catering and retail; the public sector, which makes up one-fifth of the economy; or health and social care, where advances in biomedical science need to be balanced with research that improves productivity in the system.
Too narrow a focus on becoming a “global science superpower” also risks excluding areas of existing dominance. This includes the creative industries, which generate 5.5% of the economy and contribute across every region of the UK. Yet they are absent from the Queen’s Speech—as they were from the last—and are seemingly excluded from any additional support for research and development. Creative businesses undertake almost as much R&D as manufacturing, but as much of it relies on arts, humanities and social science research, it does not qualify for targeted R&D tax relief. This is because in applying R&D definitions that draw on the Frascati Manual, HMRC requires that R&D relates to scientific or technological delivery, despite the manual’s wider scope. Arts, humanities and social sciences are specifically excluded, and are deemed
“not science for the purpose of these Guidelines.”
This narrow definition excludes advances in knowledge that lead to production of experiences or to enhanced understanding of human behaviour.
The benefits of a unified R&D definition across all knowledge domains go beyond the support of legitimate innovation in the creative sectors, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, for agreeing to meet on this. A unified definition would ensure that technological solutions are informed by insights into human behaviour, making adoption more likely; it would also encourage knowledge exchange across disciplines where innovation often occurs.
The correlation between creativity and scientific discovery is well understood, including, I know, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood. Galileo was a poet; Newton was a painter; and Leonardo was both, and more. A 2008 study of 40 Nobel laureates in science found them three times more likely to have arts and crafts avocations than other scientists. Several observed that
“purely academic skills are not sufficient to train a person for creative scientific work.”
This makes obvious sense: it takes creative thinking to come up with new hypotheses and to imagine the experiments that will prove them.
Given this, the Government’s decision to opt out of the PISA 2021 test for creative thinking is surely a mistake. This is a unique opportunity to collect internationally comparable data and increase understanding of how education best develops creative thinking—vital for the workforce of the future and vital in solving global challenges. It is an opportunity that the Government should not turn down.
The Conservative manifesto promised to promote creativity in schools, but measures to do so are noticeably absent from the Queen’s Speech. Reversing the decision to opt out of the PISA 2021 test for creative thinking would be a first step in addressing this. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it would be unfortunate if, in our efforts for the UK to become the global science superpower, we were to lose our position as a global superstar in creativity.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. She always makes interesting speeches, some of which she and I have discussed over cups of tea outside the Chamber. Given the exigencies of the five-minute limit, I hope she will forgive me if I do not take up her points and instead go straight to the issues that I wish to raise with the Government as they set out their plans for the next five years.
In summary, I want to draw the Government’s attention to some weakness in the way our economic system currently operates and make some suggestions for its improvement. At the outset, I want to make it clear that I am a strong supporter and defender of the market-led economic system, but the fact that I am such a strong defender and supporter does not mean that I think it is incapable of improvement or above reproach. I must say, I have had to reach the conclusion that the system, in its present configuration and in recent years, has not delivered rewards sufficiently fairly across all sectors of society and all regions of the country.
On behalf of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn hinted at some of this during the last general election campaign. The fact that his solutions were, frankly, beyond ridiculous should not blind us to the somewhat unpleasant fact that, nevertheless, there are questions that require a substantive response. Such a response will certainly be needed from this new Conservative Government if we are to keep faith with those voters who turned the red wall into a blue one. There is, therefore, a pressing need to create what might usefully be described as a more responsible capitalism. I congratulate the Government on the approach and tone that they have adopted so far. These are, however, early days, and I note that familiar country phrase: fine words butter no parsnips.
What practical steps should the Government now take? First, they should, without delay, introduce legislation to reconstruct the UK’s inadequate audit regime. There is general agreement, supported by the Government’s own reviews, that the present system no longer retains public confidence. A proper audit regime is an essential building block in the establishment of a more responsible capitalist system, so it is particularly disappointing that the Government intend to bring forward such legislation only, to use that famous Whitehall phrase, when time allows.
The Government could also usefully institute a much wider and in-depth consideration of the pinch points of modern capitalism. This could include: first, an analysis of the consequences of the different tax treatment of interest on borrowing, which is tax deductible, and on dividends, which is not; secondly, consideration of whether share purchases should give immediate rights of ownership of the enterprise or whether some period of longevity should be required; and, thirdly, consideration of the asymmetric nature of the risks in modern corporate activity, with some groups able to insulate themselves and some—mostly workers in factories—unable to do so. Finally, and perhaps most controversially, it could include consideration of whether limited liability status should become a privilege, not a right, so that in cases of particularly egregious personal behaviour, individuals could face the full consequences of their actions.
Responsible capitalism could not, will not and should not be created by government alone. It will require a wholehearted commitment by British industry and commerce, in particular its leaders and trade associations, to change the culture and end the sense of entitlement that has prevailed in recent years and has so disfigured the corporate scene. Profit of itself is not a business purpose; it is the result of creating and selling a product or a service that people wish to purchase. There is therefore in business a moral dimension, and a failure to make this distinction has damaged the reputation of our industrial and commercial sectors.
Let us take this week’s example of Mr Neil Woodford, fund manager extraordinaire, whose fund has performed so badly that redemptions have been stopped and investors cannot withdraw their money. How can Mr Woodford look at himself in the mirror and say it is fair that he should personally withdraw £9 million-worth of dividends from his fund management company, let alone justify that to a wider audience and the wider world? Our market system can, should and must do better than that.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on the humble Address. I want to talk about housing. I declare my interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the trade body for housing associations in England.
A week after the general election, it was reported that the number of homeless households in Britain had risen to over 68,000. At Christmas, more than 135,000 children did not wake up in a safe home to call their own. Each one of these children and their families need us to act now to invest in decent, affordable and high-quality housing. Given the ambition of this Government, I am hopeful that we will see the investment needed to build the homes that will fix the housing crisis.
The election made clear that voters want to see a change in the status quo. We have seen a real shake-up in traditional heartlands. These constituencies voted for a greater amount of investment in their schools, hospitals and infrastructure. I welcome the Government’s commitment to high levels of investment in infrastructure, but this must include a bold and ambitious plan to fix the country’s housing crisis.
The morning after the election, the Prime Minister made a welcome commitment to address the concerns of utmost importance to voters who may have voted for the Conservative Party for the first time. Polling by the National Housing Federation during the election revealed that 65% of undecided voters who backed Labour in the last election and voted leave in the EU referendum support the idea of spending billions of pounds a year on new social housing. This investment would not only be the right thing to do to help millions of families in England, it is also what voters have been asking for.
In the past 20 years, many communities in the north and the Midlands have been “left behind” while cities have thrived. I welcome the Government’s plans, including regeneration, to level up the regions in England. Housing associations work as economic and social anchors in their communities. They build the vital homes we need, and, just as important, they support existing communities and empower their residents. They add £16 billion to the British economy each year and they support over 250,000 jobs distributed right across the country. Does the Minister agree that housing associations will play a key role in the Government’s aim of levelling up the regions?
But of course our drive for new homes must not detract from ensuring that existing homes are of the utmost quality and safety. It is imperative that people are safe and feel safe in their homes, and I am pleased to note two new pieces of legislation in the Queen’s Speech that will contribute to this goal. Since the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower, housing associations and indeed local authorities have worked swiftly to identify unsafe ACM cladding, and work has begun or been completed on the vast majority of these buildings in the social housing sector.
But we face failures throughout the building safety system well beyond ACM cladding, as the Hackitt review has shown. All social housing providers have made it an absolute priority to deal with safety of entire buildings, together with tenants and residents. Not surprisingly, that presents considerable financial and operational challenges. We cannot ignore the sector’s capacity to do this while continuing to build new affordable homes and investing in communities up and down the country.
The wholesale failure of the building safety system should not hamper the ability of housing associations and councils to build the affordable homes of the future. The Government’s plans to resource remediation work must take this into account. It is a complex and extensive programme of work that needs renewed strategic leadership from government. For their part, housing associations remain committed to working in partnership to get this crucial work done. Let us all be clear in our focus on what matters most of all: the safety of the people who call these buildings their homes.
I am glad that the Government have reaffirmed their commitment to the affordable homes programme. Delivering hundreds of thousands of affordable homes needs the certainty of sustained support and specific funding for building homes for social rent. Ahead of the upcoming Budget, will the Minister speak with his Treasury colleagues to ensure that the affordable homes programme is financed effectively to build the homes this country needs?
The election result will continue to be dissected, but the Government have accepted the clear message for change and a greater political focus and action on the communities that have been ignored for too long. We know that when you have a safe, quality and affordable home to live in, everything else follows—as the Minister herself quite rightly said. It is right that the Government are finally listening to these voters, and I hope that we will see the investment desperately needed to deliver the meaningful change these communities have been calling for.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly about the Government’s national disability strategy, the plan for which was published in an additional paper with the gracious Speech. The plan makes some very bold promises, saying that it wants to
“use all the levers of Government to support disabled people to achieve their potential”,
and that it will be developed with disabled people, disability organisations and charities and will include housing, education and transport. This is obviously good news, particularly if all government departments are to be involved. But the Government must put some real energy and determination into following through what they are proposing, and we need regular updates to find out exactly how they are going about this task. Who will be in overall charge of formulating the strategy? Will it be the Minister for Disabled People? Is there a rigorous timeframe?
If I sound somewhat sceptical, it is because we have been here or hereabouts before and nothing much has happened. Look at housing; here I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said. We spent last year hearing promises about a consultation on housing that would include accessible and adaptable housing, but this has not even started yet. Why was the Bill to exempt public lavatories from paying business rates withdrawn? This was another blow for helping disabled people have the confidence to get out and about. I hope it will be reintroduced as soon as possible.
I see that there is to be a Green Paper about the benefits system and how that affects disabled people. One specific measure is that a PIP award will now have a minimum award length to stop constant assessments—I should think so too. But the whole PIP process needs to be looked at afresh. It is nothing short of a scandal that 75% of PIP appeals are overturned at the tribunal stage. I ask the Minister to commit to a review of the whole PIP process, including the training of assessors. There is a very long waiting time for tribunals, which are expensive for the Government and stressful for claimants, so getting the initial assessments right and reviewing the points system must be of prime importance.
I hope the Minister, in replying to this, will not be tempted to recite the amount the Government are now spending on disability benefits, because this does not automatically make it the right amount. If the Government are really serious in wanting disabled people to be able to fulfil their potential, they must be prepared to put money behind any proposals they put forward for development in the new strategy. Most importantly, they must involve and consult disabled people every step of the way.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I wish to raise the issue of local services that are likely to have a positive impact on serious youth violence, in particular knife crime. I appreciate that the criminal justice system was key to yesterday’s debate on the gracious Speech, and indeed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester touched briefly on knife crime in that context. However, I wish to concentrate not on policing per se, nor on the actions of the courts, prison or probation services, but on those of other local agencies.
Clergy from all churches, and ministers of other religions too, are locally based in the communities affected, as are lay ministers, church youth workers and volunteers. Clergy take the funerals, comfort the bereaved, go into schools and seek to provide safe spaces for people to explore a richer and fuller meaning for their life and an identity that recognises the divine image in the other.
The year 2019 was terrible for knife crime in the capital. I was involved in the funerals of two of the victims. The extinguishing of a life, the grief of those who remain, the criminality of the perpetrators and the pervasive and corrosive insecurity these events create for our young people are all too evident.
It is not possible to demonstrate that cuts in funding inevitably lead to violence, but adequate provision for youth services that stress the value of teamwork, structure, mutual respect as a matter of course, value beyond self and the normality of loss and gain bears fruit that will last. They are the immersion in a positive way of life.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester that the proposal for the serious violence Bill to mandate multiagency working is very welcome. But as a range of national charities pointed out in February 2019, between 2010-11 and 2017-18 local authority spending on children and young people’s services fell by 16%, from £10.3 billion to £8.6 billion. In comparison, the funding provided to them fell by 29% in the same period. Within that, there has been a shift from early intervention through children’s centres and family support to late intervention in safeguarding and children in care. There is some way more to go beyond the Government’s election promise of an additional £500 million if the desired impact is to be made.
For those deeply involved in our local communities, the efforts of the Mayor of London through his violence reduction unit, Young Londoners Fund, educational toolkits for schools and the London Needs You Alive online campaign all need our support. The Stepping Stones programme supporting at-risk young people in transition from primary to secondary school is the sort of initiative additional funding should support.
For our part, in the diocese of Southwark we are working with the group Oxygen on providing a 10-week anti-crime programme in schools. We are working with Power the Fight to train clergy and youth workers to provide spaces for young people in churches. The Southwark diocesan board for education is piloting training across 10 Church of England schools on adverse childhood experiences and contextual safeguarding, in a programme developed by the Children’s Society and EduCare to raise teachers’ awareness of safeguarding and adverse experiences of young people, to improve their life chances. The diocese of Southwark supports the Ascension Trust’s Synergy Network, and its pioneering CEO, Les Isaac, who founded Street Pastors and will next month launch a dedicated website as a network of resources for those doing youth work across the capital.
I trust that members of the Government will be sensitive to the funding of local government youth services and those who seek to enable our young people to flourish.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, over the past three years, our national self-confidence and self-belief have taken one heck of a beating. We have been pummelled by a daily dosage of doom, doubt, division and despair. I believe that this time is, mercifully, drawing to a close, so the question before us now is: how do we rebuild and reunite? Some will argue for legislation, but I want to make the case for realising a much more powerful motivator of human endeavour: optimism and belief.
Here I must declare an interest. I am an incurable optimist. I always have been; even my blood group is B positive. This is a genetic trait which is shared by all who happen to follow Newcastle United Football Club; it is pretty essential. Great turnarounds, be they in businesses, schools or sports teams, are more often than not the result of leadership; reinstilling self-belief, self-confidence, an ambition or a vision, or giving new purpose. Those qualities are the need of the hour. The hugely successful GREAT campaign, launched in 2012 at the great Olympics and Paralympics, tells people in 140 countries around the world how great Britain truly is. It is time that we brought that campaign home and reminded ourselves what a great country we are privileged to live in and that our best days lie ahead of us, not behind us.
When Forbes does its annual survey, it ranks Britain as the number one place in the world to do business. The World Bank ranks Britain second only to the United States in the G7 for ease of doing business. For these reasons and more, the UK is the number one location in Europe for attracting foreign direct investment. It is third in the world, after the United States and China. The UK is home to two of the top-three universities in the world. One of those universities, Cambridge, has produced more Nobel Prize winners than the entire nation of France. The Royal College of Art and Design was the number one college for art and design in the world in 2019. In December last year, the UK overtook the United States as the top destination for overseas students in the world. English is the number one spoken language in the world. It is the language of international trade. London is a world-leading international financial centre. In 2017, an international survey ranked the NHS as the best healthcare system, with Sweden and Switzerland coming sixth. London is ranked second only to Tokyo as the most innovative city in the world. When it comes to technology, the UK has produced as many billion-dollar technology companies—or “unicorns”—as Germany, France, Israel and Sweden combined.
The Premier League is the most watched football league in the world, Edinburgh the largest arts festival, Glastonbury the largest outdoor festival. “Game of Thrones” is filmed in Belfast, “Doctor Who” is made in Cardiff, “Downton Abbey” is made in Hampshire and 007 is made in secret, of course. Of the 10 teams that compete in Formula 1 motor racing, seven of them are based in the UK. At the Rio Olympics, Team GB ranked second in the medals table, behind the United States. In the Rio Paralympic Games—founded at Stoke Mandeville, Team GB ranked second, behind China. Both teams can both go one better in Tokyo later this year.
Internationally and politically, the UK is a significant player. It is a P5 member of the UN Security Council, a G7 country, a member of the Commonwealth—a unique family of 53 nations and 2 billion people—and the only country that meets both its 2% military NATO commitment and its 0.7% development aid commitment. It was the first to enshrine the net-zero commitment in law, while reducing its carbon emissions by 42% since 1990, which is more than any other industrialised country.
No other country can present such a list of credentials. Britain is indeed a great country, with its best days ahead of us, not behind us. Overseas investors, businesses and students believe in Britain, and we should believe in ourselves. We should unfetter the voices of hope, optimism and ambition, to inspire us to even greater heights, powered by the boundless renewable energy, resolve and creativity of all its great British people.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, what an act to follow.
The Queen’s Speech embraces policies directed at supporting working families, but I want to raise a growing systemic problem within our economy which the gracious Speech does not fully capture: the decline in household financial resilience—by which I mean the ability to cope financially when faced with a sudden fall in income or unavoidable rise in expenditure, and to reflect on a route to address it.
I recently chaired a steering group study into household financial resilience, under the governance of the Money and Pensions Service. Its membership ranged from the finance industry to Toynbee Hall, and was ably supported by Alan Woods, a retired senior civil servant from the DWP. The study examined findings from a wide range of respected sources through the lens of financial resilience, demonstrating the widespread nature of financial shocks and income volatility and indicating that low financial resilience is a substantial and widespread problem.
Growing evidence reveals that a single adverse event can push a household over the edge. Low financial resilience is not reserved to those on low incomes; it has travelled up the income scale. Each year some 4 million to 6 million working age people suffer a life event which can cause an income shock by reason of illness, job loss, relationship breakdown, death of a partner, or caring responsibilities. A further sizeable group experience other life events which disrupt household finances. Over 70% of those in regular work face significant volatility in monthly earnings. Some households are well placed to weather the storm, but many lack the resilience to do so.
A range of factors can increase financial resilience—such as access to employment benefits, state benefits, private insurance, savings, affordable credit, help from family and fewer pre-existing debts—but the evidence reveals that all those factors are weakening, shifting greater responsibility for resilience on to the individual, which many are ill-prepared to meet. The labour market is changing. Self-employment has risen to around 5 million, 60% of private sector employees work for SMEs, nearly 9 million in micro-businesses, and a growing number of workers lack standard employment protections. Fewer work for large businesses, which traditionally offered benefits that mitigated income shocks. Yes, more people have felt the benefits of employment, but there is a long-term decline in employer provision of occupational benefits, in both coverage and value, such as sick pay, redundancy pay and death benefits. Only 28% of employers provide more than the statutory sick pay of £94.25 a week.
Work is increasingly less secure and earnings less predictable. Means-tested benefits have fallen in real terms, help with housing and mortgage costs is restricted, 11.5 million adults have less than £100 in savings, and the FCA found that only 3% of adults had income protection and only 4% had mortgage protection insurance.
Owner occupation can boost resilience, but it has declined markedly among working age groups over the past 15 years. Low financial resilience matters because it can lead to problem debt, poor health, children’s loss of well-being and housing problems, and adverse effects on employers, utility providers, financial institutions and the economy.
I am not arguing specific policies but highlighting the evidence which demonstrates that falls in household financial resilience have been an unintended or unrecognised consequence of both socioeconomic and public policy changes. Addressing the problem requires a sound analytical basis, but current measuring of household resilience is insufficient to authoritatively inform policy. There is a compelling case for the Office for National Statistics to introduce a financial resilience index, which would: map the level of resilience in households and track changes over time, highlight segments where action is most needed, improve understanding of the underlying causes and drivers of low resilience, and provide a basis against which policies or actions could be tested.
I hope that the Minister will agree that, to improve the socioeconomic experiences of households, we need to measure and fully understand the problem of falling household financial resilience—and currently we do not.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I declare my relevant interests in the register: chair of a learning disability charity providing services for people with a learning disability and president of RoSPA.
It may surprise noble Lords to hear that there are more accidents in the home than in any other setting, and they affect the most vulnerable, so I welcome the building safety Bill. It is much needed and, I hope, an opportunity to recognise how modifying low-cost housing design features and specifications can save lives.
Naturally, following the Grenfell tragedy, there is a focus on fire safety and cladding, and this is vitally important. However, I draw attention to the fact that, for every fire-related hospital admission in England, 234 are caused by accidental falls. Indeed, falls make up 60% of total accident-related hospital admissions. Simple regulation and guidelines have the potential to ensure that tragic accidents, which most often involve infants or the elderly, are avoided and we can all feel safe in our own home. I refer the House to measures outlined in RoSPA’s Safer by Design guidelines for how this can be achieved.
I note that a new employment Bill was announced in the gracious Speech, which has the stated purpose to protect and enhance workers’ rights. However, the accompanying briefing document lacked detail about how that would apply to the most fundamental of all workers’ rights—the right to go home safe and healthy at the end of the working day. Will the Minister clarify that the Bill will contain the measures about a worker’s right to work in a safe environment that were taken out of the October EU withdrawal Bill when the December Bill was published?
There is much to be welcomed in the Government’s health plans in the Queen’s Speech. However, as with all these things, the devil will be in the detail, and I am sure that the combined expertise of this House will leave the Bills better than when they arrive. Although funding pledges enshrined in law are welcome, I regret that there is no clear plan to address issues of capital funding or public health. The Government pledge to build 40 new hospitals, but clarity is needed on the issue of funding for general infrastructure, and this includes expensive medical equipment such as CAT scanners—and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said, we also urgently need to address the issue of staffing. The Government’s plans to introduce fast-track visas for healthcare workers are in the right direction. But the policy does not go far enough, given the scale of the current crisis facing the NHS. With more than 100,000 current vacancies and a nursing shortage of 40,000, we need urgent action. With the UK’s approaching exit from the European Union, this issue will only become more urgent.
It is important that it is made clear exactly who is responsible for the recruitment and retention of staff, and who will be held accountable if the Government fail to meet their ambitious targets. In Questions yesterday, the Minister suggested that it was the Secretary of State, but I wondered which organisation this had been devolved to.
I also urge the department to engage meaningfully in a reflection about international health worker recruitment processes. The UK has a responsibility to recruit in an ethical way. This means ensuring that our efforts in international health development and health system building are not undermined by the drain of health workers from lower-income or understaffed countries.
It is encouraging to see mental health services mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, and the rewrite of the Mental Health Act that Sir Simon Wessely has been involved in is long overdue. I would also like to see the issue of the transition from adolescent to adult services given due consideration. Mental health conditions do not recognise arbitrary age boundaries. Although such transitions are often handled well, support and continuity can be an issue. Staffing issues are also prevalent in this sector, with 10% of full-time consultant posts in psychiatry being vacant and a shortage of mental health social workers and community nurses. We also need to ensure that young people receive prompt diagnosis, so that mental health services can provide timely early support, preventing the need for crisis management later in life.
The Government’s new visas do not include staff who wish to work in social care, many of whom will fall below the Government’s £30,000 threshold for points-based immigration. How do the Government intend to address the gaps in the stretched social care workforce and ensure that work is valued? As providers of learning disability services, we often have difficult conversations with our commissioners to ensure that we can offer the service levels required by the Care Quality Commission. Local authorities are underfunded and are unable to work within their budgets for service provision. That means often that the services provided are often not up to standard. The new Government’s majority presents an opportunity to introduce reforms that have been widely recognised as necessary for years. Now is the time for action and I look forward to hearing the Government’s proposals in the very near future so that collaboration can begin.
Baroness Blower (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I rise to make this brief maiden speech and in doing so I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Knight for their assistance both prior to and at my introduction, which I am bound to say now seems a long time ago. I also wish to place on record my thanks for the warm welcome I received on entering your Lordships’ House and to thank the staff of the House, whom I have found unfailingly patient and helpful in all circumstances.
I know that much expertise and wisdom is gathered here, from which I hope to learn and to which, in some small part, I hope in time to contribute. Having served as general secretary of the National Union of Teachers and serving currently as president of the European Region of Education International, which covers the education unions in 52 countries, my interest is indeed in education, although I am quite prepared to accept that there are noble Lords who have a far greater in-depth knowledge and experience of many phases and sectors of education than I do.
Given that a young person’s domestic circumstances contribute in part to their potential success or lack of it in the education system, I am also interested in and concerned about child poverty and adverse childhood experiences. Figures on child poverty in every constituency are available from the organisation End Child Poverty. They indicate that overall 4.1 million children are trapped in poverty in the UK—30% of children in the UK, or the equivalent of nine in every class of 30. That is an unthinkably high number. Child poverty fell consistently from 1998 to 2010, but is now on the rise with the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicting that 5.2 million children will be living in poverty by 2022.
While social and economic disadvantage should never be proposed as an excuse for lack of education success, it is certainly a contributory factor and reason. In a survey of its members, the National Education Union asked what impacts on children’s learning could be attributed to poverty. Some 78% of respondents talked about fatigue in children and students; 76% talked of very poor concentration; and 57%—significantly more than half—talked of students experiencing hunger. Hungry children find it much more difficult to learn.
While it is laudable that there are warm words from the Government about ensuring that
“every child receives the best possible education—wherever they grow up”,
these will remain nothing more than words without a determined poverty reduction strategy. There is an indication of increased spending in education; however, analysis by the School Cuts coalition demonstrates that 83% of schools will still be worse off in April 2020 than they were in April 2015, in real terms. Schools will have £20 billion less spending power in 2020-21 than they did in 2015-16, and this when pupil numbers are rising. Compared with 2015, we have 420,000 more pupils in schools and, by the way, there are 3,500 fewer teachers. Recruitment and retention of teachers continues to be a problem, with almost a third of teachers—32% to be precise—leaving within the first five years of joining the profession. Numbers in teacher training recruitment continue to fall. The Government have indicated a commitment to raise teachers’ starting salaries to £30,000 by 2022-23. However, this will return pay only to its 2010 level, in real terms.
Anyone can see, therefore, that we really need a funding system based on the bottom-up need of what it really costs to educate all our children and young people. In Australia, some years ago, David Gonski, a businessman, was commissioned by the Government to look at a funding model. His commission ascertained what input was really needed to work out the actual amount that we need to educate everybody. Noble Lords who have had the opportunity to look at the Library briefing on children’s rights know that there have been enormous problems with this over the years. It means both a focus on poverty reduction and significant spending on education, which is the investment that we need in our nation’s future and a significant matter. The £780 million to address issues of special needs may well be insufficient.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Blower and to congratulate her on her maiden speech. She was being unduly modest, because she has an enormous amount of educational experience, not just, as she said, as general secretary of the National Union of Teachers; she has also taught in a number of comprehensive schools in the London area. To say that other noble Lords have more knowledge of education than she has is to be unduly modest. She will make an enormous contribution to educational debates, thinking and policy in this House, and we look forward to hearing from her on many future occasions.
I will speak about social care. The gracious Speech included a reference to social care and the Government seeking cross-party consensus. That is fine, but we have been waiting for something to happen on social care for years. There have been reports, commissions and bodies talking about social care. What has happened to the long-awaited White or Green Paper that the Government promised quite a long time ago? Could the Minister tell us whether it is still going to happen and, if so, when?
If one talks to people of our age or older, one will know that most in this country are concerned about what will happen to them when, or if, they get to the point that they cannot look after themselves unaided. There is a deep concern. According to the British Social Attitudes survey, only 23% of people are satisfied with social care. There is a real gap in the system and concern for the future. Of course there is a need for more money. The Government are talking about an extra £1 billion a year, but most people who have looked at it say that we are nearer to needing about £8 billion a year, rather than £1 billion, to provide a decent standard of care. That is the sum required to return to the standards of 2009-10.
Eligibility for social care is very much a postcode lottery. It depends on which local authority one lives in and all sorts of random factors. No wonder there is concern. It also depends a great deal on unpaid carers. They give up their jobs to do care work and get £60 a week for that. It is pretty miserable. Care staff are not always able to work on Christmas Day or New Year’s Day. Retention is poor and many are non-UK nationals. I wonder what will happen to them post Brexit.
Everybody talks about better integration of health and social care. We hear the expression “bed blocking”. There are enormous costs to bed blocking. If there is no seamless transition from hospital to social care, which is provided by local authorities, people tend to stay in hospital. I know of the experiences of people who were in hospital for quite a long time—probably unnecessarily, had there been better transition to care outside hospital. I heard one estimate that a night in hospital costs £350, a night in a care home £85, and a night at home with care support under £20. People often have to contribute to their care but, because by staying in hospital they do not have to so, paradoxically, they save a bit of money, but it is not an efficient and humane way of proceeding. It is also erratic, because people with dementia have to pay for everything themselves and people with other illnesses do not. I understand that a good model has been developed in Manchester, which has a better way of integrating health and social care. It would take legislation to bring it about fully, but it needs to be looked at.
I looked into some other things, such as records. We have very little information about social care and few hard facts. Most of what we know is based on estimates—approximations, almost guesswork. For example, local authorities have different methods of collecting data. Nothing is standardised, so one cannot even compare one local authority to another. I challenge anybody to look at the form for eligibility for social care produced by a local authority. I have seen one—it probably takes a PhD or two to complete. They are very difficult, and people who are deprived and disadvantaged cannot always do that. There is a terminology difference as well between NHS support and social care. Surely we all agree that reform must be evidence-based.
There is pressure in the system, because the health service dominates, in a way. The health service needs far more money, but it has power to attract more money than local authorities can for social care. Local authorities are hard-pressed enough as it is. I urge that we should have proper records; be generous in saying that social care has to work properly; and that we must integrate health and social care. We would save money and provide much better care. For heaven’s sake, let us get on with it.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce its online harms Bill,
“to improve internet safety for all”,
but, equally, stress that I remain deeply concerned by their failure to implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. The rationale for focusing on the new Bill instead seems to be a desire to put attempts to protect children from pornographic websites on the same footing as attempts to protect them on social media platforms. It is entirely right to seek to promote safety in both contexts, but a basic error to suggest that both challenges should be addressed in the same way. The internet is complicated and one-size-fits-all policies simply will not work.
The focus of what I have read about the Government’s plans for online harms revolves around social media companies and fining them if they do not do what they are supposed to do under a new legal duty of care. An article in the Times on 31 December suggested that Ofcom is going to draw up legally enforceable codes of practice that will include protecting children from accessing pornography. This approach may work for social media platforms if they have bases in the UK but it will be absolutely useless at engaging with the challenge of protecting children from pornographic websites.
Initially when the Digital Economy Bill was introduced in another place, the proposal was that statutory age-verification requirements should be enforced through fines, but a cross-party group of MPs pointed out that this would never work because the top 50 pornographic websites accessed in the UK are all based in other jurisdictions. One could certainly threaten fines but it would be quite impossible to enforce them in a way that would concentrate the minds of website providers because, based in other jurisdictions, they could simply ignore them.
Because of that, MPs amended the Bill to give the regulator the option of IP blocking. This would enable the regulator to tell a site based in say, Russia, that if it failed to introduce robust age-verification checks within a certain timeframe, the regulator would block it from accessing the UK market. Children would be protected either by the site being blocked after the specified timeframe or, more probably, by the site deciding that it would make more sense for it to introduce proper age-verification checks rather than risk disruption of its UK income stream. The Government readily accepted the amendment because the case for it was unanswerable.
I say again that I welcome the fact that the Government want to address online safety with respect to social media platforms through their new Bill. This must not, however, be used as an excuse not to proceed with implementing Part 3 of the Digital Economy Bill, which provides the very best way of dealing with the different challenge of protecting children from pornographic websites.
The failure to implement this legislation is particularly concerning because, rather than being a distant aspiration, it is all there on the statute book. The only thing standing in the way of statutory age verification with respect to pornographic websites is the Government’s delay in relaying the BBFC age-verification guidance before Parliament and setting an implementation date. Having the capacity to deal with this problem—thanks to Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act—yet not bothering to avail ourselves of it does not reflect at all well on either the Government or British society as a whole. The Government must stop procrastinating over child safety with respect to pornographic websites and get on with implementing Part 3.
Mindful of that, on 21 January I will introduce my Digital Economy Act 2017 (commencement of Part 3) Bill, the simple purpose of which will be to implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. I hope that that will not be necessary and that the Minister will today confirm that, notwithstanding the new online safety Bill, the Government will now press ahead with implementation themselves. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interests, as detailed in the register—in particular, as a partner in the international commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft.
As a one-nation Conservative, I strongly welcome the Government’s renewed commitment to our public services, but those public services must necessarily be built upon the strong foundations that only a flourishing economy can provide. As we gird ourselves for the post-Brexit world, whatever our views might have been before the 2016 referendum, we now have to work together to ensure that our economy is as prepared as possible to flourish in this new world.
My specialist subject is financial services—a sector in which the UK excels. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who raised the issue at the start of the debate, that I believe that financial services are ready to strengthen their position if only the Government will take a number of key steps. It is a sector in which regulation plays an all-important role. The erstwhile Financial Services Authority was obliged to have regard to
“the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom”.
When the FSA was superseded, however, no such obligation was retained. I therefore echo the excellent 11th report from the 2017-19 Session of our European Union Committee and its recommendation in paragraph 225, which says that
“it may become clear that regulators are unduly constrained by their current objectives. We recommend that the Government consider and consult on the desirability of adding a duty to promote international competitiveness to these objectives.”
That recommendation, preferably shorn of its caveats, could be vital for our future success. It was based upon a wealth of informed submissions—for instance, from the Association of British Insurers, which stated: “We believe both regulators”, meaning the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority,
“should be equipped with a clear remit for UK competitiveness ... once we leave the EU.”
That view is widely expressed, with growing vehemence and intensity, right across the financial services industry. Regulators in our main rival territories, such as Bermuda, Switzerland and Singapore, are already subject to a similar obligation and it does not imply a dilution of standards. On the contrary, our competitive edge relies on a delicate balance between a hard-won reputation for integrity, quality and reliability and our ability to be flexible, to adapt and to innovate. I strongly press my noble friend the Minister to go back to the future by using the forthcoming financial services Bill to impose a similar obligation on the FCA and the PRA to restore that vital balance of objectives.
Something that would definitely serve to improve competitiveness would be a period of regulatory stability and, above all, proportionate regulation. In its last manifesto, the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, where I have just relinquished my role as chair, made that point eloquently and persuasively.
In summary, this legislative programme adumbrates measures that have the potential to heal the ugly rift that has opened up in this country between the haves and have-nots, between north and south, and between remainers and leavers. In my opinion, a party that now represents not only traditional strongholds such as Wells, Wimbledon and Wycombe but also those new bastions of Bassetlaw, Bishop Auckland and Blyth Valley has both a unique opportunity and a unique responsibility to rebuild one nation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have to say that the Conservative Party did not do so well in Birmingham.
It is a great pleasure to declare my interests as a member of the GMC, a trustee of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and president of GS1, the barcoding association responsible for the Scan4Safety programme.
I greatly welcome my noble friend Lady Blower. She made a brilliant maiden speech, and debates on education will be very much strengthened by her presence.
I welcome the emphasis in the Queen’s Speech on the NHS but it is the absence of any concrete proposals on social care that causes most concern. Frankly, the search for cross-party consensus seems to be no more than a promise to put it once more into the long grass. A number of my noble friends have talked about this. I urge the Government to go back to Dilnot. They commissioned Dilnot. He produced an excellent report, which was acclaimed. We legislated for it in this House. It is on the statute book. If we were to combine Dilnot with a more generous means test and more resources to local authorities to fund adult social care, it would not be perfect but, my goodness, it would be an improvement on the current iniquitous system.
I also welcome the return of the health service safety investigations Bill. It will be eagerly anticipated. Of course, it calls into question the Government’s patient safety strategy as a whole. I express my concern to the Minister that the strategy published just a few months ago claimed that the past 20 years have seen great progress in patient safety but no evidence was given. Talking to people on the ground—doctors and nurses—they are concerned that patient safety is compromised every day because of the huge pressures on the system. I was struck by the note sent out by the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital just before Christmas, which told staff to make the “least unsafe decision” following a huge rise in admissions. Every day, up and down the country, NHS staff are having to make unpalatable decisions about priorities and about how to deal with the pressures and patient safety is clearly being brought into question.
I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he talked about financial regulation. I believe the same sentiment should apply to medicines and medical devices regulation. We are promised a Bill, but the key question is whether regulation in the UK will continue to be aligned with the EU. We have had great advantages from that. Many overseas companies have invested in the UK, partly because of our life science sector and partly because regulation—either licensing or receiving a device’s charter mark—has meant that they could go into Europe and the licensing would be accepted. Despite the fact that the NHS is a poor adopter of new medicines, devices and innovations, it made the UK an attractive country in which to do business.
The Government say that they no longer want us to be aligned to the EU. What does this mean for medicines and medical devices regulation? Let us say that a US global pharmaceutical company had invested a lot of money in the UK; does it mean that, in future, it can continue to invest in the UK and get a licence from our regulator but would then have to seek a separate licence with different criteria in the rest of the EU? If that is the case, I can tell the Minister that investment will stop. If companies have to come here first, invest in R&D, go through all our regulatory procedures and then have to go to Europe and go through different processes, they will simply not come to the UK any more. This is a very important issue, which I look forward to debating when we get the Bill.
On NHS funding, I simply echo the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. The 3.4% per annum over five years can do no more than stabilise the current situation. As she said, we are failing lamentably on all the core targets and there are no signs as yet that we will get anywhere near meeting them. I welcome that Bill because we will want to amend it to ensure that the NHS has funding for the long term to meet all the pressures that it needs to face.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, on her excellent maiden speech.
I shall focus on children and vulnerable women; I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry on the register of interests. My headlines are that we need policy that supports and enables early intervention and effective partnerships. Experiences that we have at an early age shape who we are. The Children’s Society has been measuring children’s well-being for more than a decade, and during much of that time children’s well-being has been in decline. This is not simply about children; it is about how we shape the sort of communities we want to see.
How is government looking at every policy and all legislation in the light of what they mean for children? This is about present well-being and its future impact. Some 690,000 children under five live in a home where a parent has experienced poor mental health, substance misuse or domestic abuse. These and other issues are listed as ACEs, or adverse childhood experiences, which other noble Lords have referred to. Their consequences echo through a child’s life and across generations.
We know, for example, that the majority of women in prison report having experienced some form of abuse as a child. The Nelson Trust, of which I am president, estimates that 78% of women who access their women’s centres present with four or more ACEs. Two-thirds of the women supported by the Nelson Trust are mothers of children, so this is about the future as well as the present.
Even if we look at children with no ACEs, standard support for parents is given by HMRC, the DWP, NHS, Public Health England and possibly a children’s centre. This system is not easy to navigate, and those agencies do not share a common framework. The challenge increases for families in more complex situations, with even more agencies involved.
Children who underachieve in all early-years measures at five are three times more likely to have social care involvement at the age of nine. Thus, there is an ever-growing demand for statutory services, and the national cost of intervention that comes too late is huge. In my diocese, Gloucestershire County Council is expected to overspend on children’s services this year, yet between 2010 and 2018 spending on non-statutory children’s services, such as children’s centres and youth provision, fell by 60%.
How will the Government attend to early intervention and the strategic deployment of resources to reduce and prevent problems further down the line? Of course, improving children’s life chances will not happen overnight, nor simply through important legislation such as tax reform. It is vital that government action supports and enables the work of professionals in education, health and care as well as the vital provision by charities, including local churches and other faith organisations. There also needs to be an increased emphasis on inter-agency work.
As lead bishop for women’s prisons, I have a particular interest in how we can reduce the possibility of children growing up to be those at risk of offending. I also have an interest in what services are being provided for those who have offended or are at risk of offending. In both areas, early intervention and effective partnership should be a goal for government across public services. I shall give two examples from my diocese. First, the Nelson Trust partners with 18 agencies to provide outreach to women in sex work, resulting in very positive outcomes. Research by Lancaster University found that 95% of those outcomes could not have been achieved without access to a women’s centre—the only non-statutory service involved. Secondly, the Action on ACEs Gloucestershire initiative has attracted interest from around the UK. It is enabling a trauma-informed approach across services ranging from fire and rescue through to maternity provision and voluntary groups. The toolkit to enable conversations with children, adults and families has been piloted by more than 30 organisations.
I must close, but I hope that the Government will take time to listen to people affected by these issues—not least children and young people—learn from best practice and provide funding to replicate successful interventions which are about effective partnership and early intervention. As the Chancellor prepares for the Budget in March, I hope that he will consider how wise investment, made at an early stage and managed effectively, will pay dividends.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I for one was in the main delighted with the education part of the Queen’s Speech. Its opening statement,
“To ensure every child has access to a high-quality education”,
and the statement that
“A great education is fundamental to the success of children, their families and our communities, as well as the success of our country”
set the right tone. The severe funding issues that schools and colleges have faced is now being addressed, and we must never allow schools to face such a financial crisis again. The focus on further education and technical education was welcome. At long last, the Cinderella of our education service is finally going to the ball.
I have said many times that the most important resource in our education system is the quality of our teachers. Good teachers inspire, motivate and drive ambition and learning forward. Good school and college leaders create places of learning where teachers and their pupils thrive. Yet we have a very serious teacher recruitment crisis. The Department for Education forecasts that, over the next six years, pupil numbers are set to increase by almost 20%. The number of children in classes of 36 or more is increasing at an alarming rate. Many schools across England regularly have classes of over 40, and only 80% of the number of secondary trainees were recruited last year. We are in the middle of a significant teacher shortage. We must prevent a crisis from becoming a catastrophe.
The days when a teaching career was seen as the most aspirational in society appear to be over. However, in other European countries, teachers are highly valued. We need the best minds teaching young people, from the nursery to the sixth form, so why are we experiencing a recruitment crisis? Is the answer better salaries? That must go some way to attracting those who want to teach, but it is not clear that more money will attract more teachers, considering the impact that bursaries have had thus far.
Teachers working today feel undervalued. When I speak to teachers, the main issue they cite is not the money but the workload. Stressful teachers do not make for productive or happy teachers. If we are to achieve the Queen’s Speech peroration, we need well-trained, well-paid, highly motivated and highly regarded teachers. Without them, class sizes will continue to increase, subject specialist shortages will continue to grow, and the drop-out rate of teachers will accelerate.
We hear a lot about inspections and testing. Of course schools need to be inspected and children tested so that we can find out how to support and help children, but it is about how we do this so that schools and teachers are less stressed, more valued and more productive. It is my hope that in this new Parliament the Government will be less dogmatic in their approach to education. Let us recognise that we have a varied system in the types of school that provide for our children, and that maintained community schools should not be seen as educational pariahs waiting to be picked off and converted into academies as soon as they put an academic foot wrong.
By the way, it is interesting that maintained community schools in England outperformed academies and free schools in the national exams taken at the end of year 6. Department for Education figures show that last summer, among pupils taking stage 2 standardised tests in maths and English, known as SATS, those in maintained community schools on average performed better than those in academies. Interestingly, free schools—the Government’s flagship means of opening a new school—also compared poorly with maintained community schools. It is worth noting, however, that the gap relating to pupils whose first language is not English has almost disappeared, which is well worth celebrating.
I want to touch briefly on a couple of other issues that are not covered in the Queen’s Speech but are of huge importance: alternative education and academic integrity. The Minister will be aware that there has been a 50% surge in permanent exclusions from schools in England. These children are placed in alternative provision, but many of those alternative providers are unregistered and therefore uninspected. There are often appalling practices in child safeguarding and pupil registration that go completely unchecked. Two hours a day on an iPad is not education. It is unacceptable in the 21st century that public money should be used to pay these unregistered providers. Shame on central government and local authorities for allowing that to happen. It is not surprising that the children who are being recruited into gangs and county-lines crime may be a significant factor in the increasing levels of knife crime.
We are proud of our universities; we boast some of the finest in the world. It is vital that we do all in our power to safeguard their academic integrity. So why are we allowing companies to help students to cheat? The growing presence of essay mills and contract cheating is alarming. We should make sure that these activities are closed down. The damage that they are doing to higher education is extremely dangerous. No wonder 45 vice-chancellors and heads of organisations in UK higher education wrote to Damian Hinds urging that action be taken against the essay mill companies.
I welcome the rhetoric in the Queen’s Speech, and I hope it is matched by the reality. Our children are our future. We must make sure that every child really does matter.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, on her excellent speech. We absolutely need her expertise in education.
My topics are, unashamedly, Brexit and culture, both of which appear to be banned words. I hope that the omission of the category “culture” on the Order Paper is not an omen for the future of the department. If we cannot properly hold the Government to account regarding policies in relation to the arts and media, we will be in trouble. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, I am also concerned that the Minister’s opening speech omitted the creative industries, which are so hugely important to us economically and culturally.
The election has not changed my mind about Brexit being a truly terrible idea. In the Answer given to my Oral Question on British workers on Tuesday, what I found particularly disturbing was the lack of any note of regret from the Government about the loss not of hundreds but of thousands of jobs as reported in the recent survey of the seasonal tourism sector. That is just one sector, and it is before the transition period has even begun. Many of those jobs were opportunities for young British people from all walks of life who one fears will not now have the opportunities that they wanted to work in Europe.
Leaving the single market will also affect many working in the creative industries, many of whom will be young people with great talents not earning anything like £30,000, if that is to be a reciprocated cut-off point. It is young people who will suffer from a hard Brexit more than anyone. The Government should acknowledge this, and they need to consult more closely representatives of the British freelancing communities, including workers in the creative industries, about what can be done to protect the work on which many of their current livelihoods depend.
In a recent letter to the Guardian, a correspondent made the point that if Mr Johnson had offered membership of the single market as a compromise, remainers would grudgingly have accepted that. If Mr Johnson wishes to
“urge ... closure and ... let the healing begin”,
he is going about it in a strange way. There will be no healing from a hard Brexit. Remainers have not gone away even if the political power lies now with Brexiteers.
I turn specifically to culture. It is often said that money is not everything, but in so many areas that are currently suffering from chronic underinvestment, it is, at this moment in time, mostly everything. For a while, the most pressing issue for arts and cultural organisations has been underfunding as a direct result of local authority cuts. Local museums are struggling and almost 800 libraries have closed since 2010. Without these cuts, Hertfordshire County Council would not have made the unforgivable decision last year to sell its schools art loan collection. It will be a litmus test of whether austerity is really over whether these cuts are reversed, but I am not holding my breath. In all the other areas that local councils support, such as social care, a significant reversal of these cuts is clearly necessary.
I welcome Nicholas Serota’s focus on individual creators in the interview he recently gave to the Guardian prior to next month’s 10-year strategy for the Arts Council. When money is scarce, it is primarily the creators alongside the institutions that we need to protect and nurture.
It is inevitable that all our national museums will eventually drop funding from the fossil fuel industries, so the problem may well arise that there is a diminishing pool of possible sponsors that will be acceptable to the public. That is something the Government need to be thinking about. Our national museums are wonderful institutions that need our support. I hope also that free admission, which is so popular with the public, will continue.
Concerning education, will the Government respond to the Durham commission on creativity and education and its recommendations? I welcome the continued funding of music hubs but, in the end, hubs are not the solution when what is required is universal access to the arts in schools. I, and I am sure others in this House, will continue to fight for the rounded education that the EBacc denies and which students deserve.
I have one further question, further to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. Can companies working in the arts and creative industries claim current R&D credits if what they are doing involves, for example, testing out new technology? The more acceptable ways we can find to maximise the funding of arts organisations, the better.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, it is stating the obvious to say that these are turbulent, uncertain times, perhaps the most turbulent in living memory, even when that memory belongs to Members of your Lordships’ House—a particular, special demographic. It is striking in the face of so much that is uncertain and unknown that the Government’s rhetoric is of clarity, confidence, and even dash. However, while the terrain might be new, much of the rhetoric is from an older school. What is novel is from whom it comes.
The gracious Speech spoke of the Government delivering on “the people’s priorities”, words accompanied by the unmistakable sound of metaphorical tanks being driven with some purpose on to a lawn previously occupied by others. This represents a striking act of linguistic appropriation, but those occupying their new territory would be wise to exercise caution when speaking of the people as a single, homogeneous entity. Indeed, if Brexit has shown us anything, it is that the people are not one and that the bonds that tie us together—or that we thought tied us together—have become frayed and even broken.
We must thus applaud the Prime Minister’s repeated commitment to serve and heal one nation, a welcome recognition that we are all connected, bound together and obliged to one another. It is a welcome recognition too that the Government must seek to reconcile difference and dispute. We can welcome the spirit even if we differ on the nature of those obligations and perhaps the paternalism that underlies many ideas of one-nation politics. When Disraeli coined this phrase, it was precisely because this was not one nation. It was not a nation at one with itself, not least because of the obligations of those who had were not being discharged towards those who had not.
I was therefore delighted by the commitment to give the full living wage to those over the age of 21 rather than 25, but I urge the Government to put this into effect more quickly than the long grass of five years’ time. If fairness is promised in the system of taxation, so must it be in the world of work. A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay does not seem too much to ask if you are 21, 41, 51, or whatever.
My inspection of the Speech and its ancillary briefing suggested that some crucial support in building and sustaining one nation is absent, notably welfare and benefits—on which the Government are silent beyond the welcome review of PIP and disabled people. This is especially so in the wake of the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitments. One nation includes us all: hard-working families, businesses, those who cannot for whatever reason work, and especially those who raise children in poverty.
Civil society is doing a tremendous amount and, if you will forgive a plug for my diocese, I pay tribute to the efforts of so many there, particularly the work of Churches Homeless Action, headed up by Canon Bob White in Portsmouth. Over Christmas, it again spearheaded a scheme encouraging donations of shop vouchers and distributing them to those who have not. These were distributed so that these individuals have dignity, because they can choose how to use them. It met with an overwhelming response from the people of the city to support those in need at Christmas.
In another place, the Prime Minister described the get Brexit done programme in terms of a microwave meal, ready to cook. Rather than the Prime Minister’s convenience food, I prefer the rather healthier, if eccentric, maxim used earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that “fine words butter no parsnips”. I look forward to seeing how this avowedly one-nation Government propose to butter their parsnips and serve the people.
Lord Wakeham (Con)
My Lords, the last few times I have spoken in this House, I have been preceded by a bishop. I wonder if those who draw up these lists have been trying to send me a message. I enjoyed, as I always do, the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I live just outside his diocese.
I am very pleased that the Government have made clear that they intend to develop proposals for company audits and reporting. First, I should declare an interest. I am a chartered accountant and have been for so long that they do not even ask me to pay a subscription any more. I used to do audits and worked in my youth in one of the major audit companies, but that is all very long in the past.
The Government are right to develop these areas and include a stronger regulator with powers necessary to reform the sector. It is clear that there have been a series of serious financial crashes of substantial companies, in which their reported information was seriously in error. This is bad for everyone but particularly for the employees of the company, its suppliers and other creditors.
Public trust in business is essential and the Government commissioned three independent reports in 2018: the Independent Review of the Financial Reporting Council led by Sir John Kingman, the Competition and Markets Authority’s study of competition in the audit market, and the independent review into the quality and effectiveness of audits led by Sir Donald Brydon. These reports must have convinced everybody who had any doubt that the age of the audit report produced for the benefit of shareholders and required to show a true and fair view was old hat and had been for many years. Of course, shareholders are important, but so too are employees, creditors, banks, the tax authorities and many others. A redefinition of audit and its purposes is required and, as Sir Donald says, this can only be done by legislation.
However, I have one or two points which I hope the Government will take into account before proceeding with the legislation. First, it should never be forgotten that the accounts of a company are the responsibility of the directors. Auditors may miss things or not get things right, but the prime responsibility rests firmly with the directors. Steps need to be taken to bolster this. I would increase the responsibility of audit committees, and particularly the chairman of an audit committee who, in a big company, should be sufficiently experienced and qualified to bring to the attention of the directors and the auditors matters which require careful and expert consideration and judgment. These reports are very helpful and, as Sir Donald Brydon sets out, many important improvements need to be made.
However, there are one or two matters on which the Government need to be cautious. I am not fully persuaded that auditing needs to become a separate profession. Wide experience is needed if a company is to get its accounts and reporting right, but so is that experience necessary to the persons working on these matters in a company. Of course, there need to be proper rules about conflicts of interest and auditor independence is essential. I would also not want to be too prescriptive about the frequency with which auditors are required to be changed. I ask the Government to look at some of the overseas experience of this, where new auditors sometimes make mistakes in their first years which would not have been made previously. I much agree that there needs to be a fresh and wider redefinition of audit and its purpose, which covers much more than just financial statements. I very much look forward to seeing the Bill which the Government are to bring forward.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Blower on an excellent speech and look forward to her regular critiques of this Government’s dreadful schools funding record.
In the election, I campaigned for candidates in Cardiff, Newport and Gower in south Wales, and in Battersea and Putney in south London. There was a clean sweep for Labour in each but a truly terrible result across the entire country, our loss of 59 MPs leaving a mountain of seats to win and form a Government again. But Labour’s fundamental values remain, in my view, by far the best ones for the country, including ending the economic idiocy of 10 years of grinding, completely unnecessary and massively damaging austerity.
Some of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made the case for ending austerity years ago. We did so in 2013 when George Osborne was squeezing the UK economy tighter than any in the advanced western world, and in 2015 when he was preparing to increase the Tory cuts in national spending from the £140 billion, which he and his successor Philip Hammond actually undertook, to the £200 billion by 2020 that Osborne planned in his last Budget, and which David Cameron endorsed in his memoir. In his September 2019 spending review, the new Chancellor pledged to raise public spending next year by nearly £14 billion. This is a miserly, derisory 10% of the total cut in national spending due to public spending cuts and tax rises since the Tories took office in 2010. Frankly, it is insulting to pretend that we are witnessing the end of austerity.
Moreover, 80% of the Government’s 10-year austerity programme has been in public spending cuts. Yet Downing Street is already briefing that the highlight of the new Chancellor’s budget will be tax cuts. With the NHS stretched to breaking point, with social care criminally underfunded—as my noble friend Lord Hunt pointed out—with millions desperate for housing, with volunteers overwhelmed by demand at food banks, with Britain’s skills, productivity and infrastructure poor, with schools reducing teaching days during the week to keep going, with all of these spiralling problems crying out for public investment and spending, it says everything that needs to be said about Boris Johnson’s priorities in the Queen’s Speech by going for tax cuts.
Labour has pressed consistently over the last five years for faster, fairer and greener growth, for a big boost to public investment in infrastructure, skills and green initiatives to stimulate Britain’s slowing economy, so that national output once again expands at the 3% annual rate it grew at during the last Labour decade before the global financial crisis. We are the ones who insisted that the squeeze on public services had gone too far and that current spending on staff numbers and facilities needed urgently to be raised, if Britain’s social safety net and the basic features of a civilised society were to be restored. We accepted that paying for better public services would mean higher taxes for some. I made the case for reforming national insurance by scrapping the upper earnings limit and introducing a financial transactions tax, to make the tax system fairer and lift the burden of paying for public services off the low paid.
The Queen’s Speech says that the Government’s top priority is to take Britain out of the EU at the end of January. Actually, we will still be in the EU until at least the end of the year—but no matter. Boris Johnson has never been one for sticking to the facts. Plenty of hard bargaining lies ahead before Britain’s future trading relationship with the EU is settled. There will be a big price to be paid for frictionless trade with a club of which we are no longer a member. No one expects the EU to stand idly by while the Prime Minister pursues his vision of a post-Brexit Britain: a low-tax, lightly regulated Singapore-upon-Thames haven on the EU’s doorstep, intent on winning a race to the bottom. Boris Johnson did not get his EU withdrawal agreement by suddenly becoming a shrewder poker player than Michel Barnier. He got an agreement by doing a deal and giving ground that he swore he would never concede, notably and shamefully on Northern Ireland. I expect him either to do more of the same by the end of this year or to end up with the hardest of hard-right Brexits, or no deal—both utterly disastrous.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a vice-president of National Energy Action. Deciding on which day to speak in the Queen’s Speech debate was a bit tricky, as I wish to raise the Government’s fuel poverty strategy for England. That cuts across the areas of climate change, social justice, housing standards, health and funding. I first raised these issues over 25 years ago when I was in the Commons. Indeed, my Private Member’s Bill, which became the Home Energy Conservation Act, was designed to help Governments tackle these issues.
Sadly, we still have a huge problem and a high level of excess winter deaths due to cold homes, in spite of being one of the richest countries in the world. We still have many people with severe health problems due to cold, damp homes: 10.9% of households in England are in fuel poverty; 35% of fuel-poor households live in the private rented sector. This is proportionately higher than the percentage of private rented sector homes across England, at 20%. What is more, fuel-poor households occupy 58% of the privately rented properties which are classed as bands F and G for energy efficiency—the worst. On average, this group would require a reduction in their fuel bills of over £1,000 per year not to be classed as fuel poor. In the owner-occupied sector, we find 47% of fuel-poor households, and in social housing it is 18%.
In England, there are three main programmes related to helping householders pay their energy bills and install energy efficiency measures: the energy company obligation, which has £0.7 billion a year; the warm home discount, with £0.3 billion per year; and winter fuel payments of £1.8 billion a year. But three times as much money is spent assisting householders to pay their bills than to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. Furthermore, these funds are poorly targeted. The winter fuel payment goes to pensioners, yet 80% of fuel-poor households are not pensioners. Will the Government commit to increasing funds and retargeting them towards those most in need and, importantly, increasing funds focused on energy efficiency? This would be in line with their recent commitment to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.
I note that the Conservative Party manifesto committed the Government to spend £9.2 billion to improve the energy efficiency of homes, schools and hospitals. While the Government’s Queen’s Speech programme includes an environment Bill and a renters’ reform Bill—both very welcome—there is no mention so far of issues pertaining to fuel poverty and the energy efficiency of our homes in these Bills.
The Committee on Climate Change has made recommendations on measures to improve the energy efficiency of our homes—a real problem, as we have a very high proportion of older properties—but targets have been missed. Do the Government expect to meet their 2020 milestone, as set out in the fuel poverty strategy of 2015, to ensure that as many fuel-poor households as is reasonably practicable reach the level of band E efficiency? Given that household fuel bills have risen by 40% in the last five years, and that the price cap introduced to close the gap between the most expensive and cheapest bills has led many suppliers to raise their average prices—particularly the big six, which make up a large majority of the market—tackling fuel poverty is as urgent as ever.
In those areas in the north that returned Conservative MPs at the recent election, this is a very real issue. As a resident of Berwick-upon-Tweed, I can tell the House that it is regularly 5 degrees colder, or more, in the north than down here in London—I come every week to get a bit of a warm-up.
There were several references to climate change and the 2050 zero carbon target in Tuesday’s debate on the Queen’s Speech. There was much concentration in those remarks on decarbonising fuel, with very little said about reducing the amount of power we use and making our buildings more efficient.
We have had various plans over the years to make our homes more energy efficient, but I have seen Governments duck getting to grips with this issue for nearly a quarter of a century. I have not been very optimistic about it—like the noble Lord, Lord Bates, I have B positive blood—but will I go on being disappointed, or will the new Government finally get to grips with an issue which is a disgrace in a country which is one of the richest in the world? I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in his very good speech earlier, give us a whole list of ways in which we are a very successful country, but we have not managed to crack this yet.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I wish to restrict my remarks on the gracious Speech to health. With a new year and a new Government, I thought it an appropriate moment briefly to discuss trust and transparency in the context of the NHS, given how prominently it featured during the election campaign.
The election campaign involved numerous pledges from opposition parties about data protection and ethics and, in particular, measures intended explicitly to provide the public with confidence about the extent to which health data controlled by the NHS would feature in trade negotiations post Brexit or be subject to new provisions designed to “reign in” the perceived excesses of big pharma and tech. The Conservative Party, now the Government, took a different tack and pledged significant—although, as yet, unspecified—investment in R&D and the fourth industrial revolution.
Against this backdrop, the campaign saw significant press coverage of “health data deals” entered into by the Government, as well as talk of meetings attended by senior officials and representatives of global businesses to explore how best to “exploit” the value of UK health data, valued at an estimated £10 billion by Ernst & Young in recent months. I encourage colleagues to take a look at the online reactions to this coverage from privacy advocates, tech experts and front-line professionals working in health, as well as from the general public. For me, it highlighted a number of important issues.
First, we have a way to go before we can be assured that people are adequately informed of their rights and the measures that we have put in place to date to protect them. Secondly, we have a way to go before we can be assured that we can count on the trust that is, when all else is said and done, the real asset to which I am referring today. Thirdly, we have even further to go before we can be assured whether and how people want health data deployed, in conjunction with third parties, to stimulate the research and innovation that I know we would all wish to encourage. Here, it seems that transparency is fundamental to our cause. I therefore ask the Minister, in response to the gracious Speech, how the Government plan to build and maintain public trust over the months ahead and whether he will commit today to promoting radical transparency with that in mind.
I look forward to further detail of the Government’s medicines and medical devices Bill over the coming months, which I am sure, like me, colleagues will take a keen interest in debating. I note also that, as I speak, the Government are busy recruiting personnel to staff the national centre of expertise, to be hosted by NHSX, which will offer legal and commercial advice to NHS organisations in recognition of the data deals they are expected to enter into with third parties over the coming period—something that I have long encouraged. However, how will the national centre of expertise, with its remit to develop a national policy framework, take steps to ensure that whatever results is fit for purpose in a fast-evolving and inherently global marketplace, driving significant investment flows into data-driven health research and innovation?
In particular, I am keen to understand what the Minister makes of recent developments pertaining to health data in China and India, and data localisation restrictions on sensitive personal and biometric data. Replying on behalf of DCMS on 7 January to my Question for Written Answer, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, stated:
“The Government considers that in the UK, data localisation should be limited to cases that are specific and well-justified”.
Perhaps the Minister might expand on this Answer and set out in more detail what the Government mean by this and what areas might fall into this category. I would also welcome his assessment of measures in California’s new data protection law which afford individuals the right to restrict “sale” of data about them by organisations that they nevertheless consent to process it.
Finally, I ask the Minister to reassure noble Lords that the Government have no plans to lower the bar either in the course of taking back control of the UK’s data protection laws, or in negotiating future trade deals post Brexit.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I was pleased to see the promise in the Queen’s Speech of more funds for education, particularly to read in the notes attached that support for special educational needs next year will include a 12% increase in funding. Of course, I welcome this entirely, but an injection of cash is not enough if the system of its allocation does not work well and enable it to reach those with severe special needs whom it is intended to benefit. I want to look today at several aspects of the system which need urgent review if the new funding is to give value for money and bring results.
Just over 10 years ago, I wrote for David Cameron a report which recommended that what were then called statements, which applied to educational special needs, should also include resources for health and social care. As a result, the coalition Government brought in legislation for education, health and care plans.
There were many things wrong with the statement structure, but one good thing about it was that statements were portable by parents who moved across local authority boundaries. This was because they were issued on a standard document on which the individual’s needs, and the provision to be made, could be set out. That did not guarantee a problem-free transfer but at least the child’s requirements were clear and written down.
However, EHC plans are often simply not capable of being exported and much hardship and difficulty can be caused. What is a plan in Essex, for example, might not be the same as a plan in Kent or in Lambeth. We need a standard national form of plan which will provide as seamless a transfer as possible from one authority’s provision to another’s should parents move house across borders.
There are also reports that some authorities are failing to specify provision for education in EHC plans or are shifting it irregularly to the healthcare area of the plans rather than putting it in section F, which is meant for education. There is a statutory requirement for clear specification of provision so that it is transparent for parents and can be costed. Many local authorities appear to be in breach of the law. The tribunals judiciary constantly raises the issue of specification, and the majority of plans taken to it for adjudication simply lack proper itemisation of the services which must be provided. It may well be that some local authority staff are inadequately trained, or it may be, to take a more cynical view, that this is a deliberate policy to save money or duck responsibility. Whatever the answer, EHC plans must adhere to the law in this regard if children with special needs are not to be deprived of the new resources that the Government have promised for them.
One of the statutory duties required of authorities is to hold an annual review of every EHC plan to see whether its provisions are still needed and still appropriate. However, many seem to be failing in this very important task. Some research last year, based on FoI requests from 53 local authorities, suggests that only three of them could report that they had completed their annual reviews of plans in the previous year—2018. Seven had completed fewer than a quarter of the reviews, and one had completed none at all. If this is so, then for about 80% of EHC plans, it is not known whether the plans are working properly, are good value for money or are still appropriate for the vulnerable persons concerned. It is no wonder that, since these reforms became law in 2014, the number of appeals registered to the tribunals has doubled each year. In 2018-19, 5,900 appeals went through to completion—the largest number ever recorded. Local authorities won their cases in only 7.5% of those appeals.
EHC plans, where they are working, can be a great improvement over the old system. However, if the welcome increase in funding is to have maximum effect, then the issues that I have mentioned will require urgent remedy.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I had a bit of a waiting-for-a-bus moment when I listened to the Queen’s Speech, because I felt I had waited 30 years for a mention in the gracious Speech, and then two came along at once. I refer to the two issues on which I contribute most in your Lordships’ House: social care and carers.
I hope that a mention in the Queen’s Speech, even if only a fleeting one, about ensuring that everybody has the dignity and security they deserve and that no one has to sell their home to fund care, means that the crisis in social care may finally be given the attention it needs so urgently. We have had five independent commissions, four White Papers, two Green Papers and endless other reports, yet no progress has been made, even though, as my noble friend Lord Hunt referred to, we have proposals agreed on the statute book in the form of the Dilnot commission. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will say more about that.
I was heartened when the Prime Minister told us, when he became Prime Minister, that he had a “clear plan” to fix the problem. There was no plan. Instead, he pledged an extra £1 billion a year—the equivalent of yet another sticking plaster on an open wound of the kind we have seen before. The Local Government Association estimates that there will be a £3.6 billion gap in adult social care funding by 2024. Now the Prime Minister says that he will seek cross-party consensus. I hope that all parties will treat this with an open mind. We have had enough of the type of politicking that led to talk of the Labour death tax in 2010 and the Tory dementia tax in 2017. Such talk betrays the people who are vulnerable, lonely and in dire need. While Parliament has endlessly put this issue into the too-difficult box, tens of thousands of people have died waiting for a care package and tens of thousands of carers have sacrificed their own health and finances on the altar of the prevarication of legislators.
Carers contribute £132 billion to our economy, yet too many are burning out while they prop up an underfunded system. We must stop this now. The crisis is acute and growing worse by the day. The consensus that the Prime Minister says he is seeking is largely already there. There is broad agreement that public funding for social care needs must be significantly increased and that a balance needs to be struck between individual and collective responsibility for care costs. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to which I hope he will refer.
When will the Government publish their plans for long-term reform? How will carers and those they care for be consulted? How will the Government seek this political consensus that they are talking about? This will of course take time and, as an urgent priority, the Government must invest the funding required to keep the social care system afloat until longer-term reforms are implemented. Will the Government meet the short-term funding gap for social care?
I turn to the welcome mention in the Queen’s Speech of the employment Bill and measures to support working carers. Carers UK—I declare an interest as a vice-president—welcomed the announcement of the introduction of a new entitlement to one week’s leave for unpaid carers. To be most effective, this entitlement must be paid and should be for up to 10 days per year. For the 5 million people in the United Kingdom who juggle working and unpaid caring, combining these responsibilities can be a real challenge, as is shown by the fact that 2.6 million people have already left their job to care for a loved one. Carers’ leave would be beneficial for both carers, by helping them to stay in work, and for employers, by helping to improve staff well-being. Of course, this has a very good economic knock-on effect, by enabling carers to maintain their incomes, so as not to build up poverty for the future and therefore have another generation of poor pensioners. Do the Government agree that the new entitlement to carers’ leave should be paid, and that the ability to have flexible working for carers makes very sound economic—as well as moral—good sense?
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, when thinking about the debate today, I wondered what will change for the poorest and most vulnerable as a result of the new government agenda. For example, how will the 4.1 million children in poverty—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, in her excellent maiden speech—benefit? Will food banks become redundant? Is the number of rough sleepers likely to go down? The answer seems rather depressing: that very little will change, particularly in the short term.
The hope is, however, that the rise in the minimum wage, which we welcome, will in time help some of those in most dire need. But we should not underestimate the scale and misery of poverty across the country. With low unemployment rates, 4 million workers live in poverty, an increase of 500,000 in the last five years. In-work poverty is rising faster than employment and is higher than at any time during the last 20 years. Some 60% of people in poverty live in a household where at least one person works, and 2.8 million people in poverty are in a household where both adults work. So the rise will be welcomed by many and seen as long overdue.
Policies such as the benefit cap and freeze, the two-child limit and the introduction of full job-seeking requirements for single parents of children as young as three have had a stark impact. In August 2018, two-thirds of those who had benefits capped were single parents. Single parents in the bottom 20% of income will have lost 25% of their 2010 income by 2021-22. As a result of tax and benefits changes, the poverty rate for children will jump to 62% by then if nothing changes.
Women earn, on average, 17.9% per hour less than men and make up 60% of workers receiving low pay. Reductions in social care services place a greater burden on primary care givers, who are also disproportionately women. Single-parent families, of whom 90% are women, are twice as likely to be in poverty as any other social group. Nearly half of those in poverty—6.9 million—are from families where someone has a disability. They have also been some of the hardest hit by austerity measures. Changes to taxes and benefits will mean that some families are projected to lose £11,000 by 2021-22—more than 30% of their income.
It is shocking to British people in the 21st century that we should have 14 million people in poverty. The UK has the fifth-largest economy in the world, a leading centre of global finance and record low levels of employment, yet one-fifth of the population is in poverty, with 4 million people more than 50% below the poverty line. Historically, the UK has had a proud record in terms of a strong social safety net, yet this has been systematically removed over recent years. People who, in former times, found a resource base to support them when they were afflicted by a major catastrophe now find that there are only volunteers and charities with limited resources providing for their most basic needs. How can a country such as ours not be shamed by such a state of affairs, with our benefit service likened to the 19th-century workhouse made infamous by Dickens?
Worse still, the support services that used to be a lifeline for those in poverty have been almost completely removed: youth and community services, social care, debt counselling and libraries have all been closed in record numbers. Surely the Prime Minister’s new golden age must see tackle the record levels of poverty. There must be not just a commitment but a plan to actually do this: to rebuild an effective social safety net national and locally, to address the issues that lead to low pay and insecure employment and to ensure that disadvantaged and vulnerable people are not driven into the deepening despair, humiliation and desperation that poverty brings, as victims of a system with a safety net full of holes.
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, the Government’s rhetoric indicates a welcome willingness to contemplate radical initiatives in research and education. That is especially crucial if we are to confront the energy challenge. The Climate Change Act’s 2050 target is indeed daunting. We need not just to decarbonise existing levels of electricity production, but to treble production, to energise electrically powered transport and heating and for electrolytic production of hydrogen and hydrocarbons needed for long-distance aviation. We need innovation to get and store energy more efficiently from sun, wind and tides, and, given our traditional expertise in nuclear energy, to investigate fourth-generation concepts, such as small modular reactors, which could prove cheaper, more flexible and safer than existing nuclear reactors. The potential pay-off from fusion in the long term is so great that it is worth developing prototypes.
Climate change is potentially a threat to national security, so combating it deserves the scale of sustained effort that we commit to our national defences. This require large-scale, long-term, mission-driven efforts in institutions like those that we have for defence R&D. In the United States, two successive Energy Secretaries, both, amazingly, world-class physicists, advocated establishing new national laboratories to spearhead energy innovation, along the lines of Los Alamos. That is what we need here: institutions, with long-term missions, devoted to a national goal, crucial amplifiers of product-driven research in industry and journal-driven research in universities. For decades we have had the Culham laboratory for fusion research. The newly funded Faraday centre for battery development is welcome, but it should be the nucleus of a broader and larger venture to address other energy technologies, especially those where it is realistic for the UK to achieve a lead—and for computational modelling, too.
Real breakthroughs are needed in energy generation, storage and smart grids to meet the 2050 targets, but there is a stronger motivation. We produce only 1% of global CO2 emissions—itself not crucial—but we produce more than 10% of the world’s high-impact research. If a scaled-up and wisely prioritised programme led to cheaper carbon-free generation, India and other vast developing markets could leapfrog directly to clean energy rather than building coal-fired power stations. Our efforts could thereby make far more than a 1% difference to the world, and to our national economic benefit. It would be hard to conceive of a more inspiring challenge for young scientists and engineers or a better investment in the UK’s future than devising clean and economical energy systems for the world. Likewise, incidentally, we can contribute disproportionately to another global challenge, sustainable food production, if we expand and deploy our world-leading expertise in genetics and plant science.
This leads to my final point. Our idealistic younger generation need the requisite expertise, which is why it is good that the Government have responded to the Auger report’s recommendations about 16 to 19 year-olds’ further education. That report suggested reforms of higher education as well. To promote lifelong learning, it recommended that everyone should be entitled to three years’ support, to be taken at any stage. This would encourage flexibility and would mean, for instance, that those who leave university for any reason after two years are not tainted as wastage, but can get some certificate of credit and an entitlement to return and upgrade later in life. In his previous role, the Minister supported such reforms, so will the Government implement that part of the Augar report?
A key mantra for this country should be, “If we don’t get smarter, we’ll get poorer.” With bold reforms to our education, and our innovative approach to R&D, we could aspire to contribute far more than our pro-rata share to solving global challenges and enhance our economy as well.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow. I was particularly impressed by his argument that we can influence climate change more than our contribution to carbon through research. It is a very powerful argument and certainly a new one to me. He is, of course, a cosmologist. I want to concentrate, in the short time I have, on social care. Sometimes I feel that officials in the Treasury have the noble Lord’s perspective on time in respect of this issue.
I think it was Winston Churchill who first said that the state has a duty to provide a net below which no one can fall and a ladder to help them get out of the net. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, I believe that very strongly. Social care policy is about protecting our frailest and most vulnerable people, who cannot climb any ladders and whose quality of life depends on that net. Sadly, as several speakers have said, it is wholly inadequate, full of holes and now disintegrating under the inexorable pressure of demand. By 2040, for every working adult there will be almost one person over the age of 65. The cost of care for older people will double between now and 2035. This is not just an issue of an increasingly elderly population either. Almost half of expenditure on social care goes on people of working age, and that population will increase too. By 2025, there will be 150,000 more working-age adults with moderate or severe disabilities and 16,000 more with learning disabilities.
The system is completely broken, with Age UK estimating that 14% of elderly people have an unmet care need. The number of people receiving publicly funded care has actually fallen in recent years. In England there were 40,000 fewer such people in 2013 than there were in 2009—a 26% fall, despite an increase in demand. The fact is that it is the impact on the budget, not well-being, that now determines whether needs will be deemed eligible for support by local authorities. Just to get to where we were 10 years ago in quality and access to care would cost around £8 billion.
What is to be done? Since I left the Government at the invitation of the electorate in 1997, 12 Green Papers, White Papers and other consultations and five independent reviews have attempted to solve the issue of social care funding. All have pointed to the same answer: we need to find considerably more money and achieve a consensus between the Government and the Opposition to underpin a long-term, stable system. I very much welcome, therefore, the commitment in the gracious Speech to achieve that.
Last year, the Economic Affairs Committee, which I do the best I can to chair, was able to reach unanimous agreement on a way forward. Its membership included two former Chancellors of the Exchequer, two former Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury, a former Cabinet Secretary, a distinguished economist of the left, a retired FTSE 100 CEO, a non-executive director of the Bank of England and other highly experienced members. If we could find agreement, why can the political parties not? It would mean the state writing a big cheque and providing clarity about the future structure, and it would require a determined effort to simplify the system and remove many of the unfairnesses from it. Above all, it would require a major effort to educate the public.
The fact is that most people do not have a clue about the level of support they can expect if they are struck down by illness or fragility and find themselves unable to meet their own basic needs for washing, feeding, continence and mobility. The problem becomes apparent to the voter only when an elderly parent or perhaps a family member has a severe disability. The Local Government Association survey found that 48% of English adults did not even know what the term “social care” meant. The King’s Fund found that people were shocked when the means test, the extent to which they were responsible for paying for their own care and the complexity of the system were explained to them.
There are real injustices in the system which need to be addressed. Self-funders in residential care are being charged 41% more than those who are publicly funded. It is a hidden tax on people who have saved throughout their working lives. In England, it is quite scandalous that access to basic free care is limited by diagnosis and not need; a person with cancer will be helped but someone with dementia or motor neurone disease will not until they have spent every penny down to £23,500. The means test does not include the family home as an asset if domiciliary care is provided, but it is counted for residential care, leaving some families faced with catastrophic costs losing everything.
The pay, treatment and training of the care workers is woefully inadequate. Care homes regularly lose dedicated men and women to stacking shelves in supermarkets and the turnover among staff is approaching 40%. There is a desperate need to invest in the social care workforce and ensure a joined-up approach to workforce planning. I know how wonderfully committed and poorly rewarded care workers are. It is a vocation for most of them, not just a job, and they deserve a proper career path and professional status, like nurses.
Today, yet another Bill or Green Paper is awaited from the Government and, like Billy Bunter’s postal order, it has been endlessly delayed. With each delay the suffering increases, the pressure on unpaid carers grows, the supply of carer providers diminishes, the availability of qualified carers is reduced and the ability to put in place a system of social care that is sustainable and worthy of a civilised country is prejudiced.
To the Government’s credit, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care wrote to me in September promising that the Government will set out plans in due course to fix the crisis in social care once and for all—to give every older person the dignity and security that they deserve and to protect children, parents and grandparents from the fear of having to sell their home to pay for the cost of care. These words are reflected in the gracious Speech. I hope and pray that they are soon turned into action.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—it is not very often that I say that—on the importance of social care and many of the points he made on the subject. It is one of the two great issues facing us, the other being climate change. The advantage of social care is that it is entirely within our control. It does not have to depend on what other countries do; we can do it ourselves.
I was genuinely pleased when Boris Johnson said very soon after the election that he had a fully prepared plan for social care. We have been looking forward to that after five promised Green Papers down the pan. In fact, I have been looking forward to it since I sat on a royal commission 20 years ago. Now, apparently, we have it.
Unfortunately, when the Queen’s Speech came along, it did not look quite so good. The first element referred to was an extra £1 billion for social care now. That is rather like sticking your little finger in a water cannon—it will go nowhere. The second element was ensuring that nobody had to sell their house to pay for care. But nobody has to now. We passed in the last Parliament the deferred payment scheme so that nobody has to sell their house in their lifetime to pay for care. If they cannot pay for care, they can borrow from the local authority, and that is paid after they die. No individual ever has to pay for their own care by selling their house.
The third element was more attractive but slightly mysterious: he was going to seek a consensus on social care. I am in two minds about that. It is highly desirable that we get a consensus on social care, because then there will be a greater chance that people can plan on the basis of policy that they know will go forward for years to come, no matter what Government are in power, and that is a very good thing. However, there was a little suspicious bell that went off in my head that said, “Achieving consensus—what an opportunity for endless further delay.” If the Government were serious in proposing it, it could be happening now. Labour published its plan for social care in its manifesto; I happen to think it is not a very good one in many respects, but it is a plan that is there and ready to debate. Although we have not seen the detail of it, we have the word of the Prime Minister—nothing could trump that, surely—that the Government have a prepared plan. This month, this week, this afternoon, the two sides could be sitting down together and hammering out a compromise consensus on the way forward for social care.
Two attempts have been made at achieving consensus on social care before, and two blew up. One blew up when the Tories suddenly decided halfway through the talks to call Labour’s plans a “death tax”. Labour got its revenge halfway through the next set of talks by declaring that the Government’s plans were a “dementia tax”. If we play politics with this thing, we will get nowhere with it. It is beyond and more serious than politics, but it requires a certain amount of political skill to solve.
The one concrete suggestion I would make is that, if we are to have such talks, there be a completely neutral chairman or mediator whose job is to try to bring the two sides together. Incidentally, I have some experience in this, although in a quite different context. The bookmakers and greyhound racing had been at complete loggerheads for 10 years about increasing the bookmakers’ contributions. I, as a greyhound man, was asked by Tracey Crouch to see whether we could reach a solution. It was possible to do so because both sides knew that if they were the ones who messed things up, I would go public and say, “This is the bookmakers’ fault” or “This is the greyhound industry being too greedy.” You need a referee of that kind, of independent force and influence, so that the talks do not collapse into political chaos but result in the lasting solution which older people and their relatives so richly deserve.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interests as a councillor and a vice-chair of the Local Government Association. I too want to raise the issue of social care.
This is what happened in the town where I live just before Christmas. There was an elderly couple in their 90s, well known in the community, and sadly the woman had developed dementia and was in need of considerable care and support. This care was provided by visits from social care and by her husband, who was himself frail. Sadly, he too became a victim of dementia. There was then what is described as a full care package, but for long periods of the day this increasingly vulnerable couple was regarded as being independent. One afternoon, the husband wandered out of the house in a confused state. At the next social care visit, the discovery was made that he had gone. It was dark. The police response was amazing; local people turned out to search. The next morning he was found in a side street, dead—a death without dignity, a social care tragedy.
I recount this because it amply illustrates the scandalous omission in this gracious Speech. In the past 20 years, there have been numerous commissions, reports and independent reviews on social care in England. We are still waiting for the Green Paper promised three years ago. The plan now is for more delay when what is needed is urgent action. Will the Minister at the very least assure the House that the Government will bring forward a Green Paper on the future funding of social care as a starting point for development of consensus on what has become a care service in crisis? For once, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
The Government’s response to this desperate funding shortage for social care is to pile an increasing burden on to council tax payers via a 2% precept specifically for social care, on top of the annual tax increase. This provides additional funding along with a welcome promise of £1 billion a year, but that is to be shared by adult and children’s services, and we know that the funding gap for both services will be £7 billion in five years’ time, so this extra funding will fail to bridge the gap.
That brings me on to funding for local government as a whole. It is also at a critical stage, and business rates provide a large part of the funding. While the larger rebates in business rates proposed for retailers and others are very welcome, will that mean an equivalent reduction in income for local government? If that is the case, the already critical state of local funding will become even more perilous. Will the Minister provide local government with an assurance that it will be compensated in full for loss of business rate income?
The Government’s strategy for local government appears to be to starve it of funds but to fail to make provision to enable local government to develop other sources of income. The results are there for all to experience: potholed roads; fly-tipping on the increase; youth services cut to the bone or cut altogether; libraries closed; and vulnerable people not adequately cared for. Will the Minister be able to share with us the Government’s plans for the future funding of local government?
Finally, I remain concerned that the Government are gradually removing the “local” from local government by creating more large unitary authorities. It would be prudent of them to recall that one of the drivers of the existing national mood is that people no longer feel that they can influence decisions that directly affect their lives. The cry to “take back control” is a powerful one, and local people may well take up that call—to the discomfiture of the current Government.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, in my brief remarks today I will address three issues which are of major importance in the fields of health, social care and the way we meet carers’ needs. I declare my interest in the International Longevity Centre UK and the ILC Global Alliance as entered in the register.
In the gracious Speech we learned that
“Steps will be taken to grow and support the National Health Service’s workforce and a new visa will ensure qualified doctors, nurses and health professionals have fast-track entry to the United Kingdom.”
It is vital that workforce shortages within the NHS are addressed. According to projections by the Nuffield Trust in 2019, there is a current shortage of one in 12 NHS staff. However, we also need to see continued commitments to prevention along the life course to ease pressures on the NHS, as outlined in the NHS long-term plan. New research by ILC-UK has found that across better-off countries in 2017 alone, 27.1 million years were lived with disability due to largely preventable diseases. That number is projected to increase by 17% in the next 25 years if we do not prioritise prevention across the life course. That is an imperative.
We also heard in the gracious Speech that the Government will
“seek cross-party consensus on proposals for long term reform of social care. They will ensure that the social care system provides everyone with the dignity and security they deserve and that no one who needs care has to sell their home to pay for it.”
It was great to hear the strong message of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on that point. Reform of adult social care is long overdue. As Age UK informed us,
“the care system is broken”;
it is ignoring 1.4 million people with an unmet need. Spending on adult social care by English local councils has fallen by 5% in real terms between the 2009-10 financial year and 2017-18, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 2018. Recent research carried out by ILC-UK and the Salvation Army found large gaps between upper-tier local authorities’ spending power: in 2014, their spending power ranged from £31,368 in Lambeth Council to £5,762 in Dorset Council. That is totally unacceptable.
Lastly, we heard in the Queen’s Speech:
“Measures will be brought forward to encourage flexible working, to introduce the entitlement to leave for unpaid carers and to help people save for later life”.
Longer working lives could bring economic opportunities to the economy. Recent research by ILC-UK reveals that the earned income generated by people aged 50 and over may account for 40% of total earnings by 2040. However, research by ILC-UK in 2014 also showed that over 1 million people between 50 and 64 leave the workforce involuntarily due to health and care needs or caring responsibilities, at a huge economic cost to the country and social cost for both individuals and their families. As such, initiatives to support older workers to juggle work and caring responsibilities, improved occupational health services and opportunities to learn and retrain throughout people’s careers are paramount to unlocking this economic potential. I hope that the Government will ensure, in line with government policy, that these important needs can be rapidly implemented.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and other noble Lords who spoke on social care, but I will go elsewhere. I declare my business interests in the register.
I last spoke in a debate on a Queen’s Speech as recently as October. Then, I criticised the Labour Party’s declared plans to attack property rights. Fortunately, that threat has abated for the foreseeable future. It is also clear—I pay tribute to the Prime Minister—that Brexit will happen, allowing realistic plans to be made by the Government and economic actors right across the UK. With victory, however, comes responsibility. The country will expect the Government, with their comfortable majority, to get things moving again after the Brexit-induced paralysis of the past three years.
On public services, I very much welcome the new money for schools, surgeries, police, road and rail improvements, and especially GPs, as well as the multiyear settlement for the NHS and schools. We apparently face a major shake-up in government and the Civil Service. When I moved to business in 1997, I learned things that government lacked: lean thinking; innovation; customer focus; long-term forecasting based on dynamics and demographics; and how to lead, manage and motivate. While some of this toolkit of a successful global company can be adapted to government, the latter is of course more complex and requires a wider range of skills.
My concern about the direction of travel as reported in the press is that No. 10 may try to grab too much power and use it unsatisfactorily rather than ensuring that departments are fit for purpose and able to progress under effective Ministers. The truth is that Downing Street—I have worked there—does not know enough to run the country on its own.
To be a successful nation at a time when possibly as much as 40% of GDP is knowledge-based requires a first-class education system. It was a wake-up call when I discovered in 2014 that we were 24th in the PISA tables for maths, and not much better in reading or science. Mainly thanks to the brave Gove reforms, we are now 18th in maths, ahead of France, Germany and the US. My noble friend the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, touched on PISA. I add that England consistently ranks above the higher-spending Scottish and Welsh systems. To compete, especially in Asia, we need to do more. We need good education for everyone from the most to the least talented. Our vocational education, including our apprenticeship system, continues to lag woefully behind many others.
The wrong sort of taxes can also be an issue, for example, business rates, where the tax is badly designed and its effects have been especially malign for retail. Given the prospect of more job losses, I was delighted to see the promise to bring forward fundamental change. Radical, rapid reform is essential.
Brexit gives us a wonderful opportunity to simplify our rule book. We need to make our bureaucrats more business-friendly rather than cautious and obsessed with obtaining and using new fining powers. Looking at the proposals on financial services, I worry that there seems to be more on regulatory protection than is compatible with the stated intent of supporting the UK’s competitiveness and its position as an international services centre.
Financial services is our biggest sector, representing £127 billion of GDP. Many regulatory changes, often Brussels-based, followed the financial crisis and brought in a period during which productivity in the financial sector plummeted. This obviously reflects the destruction of capital but also, I fear, the build-up of control and bureaucracy, especially for smaller players. Indeed, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Hodgson, that is not always effective. A change of leadership at every level is an opportunity. I hope that the new Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, will tackle red tape better. He did this brilliantly with his simple regulatory Sandbox for new fintech businesses.
Finally, our regulation should start in our own back yard with HMRC. If well run, this could support business and frustrated taxpayers and actually raise more tax.
There have been many constructive references to climate change this week. I want to make one point. We need to shift from virtue signalling, as epitomised in last year’s Bill on net zero, to action. We have had years of engagement, and during that period, we could have made much more progress with simple plans and encouragement to business.
This is the most wide-ranging of debates. I have not even had time to talk about online harms—highlighted in an amusing speech by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths—antimicrobial resistance or health data. There is so much to do and to gain. Focus is essential. We have five years and we must use them well.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I wish the noble Baroness good luck in those five years.
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of the HS2 review. I will talk about railways and HS2, if I may, in the short time available. I welcome the references in the Queen’s Speech to prioritising investment in infrastructure and giving
“communities more control over how investment is spent so that they can decide what is best for them.”
Ministers have supported that since then. In her opening speech, the Minister made it very clear. She said that you need investment so that people can get to work on time. That is very simple but it is absolutely the core of the whole matter.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the regions, particularly in transport. This is the first time we have seen that for decades, and it i is pretty good. It needs doing because TransPennine Express has cancelled 40% of its services this month, or during some part of this month. Northern Rail is apparently about to be stripped of its franchises. How can you hold down a job if 40% of your trains on the days on which you want to go to work are cancelled? Who is to blame? It is easy to blame people. The rail operator blames a lack of trains but 400 electric coaches are sitting in sidings funded by the Department for Transport because electrification was cancelled. Those 400 coaches could be operating today. That does not include Crossrail, which is a separate subject for another day. We have got to get our act together. This is about Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and the north-east. As we know, the result is not good.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Griffiths for his positive comments about my HS2 report. I will not go into great detail today as there is not enough time—I will do it another time—but we need to consider how to deal with the poor economic performance in the north and parts of the Midlands and the effect that HS2 may or may not have. Therefore, what are the most important improvements to the rail network in those areas and is HS2 the best way of achieving them? We consulted widely within the review team but we have now got to a cost of £100 billion. HS2 does good things around Crewe and Manchester and Leeds and Sheffield, but is it the right answer further south?
This goes back to the fundamentals of the businesses in those areas. From talking to a lot of people, it is my perception that it is managing directors, and us politicians, who want to get to London more quickly, but the people who work in those businesses want to commute, and they probably commute daily whereas we do it perhaps weekly, or whatever. That is where the money needs to be spent. The Government could commit £50 billion over 20 years really to improve those services. So, Ministers have to answer this question: if HS2 needs £100 billion and regional rail services need £50 billion—if they have £150 billion, then fine, do the lot—which do they prioritise?
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend referred to localism and local decision-making but the Mayor of the West Midlands, the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the leader of Leeds City Council are strongly in favour of HS2 continuing. They prioritise it very highly. Does that not weigh with my noble friend?
Lord Berkeley
I am aware of those prioritisations. They want both. I have talked to them. However, when I asked them, “Do you want HS2 to get to London quicker or do you want better commuter services?”, they said, after a lot of thinking, that commuter services came first.
Lord Adonis
I do not accept that that is correct. If my noble friend asks the Mayor of the West Midlands, he will not find him prioritising other services over HS2.
Lord Berkeley
I will conclude. I am grateful to the Economic Affairs Committee, under the great chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for its excellent report. I hope that Ministers will read it, if they have not done so already, and I hope that we will have a debate on it. I hope that we will have another opportunity to debate this issue. It really is a question of money: do we have £150 billion or £75 billion? That is the decision for Ministers to make. I will be grateful if, when he winds up, the Minister can give me some idea of when that decision might be made.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made some very trenchant points, for which we should thank him.
The gracious Speech contained little to remedy the deep-seated problems affecting the delivery of public services, most of which relate to a lack of money. The Prime Minister’s stated aim is to unite the country and level it up. That is to be welcomed, but I hope the Government understand that it will need a great deal of hard work and a huge injection of cash which, in the context of borrowing constraints for current spending, seems unlikely to be forthcoming.
I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome the inclusion of Bills relating to renters’ reform and ending no-fault evictions. I also welcome the building safety Bill and the fire safety Bill. However, I wonder about the proposed 30% discount for local people who are first-time buyers. It is clearly an attractive policy in principle, but it appears that it may be paid for by local councils through reducing the building of affordable and social homes for rent. That would not be a housing policy for a united country.
The fact is that many of the problems that are being faced by local communities that feel left behind will not be addressed by these Bills. The crisis of funding is stark and the cuts have gone too far. Since 2010, more than half of central government financial support to local government has been cut, effectively abolishing safety nets in the areas that need them most. Yet the Government have committed themselves to keeping taxes down with no increases promised in income tax, national insurance or VAT. Interestingly, council tax was not on that list, and I think we should conclude that the Government are intent on allowing council tax to rise above inflation over the period of this Parliament to help pay for the deficit in adult social care. Even the extra allocation just before Christmas did not meet the deficit forecast for next year.
We now learn that the reform of social care could take the whole of this Parliament, which means that we will have had almost 15 years of failure by the Conservative Party to decide upon a policy. I would ask the Minister where the fair funding review for local government is, where some of the decisions on the long-term future of business rates actually are, and what decisions are likely to be announced soon on the shared prosperity fund to replace lost European funding.
It is said that the Budget in March will be about an infrastructure revolution to help areas suffering poor connectivity and low private sector investment. I welcome that, but the Government should remember that towns that feel left behind have a preponderance of low-paid jobs and older populations as young people leave. Rebuilding local economies means that communities must be empowered. The decline caused by poor transport connections, low investment in education and low levels of skills in the face of large cuts to FE budgets has meant that access to better-paid jobs can be limited. In such areas, public spending can be high, but more often than not that reflects more spending by DWP and the NHS as they deal with the consequences of poor life chances.
We need to create a virtuous circle that is led by investment in FE, skills and schools, alongside a major commitment by the private sector to invest in areas that have been in decline, perhaps utilising local authority pension funds. We also need a change in Treasury rules so that infrastructure investment decisions do not relate just to national economic growth and thus government tax revenues, but to improvements in well-being in specific places.
Finally, the Government have promised to devolve decision-making in England, and that is welcome. Devolution in England will drive local prioritisation of investment rather than wish-listing locally and blaming Whitehall when not everything can be afforded. We need Whitehall’s role to be reversed from one of running England directly to one of empowering the constituent parts of England to make their own decisions on priorities. To that principle, we should add the right to raise specific local taxes.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, it is a new year with a new Government and there is new energy with new ideas and new policies, and even, we are told, some money. There is a sense of anticipation and, in the words of the Prime Minister, the dawning of a new golden age. What could possibly go wrong? Quite a lot could go wrong because, on past evidence, Governments in this country have found it very difficult to deliver projects, improved services, policies, targets or promises. We have become a nation that is good on ideas, ambitions and aspirations, but rather weak on achievement. As chair of the National Audit Office, I see countless examples of that week by week.
Take a look at some of our recent reports. Take a look at Crossrail, which is over budget and still not there. Take a look at HS2. Take a look at the starter home target of 200,000 houses, which delivered, well, none at all, actually. If you have time, take a look at the Great Western Railway modernisation or perhaps the decommissioning of our nuclear submarines. That has been a policy commitment since 1990, which so far has led to no vessels at all being decommissioned and untold riches being spent on stockpiling disused submarines. We now have more submarines in storage than in operation.
You can add to those recent failures universal credit, countless failed IT projects and, as many noble Lords have said in the debate, social care—or the lack of it. We are wasting billions of pounds when resources are tight and at the same time failing to deliver policies, many of which would help some of the most disadvantaged people in our society. So I often ask myself: why does this happen and what could we do to improve the current situation?
We at the National Audit Office are not actually interested in being mortuary attendants; we would actually quite like to improve public services. So I make a few suggestions to a new Government who may be in listening mode. For a start, we could make clear, from the very top of government, that delivering outcomes successfully matters just as much as endless policy commitments. We could be careful to ensure that policies and targets are stretching but achievable rather than designed primarily to grab the headlines and capture short-term political advantage. We could limit legislation so that the programme for any Session of Parliament is realistic and manageable. We could do more to ensure that civil servants are equipped with the skills to deliver services and projects effectively. We could, for example, insist on officials being required to spend a reasonable amount of time in operational or project management posts before entering the Civil Service, because it was clear to me all those years ago when I was a civil servant that policy development mattered and was recognised much more than delivery, and I fear that that is still the case.
We could hold people, civil servants as well as Ministers, more accountable for failures and stop the recycling of incompetence. We could ensure that competent Ministers stay in post for longer than the current average of around 15 months and that civil servants are not constantly churned to benefit their careers at the expense of results. We could devolve more power closer to communities, because large centralised bureaucracies rarely deliver successfully, and, frankly, in recent times local government and the voluntary sector have shown themselves to be more competent, agile and trustworthy than large central government departments and agencies. We could do a lot more to learn the lessons of failure and from our mistakes rather than seek to explain away the inexplicable or defend the indefensible. Finally, we could better understand and exploit the potential of digital technology to transform health, social care and many other essential services.
There are many reasons why the reputations of both Westminster and Whitehall are at such a low ebb, but in part it is because people have lost trust in their ability to deliver improvements, not least in public services. Addressing that has to be a priority for this new Government, and success will not be achieved by yet more promises to do better or to try harder, or indeed by just throwing money at the problem. That is why I for one have welcomed the signals from No. 10 that the Prime Minister is supporting radical changes in the way we govern, even if I may not have used exactly the same words, but that support and interest needs to be sustained in the face of many other pressures. However, all revolutions have to start somewhere and maybe this one should start with the Government saying very clearly, “We will promise only what we can deliver, but we will deliver what we promise.” Or to put it another way, “Let us promise a little less and deliver a lot more.”
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, speaks very wisely with the voice of experience, and I hope very much that Ministers will pay attention to what he has just said. Notwithstanding the note of realism that he has injected into our debate, at the moment we are in a time of hope. The Government have a large majority and they can plan ahead in a way that has been impossible for Administrations in recent years. In that context, the role of the House of Lords is clear. We must accept that the Government have a mandate and we must offer our revisions, criticisms and advice not only in a constructive spirit but in a way that is designed on the one hand to improve legislation and on the other to enable the Government to avoid mistakes. I hope that Ministers will accept the revisions, criticisms and advice that we offer in that spirit.
I will deal with just one particular point in the Government’s programme: their aim of improving competitivity, productivity and prosperity in the north of England. In that connection, I welcome what I read in the press of the Treasury’s plans to reassess criteria for calculating the value for money of government investment in transport and infrastructure, away from focusing on overall national economic growth and towards improving the well-being of people in the north of England and, I hope, other regions as well. This follows a recommendation of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, of which I am a member.
In giving my support wholeheartedly to that programme, I raise a few issues. One is that if the Government’s ambitions for the north—and, I hope, other regions—are to be effective in the long run, they cannot all be controlled from London. There will have to be more devolution of decision-making. That may well pose difficulties.
Secondly, where possible, efforts must be made to ensure that locally based SMEs are allocated contracts in the procurement process. When one looks at the record of government in this respect, it is striking that, on the whole, locally based SMEs do not share substantially in some of the plans introduced and executed so far.
Thirdly—I speak under the surveillance of my noble friend Lord Forsyth from Scotland—I wonder whether there is not more we might be able to do for Scotland. Under the SNP Government, Scotland is falling behind England in a number of respects. It will also lose the funding it enjoys at present from the various European funds, in particular the regional fund. I wonder whether there might not be scope for the UK Government to step in and provide further assistance on public expenditure in a way that the European funds have hitherto done.
Finally, I regret the Prime Minister’s election pledge not to raise income tax, VAT or national insurance—not because I want to see them go up, but because I believe that if the Government are to achieve their wider economic and social aims and to deliver to those who, as the Prime Minister has put it, have lent the Conservative Party their votes, higher taxes may well be required. I believe the public are ready for that; they want better public services and better infrastructure. If higher taxes are the price, they are willing to pay. As the old saying goes: “To govern is to choose.” I hope that if the Government have to choose between their broader social and economic aims on the one hand and higher taxes on the other, the former will win out. I believe that is what the country wants.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, declaring my interests in the register, I will briefly touch on three issues from the Queen’s Speech relating to healthcare. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Blower on her excellent maiden speech.
First, I turn to the intention to enshrine in law the National Health Service’s multiyear funding settlement. This commitment and additional resources for the NHS are obviously always welcome, but in 2018-19 the outturn spend on mental health services was around only £12.2 billion, which is roughly £1 in every £10 of the overall NHS budget. If we are truly going to make the essential additional investment desperately needed in mental health services for both children and adults, would it not perhaps also be appropriate to enshrine in law the commitment to achieve parity of esteem and equality of access between mental health and physical health expenditure over the same funding period, rather than merely retain it as an aspiration in the NHS mandate?
Secondly, I turn to NHS investment. As pro-chancellor of the University of Salford, which has one the largest—and, dare I say, best—training departments for nurses in the country, I welcome the announcement to restore some level of bursaries for nurse training. However, I understand that there will be a delay in implementation until September this year. Universities recruit for such training at a number of points in the year, such as January and March, so it is likely that potential applicants will delay entry until September to understandably take advantage of the bursaries. However, this could further undermine the already fragile nurse workforce planning across the NHS. Will the Minister therefore consider the immediate restoration of the bursaries to ensure a more robust pipeline of nurses over the coming years and give more certainty to university recruitment?
Thirdly, I turn to the Mental Health Act and the commitment in the Queen’s Speech to continue work to reform it. Such reform is urgent following the excellent review of the current Act by Sir Simon Wessely. I strongly support two of his recommendations regarding the interface between mental health and the criminal justice system, which are similar to recommendations I made in my independent report to government some 10 years ago. First, he recommended that by 2023-24 investment in mental health services, health-based places of safety and ambulances should allow for the removal of police cells as a place of safety under the Act and ensure that the majority of people detained under police powers are conveyed to places of safety by ambulance. This is obviously subject to satisfactory and safe alternative health-based places of safety being established. I totally agree with this recommendation.
Good progress has been made in this area, with the banning of the use of police cells as places of safety for children. However, to ensure that the recommendation is implemented, we need significant further investment in, for example, crisis care assessment units away from A&E departments—they are totally the wrong environment for people in mental health crises—and liaison and diversion services. These services have now reached 100% coverage of the country but should be further enhanced by, among other things, connection to speech and language therapy services and appropriate adult support, and the rapid development of the excellent reconnect programme for rehabilitation.
His second recommendation—that NHS England should take over the commissioning of health services in police custody; again, similar to my recommendation —would significantly improve the co-ordination between mental health, learning disabilities and physical health assessment in police custody, and would be a key component in improving the quality and timeliness of crucial information about a person’s complex needs as they pass, where appropriate, along the criminal justice pathway. Again, I hope that the Minister will support these recommendations and the early introduction of the Bill in order to reform the Mental Health Act at the earliest opportunity, following diligent consideration of the complex issues through the publication of the White Paper.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, since we have just had the 12 days of Christmas, I want to use my five minutes to suggest 12 digital priorities for action by this new Government in the context of the Queen’s Speech—I will do so in shorthand, necessarily.
The first priority is action on online harms and internet safety. Will the Government bring forward a draft Bill for scrutiny, and designate Ofcom as the regulator to ensure the necessary work on codes of practice? Will they commit to bring back age verification for adult sites and widen it to cover social media platforms? Will they comply with the revised AVMS directive?
The second priority is to speed up the broadband rollout. What timescale is envisaged in the pledge to accelerate the rollout out of gigabit-capable broadband? Is it 100% by 2025, as promised by the Prime Minister in his leadership campaign?
The third priority is a moratorium on facial-recognition technology. The Home Office’s own Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group has questioned the accuracy of live facial-recognition technology and noted its potential for biased decision-making. Will the Government agree to a moratorium as a vital first step before regulation?
The fourth priority is the control of algorithmic decision-making. The Government have published a guide to using artificial intelligence in the public sector. What plans do they have to monitor its use and ensure that there is compliance?
The fifth priority is data governance. There is increasing concern about access and security of personal data. Look at the current Travelex case: even sharing by the NHS gives rise to concern. We need to go well beyond the GDPR, with much more control over our personal information through personal data accounts, hubs of all things and data trusts. Will the Government continue to fund work on this by the Open Data Institute, the Alan Turing Institute and others?
The sixth priority is changes to corporate governance. AI can and should contribute positively to a purposeful form of capitalism which is not simply about the pursuit of profit. It is imperative that boards have the right skill sets in order to fulfil their oversight role and take accountability. Will the Government develop corporate governance for the Al age as part of their proposals on company audit and corporate reporting?
The seventh priority is a new approach to employment, skills and retraining. Whatever the scale of disruption by AI to the jobs market, retraining will be a lifelong necessity. What can the Minister tell us about the rollout of the national retraining scheme? How does it relate to the national skills fund? Have the Government considered the idea of personal learning accounts? How will the Government encourage greater diversity in the training and recruitment of AI specialists to minimise bias in training data and decision-making?
The eighth priority is the strengthening of data and digital competition, especially in digital advertising. When is the Government’s response to the Furman report going to emerge? With which regulator will the new digital markets unit sit?
The ninth priority is the adoption of international norms on ethics. What is the Government’s intention going forward with AI principles, such as those developed by the OECD and G20 last year and the potential of AI to help solve the UN’s sustainable development goals?
The 10th priority is the reform of digital taxation. The Government plan to introduce a digital services tax, ensuring that tech giants pay their fair share. Will this support and build on the OECD’s proposals? What are the Government’s intentions in that respect?
The 11th priority is ensuring better digital understanding and media literacy. Do the Government’s plans include teaching on how to use social media responsibly and provide advice and support for parents on how to help their children protect themselves online?
The final priority is a strong digital trade policy. Will the UK put the digital economy at the heart of its trade policy? Crucial areas such as data adequacy, tech skills from overseas, the EU digital services Act, data sovereignty and the US CLOUD Act will all need to be tackled in our trade policy. I hope that many, if not most, of these priorities will also be the Government’s priorities. If they are, they will get support from these Benches.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord and his 12 very good and challenging points. I want to make some points about the principles we must abide by if we want to secure this happy and healthy economy that has been laid out in the gracious Speech.
Our three-day debate raises interesting questions about what policy considerations we should cluster together. Today we have the economy, business and public services, yet, if we want a successful economy, we must consider it alongside the things that threaten to weaken it. Climate change is surely the greatest of these, affecting our business interests, the delivery of our public services, and our health, jobs, skills and infrastructure. I could go on; the truth is, it will affect everything.
We cannot think about our economy without also thinking about how we achieve our net-zero emission target. The food sector, which noble Lords will know is the one I work in, is just one sector, but a very good example, because the link between our economic well-being, climate change and food is huge. Food is a massive economic contributor. The food and farming sector is worth almost £122 billion to the UK economy, and the number of people employed in the UK agri-food sector is now well over 4 million. But if we do not look at our food economy through a climate lens, we will be in big trouble, because food contributes so much to global warming.
Global food loss and waste generate about 8% of humankind’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, and deforestation and forest degradation—a significant proportion of which is due to food-related farming— account for 10% to 11% of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, climate change will seriously threaten the food economy. According to the IPPC, crop yield declines of 10% to 25% will be widespread by 2050, and rising temperatures are predicted to wipe out up to 40% of the world’s fish. So much of what we eat is threatened and we cannot rely endlessly on other countries to feed us—whatever Mr Fox used to say.
If these scenarios play out, we will severely damage our health and economy, not enhance them, and food represents just one slice of them. I am in no doubt about the complexity of this challenge. But, as all the great systems thinkers know, tackling complex challenges requires us to think about the guiding principles of the whole system. We have an opportunity to do this through the legislative and policy agenda that the Government have just announced.
First, the planned Green Budget is a critical opportunity for the Government to reconsider the economy and fiscal policy through a climate lens. Perhaps the Minister can say a little more about what we can expect. For instance, will we adopt the laws that New Zealand has that say there must be climate consideration in every piece of legislation, including on things such as housing? Secondly, will there be sector-specific legislation where all these principles can be embedded? In my sector, the planned shift in the agriculture Bill from a system that incentivises poor stewardship to one based on public money for public good is extremely welcome, but Ministers will know that there are many problems with how it will be administered.
Thirdly, we need to make sure that unilateral environmental principles govern all our decision-making. Despite indications from HMG, the last Environment Bill, introduced to Parliament in October 2019, did not enshrine environmental principles in law. It also specifically excluded public spending and taxation from their application, and it did not ensure that critical principles would apply to all public bodies. So, given the urgency, will HMG ensure that this is rectified in the forthcoming Bill?
To wrap it up, we cannot consider the economy any more without considering climate. We cannot consider business and we cannot consider public services, either. We should be operating on 10-year or 20-year plans. We cannot just look to the next electoral cycle—even five years now is too long.
I had the privilege of working with the Prime Minister when he was Mayor of London on many green projects, and he was tremendously enthusiastic about delivering everything from community gardens to trying to lower carbon gas emissions from the food system in the City. I feel very optimistic that the optimism that he showed and the popularity it brought him will go forward in his reign at No. 10. I would like to see him, when we get to the end of the year, step on to the stage in Glasgow and treat it as the Olympics of his prime ministership, and say that we in Britain will lead the world on this. We may not be the biggest country and we may be small emitters, but my gosh we can show the way as to how you can make climate and the environment completely part of all you think about. Quite frankly, if we do not, the future we leave our children will not be fit for purpose.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the commitment to ensure that children get an active start to life through an investment programme in primary school PE teaching, and ensuring that the subsequent improvements are delivered, is a welcome nod to the Prime Minister’s commitment to the benefits of sport, which were also seeded in the excellent work that he undertook as Mayor of London when delivering his part in the London Olympic and Paralympic Games. I am glad that the Government want to go further in helping schools to make good use of their sports facilities and promote physical literacy and competitive sport.
The most important step in that direction would be to take sports policy away from the DCMS, and to fold up that department, which has become a distant planet on the edge of the galaxy of Whitehall. It makes far more political sense to place departmental responsibility for sport firmly in the powerhouse of sport in this country: the Department for Education, which has oversight of physical literacy in all its forms in all our schools. Get sports delivery right in our schools and sport will flourish in this country. Link that to a proactive health policy and you raise health levels throughout the United Kingdom.
In so doing, the Government will be better equipped to deal with participation in sport, the quality of PE teaching at all levels, access to outstanding school facilities—which in the independent sector should be a condition precedent of charitable status—assistance with transport, insurance, the costs of keeping facilities open for school children, and summer camps and links with local clubs, so the significant drop-off in participation of school leavers at present can finally be reduced.
I also welcome the additional £3 billion over this Parliament to support the creation of a national skills fund, also to be overseen by the Department for Education. This is a necessary and excellent initiative to ensure that communities benefit from the skills our country needs and recognises the importance of maximising opportunities to improve our skills and employment system. Declaring an interest as the patron of Create, the UK’s leading charity empowering lives through the creative arts, I know of the vital work the charitable sector can and must contribute to the national skills fund. I hope my noble friends in the ministerial team will look closely at the work undertaken by Create and others to enable the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children and adults to take part in sustained, inclusive, collaborative creative arts workshops, tackling isolation and loneliness, and building skills and promoting well-being.
I also welcome the return of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill to your Lordships’ House. There have been a number of welcome improvements to the Bill since we last considered it. However, there is a major issue, which many of your Lordships will have watched with concern since we last discussed the Birmingham 2022 legislation. The concern surrounds the possibility—albeit, I hope, declining in recent weeks—of a boycott by the Indian team in response to the decision not to hold shooting events as part of the programme.
On Boxing Day, it was announced that the National Rifle Association of India had expressed its commitment to hosting a shooting competition before Birmingham 2022, to allow medals there to count towards the overall Commonwealth Games table. In essence, these medals would be treated in nature as an opening balance for each competing nation to build upon during the Games. Commonwealth Games Federation President Louise Martin was reported as saying:
“We look forward to supporting”
the Indian proposal, which she saw as an “innovative proposal”. I would be grateful if, during the proceedings of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill, or earlier if possible, the Minister could enlighten the House as to whether any further progress has been made.
On Brexit and sports policy, there is much work to be done, from football clubs currently recruiting without restriction in the European Union to the potential loss of Kolpak players under the Cotonou agreement—a rule that may have far greater importance for clubs such as Saracens than the sanctions taken against them this season. Then there is the loss of article 19 of the FIFA regulations on early transfers of footballers within the European Union from club to club, the impact of EU state aid legislation and free movement of labour to the future of the Tripartite Agreement for racing, and of course the Bosman ruling.
This will prove a decisive year in forming the future of the sporting landscape in the UK. We in the House have started well, with the presence of the Secretary of State responsible for sport on these Benches. Now the hard work begins. In all, it was a comprehensive and constructive Queen’s Speech, both for sport and for the future of the United Kingdom.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the Government’s commitment to education. In a report, The Queen’s Speech 2019, the Prime Minister says:
“we are going to level up with better education, better infrastructure and better technology. It is my abiding and unshakeable conviction that talent and genius are uniformly distributed in our country, but opportunity is not.”
I think that is a good summary of where we are now.
I will focus on apprenticeships, which will be a surprise to noble Lords. I declare an interest, because I am an apprenticeship ambassador. My starting point is to support the Government’s approach to apprenticeships. The Government recognise the importance of vocational education and, somewhat ambitiously, set a target of 3 million apprenticeships. Many noble friends warned the Government that the emphasis should be on quality and the need to convince parents, teachers and pupils that apprenticeships are a valid and quality alternative career path to university. They have a number of benefits, but “earn while you learn” is probably as good as any.
Therefore, I was somewhat concerned to read an article in the Times on 3 January headed “Fake apprentices exploit £3bn levy”, based on a report by an education and skills think tank. I do not agree with every bit of the article. It is critical of the fact that a significant number of apprenticeships are in middle management—supervisors and so on—but, given that for many years the Chartered Management Institute has said to us that one of the limitations on improving productivity is that only one in five managers is trained, that does not seem a bad use of apprenticeships. The article also seems to dislike degree apprenticeships but, again, I do not agree with that. However, it makes a worrying point about the quality of some apprenticeships. I think that it is focusing on levels 2 and 3, and I have some worries there. Although the DfE says, “It can’t be an apprenticeship unless it meets our standards”, that does not mean that that is what is taking place at ground level.
Another worry concerning the apprenticeship levy is that the number of starts in the 16 to 18 age group has fallen. Levels 2 and 3 apprenticeships are important. Not every child suits the academic approach. Surely we have to guard against increasing the number of NEETs—that is, young people not in education, employment or training—so we should not underestimate the importance of those apprenticeships.
The apprenticeship levy is a bit like the curate’s egg—it is good in parts—but we have to be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. However, it needs reform and it was supposed to have a review. I would welcome it if the Minister could give us the timescale for the reforms and review. It could probably do with involving more employers than is currently the case.
The average take-up of the apprenticeship levy is only 15% and it is seen somewhat negatively by some employers as an employee tax. We need to do something about that. We need more SME non-levy pay involvement. Employers have the ability to transfer 25% of their levy to SMEs, but we need other ideas to ensure that more SMEs employ apprentices. We will not hit anywhere near the target by relying on large employers.
The good news in the Queen’s Speech was the announcement of a national skills fund. There will be £3 billion over five years and another £2 billion to be spent on improving the estate, which I presume is on top of the levy. I would be interested to know exactly what will happen with the skills fund. I understand that there will be some consultation.
Many things need to be clarified in relation to vocational education. Another new qualification—the T-level—is being introduced but it is perhaps not getting the best reception at the moment.
There are a couple of points that I would like to end on. One is the question of student loans. Do we really believe that we are getting the best value for money from them? Billions of pounds a year go into student loans but some of the degrees are, quite frankly, hardly worth the paper they are written on. That is not to denigrate higher education, because there is a lot of good-quality higher education. However, are we really spending the money effectively? Could we have more two-year degrees? I think that we could. However, if I had to focus money on one area of education, it would be on early years learning. We know that, if we do not get it right there, that is where the trouble starts.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, almost 10 years ago in this House my maiden speech highlighted my lifelong mission to ensure that children’s well-being is at the heart of society’s thinking. So, as we start a new decade under a new Government, it is appropriate to ask: what are we, in government and in Parliament, doing to champion children’s well-being in everything we do—in every policy and initiative and every new piece of legislation? If we make children our number one priority, it will save the Treasury billions of pounds in the future because childhood lasts a lifetime. So let us put children first—it is a no-brainer.
Over the last decade we have seen childhood change rapidly, thanks to the rise of the internet, so in protecting children’s well-being we must look at the new risks they are exposed to and how we can protect them. Just like the legal requirement to wear a seatbelt in a car and the ban on buying alcohol under the age of 18, the internet should now come with appropriate safeguards.
A recent report from Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as a vice-president—found that cyberbullying had impacted on the mental health of 79% of children aged 11 to 15, and 78% had accessed unsuitable or harmful content through social media. This can have a devastating effect on children’s physical, mental and emotional health and well-being. I welcome the Government’s commitment to making the internet safer for children, but we need to see urgency.
Will the Government set out a clear timetable for the progression of the online harms White Paper, and guarantee that this will achieve effective regulation? There is overwhelming research to show that stumbling across pornography online can have a devastating impact on young children’s long-term mental health. The BBFC’s research shows that many children, some as young as seven, have stumbled across “aggressive” and “violent” pornography, with graphic content such as gang rape just one click away from every child online. Will the Minister explain why the Government have delayed bringing into force legislation that could have put in place an age gate to prevent children accessing this material? The BBFC says that it is good to go; it could still implement the Digital Economy Act. Section 3 is still on the statute book. Why has this Act not been brought into force to protect our young children’s mental health and young, innocent minds?
The Government originally said that they planned to bring in this legislation because they calculated that 1.4 million UK children see pornography every month. Why do the Government need to wait until we have a fully “coherent” approach to addressing all harmful content online, which could take years?
The Government committed in the Queen’s Speech to an online harms Bill and the concept of a duty of care, but that is just a concept. We already have practical legislation on the statute books, and the BBFC is ready to implement it immediately. The age-verification industry and the adult industry are also prepared to introduce age verification to prevent access for under-18s if the law is brought into force now. We can start tackling commercial pornographic services straightaway, then address the issue of social media in the longer term. I urge the Government—I plead with them—to take action now, to show common sense and compassion and implement the Digital Economy Act for the sake of the next generation.
Every child deserves to be protected from harm, whether on our streets or online. It is our responsibility to put in place protective factors. The Government have set out their agenda for the future of our children, which should be applauded. But what is missing? What is essential to pull everything together and give a clear indication that this Government prioritise children? The answer is a Cabinet-level Minister, with specific responsibilities for children and for the work carried out across multiple government departments to promote children’s well-being. This is very different from a Secretary of State for Education or Health. It is an appointment that could transform the way government oversees children’s issues. Let us do it. For the next decade, let us prioritise children, their well-being, and their futures. Let us make the UK the best place in the world for children to grow up.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a series producer at Raw TV making content for CNN. I echo the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for a rapid introduction of the online harms Bill. We need it as soon as possible.
In a digital age when internet access is now a utility, without which it is almost impossible to be part of life, internet safety has never been more important. We have heard much recently about how platforms and websites have been designed to capture users. This was reinforced for me by comments from the co-founder of Facebook, Sean Parker, who now declares himself a conscientious objector to social media. He said:
“God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains … The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them ... was all about: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?’”
The engineers of Facebook and other tech companies, he explained, ensured that the users of platforms receive a small dopamine hit when they give likes or make comments, creating a potentially dangerous “social-validation feedback loop”. Much of the concern about the internet, reflected in the White Paper, concentrates on taking down the abusive and harmful content received by users and introducing a new complaints system. That is welcome, but the sheer volume of abuse online and the ability of the perpetrators easily to move their comments across the internet makes such a regime hard to enforce.
The design issue raised by Sean Parker must be at the heart of any new legislation. I emphasise the overriding significance of a duty of care on all tech companies to build safety designs into their digital systems, making them responsible for the safety of their users, and that would need to be enforced by a regulator. The White Paper calls for steps to ensure that products and systems are safe by design, but the Bill must ensure that this is a comprehensive approach. All sites must examine whether they encourage bad behaviour and harmful content. They must examine their navigation and discovery mechanisms to ensure that their algorithms do not prioritise fake news and outrage to generate clickbait. A regulator must ask companies to exercise a risk assessment of their systems and then to enforce implementation very thoroughly.
Part of safety by design must incorporate Sean Parker’s concern about engineering potential addiction into the internet. One of my particular concerns is what is happening in the unregulated areas of online gaming. The gracious Speech has a review of the Gambling Act to include loot boxes and the use of credit cards for gambling. Loot boxes are a relatively new introduction into the gaming world. They allow users to spend money buying random and unknown selections of extra content, which, depending on what is in the box, will either enhance or diminish the player’s abilities. There is evidence that huge amounts of money are being spent by young players on loot boxes and myriad other means of paying to enhance their position in the game. At the moment, the video game manufacturers refuse to put a ceiling on this spend or self-regulate their industry responsibly.
It is good that the Government are reviewing whether the loot-box aspect of video gaming should be covered by a gambling regulator, but the problem is much wider and deeper than just loot boxes. Internet and gaming addiction is baked into the design of their systems. It should be part of a new digital regulator’s role to gather reliable evidence of the extent of this problem and, if necessary, to have the powers to enforce a safe design on gambling and video game companies limiting time and money spent on online, often by young people to the detriment of the rest of their lives.
On another matter, before Christmas the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that the Prime Minister had ordered a review into the sanction for non-payment of the BBC licence fee. This issue was looked only four years ago by David Perry QC, who concluded that there should be no change in the sanction regime. The recent report into public service broadcasting in the digital age by the Communications and Digital Committee, of which I have the honour of being a member, learned that the BBC’s licence fee revenue is already falling dramatically on an annual basis. Surely to alter the sanction regime now would only create a further reduction in revenue.
The committee pointed out that by 2022 the revenue available to public service broadcasting in the UK would be massively dwarfed by the mainly American streaming giants coming into the market. They have a global income to outspend British channels in all genres except news. The Government stated in their evidence to the committee that
“in this changing media landscape, the purposes of PSB—to inform our understanding of the world; to stimulate knowledge and learning; to reflect UK cultural identity … remain vitally important.”
I suggest that a review of the sanction regime would damage this anchor of our country’s cultural identity. Instead, the Government should follow one of the report’s recommendations: to set up an independent and transparent licensing body which would decide how one of our greatest national institutions is funded. In the post-Brexit world we must do everything we can to make sure that our great public institutions prosper and act as a calling card for this country across the globe.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, back to the economy.
We have been fortunate to date that the UK economy has outperformed expectations. Employment remains at a record high and unemployment, at 3.8%, is at a record low. Perhaps unsurprisingly, though, economic growth has been steady rather than spectacular, albeit better than many other countries in the EU and beyond. Given the Brexit backdrop, steady was okay but now we must raise our expectations and ambitions. While it is now right to borrow to invest in infrastructure, the debt-to-GDP target has been dropped and we are told that fiscal policy will be reviewed if debt interest exceeds 6% of national income. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether reducing net debt is still the Government’s target.
It is perhaps worth taking a moment to consider what might have been if people had not wisely returned a Conservative Government last month. Labour planned to meet economic uncertainty with policies that would have led to decline, recession, unemployment and capital flight. I am talking of course about the plans to nationalise swathes of private industry and pass the costs straight back to the taxpayer. Its plans to appropriate 10% of the equity of all public companies would have led to a complete and probably irreversible decline in our culture of enterprise. I heard this on the doorstep in the many constituencies in which I canvassed, so we have a responsibility to produce competent economic plans for the country.
I wish to draw your Lordships’ attention to my disclosed interests in the register at this point, as I would like to talk about the need to support more equity investment, rather than debt.
The market has once again been tempted by so-called “cov-lite” loans, almost to epidemic levels, and banks continue to support excessive levels of corporate debt which will surely yield higher levels of insolvency, non-performing loans and, once again, bad debts on the banks’ balance sheets. I have seen transactions with debt at 10 times profit levels completed by private equity houses. This is dangerous territory. Instead, we should look to do more to support equity investment. At the smaller end of the market, I very much hope that once we are outside the EU we will be able to lift restrictions on the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts to support properly priced equity for growing businesses.
For listed companies, we need to look again at barriers to investing in terms of onerous corporate government requirements, disclosure and regulation. This is particularly true in the area I know, AIM. Among AIM-listed businesses, one finds some of the highest-growth-potential companies in the world. The market is unrivalled anywhere in the world, but it will not stay that way unless we continue to review and reduce regulation to make sure it is attractive for both investors and would-be listed businesses. Sadly, the number of companies on AIM is falling and it is all for the wrong reasons. The cash is out there, and the need exists. The Government must facilitate a market which functions more efficiently.
On a separate matter, I understand the manifesto pledge to “review” entrepreneurs’ relief to make sure it is not abused. However, let us recognise that this has become a foundation of our tax system that sends the clearest message to entrepreneurs who set up their business here that they can keep more of the wealth they create. Entrepreneurs I know have gone through their £10 million limit—good luck to them. Does reducing it send the right encouragement to start another business? I hope this will not be put at risk.
Finally, few issues concern business and citizens alike as much as skills and migration, and Brexit has brought this to the fore. The announcement of the national skills fund is welcome, but let us briefly consider the supply of doctors to the NHS. Can my noble friend the Health Minister confirm that, in 2019, 61% of doctors who took up jobs in the NHS had been trained abroad? These 12,000 people will not be easily replaced by the mere l,500 extra graduates to qualify in the five new medical schools, which will not come into play until 2025. In this country, there are large numbers of willing, able and suitable domestic A-level candidates who are desperate to study medicine in the UK. What urgent steps are planned to train more doctors here?
The circumstances we find ourselves in call for a legislative agenda that projects confidence and certainty, as well as a vision for the future of our economy and our country. This exciting and promising Queen’s Speech delivers a mixture of both, but it is only the beginning. We must make clear that, yes, we will deal with Brexit, but we will also ensure that this country realises the tremendous potential we have for a future outside the EU.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, the health service is obviously in crisis at the present time. The number of doctors and nurses is 10% below establishment. People are waiting more than two or three weeks to see their GP, which negates the very concept of general practice. Waiting times are increasing across the piece, and it now seems that the last Labour Government’s achievement in getting maximum waiting times down to 18 weeks is a long-distant memory.
When an organisation is in a crisis of this kind, I have always believed that the first thing to do is to decide whether what you are dealing with is temporary or perhaps contingent and is susceptible to solution by simple measures of some kind, including possibly throwing a lot of money at it or whether it is a problem of a longer-term, structural nature, in which case you may have to rethink the way things have been done or even the existence of long-standing and much loved institutions. I fear that the present situation of the NHS falls into the second category.
There are four fundamental contradictions at the heart of the NHS. First, every time any normal organisation that produces goods or services for the public delivers a service or increases its turnover, it gets more money. In the case of the NHS, it is the other way around: every time it delivers a service, it has less money, so we start off with a major conflict of interest—a major, perverse incentive—and what we have is in fact a rationing system rather than a health service. The second and fairly obvious contradiction is this: we all know that the cost of medicine is increasing fast because of medical technology improvements, better pharmaceuticals and so forth, and that morbidity rises with longevity. The population is living longer, so we need to have health expenditure at a rate which keeps up with those two pressures. In fact, we have it constrained within public expenditure, which fiscal policy requires should be kept down as a proportion of GDP, otherwise we will never repay any of our debts. That is a very serious contradiction.
Another contradiction is that as people get richer, they naturally want to spend more money, not less, on healthcare, just as they want to spend more money on financial services or tourism and less of their income on potatoes or bread. That is known in technical terms as income elasticity of demand for healthcare services, and is considerably more than unity. We are artificially frustrating and holding back people desire to spend more money on healthcare by channelling all the expenditure through the health service and the public expenditure system, as we do at present. That is not a sensible thing to be doing for the country.
Finally, there seem to be a lot of perverse incentives in the system but very few genuine, positive incentives. I believe that you could get considerable increases in productivity and output in the primary sector—in general practice—by remunerating doctors on a fee-per-service basis. I suggest that anybody who does not like that revolutionary suggestion spends a few hours of their time going into a general practice, declaring symptoms which obviously need medical attention and noting down how long it takes to see the doctor and what sort of reception one gets anyway by going into that surgery. Then they should get hold of a dog, go to the nearest vet and compare the reception they get there and the time they wait for it to be treated. That would be an instructive experiment; I have done it myself.
One could develop many other ideas if one had time. There are various mechanisms through which we could fund healthcare outside the public expenditure system. It is done very effectively on the continent—in France, Germany, the Netherlands and so forth—by health funds. There are something like 1,200 Krankenkassen in Germany; in France there is one large organisation, the Sécurité sociale. Of course, the continentals have 70 years’ experience of a system which is universal and compulsory. It covers everybody, as the health system does in this country, and at the same time, it has considerable popular support in those countries. I have to say that the health outcomes in those countries are considerably better in survival rates for cancer, cardiac victims, stroke victims and so forth.
It is time to look around at ideas of that sort, particularly ideas which have been tested and de-risked over time. We need to be brave enough to go in for some original thinking here. We owe it to future generations to make sure we do not have a health service that goes from one crisis to another, and simply repeats history indefinitely. That would not at all be a responsible attitude for our generation to have towards this priceless asset, which looks after the health of the nation.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, this Queen’s Speech is our first and best chance to set out what kind of country we are going to be outside the European Union. It is our chance to remind investors, businesses, workers and trade partners that what is true now of Britain—open, innovative, creative and productive—will continue to be true. It is our chance to capitalise on what opportunities may come from our new-found freedoms.
Austerity was essential to restore investor confidence, but our fiscal position remains vulnerable. That means that if we are going to increase borrowing and add to our debt, it must be in areas that will increase productivity and boost growth. I am encouraged therefore by many of the measures in the gracious Speech.
I am fortunate to have been a member of this House’s Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence and I am currently a board member of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. I say “fortunate” because I feel that I have glimpsed the future of what will drive our economy: AI and data. These opportunities transcend Brexit, this fiscal cycle and even this Government. We need to invest in our future if we are to capitalise and boost productivity, growth and prosperity.
There are many aspects to productivity, but those to which I want to draw attention are R&D, skills and infrastructure. We cannot go too far wrong if we increase our investment in research. I am proud that, in the midst of spending cuts in the past two Parliaments, the Conservative Government protected the science budget. Similarly, we have long had a tax regime that encourages investment in R&D, so I am pleased that the gracious Speech pledges to increase the threshold for R&D tax credits to 13%. This is an important signal. We also need to do more to build on the early work of the industrial strategy, which places AI and data at its heart.
We have all the assets in the UK to realise this opportunity. We have world-class universities, a thriving tech sector and a deep pools of venture capital, so I commend the work of initiatives such as Oxford Sciences Innovation which bring all these actors together to ensure that we convert university research into commercial opportunity. We need to see more like this, and more from the Government’s catapult centres which focus on technology transfer.
As important as research are skills. My main takeaway from my work on AI and data is that we need a stronger pipeline of talent domestically, starting in our schools, and through our migration system so that we attract top talent. We have an acute skills shortage in these emerging professions, especially among women, which is so important to address if we are to avoid gender bias in the way codes and algorithms are written, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, eloquently mentioned. The gracious Speech refers to the new £3 billion national skills fund, and the manifesto stresses that some of it will be set aside for “strategic investment in skills”. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that AI, data and other associated technology will be included in this strategic investment, essential as they are for our future productivity and prosperity. This needs to start in schools, but it should also look at retraining and continuous professional development.
The final piece of the productivity jigsaw is infrastructure. The gracious Speech promises a new national infrastructure strategy at the time of the next Budget, so we will have to wait and see what this entails, but I am pleased that what emphasis we have seen so far has been on digital—namely, broadband and digital infrastructure—as well as on the more prosaic targets for new housebuilding and what I am sure will be a strong pipeline of roads, bridges and new renewable energy capacity.
It is high time we addressed our flailing productivity, and if we have to borrow more to do so, then so be it. We have to provide reassurance to the markets of course, but we have also to provide something visionary. A UK that invests in infrastructure, research and human capital is a country that investors will continue to commit to, skilled workers will flock to and entrepreneurs will start companies in. This kind of borrowing might even pay for itself.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I think I am the only macroeconomist contributing to this debate, which is perhaps rather odd as it is a debate on economic affairs. As instructive and important as the other contributions have been, I want to talk about economic policy, because unless the economy works a lot better than it has in the last 10 years, none of the spending pledges, to be quite honest, will be worth the paper that they are written on, and how well it works will largely depend on economic policy.
The good news is that fiscal policy is back. The gracious Speech said:
“My Government will invest in the country’s public services … My Government will prioritise investment in infrastructure and world-leading science research and skills”.
That is good. Governments everywhere have started to inch back to fiscal policy. Retiring ECB chairman, Mario Draghi, admitted that monetary policy
“needs help from fiscal policy.”
Evidently the Chancellor agrees. That agreement is indicated by the figures of extra spending that he promises over the next five years. Austerity is over.
Why the turnabout? First is the realisation that monetary policy cannot deliver the required boost to spending. We are told that central banks have run out of ammunition. The truth is that they never had enough ammunition to bring a sick economy back to health. The reason was the liquidity trap: most of the extra money pumped out by central banks simply was not spent on the real economy, it got locked up in financial assets.
Second is the realisation that fiscal policy was pointing the wrong way. There is a lot of myth-making going on here. It is claimed that, thanks to years of austerity, the Chancellor now has the “fiscal space” to boost investment, but the logic of that is all wrong. Trying to balance the budget when the economy was depleted did enormous damage to millions of people; making the economy smaller made the budget more difficult to balance. The result of that has been missed targets, less investment and rising national debt. To say that the nation had to sacrifice itself for 10 years in order to enable the Government to spend more on the health service or infrastructure now is simply terrible fraud. There has been no mea culpa from the perpetrator of that fraud: George Osborne.
The Government promise to increase spending while maintaining the sustainability of the public finances. It is just possible that the Chancellor will meet his much-revised fiscal targets; it really depends what happens to the economy, and most people are expecting a recession. If or when that happens, the Chancellor will have to talk about “headwinds” rather than “headroom”.
Now that fiscal policy is back in fashion, can we do better than the current hit-and-miss strategy? Former Fed chairmen Bernard Bernanke and Janet Yellen have called for more powerful automatic stabilisers. It is a slightly technical phrase but, in this connection, I urge the Government to seriously consider a public sector job guarantee. Its purpose would be to balance fluctuations in private sector employment in a non-discretionary way. The reservoir of public sector jobs would deplete or fill up automatically as the economy waxed or waned. Not only would this be a much more powerful automatic stabiliser than trying to balance the economy by paying out more on unemployment benefits, but it would remove the discretionary element from tax and spending policies that did so much to discredit fiscal policy in the past.
Finally, I am encouraged by the promise in the gracious Speech to give communities more control over how investment is spent, so that they can decide what is best for themselves. John Maynard Keynes long ago emphasised the importance of rightly distributed demand—that is, investment channelled to underheating, not overheating regions. The Government’s pledge to prioritise investment in poorer regions will give communities more control over how money is spent. It would also dovetail neatly into a job guarantee programme.
It would be tragic if the second coming of fiscal policy were to be wrecked on the same inattention to the need for a fiscal constitution as the last one. As Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, recently said:
“The trouble is that setting supposedly binding fiscal rules, missing them, abandoning them and replacing them with something new”
is not a fiscal constitution, it is back to the bad old days of the political business cycle: we must do better than that this time.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. This is, to my mind, an excellent document and the Government are to be congratulated on getting it out so promptly. I strongly agree with the points on education and productivity made by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. The one problem I see with the document is that I cannot see that it can all be legislated within a single Parliament—I reckon about 50 pieces of legislation will be required—so it is appropriate to consider which are the most important proposals.
A key objective must be to improve our infrastructure, boost productivity and level up opportunities across the country. Here, the political message is overwhelming. The Conservatives have succeeded in attracting major political support in the Midlands and the north of England. This needs to be rewarded, cemented and sustained by boosting the economies in these areas and by increased public spending. Fortunately, some element of economic catch-up is starting to happen. I note that SMEs have been doing better in the north than in the south in recent months. The national infrastructure strategy will be important to help carry all this forward. I am also a supporter of the proposed national security and investment Bill to strengthen the Government’s powers to investigate and intervene in business transactions—for example, takeovers and mergers. Reform of business rates to protect high streets is also well overdue.
The national infrastructure strategy, to be published alongside the first Budget, will be fundamental to sustaining improved economic growth. It will set out the Government’s long-term ambitions across all areas of economic infrastructure, including transport, digital infrastructure and infrastructure finance and delivery. It has two key aims: to unleash Britain’s economic potential by levelling up and connecting every part of the country; and to address the critical challenges posed by climate change. It is crucial to exploit the coming revolution in digital technology. Broadband legislation will also be needed to support the rollout of gigabit-capable broadband across the UK, to achieve national coverage as soon as possible and to make it easier for telecoms to install broadband infrastructure in blocks of flats. All new homes will be required to be built with reliable and fast internet.
Minimum service railway legislation is proposed to reduce the disruption caused to the public by rail strikes and, following the excellent report of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, it looks to me as though HS2 is dead—and it should be dead. A Midlands hub to improve services around Birmingham and the Midlands, northern powerhouse rail and a programme of significant upgrading of urban commuter and regional services outside London look to me much better value than HS2.
Both politically and economically, I perceive parallels between the Disraeli Administration and the Boris Government. Disraeli was successful in securing the votes and political support of the newly industrialised Midlands and north; his Government also introduced major political and economic reforms, governing in the national interest. Neither Disraeli nor Boris is a focused economist, but both appreciate the importance of selecting good people to lead reforms.
I am concerned that Boris may have overcommitted on increased NHS, police and education spending, but let us hope that the figures are manageable. The problem with free goods is that demand is limitless and the main problem with the NHS is its management. Nor do I believe that the public would support major increases in taxation.
There are also no apparent proposals to reduce the level of stamp duty hitting the property market in London and the south-east and, in fact, reducing potential stamp duty revenues. I also believe that it would be counterproductive to seek to outlaw pre-packs, as they provide a speedy way of sorting out businesses that have got into trouble.
The key missing commitment is to reduce and rationalise the excessive levels of regulation, particularly in the financial services market, which are now costing a fortune and having a significant drag on productivity. In many respects, they achieve little or nothing. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made essentially the same point; it is our biggest industry, and the productivity figures from the last 10 years, as the regulatory industry has taken grasp, tell the story. It needs addressing.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I will make two points on the proposed employment Bill and three on the proposed restrictions on the right to strike on the railways. I declare an interest as having spent 40 years in practice at the Bar, doing many cases for trade unions and their members.
First, the employment Bill is said to
“protect and enhance workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU, making Britain the best place in the world to work”,
a phrase repeated by the Minister in opening this debate. Will the employment Bill guarantee full non-regression of existing EU-derived workers’ rights and dynamic alignment with any future improvements to EU workers’ rights? I understood that was the Conservative Party’s position in the recent election; its manifesto states that the UK’s future relationship with the EU will
“Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights”.
If either protection is denied to Britain’s 32.7 million workers then, by definition, they will enjoy fewer rights in the future than their European counterparts. That will refute the promise to make Britain the best place in the world to work and make clear the nature of the Government’s commitment to those working-class voters who lent them their votes in the last election.
Secondly, there is the Oliver Twist clause. The employment Bill proposes to introduce a right
“for all workers to request a more predictable contract”.
While a right to make a request might have afforded Oliver Twist some comfort in the workhouse, it will be purely rhetorical in the modern workplace. What is required here is a correlative duty on the part of the employer to concede the more predictable contract sought, so far as is reasonably practicable. If there is no agreement, the matter must be determined by an employment tribunal. I trust that the proposed Bill will contain such a provision to give some content to an otherwise empty right.
What is more remarkable about this Oliver Twist provision is the glaring omission of any reference to the EU directive on transparent and predictable working conditions which came into effect last summer. The directive is precisely on point, yet mention of it is omitted. Why? Can it be that the Government have decided that, far from raising standards in areas such as workers’ rights, their intention is to deny British workers these modest EU rights even before Brexit is finalised?
I turn to the proposal to further restrict the right to strike. Only four years ago, the Trade Union Act 2016 added further obstacles to strike action in relation to “important public services”, which included passenger railway services. Yet now railway workers, successors in title to those who were penalised in the Taff Vale judgment in 1901, face yet more restrictions on their right to strike, on the footing that they are engaged in an essential public service—uniquely, it seems, since no other workers have been so designated.
I will add three points to those made by my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port this morning. First, the International Labour Organization has made it clear that railways are not an essential public service in international labour law, so it is illegitimate to restrict the right to industrial action on that ground. This proposition has recently been adopted as binding by the European Court of Human Rights in Ognevenko v Russia, which reiterated that the right to strike is protected by Article 11 of the convention in a case which concerned a ban on strikes on the Russian railways. The Government will have to think carefully whether the certificate of conformity with the convention can be given to this legislation, unless, having exited the EU, they propose to repeal the Human Rights Act and de-ratify the European convention. Is that their intention?
Secondly, the proposal is for a minimum service agreement to establish what is required. How do the Government envisage such agreement being reached? In circumstances where the union and the employer have failed to agree the underlying industrial dispute, what chance is there of agreeing a minimum service provision during a strike? Will the Government specify a disputes procedure—perhaps concluding in binding arbitration—if the parties fail to agree the minimum service agreement? If the Government believe that the parties can be induced to reach a minimum service agreement, why not provide such an inducement to resolve the industrial dispute?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and the other winders for graciously giving me permission to speak, even though I may have to leave before the end of the debate because of a health issue concerning my husband. I wish to speak on health.
Our NHS is a precious national asset, which comes right at the top of most people’s priorities, and rightly so. In the gracious Speech, the Government promised a number of measures on health. I welcome the commitment to look at legislation proposed by NHS England to facilitate delivery of the long-term plan, and I look forward to working with the Government to implement it. However, I do not believe that the Government were addressing the right priorities when they promised to build 40 new hospitals over 10 years. The fact is that our hospitals are full, and one might think that a solution to that problem might be to build some more. But would it not be better to look at why the hospitals are so full and do something about it? The main problem lies at both ends of the throughput. Many people remaining in hospital beds would be better off in social care. This results in dangerously high levels of bed occupancy, with vulnerable patients having to wait for 24 hours in A&E for a bed on a ward. Yet we have been waiting years for the Green Paper on social care, and now all the Government can propose is cross-party talks. Fine—but when will we get a remit, a format and a timetable, and why not start with Dilnot and the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth? We urgently need a courageous solution which is fair to all patients and all generations. It must address the predicament of those suffering from that distressing condition Alzheimer’s disease, who face on average 15% higher care costs than other patients. A way must be found to spread the costs across the whole of society.
At the other end of the throughput is primary care. We are promised 6,000 more GPs but the last Conservative Administration did not hit the previous target. At the same time we disadvantage ourselves when recruiting doctors and nurses from other EU countries by leaving the EU. Speeding up visa applications and reducing fees will not help when people still have to pay thousands of pounds to bring their families and to use the very NHS for which they are being recruited. Primary care is under great pressure and nowhere near enough capital is being allocated to the facilities needed to attract GPs. Perhaps new local health centres do not make such good headlines as 40 new hospitals. What are the Government’s plans to invest in modern primary care facilities?
In December, A&E hit its worst-ever waiting times because people cannot get to see a GP. Patients who really need hospital treatment wait in ambulances outside, like the lady in my village who died of sepsis having waited for hours outside the hospital.
That brings me to staffing levels. The Government are relying on retaining 19,000 nurses who might otherwise have left to deliver their promise of 50,000 more, but they need to make staying on much more attractive. That means much better working conditions and less need for, for example, staying on for an extra two hours at the end of a 12-hour shift because no one is there to take over.
Finally, I turn to gambling addiction, a preventable mental health issue that is growing. More than 400,000 people in England are addicted to gambling, and hospital admissions have more than doubled in the past 12 months, while the age of sufferers is getting younger. I am pleased that 14 new treatment clinics are planned by 2024 but we need to do more now to prevent the problem while we treat those affected. Will the review of the Gambling Act seek to tighten the regulation of companies that promote gambling, which take more than £14 billion a year from the punters, and to restrict the way that they market their services, especially to young people?
We allow far too much gambling advertising. Companies would not spend £1.5 billion a year on this if it did not result in more gambling. We realised long ago that advertising smoking encouraged people to do something that damaged their health and that of others, so we banned it. We should do the same for adverts that endanger the mental health of susceptible people and bring misery to their families. Will the review of the Gambling Act seek to reverse the normalisation of gambling?
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, in short, the election result will boost the UK economy in the short term as the major uncertainty about an extreme Labour Administration has been removed for the next five years. Anecdotally, I am already hearing about an upturn in financial transactions, especially in the private equity sector, and a revival of London residential property market transactions. Many of these deals had been put on ice ahead of the election.
However, a cloud still hangs over the UK with regard to the trading situation with the EU after Brexit. The idea that we can conclude a comprehensive trade deal by December of this year seems implausible. This means instead one of several scenarios: either we crash out without a deal, which would not be good news for the UK economy, or there is a fudge and we will have a deal in outline only, with the EU granting us an extension to sort out details. The third, and probably least likely, scenario is that we just have to ask for an extension to the transition period.
Overall, I am most concerned about the City of London losing out, as well as motor manufacturing and other just-in-time parts of the manufacturing economy, together with the food industry. According to the City of London Corporation, the City produced £75 billion of tax revenues for the Government in 2018—more than 10% of tax receipts for the year. According to the House of Commons Library, this represented 6.9% of total economic output for the year. So far, I have not heard about any likelihood of a deal with the EU with regard to financial services. This will leave a big hole in government finances. With regard to car manufacturing, hopefully there will be some agreement because, without a deal, the EU as well as the UK would be affected. With regard to the food industry, delays at ports due to extra paperwork would cause serious problems, particularly in the fresh food sector.
The other area that causes concern—I refer to my entry in the register of interests—is the rural economy. Small livestock and hill farmers will struggle to survive without some sort of government assistance. Hopefully, this will be taken into account in the agriculture Bill. I am also concerned about the possibility of penal tariffs for UK farmers’ exports if we crash out without a deal.
In the rest of the brief time available, I will touch on a few tax and financial matters. Business rates clearly need to be reduced, as the high street is suffering at the expense of the likes of Amazon. Its warehouses, for instance, should have to pay more. The Government should not lose their nerve in raising the threshold for higher rates of income tax and the top rate should be cut to 40% from 45%, which would only return it to the rate under the Blair Government. On pensions, the pensions Bill should include measures to weed out unscrupulous providers approved by HMRC without due diligence which have caused misery for those who took advantage of pension freedoms to invest their lump sum with these supposedly bona fide firms.
It is clear that the economy in the north needs boosting, but I am not convinced by the mixed performance of LEPs. Anecdotally, some are too weighed down by local politics or do not have enough business experience on board—although I have heard some good reports in other regions. My preference would be for the Government to fund sensible infrastructure projects and encourage private companies through tax breaks in certain geographical areas. For me, though, the jury is still out on the cost/benefit of HS2.
Finally, on a separate note, and again drawing attention to my interests in the register, I would voice concern about the renters reform Bill. While it is a totally laudable concept to crack down on rogue landlords, I am concerned about the abolition of Section 21, because it tilts the balance too much in favour of the vexatious tenant. Getting rid of tenants at fault under Section 8 is costly and time consuming. While I acknowledge that short-term eviction is undesirable, there can be cases when it is necessary, and, without it, landlords could be saddled with difficulty for a long time. So the right balance needs to be struck and the concerns of landlords listened to.
Overall, I welcome the return of a Conservative Government and, hopefully, the economic stability they will bring over the next five years.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak today about the importance of support for the mental health of children: that is, those aged up to 18, and for their parents. I shall focus in particular on teenagers and the significance of brain development. Many of us have had teenage children and, indeed, we ourselves were teenagers once, albeit some time ago. I taught teenagers for many years and I survived them and loved them. We know about the turbulence of the teen years, which are not necessarily turbulent but are often so. However, for some young people and parents, they are more than turbulent because they can be traumatic and dangerous, with mental health crises caused by a variety of factors, some internal and personal such as stress, and some external such as poverty, abuse and cruelty, which can create challenges.
Thankfully, over recent years a great deal of emphasis has been put on mental health and initiatives such as consulting children and other service users, as well as improving mental health care, but the situation is now urgent. The Royal College of Psychiatrists points out worrying facts. Since 2010, the number of children and young people being admitted to A&E and diagnosed with a psychiatric condition has increased by 330%. That figure is astronomical and calls for measures to prevent and treat such disorders. Prevention is of the utmost importance. It is not just about money, it is also about thoughtful strategies.
I am aware that in the NHS long term plan there is the intention to put mental and physical health on an equal footing by guaranteeing that the proportion of the NHS budget spent on mental health increases each year until parity is reached. This will take time, but I suggest that we have a crisis that needs urgent attention.
I want to talk briefly about the potential support to help prevent or alleviate mental health problems in teenagers. Much is now emerging about the importance of understanding how the teenage brain develops and of the impact of such development on behaviour in teens such as risk-taking, stress and confusion. The distinguished psychologist Dr John Coleman has produced a useful booklet for adults and teens, and I read it again the other day. He emphasises that teenagers are experiencing major upheavals, perhaps more so now due to external influences such as worry about the future of the world, online activity and stress in schools.
Meanwhile, dramatic readjustments in the brain are going on in the pre-frontal cortex and the amygdala, the first associated with thinking, planning and problem solving and the second with emotion, sensation and arousal. This enormous readjustment can be distressing. Dr Coleman suggests that adults can help teenagers address uncertainties by providing routines, such as encouraging good sleep patterns by limiting use of digital devices before bedtime, learning to talk constructively with teens and providing a rich environment with a wide variety of activities. Adults can learn how their own negative behaviour might affect their children. I wish this booklet had been available to me, and I wish it were available now to every parent, teacher and adult dealing with teenagers.
There is so little comfort for parents, who are often desperate to help their children. There can be such delays in getting help. I have met parents so desperate that they have resorted to private consultations they can ill afford because of the waiting lists in child and adolescent health services.
Can the Minister take away with him and share with other government departments the notion of being creative in empowering parents, carers and others to help and support teenagers to understand and deal with the confusion of adolescence? Can he also suggest that strategies to improve the resilience of young people, such as programmes in schools, are given high importance and high priority, with training for teachers and parents?
I return to the horrendous statistic I quoted at the beginning, the increase of 330% in the last 10 years of children and young people being admitted to A&E with a psychiatric condition. Will the Government act with imagination and firmness?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I return to a subject raised by only one speaker in front of me: sport. I am afraid I have drawn the short straw. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is not in his place at the moment, but he spoke about the importance of sport and various aspects of it.
If we are moving sport from DCMS back to Education, it will not make that much difference because, as displayed by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and his wonderful 12-point plan, it is a department that is now increasingly dominated by the online world. What do you do with it and where do you move it? It does not really matter that much, as long as you give it some priority. We have always called for it to have its own department, but everybody calls for their subject to have its own department in Westminster, and we do not usually get it.
The important driving factor behind it has been the National Lottery, which has given it some real oomph and spending power. This meant that we were capable of achieving the Olympics. It means that we have grass-roots backing and that our infrastructure for grass-roots sports is a little better than it was, and not so dependent on the grass-roots fundraising that traditionally has been there.
What are we going to do to back this up and guarantee that it maintains this funding? At the moment, the entire infrastructure of the National Lottery is, to a degree, under threat from the rise of the other two lotteries, the Health Lottery and the Postcode Lottery. They may be doing good work and other wonderful things, but they are not that guarantee of funding. The Postcode Lottery is a very slick organisation. I commend to you its correct use of advertising in the House magazine—the recent copy, with all the new MPs in it. Put your advertising in there. Well done, somebody knows their job.
Are we going to guarantee this body of funding going through? It helps just about everything in the sporting world. We must make sure it is always there as something to fall back on. You know how to apply, and it is quicker, easier and more efficient than hunting down sponsorship. Can we make sure that it is there? If we are going to allow a properly free market and competition in lotteries, I absolutely recommend that we make sure that if they achieve a certain degree of success, they inherit with that success a degree of responsibility. It should not be that difficult: “Great, you have become the major lottery player in the country. You have to make sure the Olympic programme has support.” That would be a reasonable thing to call for.
This goes down a long way, because one of the other things I will talk about is at the other end of the sporting spectrum: mixed-ability sport. Something I came across totally by accident through the parliamentary rugby team was mixed-ability rugby. That is, you adapt the rules to allow people with a learning disability or cerebral palsy to take part alongside you. You adapt your game. You have a social activity, which is good for the club. You have build-up. You get everybody joining in—an extra string to your bow. This has been done at international competition level, supported by the lottery and the Erasmus programme. The Government must come in if things are being changed here, to guarantee these organisations a backbone of support. The same could be said of the Commonwealth Games project, which we are apparently going to get through eventually. We must ensure that a success of decades-standing continues. If we are going to change it, we must guarantee that support.
Sport is only one aspect that has been changed for this; the arts and other projects also come in. But can we ensure that this great success, probably the greatest success of John Major’s premiership, is continued? If we allow it to wither on the vine, we will end up making ourselves that little bit poorer at every level.
The Earl of Arran (Con)
My Lords, my Christmas was increasingly dominated by the disruption, noise and trails of destruction caused by an army of grandchildren. My reaction to this was, of course, an attempt at tolerance and compassion. It was but an attempt, but it did make me reflect on what I could do for them to ensure that they are not just occasional visitors but have every reason to enjoy a bright and happy future in my home county of Devon. Successive Governments have failed to provide any meaningful policies to create abundant opportunities in our rural communities in order to ensure that those we are raising have good reason to want to remain and spend their lives building successful careers there.
The election result provides a platform for tackling policies we have sidestepped for the last 10 years. I passionately believe that we have a duty to lead on this challenge. The virtual depopulation from rural communities of young people continues at an alarming rate. By 2050, over two-thirds of the world’s population will be living in towns and cities. There are, of course, various genuine and perceived advantages and dis- advantages which may attract people—including youth —to live in rural areas. These include, on the one hand, more space, less pollution and closer proximity to nature. On the other hand, the reality is that there are fewer local education or job opportunities or choices, difficulties in accessing public services, including transportation, healthcare and broadband, a lack of cultural and social venues for leisure, significantly higher costs of living and, critically, chronic shortages of low-cost, affordable and first-time-buyer accommodation.
Is it surprising, therefore, that one of the most pressing issues for the sustainability of rural communities is the exodus of young people? Their migration from rural to urban areas is often an inevitable choice, as they search for better education and employment opportunities, and an enhanced quality of life. The depopulation of rural areas further erodes the social and economic fabric of these communities, while at the same time increasing the strain on overcrowded urban spaces.
Devon is a classic illustration of the problem. It has a diverse community, based on rural roots, with a social and economic environment which is both distinctive and challenging. Income levels tend to be lower and there is a greater incidence of poverty. Living costs are higher. Income is dependent on the ability to commute. There is a higher incidence of social exclusion, and there is restricted access to services such as rural health, and to affordable housing. Too often, self-employment is the only option.
In short, there exists a vicious cycle, where rural residents are drawn to urban centres for employment and rural businesses are forced to turn to the nearest town or city for a larger, more qualified labour pool. How therefore can we ensure that a central aim of the Government’s youth policy is to ensure that young people enjoy the same opportunities, benefits, access to services and rights, regardless of where they live? Are there any early wins for these problems?
Many believe that digital will save and indeed enhance rural businesses and communities, offsetting the difficulties of transport and access. There is no doubt that rural businesses should see digital as critical to their futures, yet more than half of rural businesses report that they cannot find staff with appropriate digital skills. However, the Prime Minister has promised that this will change, so help is on the way. We shall see.
My own agenda for Devon to resolve these issues would therefore include the following initiatives: enabling access to mobile and online services; raising the level of digital skills in SMEs; improved transport across rural areas; and tackling the shameful lack of affordable housing. My point is this: as concrete steals across the western world, currently at the alarming rate of 11% every 10 years, we must preserve and maintain our rural communities and, essentially, make employment available to those who live and work there. All this becomes increasingly pressing and so important in the interests of a kingdom united in equal opportunity for both town and country.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very thoughtful way in which she introduced this broadly based debate. She was able to reaffirm Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to public services—none more than our National Health Service. She also demonstrated the very important government commitment to the area of science and innovation. In so doing, I remind noble Lords of my own registered interests, and in particular a new registration as chairman of the King’s Fund.
The issue of the provision of healthcare is critical to every citizen in our country. Not only is the provision of healthcare vital in terms of protecting our fellow citizens; it is critically important in ensuring that we have a healthy population who are able to contribute to the economy, and of course in ensuring that the vital investment that is made in the National Health Service and in the broader ecosystem that surrounds our National Health Service can be used to drive an important element of our economy: life sciences.
In the gracious Speech, Her Majesty’s Government outlined a number of important commitments to strengthen the provision of healthcare in our country in this coming Parliament, including: the area of the workforce, in terms of enhanced training, and the capacity to attract trained professionals from overseas to work and support our NHS through the provision of a new visa scheme; ensuring and enhancing patient safety through the introduction of a new investigatory mechanism, which needs to be thoughtfully introduced so as not to cut across the important regulators and the multiple mechanisms for investigation that already exist when there has been a mishap in the delivery of healthcare and where lessons need to be learned; and the commitment to enshrine in law the additional funding that is critically required to deliver the sustainability of our NHS.
I turn to two other important issues highlighted in the gracious Speech. The first is the capacity for integrated care, which will be critical if the additional funding provided is to be used in an appropriate way that will have a meaningful impact. Integrated care is of course the integration of primary with specialist care, the integration of care for physical and mental health, and the integration across the health and social care boundaries.
Her Majesty’s Government have received from NHS bodies some suggestions on legislative change that may be required to ensure that they can mobilise themselves effectively to deliver this important integrated care agenda. When do the Government propose to respond to suggestions that NHS England and NHS Improvement be merged, and that providers and commissioners of healthcare at a local level may form joint decision committees able to ensure a better integration of care, rather than having to have major legislative change to create new statutory bodies? It is critically important that, ahead of determining how this additional investment in the health service is to be spent, the structures in which the money will be applied are properly defined and the Government are absolutely content that they are fit for purpose to deliver the important objectives necessary for the long-term sustainability of the NHS.
It is also critically important to be clear that the voluntary joint decision-making committees, between commissioners and providers at local level, will be of sufficient authority to drive the changes in the delivery of care and working practices, and the construction of care environments, that will be necessary to ensure the successful application of this additional funding.
I turn finally to the question of innovation. Once again, Her Majesty’s Government, through the high-risk science fund—of which life sciences might represent an important component—seeks to demonstrate a broader commitment to the life sciences sector in our economy. The publication of the industrial strategy recognises the important contribution life sciences make to our economy—£74 billion per annum—and the 250,000 of our fellow citizens who are employed in the life sciences industry, to such great effect.
An important question remains about how that industry will interact in undertaking clinical research. The Government are committed to ensuring that our life sciences and healthcare economy become the most advanced and innovative in clinical research and the evaluation of innovation. How do the Government propose to do that in the context of still being able to participate effectively in the new clinical trials regulations that will exist for the rest of the health economy in Europe?
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to respond to the humble Address. It is ambitious to put the NHS at the heart of this legislative programme. As expressed within the gracious Speech, it is predicated on a strong, dynamic economy, so that the UK can develop more opportunities that will derive from having a new global trade policy. In a united country with renewed vigour, businesses will meet these challenges while experiencing new opportunities, and the Government will support many of our fledgling companies that will, in the future, forge inward investment.
Particularly welcome is universal coverage of broadband and digital infrastructure in all areas of the country. That is much needed, so that all will have equal access and we can make a strong pitch for the UK being the best place to invest and do business. I welcome the £100 billion to transform UK infrastructure, particularly in the north, where there has been underfunding for far too long. Businesses, wherever they are, need premises and good connectivity.
One specific business I would like to mention is British Steel in Scunthorpe. Making steel is part of our industrial heritage but, to meet our ability to produce the very best steel and be competitive, we ask for a level playing field with government support to reduce energy tariffs and rates. Steel-making is a vital part of Scunthorpe’s working life, with a skilled work force of 4,000, assisted by another 20,000 in the supply chain. All face an uncertain future. This week, Chinese business leaders are to present a business plan to revive the steel plant, so I hope for a successful outcome in 2020.
At last, we are to see more support for our ailing high streets and town centres, not forgetting our villages, where support is to be welcomed for our rural post offices, which serve the public so well. There was an announcement of the first 14 high streets that are to receive £l billion in funding to improve the UK retail sector, improve our shopping experience and complement the online sector. However, rates must be attributed and fair. It is also crucial to ensure that employees’ rights are protected and enhanced post Brexit, and to train and upskill our workforce.
The NHS is being promised more doctors, nurses and primary care professionals, and I particularly welcome that. We have debated the future of our NHS many times and this multiyear funding is, for the first time, being enshrined into law, with cross-party consensus to focus on a long-term solution for social care to provide dignity, security and, most importantly, the quality people deserve, and to make our NHS even safer for patients.
There is a requirement, too, for faster access to diagnosis. The NHS must incorporate a seamless service and remove inherent bureaucracy. Better communication and dynamic, driven management will be key in helping to drive those changes through, making life easier for staff. They need a 21st-century IT system which is fully integrated, with all areas of health talking to each other.
There is a need to reduce bureaucracy and make it easier for hospitals to manufacture and trial innovative medicines, thus helping to drive our global life sciences industries, where we lead the world. New laws will be designed to help those industries to be internationally competitive. A process for the approval of drugs and devices will minimise the risks for national pharmaceutical companies if they choose to test and roll out new inventions elsewhere.
My noble friend Lady Blackwood alluded to relatives visiting patients. I am sure that the Government’s programme to remove hospital parking charges comes as a relief to those in greatest need. The commitment to enshrine in law an NHS multiyear funding settlement, with £33 billion in cash terms by 2023-24, is a first.
Finally, a strong, dynamic and invigorating economy is the foundation. It will be the platform, in particular, for a strong, 21st-century NHS. So we begin a new chapter in driving real changes, wherever we live and work.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I understand that my contribution to the gracious Speech debate would have been more relevant to last Tuesday’s session, but unfortunately I was not able to get my name on to the speakers’ list in time, due to technical reasons—hence I take the opportunity to address your Lordships now.
As a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, I congratulate the UK Government on their global leadership position and support for family planning and sexual and reproductive health and rights. A comprehensive approach to SRHR is necessary if women and girls are to be truly able to choose for themselves. The neglected areas of safe abortion, adolescents’ SRHR, GBV and infertility must be at the forefront.
If no one is to be left behind, it is imperative that DfID promotes and protects the human rights of all persons who choose to access comprehensive SRHR, placing an emphasis on
“reaching those furthest behind first”,
as stated in the 2030 SDG agenda. That includes, for example, older people and persons with disabilities, whose SRHR are often neglected.
I had the opportunity to attend the Nairobi summit in November 2019, marking the ICPD25. The forward-looking Nairobi statement was formulated after six months of global consultations, led by the ICPD25 steering committee, with hundreds of organisations and thousands of people involved.
Despite remarkable progress over the past 25 years, the promise of the ICPD Programme of Action remains a distant reality for millions of people across the world. Universal access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health information, education and services, as defined in the ICPD Programme of Action and the Key Actions for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, has not been achieved. The unfinished business of the ICPD Programme of Action must be realised for girls’ and women’s empowerment, to achieve gender equality and to reach the ambitious SDGs by 2030.
Our world has, in many ways, profoundly changed over the last 25 years. Many new issues are influencing the field of population and development, including climate change, growing inequalities and exclusion within and between countries, migration, the youth bulge and the prospects of demographic dividends, and increasing demographic diversity.
The Nairobi statement gives hope and provides a global framework for the formulation of government and partner commitments. It makes reference to the importance of the implementation of a number of goals. These include achieving universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights as part of universal health coverage by committing to zero unmet need for family planning information and services, and universal availability of quality, accessible, affordable and safe modern contraceptives; and to zero preventable maternal deaths and maternal morbidities, with attention to avoiding unsafe abortions and obstetric fistula. The statement also refers to the importance of addressing sexual and gender-based violence and harmful practices —in particular, child, early and forced marriages and female genital mutilation—and of mobilising the required financing to finish the ICPD Programme of Action.
With all this in mind, I hope to be reassured that DfID will remain a stand-alone department with a dedicated Cabinet Minister. A dedicated department staffed with experienced development workers is crucial to deliver aid effectively and to ensure the best return on investment for the UK taxpayer. Recent achievements in poverty alleviation and aid effectiveness, and the UK’s leadership in developing and implementing the sustainable development goals, have been made possible, or have been far easier to achieve, with a dedicated and resourced department.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, we have a new Parliament, and the most exciting part of election night 2019 for me was Blyth Valley becoming famous. I have fond memories of Blyth Valley and the neighbouring constituency, Wansbeck, where my grandma and grandad lived in Ashington—and where Labour held on, by the way. There is so much in the gracious Speech that should allow those who may have loaned the Government their votes some cause for optimism.
This time, when I sat listening to the Speech, I genuinely felt as though I heard an echo from the doorsteps, from those we met when we travelled with the seaside towns Select Committee, or those I spend time with when I take my family up north. From business rates to railways, to secure funding for education, I am optimistic that this Government “gets it”.
I want to focus a bit more on the north-east. As this will include education, I refer to my registered interest as a non-exec member of the Ofsted board. First, I return just for a moment to my grandparents. They are no longer with us, but they were loyal Labour voters all their lives. I confess to having felt a tinge of sadness when I texted my mum on election night. This was obviously not at the numerous Conservative victories in the north-east, which I found exciting—we were allowed dissent in my family and I hope we still are —but you cannot grow up in a Labour family without developing respect and even a degree of affection for the Labour Party that they supported.
I have no idea whether my grandparents would have voted Labour this time—some of my family felt they could not—but I know that those decent, hardworking, aspirational people of a former mining community would have been heartbroken by Jeremy Corbyn and the behaviour of Momentum and that they would have called out anti-Semitism just as many brave people within Labour did. So, although it may not be my place, I say this to Opposition Members in this House, who have always treated me with great kindness and in many cases have been generous with their time, their advice and their excellent expertise: I hope they get their party back, for the sake of a healthy democracy, and I genuinely wish them well in the coming leadership elections.
There is much in the gracious Speech where the cross-party expertise within your Lordships’ House will be invaluable, not least the Government’s commitment to finding consensus on social care. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, rightly said, let us just get on with it. I very much look forward to a more productive Parliament than the previous one.
Turning to education, I am relieved that the Government have committed to increasing education funding and to a whole raft of measures to support communities that are sometimes described as “left-behind”. Can we now start to change our language about them? I am glad that this Government are looking to the future. For example, Blyth and its surrounding areas are already a hub of innovation for clean energy and are creating jobs of the future. The Government’s industrial strategy already rightly recognises this, with investment flowing into the renewable energy catapult in Blyth and a whole host of other north-east led initiatives.
We must ensure that we equip people with the skills to flourish in green jobs or on any other route they choose. The general point I want to make is that if we want to rebalance the UK economy, we have to create a sort of virtuous cycle of training and employment for all kinds of skilled, technical and graduate jobs. While we talk endlessly about raising aspiration and achievement, this is any good only if people know that it is actually going to get them somewhere.
Going back to schools, I am sure that the Government appreciate how urgently we need to close the gap between educational outcomes in parts of the north and south. In the north-east there are many outstanding schools from which others around the country could and should learn, but the big picture cannot be avoided on many indicators, in particular the fact that the performance of primary schools is often better on the whole than that of secondaries. One of the things that I worry about almost more than anything in Britain today is that we have proof in our hands that these kids are super-bright—we can see this in all the stats from key stage 1 and 2 results—but then that potential gets lost, and all too often we hear about everything going wrong at secondary level. However, there are a lot of examples to show that this does not have to be the case. It is a solvable problem, and this has to be one of the Government’s top priorities.
I would like to see the Government going beyond legislation and using their convening power. I would like to see Ministers doing more to encourage businesses and start-ups to think more creatively about how to bring work experience to more areas and how to engage with young people through educational institutions and then share best practice. The change of pace in the workplace is so fast now that we cannot think in terms of old-fashioned careers services. I will return to this in future debates because I am running out of time.
In short, I think we have a brilliant chance to bring our country together and, in the Prime Minister’s words, unleash its potential. It has been a really frustrating and difficult time for everyone, but every single one of us now has the opportunity to change that.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, like most Members of your Lordships’ House, I have a life away from here—in my case, as intimated in the register, 300 miles north in Cumbria. Being unable either to campaign or to vote, I spent quite a lot of time thinking about farming, land use and management and their financial and other prospects. All these things are integral to wider rural society and to the economy as a whole. Rather like stout Cortez standing silent on a peak in Darien, I and everyone else engaged in the sector see a vast and empty panorama in front of us. When I speak in the first person, I am speaking as Everyman.
We all know how unpopular the CAP has become and that we are going to leave it. Of course it had its follies, but it was not quite as stupid as those who did not understand it supposed. Doing nothing about all this is not an option. That farmers should not be paid just to farm must be right—that is of course unless farming is itself a public good, in which case the subsidy or support becomes a payment for a public good. The real criticism is that it was either insufficiently targeted or not targeted at all and farming is no longer perceived as a public good. Rather, outputs of farming, land management and other rural activities are identified as such, and should be targeted and supported as appropriate, which modern technology makes increasingly possible and straightforward.
The reality of today’s world is that in a number of ways the state is the purchaser of ecosystem services and the products of natural capital, if not directly then indirectly or as a broker or some other form of intermediary for other parts of society. These outputs are intimately and comprehensively linked to the rest of wider society and contribute huge benefit to it in general and to the economy in particular. They are as much a part of this country’s core infrastructure as rail, the grid or digital connectivity.
For that to be done sensibly, all land use must be done deliberately, as Dieter Helm has pointed out in the context of wilding. Simple abandonment and dereliction, which has been so expensive and disastrous in an urban context, will be the same in a rural one unless, paradoxically, it is managed. As I have said, the moment has now come for the Government to lay out their approach to public ecosystem services and public goods and how it is all going to be paid for. What is certain is that, as across the rest of the economy, if the money is not applied in the right way then the desired outcome will not be achieved. Ebullience or sugary words are no good because they do not pay the bills.
Whatever happens will involve the application of resources, which have to be paid for. The provision of public goods has to be properly rewarded and taxed along with the sector outputs of conventional goods, the market for many of which now seems to be somewhat less than bullish, to ensure that those engaged in such activities generate an acceptable standard of living and can finance reinvestment and generate prosperity in future. No one suggests that government Ministers or workers in the NHS should not get paid. Many in rural Britain earn less than the equivalent of the living wage. Urban Britain often seems too happy to overlook those who work outside towns and that they have families and are real people too. I have a suspicion that for this to be done effectively the amount of money involved may have to increase, not decline, simply because of the extent of what will be required, not least to make up for past failure.
Rural Britain, as opposed to the suburban countryside, shows the self-same characteristics as much of the urban north and Midlands, which are now being prioritised by the Government as it is recognised that they have missed out on much of the national wealth enjoyed by the prosperous parts of the south. I speak as chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership and part of the Northern Powerhouse 11: just as steps are being taken to invigorate the north, so similar measures must be taken for rural England—l’Angleterre profonde—and the rest of the UK, not for the sake of the countryside alone but in the best interests of the nation at large.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I am slightly surprised but delighted to be the third northerner in a row to speak from these Benches, following on from the very affectionate remarks made by my noble friend Lady Wyld and the remarkable experiences in farming and so forth of my noble friend Lord Inglewood. I was born in Preston in Lancashire and I therefore complete the trio. The fact that all three of us are Conservatives shows that the House of Lords is not as behind the times as we sometimes think. We are right there, bang on trend, because of course the main feature of the general election was the extraordinary success of the Conservative Party in winning seats in the north and the Midlands. This does mean that the Prime Minister—I will point this out very firmly to him whenever I see him, although that is not very often—has to deliver to the towns and cities of the north of England and the Midlands. It can be done.
Many of our northern towns, as northerners will attest, have wonderful civic buildings from the time in the 19th and 20th centuries when they produced most of the wealth which we lived on at that time. It now comes from London, but back then it came from the north of England. Anyone who has not seen the Harris Library in Preston or Bolton Town Hall has not really lived—I thank my noble friend from Bolton for nodding. These are wonderful buildings, but the problem is that much of that area has become run-down as a result of the manufacturing rundown and so forth, and now needs help. However, I hope it is not just the civic areas that will be helped by the northern powerhouse but the smaller towns. I therefore particularly welcome the £3.6 billion put behind the towns fund, which will help the smaller communities and towns that need that sort of help.
As we have said throughout this debate, this is also about skills. The fact is that the apprenticeship levy is not working as well as it should. We need more technical education. All these areas are highly relevant to the north and the Midlands. We also need to reconnect. The fact is that we have not connected the regions with London as well as we could have in the past.
I also think that poverty in this country is a particularly urgent question. What has happened to universal credit is not good. It needs urgent attention. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, there is considerable agreement on social care but what is needed, above all, is a big cheque. Therefore, we need to ensure we can afford all this activity. I think we can because, first of all, we can take a more relaxed approach to debt now that the 2008 financial crisis is well behind us. Ten-year yields on UK Treasury bills are down from 3.5% in 2010 to 1.25% today. Therefore, enhanced borrowing, properly presented, is also a possibility.
Like my good noble friend Lord Tugendhat, I think that if we cannot deal with this through a more relaxed approach to debt, we have to consider increasing taxation. I point out to the House that we are a lightly taxed country, relatively speaking, by comparison with our European neighbours. In the UK, tax as a percentage of GDP is 37%; in the Netherlands, it is 40%, in Germany, 41%, in Denmark, 46%, and in France, no less than 48%. I am not suggesting we go the full French—far from it. None the less, a tweak or two on that percentage would not go amiss and can indeed be done. For example, why is the income tax on earned income higher than the tax on capital gains or dividends? It did not happen that way under Mrs Thatcher and, according to Jeremy Corbyn’s analysis, this would raise no less than £14 billion. His analysis may not be arithmetically correct, but there is a lot of dibs there for someone seriously looking to be fairer on taxation.
The Prime Minister said that he was fed up with his slogan of “Get Brexit done”, which dominated the campaign, and has banned it from now on. I suggest two further slogans to him, equally simple and equally powerful: “splash the cash” and “level up”.
Lord Warner (CB)
Follow that, my Lords. I will confine my remarks to a sentence in the Queen’s Speech that really jogged my memory. The sentence was that they—the Government—
“will ensure that the social care system provides everyone with the dignity and security they deserve and that no one who needs care has to sell their home to pay for it.”
These very fine words were remarkably similar to the remit given to the three-person Dilnot commission that I served on, and which was set up in 2010 by the coalition Government. Just to remind the House, we reported in 2011 and the coalition Government, after wide public consultation, passed the Care Act 2014, which enabled the very flexible structure—I emphasise “flexible”—of our proposals to be implemented. At that time the Labour shadow Cabinet had sufficient realists in it, particularly the shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, to be sympathetic to our proposals. So there is on the statute book a solution that had a large measure of cross-party support and which is structured to enable different Governments to be as generous or thrifty to the individual citizen as they please.
Dare I say it to the Prime Minister, but he has an oven-ready solution available to him, if he has the courage and wit to take it off the shelf. But—and there is always a but—the funding situation in adult social care has deteriorated a great deal since the Dilnot commission reported. Work done by the Health Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that restoring service levels for users to 2010-11 levels would require about £8 billion in extra annual investment by 2023-24. I commend that study to the House, for those who want to read it. On top of this, about another £4.5 billion is required before then to deal with increasing service demand pressures from a growing population needing services, and to enable staff pay to be kept in line with NHS pay increases. Whatever long-term solution we come up with, there is a big bill to be paid to stabilise this very creaky system.
This extra money has to start flowing no later than the start of the next financial year, and at a rate much higher than the Government promised in their manifesto. In that document, they promised £1 billion extra for social care in 2020-21, but this is to be shared with the equally hard-pressed children’s social care system. This means that, on present plans, in the next financial year adult social care service levels are likely to be worse than current levels. They certainly will not meet the aspirations of the fine words in the Queen’s Speech. Some of the worst affected areas with inadequate adult social care will be the Conservative Party’s new friends in the north, where the council tax base simply cannot meet the cost of the extra services required, whatever precept the Government choose to permit.
While the Conservative pledge to seek cross-party consensus on a long-term solution is itself praiseworthy, it is worth reminding the Government that they are now the Government for the next five years, with a very large majority in the House of Commons. If they do not come up with a plan quickly, they will deservedly be punished politically. Without such a plan, the staff and providers of publicly funded adult social care will continue their exodus from the sector at an increasingly rapid rate. Just as seriously, the extra money the Government are committing to the NHS will go not on new services but on looking after elderly patients in expensive acute hospitals in those very areas where there are large shortfalls in publicly funded adult social care.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, has done a magnificent demolition job on the shambles of the current adult social care system. It is now time for the Prime Minister to take the oven-ready solution off the shelf.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I welcome Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech. At last we can start to deliver on our promises to this country to honour the referendum, exit the European Union and move on. There is much to do and many issues that have not had the attention they deserve during the past three years, about which we have heard so much from noble Lords in the past three days. I wish to concentrate on issues relating to local government and at this point draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and a member of Wiltshire Council, as declared in the register.
Local government welcomes further devolution and the White Paper due later this year. It will be important however that shire counties, which serve 47% of the population and cover more than 86% of England, have equal access to levers and funding currently afforded to urban metro mayors, this being crucial to the success of the Government’s “levelling-up” agenda. Councils can and should be the building blocks of future devolution deals and any supporting structural and institutional reform. They should have the same opportunities as those enjoyed by the combined mayoral authorities, including the powers for statutory spatial plans, delivery of education and skills funding agencies, responsibility for the shared prosperity fund and powers over bus franchising.
We all welcome the uplift in NHS funding as well as the additional £1 billion a year for social care. More than 65% of county expenditure is now dedicated to that care. Health and social care are two sides of the same coin. I support the Government’s aim to find consensus on reforms and funding for care services. I urge that these discussions begin as soon as possible and that, as the largest social care providers in the country, counties are an integral part of such cross-party discussions.
To assist the levelling-up, I urge the Government to consider reintroducing strategic planning in county areas, allowing authorities to better plan and link housing and jobs with infrastructure, responding to local needs and markets. The reduction in business rates is most welcome in our market towns and on our high streets in particular, but as business rates are an integral part of local government financing, consideration needs to be given to how councils will be compensated for this loss of income.
Local government is appreciative of the settlement for this coming year. The Government have listened to us and have delivered, but we need to see real progress in the fair funding review and consideration of longer-term settlements.
Strategic county authorities are crucial to the delivery of many of this Government’s plans and priorities: on health and social care reform, knife crime, county lines and social mobility—to name a few. It is these authorities which can bring together the public, private and third sectors in a “place” to make a difference.
Finally, I hope that the local government reorganisation agenda is not lost. Both central and local government need seriously to consider whether it is sustainable financially in light of the extra responsibilities for devolved issues to continue with a two-tier system in the majority of our counties. Surely it is now time to move to a new system of local government in these areas. County unitary authorities can be both strategic and local—just look at Cornwall and Wiltshire. They can be efficient and effective, simple to navigate and easily understood by local residents, businesses and partners—just one council. I look forward to future discussions on the opportunities for a new era for local government.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I was really pleased to see in the gracious Speech a focus on enabling individuals to develop their skills and realise their potential. This reminded me of a powerful point made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign that talent is distributed equally but opportunity is not. As he said, and as many other noble Lords have said, we need to level up. To do that, I believe that this one-nation Conservative Government must prioritise promoting equality of opportunity.
The year 2020 is one of momentous legislative anniversaries for equality. I think of parliamentary giants like the late noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Morris of Manchester. Incredibly, the latter’s Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act is 50 this year. My noble friend Lord Hague of Richmond’s ground-breaking Disability Discrimination Act—the DDA—is 25 years old and, of course, the Equality Act turns 10 this year.
How different the world would be for me, for the UK’s 14 million disabled people and, indeed, for those with other protected characteristics—including women and members of the BAME and LGBT communities—had noble Lords not worked together to pass those and related pieces of legislation. What a cause for celebration it is that your Lordships’ House did so.
Yet I am also acutely aware of two things that are not a cause for celebration. First, so much remains to be done to realise the empowering vision of the DDA and the Equality Act so that equality of opportunity becomes a reality for everyone, regardless of their protected characteristic. Secondly, there is a real danger that essential change will not happen unless there is political will on all sides to make it happen.
The need is now. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean indicated in his powerful speech, the demographic pressure on social care is growing exponentially. We need to release resources to fund it. We can do this if we help more people to enter and flourish in employment, reducing reliance on benefits and increasing tax revenues. In short, there is no alternative if we are to make any investment sustainable.
Sadly, the current reality is that, as we enter the third decade of the 21st century, some are still denied the equality of opportunity to make the most of their potential. Take, for example, ethnic minorities, with an employment gap of almost 13%, or disabled people, with a gap of almost 30%. Stonewall has found that 18% of LGBT people were discriminated against while looking for work.
As we have already heard said today, it is time for some radical, fresh thinking to build on the success of big business giants like Paul Polman, the former chief executive of Unilever, who has voiced support for pay gap reporting and led the way in promoting diversity that enriches and rewards employers and employees alike. My workforce information Bill would help to do this. It already has the support of big businesses like EY and Enterprise Holdings, and of people such as my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith, Andy Street, and Matthew Cameron from LGBT Great. My Bill would harness the energy of enterprise to drive equality of opportunity as a competitive advantage for big businesses looking to attract, retain and develop the best from the most diverse talent pool and, most importantly, to grow their turnover.
Big businesses deserve a level playing field to maximise the incentive to make best practice common practice. That means extending mandatory pay gap reporting for big business to other protected characteristics as well. So I close with a plea to the Minister and to your Lordships’ House as a whole: a quarter of a century after the DDA became law, let us make 2020 the year that is remembered for how, together, we struck another powerful blow for equality of opportunity. Supporting the measures contained in my Bill would be a step in the right direction.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, in her very expansive opening remarks the Minister referred to the Government’s agenda including such issues as housing demand, tenancy reform and the Hackitt report. I wish to address the residential development and construction issues that lie behind housing supply, matters affecting conduct and standards in property and construction normally to be expected in a mature democratic society and with which I am professionally involved.
There are some excellent developers, but debate after report after Parliamentary Question have highlighted aspects of housing delivery where monopolistic and bad practices have eroded trust and good governance and are failing basic standards of delivery to society. Long highlighted have been the poor standard of some modern housing construction and dysfunctional and fragmented construction practices. While the tragedy of Grenfell Tower highlighted retrofits and ACM cladding systems, there have been other construction failures. As with ACM systems, while the freeholders, who may themselves be blameless, ponder how they came to be holding such a toxic parcel when the music finally stopped, the occupiers of these same buildings are locked into their leasehold purchases by the uncertainty of indirect liabilities through service charges. The previous Government are to be commended on their creation of a fund to address this, but the problem at the sharp end, in this and analogous situations, has not yet gone away.
Last September, a modern four-storey block of flats in south London burnt down. It should not have done, but modern homes are still being built with such poor workmanship that their overall performance is little better than that of decades earlier. I have visited new housing where the insulation simply got forgotten, where the details of as-built construction were not recorded or where so many changes of management had taken place during construction that there was no continuity of supervision and definitely no one taking responsibility.
Help to Buy has hugely bolstered the profits of many housebuilders, with one reputedly making over £70,000 gross profit on every home it builds. Part of my work is to act for owners of potential housing land. I have several instances of corrupt and sometimes illegal activities aimed at concocting price reductions. Doubtless, the same approach is used against local authorities. Some immensely powerful organisations run rings around strapped planning departments on viability tests, and on site allocations they can secure improbably large developments in remote locations with no natural advantages or synergy with any existing settlement. As a councillor of my acquaintance might have put it, they are committing the new residents to burning massive amounts of fossil fuels just to get to a place of employment. At the same time, they crowd out SME constructors, which cannot compete with the demands of complex planning and infrastructure.
There are some real scams going on. There are escalator ground rents, where year-on-year ground rent increases are an investor’s dream but a homeowner’s nightmare when it comes to selling and no mortgage lender will touch it. I am glad that the Government are acting on this, but what about rent charges? Here, freehold purchasers find themselves committed to funding a management company that has been crafted to take on all sorts of common or uncommon liabilities which the housebuilder could not be bothered to sort out or the local authority would not risk adopting. The implications hide in obscure legal drafting masked by “free” conveyancing and early years funding, but ultimately are hobbled by long-term contracts with management companies interested only in maximum profit. Parallel developer support to local charities and community projects do not cancel out these evils.
Housebuilding is not the only sector at fault. Some seem to think that the rule of law does not apply to them, or that regulatory standards are optional. They believe that legal agreements do not matter, or that compromising on design or performance in use is victimless. Such failings ultimately cheat the community and purchasers for whom a house is their largest ever commitment. They hide behind special purpose vehicles, disinformation, the principle of caveat emptor, obscure process and so-called construction warranties, when in every other walk of life there are end-to-end product and service delivery liabilities. Moreover, the risk of challenge or enforcement is extremely low.
This looks like sharp practice, and it is time the Government went much further in addressing it. Strict product liability across the board with an enforceable code of ethical conduct and insistence on high standards of design, construction and performance are a minimum. This must lead to better corporate social responsibility and result in—one would hope—transactional confidence, transparency and trust, which is the lifeblood of commerce. Government support to the sector is huge, so they can demand better and they need to organise a spring clean.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. It is a huge pleasure to be able to add my congratulations to Her Majesty’s Government on their remarkable election victory. With this victory the voice of the British people has unequivocally been heard and their will made crystal clear, not just to get Brexit done or to build one nation but to tackle the key social challenges of our generation.
One of the main findings of the Legatum Institute’s 48:52—Healing a Divided Britain report, and here I declare an interest, was that voters were concerned that public services and the social fabric of the nation were no longer working for them. In particular, people wanted more from their health and education services and had concerns over housing and employment stability.
These were their top four issues. The test for me of Her Majesty’s gracious Speech was to look at how these issues would be addressed: the four tests. To take health first, the UK prosperity index has charted a marked decrease in our satisfaction with the quality of our healthcare, down 21 places in recent years to 34th globally. The commitment, therefore, to level up our NHS is an important first step in addressing this felt public service gap. Forty new hospitals, 50 million more GP appointments, 50,000 more new and retained nurses and an extra £650 million in NHS funding weekly will help ensure that our healthcare is far more equitable across our most vulnerable communities. This commitment represents a renewed focus and a commitment to drive change.
The second test is education. Educational ability, as we have heard, is spread across our great nation, but opportunity is not. We should be proud of the gains that we have made over the last three years in education, but we need to ensure that we are focused on giving all students equal opportunity to reach their full potential. So the pledge in the Queen’s Speech
“To ensure every child has access to a high-quality education”
by increasing levels of funding per pupil in every school is welcome, as is the announcement of the national skills fund of £3 billion over the course of the Parliament.
Yet although the outcomes and investments are results that our teachers and students should be proud of, some worrying signs arose from the PISA report. On student well-being, only 53% of 15 year-olds across the UK reported that they were satisfied with their lives. Nearly 50% of our young people feel a severe lack of identity and purpose. For a Government who are committed to building one nation, I would welcome hearing from my noble friend the Minister what action they will expect from parents and teachers to ensure that our young people are confident in their identity and future, as the current approach is obviously not working and more of the same will not do.
The third test concerns housing. We are currently facing a housing crisis nationwide, but, as we all know, there is no silver bullet for this issue. However, I welcome the Government’s energy, vision and focus expressed through the commitment to shared ownership, supporting local families on to the housing ladder, improving the rental market, and housebuilding. I welcome the building of a million new homes, but can my noble friend comment on what change of pace, policy and impetus will be deployed? The “million new homes” figure seems familiar now and we really need delivery.
The last test is for job security. Out of the 48:52 report, a clear link emerged between stagnant, low wages and a vote to leave the EU. However, we have an extraordinary record as a nation: on average, 1,000 new jobs have been created each day since 2010, with levels of employment at a remarkable 76%. The election saw a resounding roar from those in tough circumstances and a clear message that they do not want handouts but want to be able to work hard and support their families. The Queen’s Speech lays the foundations for the development of an economy where prosperity can grow through the creation of jobs that are stable, full time and in every corner of our nation.
I welcome Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, the energy and vision with which this Government are setting about the task of building prosperity and levelling up, and their commitment to the creation of opportunity and quality of life. If this becomes reality, we will indeed take great strides towards meeting the four tests of a stronger health and education system, access to housing, and stable, full-time employment, while building the longed-for one nation.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will limit my remarks to just one aspect of the gracious Speech that has not been covered—as the 70th speaker in this debate I say that with some reticence. I will keep my remarks brief, as I am sure noble Lords would like to move on. I speak from the perspective of having chaired the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee for four years, until last summer. I also declare in the context of my remarks that I am a member of the Bank of England’s Enforcement Decision Making Committee, which I should say has no policy function.
The most frequently asked question that I faced in EU capitals during that period was about the UK aspiring to become a sort of “Singapore-on-sea”, sometimes more boldly put as “Singapore-on-steroids”. The fear in the EU was amplified by the fact that the then UK Government seemed to be concerned only about trade in goods—quite perversely—so the thinking was that there must be some design afoot to give the UK’s financial services sector an advantage greater than single market access and loss of passporting. According to my EU interlocutors, this indicated a plan for a sort of bonfire of regulations to steal competitive advantage rather than sticking with the level playing field, which the EU regulators wanted us to do. Singapore-on-sea is a myth, as anyone who knows Singapore will tell you: it is actually a heavily state-controlled and regulated market. The most potent conversation I had about this was in France. It is interesting that France has benefited most from Brexit-related financial business, particularly banking, yet it has been the most reluctant adopter of EU regulations, so that was a paradox.
Where does London stand in comparison, and where will it go? The note on financial services legislation in the Queen’s Speech speaks of two complementary aims: retaining high regulatory standards and making financial services more competitive. The challenge will be to do these, while at the same time seeing lucrative EU-facing business move away. The briefing documents speak in broad terms but make no mention of how the competitiveness objectives will be met. One way to do this would be for Her Majesty’s Treasury and the UK regulators to develop a more coherent strategy, working with the Cabinet Office and the FCO on the UK’s economic diplomacy priorities more effectively. Two other noble Lords from these Benches and I are working on a London School of Economics commission to see how the UK can undertake economic diplomacy to add real value in a post-Brexit world.
In financial services, most regulation as agreed globally through the G20, the Financial Stability Board, Basel and related bodies, where the UK has effectively led. It was chair of the FSB until 2018, and steered through most of the post-crisis global regulation, which is tribute to the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, and his team.
Another area where we have innovated is green finance. I am delighted that the PRA is now moving to stress testing all financial assets held by large banks and insurance companies, to build resilience across a range of these classes. That is another first, I believe. The new governor of the Bank, Andrew Bailey, has also innovated in the fintech sector, which is now being replicated in several other jurisdictions.
On the other hand, the enormous area of digital competition continues to be a low priority in terms of the forthcoming Bill. The previous Chancellor commissioned the Furman review into competitiveness in digital markets, which was published in March 2019, yet we have no indication of when the Government intend to act on its significant recommendations. Its main proposal for a digital markets unit languishes with the Competition and Markets Authority. I wonder whether the Minister, in winding up, can tell us what is holding back progress on the Furman recommendations.
To conclude, the UK’s financial services sector will have its work cut out if it is to deliver for the economy in a post-Brexit environment. I urge the Government to use the financial services Bill to give the sector the tools it needs to continue being successful in serving the whole of the United Kingdom’s economy.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I will speak about mental health.
I am thrilled by the Government’s commitment to put mental health on an equal footing with physical health. However, this has to be about more than just mental health services. First, greater mental health awareness needs to underpin the Government’s approach to all public services. In her eloquent speech, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester reminded us of the early years manifesto and of the importance of both early intervention and understanding the impact of adverse childhood experiences on future relationships, later mental illness or an increased risk of offending.
The Government would do well to take a longer-term public mental health approach to prevention. In their new investment in schools, are they investing enough in the mental health of pupils and teachers, giving them the skills and resources they need both to implement fully the new curriculum in social, emotional and mental health, and to respond to mental health crises?
Other public mental health approaches are ripe for development and we have heard about some today; for example, measures to reduce the risk of harm caused by online abuse or the harm caused by the sensational and negative behavioural norms so often portrayed in our media, both in print and on television. Public interest journalism requires a responsible attitude; I submit that this includes some responsibility for the public’s mental health.
Of course, investment is needed in mental health services too. The gap between mental health and physical health services remains huge. The Government’s estimate is that mental illness represents 23% of the total so-called disease burden but receives only 11% of NHS England’s budget. Some proposals that could make a real difference in the medium term are: doubling medical school intake, particularly attracting candidates who might make good psychiatrists; making it mandatory for all GPs have psychiatry and paediatric training, as recommended by the Royal College of General Practitioners commission on generalism, chaired by my noble friend Lady Finlay; and consulting on the effectiveness of a fourth emergency service to attend mental health crises in the community and provide health-based places of safety.
I welcome the Government’s inclusion of learning disability and autism as clinical priorities in the NHS long-term plan, and their commitment to introduce learning disability and autism training for all healthcare professionals. As a precaution, I have tabled a Bill that would make such training mandatory; it may prove a useful vehicle to progress the Government’s aim of improving the safety of this group and reducing the health inequalities it experiences.
I am also concerned for the safety and well-being of staff in the public services. At the Second Reading of the Health Service Safety Investigations Bill in the last Parliament, I asked:
“If the HSSIB undertakes investigations of the systems failures that result in risks to the safety of patients, could we not include the safety of staff too? After all, the same systems underlie risks to both groups.”—[Official Report, 29/10/19; col. 915.]
Will the Government respond positively to the growing requests for staff safety to be included in this Bill?
I welcome the commitment to produce a national disability strategy, which should make it easier to think about the needs of disabled people early in the preparation of relevant policies rather than considering impact and relevance only later. As always, I will be looking at whether the lives of people with mental illness or learning disabilities, and the lives of autistic people, will be centre stage. I always say that if we can get it right for people with learning disabilities, we can get it right for everyone.
This brings me to social care. The social care crisis has considerable mental health consequences—for the people who need care and support as well as for those providing both formal and informal support. Fixing it requires the effective integration of health and social care. More than half of social care spending in England is on working-age disabled adults; that is, people who need various forms of support and not just personal care, which is more often needed by older adults. They may need help to access healthcare, manage finances, access community events, sustain contact with friends and family, and to gain and stay in employment. These are the cornerstones of good mental health. For example, having a job means more than just a pay packet; it encourages a sense of pride, independence and social contact. One positive action would be for the Government to recommit to making more apprenticeships available for people with learning disabilities and to provide them with more support to gain paid employment as part of the effort to reduce the disability employment gap.
A mental health Bill will be welcome if it truly addresses some of the needs I have sketched out. Could the Minister provide the House with any details of the proposed timescale for such a Bill and for the White Paper on the reform of the Mental Health Act? Currently, people at many life stages can be detained under mental health legislation because the right support is not available in the community to meet their education, communication, care, housing and health needs.
Media coverage and a recent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights have brought the specific issue of how the Mental Health Act is being used to detain people with learning disabilities and autistic people right into the spotlight. I should remind the House that last November, the Department for Health and Social Care asked me to chair an independent oversight panel on this critical issue. I have agreed to do so. We will be looking at the care and future prospects of people with learning disabilities and autism who are currently being detained in segregation and seclusion in in-patient units, and considering how to avoid such admissions as well as the best way to ensure the best therapeutic care for them, their timely discharge and the right skilled support in the community. I look forward to working with Ministers and other noble Lords on these issues.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, as the first of the winders, I hope that the House will not mind if I narrow my remarks, because it has been a long day and I know that people have trains to catch. As I listened to the debate, there was one overwhelming theme that was repeated in speech after speech. It was a focus on public services. I think that the House will agree that the public have the same focus on those services. It is one of the most significant ways in which they will be judging the Government, and they have very high expectations.
The Minister led off those expectations by talking about significant additional spending on public services, but as I listened to comments made all around the House, one had to come to the conclusion that looking only at funding is not enough. The largest commitment of money is obviously to the NHS. It will be on a multiyear basis and it was welcomed over and over again, but, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London pointed out, that amount of money does nothing more than stabilise the NHS. I think that expectations are higher, and I suggest that the Government should think that through.
Additional money will also be made available for schools, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, pointed out, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, in her excellent maiden speech, that money merely restores cuts—and does not even restore them completely. As my noble friend Lord Storey pointed out, at this moment in time we have a bulge of children going through the school system, and we have a dearth of teachers. Surely another look has to be taken at the adequacy of funding for the schools budget.
The most speakers addressing this issue spoke of the need for more money for social care. We listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointing out that £1 billion in new money was pretty inadequate when the need was for £8 billion. Frankly, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, whom I do not normally turn to when it comes to demanding additional money for a public service, absolutely hit the nail on the head—the noble Lord, Lord Horam, pointed out exactly that he did—when he said that the Government would have to write a big cheque to solve this problem.
As I look back on my own Benches—and not only my own Benches—I note that the whole range of public services outside the big three that were the focus of so much discussion, such as local government, policing, prisons, local transport and planning capacity—which, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out, leaves a lot of the housing industry with serious problems—have been cut to the bone. In both the Conservative manifesto and the Queen’s Speech, the austerity in those areas has become embedded. It is not turning around but becoming fixed on a permanent basis.
When we look at issues of welfare and benefits, it once again looks as though austerity is becoming embedded. It is not the beginning of a process of change or the end of austerity for those areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, my good and noble friend Lady Janke, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and others pointed out that the working poor are now a very large percentage of our population. They will not be relieved by a £2 per week reduction in national insurance contributions. I also point out that, while I very much welcome increases to the minimum wage, for the working poor, much of that will be clawed back by an offsetting cut in benefits.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said, the weakness we have in household resilience really reflects some of the fragile circumstances of so many of our fellow citizens. This Government will have to think again to understand whether they have identified the appropriate resources to tackle those fundamental problems.
Part of the Queen’s Speech sets a fiscal rule of having the budget in balance in three years. That is not an unreasonable goal where—here is my caveat—the Government are open to tax increases to make sure that the necessary public spending can happen, but borrowing is kept appropriately contained. But this Government have committed to no increase in income tax, national insurance contributions or VAT, and have made a very tepid decision to keep corporation tax at 19% when they could very comfortably have raised it to 21%, for example, without undermining UK competitiveness at all. I do not join the noble Lord, Lord Flight, in hoping for further tax cuts. I am with the noble Lords, Lord Tugendhat and Lord Horam, in saying that the Government need to be open to the possibility of raising taxes to achieve the fundamental programme that this country needs.
I will make just a couple of comments on business aspects, because this is an economic affairs debate. It was not heavily pursued, I suspect because we have a Budget in a few weeks where those issues will be fundamentally addressed. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, if the economy is not performing, you can basically tear up any of the public spending promises. It is crucial that we have an effectively performing economy.
I totally believe in creating the skills and investing in building the institutional capabilities to realise all the benefits of the fourth industrial revolution and the digital economy—but, frankly, that is incredibly non-controversial. Nobody is going to argue against that strategy; I hope it has oomph and a great deal of success. But if we want to keep people in jobs, we have to hold on to high-volume manufacturing—and that really brings us back to the negotiation with the European Union. The car manufacturers are here as part of an integrated European supply network. The supply chains that spin off them are also dependent on that network, and we have heard nothing to give that reassurance. We may well end up with a zero-tariff regime, but if there is any friction in the form of non-tariff barriers, those costs will make it very difficult to retain that supply chain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, addressed the issue of financial services—an area with which I keep in very close touch. This House will know that the industry has acknowledged spending £4 billion so far to relocate operations to continental Europe; she is quite right. The biggest beneficiary has been France, where the AMF has taken over many of the roles of the SCA, particularly in regulating trading. That £4 billion is the acknowledged amount. The industry is using this coming year to complete major relocations. I have said before in this House that when you look at financial services, the clients are in continental Europe and the capabilities to provide financial services are here. You cannot move the clients, but you can move the capabilities. So the Government must have some strategy to retain that industry.
All we have heard about so far is equivalence, which everyone in this House knows is an inadequate regime; it is highly fragmented, it does not apply to deposit taking or insurance, it frequently requires a major presence in the EU regardless of the other aspects of its agreement, it often does not guarantee market access, and if you take a look at the experience of the Swiss—who have had to become rule takers in order to maintain market access on financial services—there are key issues there. Others have talked about the creative industries and services more generally.
I have one last comment to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, brought up the issue of productivity, and other noble Lords echoed it. It is absolutely fundamental. Frankly, it is appalling that, at this moment in the UK, growth in productivity is at 0.3%. That is terrible. I want to point to this because the country breaks into two sectors. Our medium-sized and small companies are very poor in terms of productivity growth. Our leading and advanced companies are brilliant; they are world beaters. Unfortunately, those are the industries for which it is most attractive to move to continental Europe or to shift their investment bias to continental Europe. So, if we are to tackle the productivity problem, we have to make sure that those companies stay and grow their operations here. That has to be central to all future trade negotiations.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour and privilege to speak at the end of this day’s debate—indeed, this three-day debate—on the gracious Speech. The large list of topics and the large number of speakers proves that we could have done with one more day. I am grateful to my noble friend for his opening address, which covered some of the long list of Bills covered by this debate. I will do my best to be coherent on some of the others. It was a pleasure to be present at the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Blower, who brings a lifetime of public service, education and trade unionism. I for one am very excited that she has joined our Benches and look forward to working with her.
This was a veritable pot-pourri of speeches, some more fragrant than others. Possibly the noble Lord, Lord Bates, wins the prize for the most fragrant. On this side of the House, I felt that I needed to start by joining the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Benjamin, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lord Griffiths in talking about child safety on the internet, because we were delighted to hear the Government renew their pledge to make the UK the safest place in the world to go online. However, I am pretty sure it is in respect of the Government’s pledges about making the internet safer and a better place for children that a number of noble Lords are most keen to see early progress; they have said so. I am not alone in feeling intensely disappointed about what happened with the implementation—or non-implementation—of Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. Those are the provisions which would have allowed this country to become the first in the democratic world to restrict access to online commercial pornographic sites by introducing an age-verification regime, as we have with great success for online gambling. I was particularly pleased to see in one of the background briefing notes that in a review of gambling legislation the Government were going to address loot boxes, for example, which are a modern scandal, deceitfully costing children and their families a great deal of money. Here I pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Gambling Commission and Parent Zone, which have done so much to draw attention to the matter. What is the timescale now for online child safety?
The Queen’s Speech and the Conservative Party manifesto contained a number of announcements on specific areas of public spending, particularly those to do with economic affairs. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that we look in vain for an energy strategy or an industrial strategy, but 14 million people in this country are locked in poverty. That is the context in which we must address the economic affairs of this country, as was extremely well described in terms of regulation and everything else by various noble Lords, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, with her usual expertise in these areas.
I want to talk about the inaction of dealing with the fact that three in four children in poverty have a working parent. Despite the record employment that the Government trumpet at every available opportunity, the proportion of children in poverty with working parents has now reached an all-time high of 72%. Two decades ago, it was barely half that. These changes have very little to do with universal credit, for good or ill, because it is not yet being received by enough people to show up strongly in the figures. But given that the national living wage has increased each year and that employment has risen across the UK, why are so many families getting swept into poverty?
Nothing that I have heard so far in the debate from the Government or in the Queen’s Speech acknowledges that one of the richest nations in the world is so unequal and so failing its children and their future. My noble friend Lord Hain was completely correct in his economic analysis and I will not repeat it, except to say that I would like to know what the Minister thinks is in the Speech that will address those inequalities and that problem, which faces so many millions of our children.
It is true that Brexit has been a huge distraction from domestic problems such as poverty and, to become the compassionate country that we all want the UK to be, we have to address the underlying drivers of poverty in a sustained and strategic way. The Minister needs to explain how these policies will address those issues.
The record so far is not encouraging. There is a crisis of low pay and stagnating wages. The 2019 spending round was a one-off election gimmick, which did little to reverse a decade of austerity. The recent figures by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, for example, show that car sales fell to a six-year low in 2019, with the chief executive stating that Brexit uncertainty remains the biggest threat to the industry—and I could go on. In fact, all these things were so much better explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I am not sure that the revolutionary proposal about responsible capitalism of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will bring us the answer that we need.
I turn to the proposals on housing and building safety. The fire at Grenfell Tower exposed a broken system for fire safety checks and controls, and the Government have been off the pace on almost every front in their response. We need a £1 billion fire safety fund to address these problems. When will that be available?
People who rent from private landlords are at the sharp end of the housing crisis, and the number has risen rapidly since 2010 to more than 11 million people. We need legislation with new rights across the board for private renters—rent controls, open-ended tenancies and binding legal minimum standards. What plans do the Government have to allow tenants to hold rogue landlords to account?
My noble friend Lady Drake wisely made the link between financial resilience and household well-being. Any intention by the Government to support home ownership should be welcomed across the House, but what steps will the Government take to increase housebuilding, particularly in those towns and cities where it is most in demand?
The Government mention English devolution. As they aim for full devolution across England, there will be occasions when communities oppose the powers that they are offered. I would like to know from the Minister quite how they intend to deal with that in their devolution settlement. I would also like some assurance that, when the Government proceed with this, extensive consultation will exist.
I was not going to mention transport because it has been covered, but I will mention buses because most of us catch buses. But they are under threat almost everywhere in the country except London, and there is a good reason for that. I would like to know what the transport policies of the Government will be to address the remedial action our bus services need, particularly in rural areas.
On health and social care, we welcome the emphasis the Government have put on the NHS. We have an NHS funding Bill. We have the health safety investigative Bill, which we have already had the Second Reading of but will probably have it again in the future. We have the medicines and medical devices Bill. We have the long-term plan and proposals about mental health and social care. But, today, the NHS recorded its worst accident and emergency waiting times in England since the current targets began in 2004, so we have a mountain to climb.
I do not remember the last Labour Government feeling the need to pass a law to force themselves to invest in the NHS. I find that a slightly bizarre proposition. I do not understand, if the Government are forcing themselves to invest in the NHS, why they are not doing the same for, for example, education, social care or mental health. I know that some people in the country have problems with the credibility of the Prime Minister and the Government, but I did not think that the Government had the same problems themselves.
The Minister made an extravagant claim about the amount of expenditure being put into the NHS. She claimed that it was the largest since the world began, but the truth is that that much was spent between 2004-05 and 2009-10. I will allow that it is the biggest investment under a Tory Administration in this century.
The point has been made by many noble Lords that the Government are under scrutiny. They are under scrutiny over social care and the National Health Service, and they will have to deliver. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, and my noble friends Lord Hunt, Lord Dubs, Lady Pitkeathley and Lord Bradley mentioned social care and the investment that needs to be made there. I will not repeat all that, but it is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, Carers UK, the LGA and Peers across the House all agree about the need to get social care sorted. I hope the Government have heard that from this debate.
I close by mentioning the work of your Lordships’ House in the coming months and years. We know from the reaction of Conservative-led Governments in the past few years that carrying out our role of scrutiny, revision, examination and testing of legislation has sometimes brought an overreaction—that is the best way I can put this—from Governments who have threatened to do things to us as a consequence of our proposals. I place on record that the Government should expect us to do our job here diligently. They are likely to find this place a fertile ground for seeking amendments and concessions. I urge the Benches opposite not to be cowed or distracted from proper parliamentary scrutiny by the political, administrative and constitutional reforms being floated by this Government already. This starts on Monday, when I hope that the Government and the Benches here honour, for example, my noble friend Lord Dubs’s amendment concerning child refugees, and that this House sticks to its commitment on this. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, at the beginning of this very long debate—rather like a long flight to the Far East—the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, referred to seat belts being fastened. Well, I hope that I have been a good passenger and kept mine firmly fastened, perhaps in case of a bumpy ride. As an airline attendant would expect me to do, I am also keeping it firmly fastened until the plane lands in 20 minutes and reaches the gate.
Secondly, a long letter will be coming to your Lordships answering all the questions that I cannot possibly address today. However, I feel that a separate long letter, perhaps with gold edges, is required for the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Were there 12 questions in his five-minute speech or were there a lot more? I am not sure. On a more serious note, I will be writing on the many questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the workers’ rights Bill.
It is my great privilege to respond on behalf of the Government today, covering the vital work of no fewer than seven departments. It reminds me of those rounds of a Christmas quiz with a variety of themes, but where the questions are set by some of the sharpest minds in our country and where one-word answers from the Minister responding are not generally the norm.
What unites the work of all of those departments are the central aspirations of this Government: to put fairness at the heart of our work, to level up the whole of our United Kingdom and to secure the long-term future of this country for generations to come.
Although I may have been given the parliamentary graveyard shift to conclude these Queen’s Speech debates, it is also an excellent opportunity to set out our ambitious plans for a new decade of prosperity for the UK. My noble friend Lady Blackwood eloquently opened this debate by showing us the way. My noble friend Lord Bates—our new fragrant Peer—reminded us of the need for optimism and belief in ourselves and in our country. As he pointed out, the UK has some impressive statistics to shout about. Let us not talk ourselves down.
Before I continue, I want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, on her excellent maiden speech. She has given us notice that she will have much to contribute to this House on the important subjects of teaching, children’s welfare and teachers’ prospects, including—as I think she mentioned—salaries and recruitment.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he will work for the whole of the country, and fairness in society is a central theme. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said, we are all bound together—one nation.
I turn, first, to housing, and I hope to meet at least one of the tests set by my noble friend Lady Stroud. We are committed to increasing the supply of social housing and we will renew our affordable homes programme. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, we have already made £9 billion available through this to deliver 250,000 new affordable homes.
Secondly, we will continue to boost supply and will further transform planning with our planning White Paper, which I hope will address some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Thirdly, we will help more people to own their own home by introducing discounted first homes for local people. However, that sense of fairness must continue once you own your home. We are committed to banning new leasehold houses and reducing ground rent on new leases to zero. We are also committed to ensuring a fair deal for existing leaseholders by working with the Law Commission to make buying your freehold, or extending your lease, easier, quicker and cheaper.
We will ensure a better deal for renters, too, by removing the threat of no-fault evictions while also ensuring that landlords can regain possession of properties for truly valid reasons. We are driving up standards and professionalism in the sector, and expanding the scope of our database of rogue landlords and property agents. Finally, our new lifetime deposit will ease the burden on tenants when they choose to move.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised the point about energy standards in homes, and this plays nicely into the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about one of the greatest challenges that we face: climate change. These improved standards on energy and homes include energy performance. Since 1 April 2018, landlords in the private rented sector must ensure that their property meets a minimum standard of energy performance, which should help to reduce fuel costs for tenants. Improving home energy efficiency is the most sustainable way to tackle fuel poverty, and an important step towards achieving net zero. Our energy company obligation scheme is currently set at £640 million per year and requires energy companies to upgrade the homes of low-income and vulnerable families.
This leads me neatly on to say that this Government are committed to ensuring that people are also safe in their homes. First, we will reintroduce the Domestic Abuse Bill. The Bill will, for the first time, give local authorities a legal obligation to support victims, survivors and their children, by providing life-saving support in safe accommodation, and helping victims to leave their abusive situation by protecting their security of tenure.
There was a theme of vulnerable children and, indeed, poverty and the protection of children, led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady Benjamin. The Government have invested more than £15 billion since 2011 through the pupil premium, which was mentioned earlier, to support the most disadvantaged pupils. In addition, it was recently announced that up to £165 million has already been made available for the troubled families programme to be extended in 2020-21. This will ensure that more families get access to the vital early support that they need to overcome complex problems such as anti-social behaviour, mental health issues and domestic abuse. Compared to 2010, there are 730,000 fewer children in workless households, which is a record low.
Another theme of the debate was online harms. I want to talk about the White Paper and the importance of protecting people online. This was raised, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Benjamin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. We plan to respond to the consultation in the coming months, which answers a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. The response will reflect our extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. We will outline next steps ahead of legislation. In the coming months, as we have announced, the Government will publish interim codes on online content and activity relating to terrorism and child sexual exploitation.
The second major area is around building safety. Two and a half years since the Grenfell Tower tragedy, it remains our priority to have a building safety system that people can trust will keep them and their loved ones safe. We accept, in full, the principle of the findings of phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that we will take these matters forward urgently, together with recommendations from the Hackitt review, shortly responding to our Building a Safer Future consultation and progressing the Building Safety Bill. Taken together, they will form a central part of our new and enhanced regulatory regime for building safety and construction products—a regime that will also ensure that residents have a stronger voice.
We will also soon introduce the Fire Safety Bill, which puts the scope of the fire safety order beyond doubt by including external walls—including cladding—and the front doors to individual flats in multi-occupied residential blocks. Where primary legislation is not needed in this area, we have lost no time in taking action. This includes: making £600 million available to replace unsafe ACM cladding, with 90% of remediation in the social sector already started or completed; banning combustible materials on the external walls of new high-rise buildings containing flats; and consulting on changes to building regulations to lower the height threshold for sprinklers.
As phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry begins this month, we will continue to support the bereaved and survivors of that tragedy for the long term. As we help those affected to rebuild their lives, the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission, made up of representatives of the bereaved survivors and local residents, will determine a fitting way to remember those lives so tragically lost.
I wish to reflect on the second theme of the gracious Speech: levelling up every part of our United Kingdom. It is an ambitious agenda: to level up power, level up investment and level up opportunity. As we leave the EU, we have a unique chance to give communities power over the decisions that affect their lives. Our devolution White Paper will set out our plan for English devolution, including creating more mayoral combined authorities with genuine power and accountability. We will also level up investment in transport as part of a wider infrastructure revolution, boosting links here in the UK and with trading partners around the world. We have set out details of our £100 billion infrastructure programme, including creating a Midlands rail hub, boosting Northern Powerhouse Rail and restoring vital domestic links. I have taken note of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on HS2, although I cannot enlighten him on any of the timescales that he has asked for at this time.
We will also boost our £22 billion a year aviation industry with our Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill, which also tackles issues with drones. We are also mitigating events that cause real passenger misery, from reforming how we deal with airline insolvency, such as the issues raised over Thomas Cook, to keeping minimum numbers of services running during transport strike action, ensuring that unions can no longer hold the travelling public to ransom.
We are also levelling up on opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, highlighted. He is right that we are going to improve the apprenticeship levy. I just wanted to get that in. Technical and further education will be at the heart of this opportunity push, which is why we have given a £400 million boost to education for 16 to 19 year-olds next year. We have set out plans to deliver 20 new institutes of technology, connecting science and tech students to business and industry.
However, levelling up must also start earlier, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned. He spoke about the importance of early years, as did my noble friend Lady Wyld. We are boosting funding for primary and secondary schools, with a total of £14 billion spread over the next three years, as well as offering an arts premium worth over £100 million to secondary schools, which will fund enriching activities for all pupils. I hope this gives some reassurance to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who are acknowledged champions of the arts in this House.
This Government are determined to level up opportunity so that everyone can fully participate in the life of this country. As raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, our national strategy for disabled people will be critical to this effort, as will modernising the Mental Health Act. Yes, creating parity between those with mental health problems and physical health problems, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is important and on the agenda. Moreover, we will bring forward legislation to ensure that our NHS and patients gain faster access to innovative medicines and world-leading treatments, while maintaining the UK as a destination of choice for manufacturers to bring medicines to market.
I want to reflect on a further aspiration of this Government: to secure the long-term future of this country for generations to come. As my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Leigh of Hurley said, we are in a strong fiscal position. Our day-to-day spending is under control, with near-record low borrowing costs, so we can afford to invest more in growing our economy while keeping control of borrowing and debt, which answers directly a question asked by my noble friend Lord Leigh.
That work to put us on a secure financial footing began a decade ago. Today, just to remind the House, we have 3.7 million more people in work. we have cut borrowing by over four-fifths as a share of GDP, the proportion of low-paid jobs is at a 20-year low and wage growth is outstripping inflation. The gracious Speech sets out how we will build on this strong record to support working families with the cost of living, including increasing the national living wage and the national insurance threshold. Our new Pension Schemes Bill will further support pension saving, setting out plans to give the Pensions Regulator greater powers and a framework for online pensions dashboards.
Another key theme raised during the debate was productivity, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Griffiths, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull, Lady Kramer and Lady Rock, and my noble friends Lord Tugendhat and Lord Flight. Increasing productivity is the best way to boost wages, improve living standards and enhance prosperity. We will continue to invest responsibly, including by creating a new national skills fund and committing to our target of 2.4% of GDP being spent on R&D. The national infrastructure strategy will focus on levelling up and connecting every part of the country, and addressing the critical challenges posed by climate change, building on the UK’s world-leading commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, the creative industries not only make a valuable cultural contribution to the UK, as she would know, but are an important part of our dynamic and diversified economy. As she said, I also understand that my noble friend Lord Duncan has committed to meeting with her to discuss these matters.
Securing our long-term future is the idea behind our record levels of funding for the NHS of £33.9 billion by 2023-24, which will be enshrined in law. It is a figure that has received input from clinicians. That responds to the comments from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and their challenges on that number. We will publish draft legislation with proposals to help deliver the goal and ambitions of the NHS long-term plan.
I will say a little more about our manifesto commitments. This plays into questions raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Jolly, and the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Dubs and Lord Kakkar. We are embarking on a long-term programme of investment in our NHS buildings, estates and equipment. This will be the biggest, boldest hospital-building programme in a generation.
We recognise how incredibly hard our NHS staff work, day in day out. We have committed to delivering 50,000 more nurses in our NHS by 2025. We will do this through a combination of investing in and diversifying our training pipeline, and recruiting and retaining more nurses in the NHS. Critically, our upcoming work towards urgent social care reform in England by establishing cross-party consensus and bringing forward the necessary proposals and legislation will help us fix the crisis in social care for the long term. This theme was definitely a major part of this debate, and we are aware that successive Governments have not managed to tackle this, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth pointed out.
I will say a little more about this, as many Peers raised the issue of funding—I will not mention the names. Many Peers asked about the steps taken to ensure that the social care system has the funding it needs. The Government have recognised the pressures that local authorities face on social care. That is why, in 2020-21, we have given local authorities access to over £5.5 billion of dedicated funding across adult’s and children’s social care. This includes providing councils with £1 billion of new grant funding for adult and children’s social care, and we are proposing a 2% council tax precept for adult social care that will enable councils to access a further £500 million.
We remain determined to find a long-term solution to the challenges of social care to ensure that every person is treated with dignity. However, as a good few Peers have mentioned, the number of reports published in recent years suggesting different approaches to reform demonstrate the lack of consensus across the political parties to ensure that the reforms we progress are viable into the future.
I have listened carefully to so many of the comments raised by noble Lords and have also had words on the Front Bench with my noble friend Lady Blackwood. She has pledged to take all the comments raised today back to my right honourable friend Matt Hancock in the other place. I hope there is a head of steam on making sure that strong views are presented.
Securing our long-term future is also behind our ambitions to support our high streets by reducing the burden of business rates; publishing a draft national security and investment Bill, to strengthen the Government’s powers to investigate and intervene in business transactions, such as takeovers and mergers, to protect our national security; and ensuring that, after we leave the EU, we both maintain our world-leading financial services regulatory standards and remain open to international markets, and keep the highest standards for workers’ rights, through our employment rights Bill, which I alluded to earlier.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson spoke about responsible capitalism and mooted changes to our audit regime and limited liability. He raised a variety of other matters. These are major issues, also raised by my noble friend Lord Wakeham in regard to changes to strengthen regulation.
Edmund Burke urged us to
“obey … the great law of change … the most powerful law of nature”.
I hope I have convinced your Lordships today that change is surely coming. At the dawn of our new decade, we have a chance to think anew about the great challenges of our time. The gracious Speech does exactly that, laying out a bold and positive vision for the future, one that will improve opportunities for countless people in the years and decades ahead.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Thursday 9th January 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 8 January 2020 - (8 Jan 2020)