House of Commons
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 years, 2 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, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Robin Walker)
We have now left the EU with a good deal. Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK customs territory and will be able to participate in our free trade deals. The Prime Minister negotiated hard to ensure that measures are in place that reflect Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. There will be no hard border with Ireland. At the same time, the agreement completely safeguards Northern Ireland’s integral place within the United Kingdom, and the arrangements on rights and consent within the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Wes Streeting
The Prime Minister got the majority he asked for to deliver the Brexit that he wanted, but is it really possible for him to deliver on his promise that there would be no forms and no checks—no barriers of any kind—not just between Great Britain and Northern Ireland but between the north of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?
Alex Cunningham
The Government’s assessment of the economic impact of the withdrawal agreement had little by way of forecasts in terms of Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that this shows the lack of regard that the Government have shown to Northern Ireland throughout the Brexit process?
Mr Walker
The Government have put Northern Ireland absolutely at the centre of this process. That is reflected in the nature of the protocol that is agreed as part of the withdrawal agreement and legislated for through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020. But of course the end result will depend on the free trade agreement negotiated between the UK and the EU, and it is too early at this stage to speculate on the details of that. Northern Ireland does enjoy special protections in this process as a result of the protocol.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Minister was very careful not to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) as to whether there will be checks on goods travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The First Minister is clear that there will be. The EU negotiator, Michel Barnier, is clear that there will be. Many people in industry and commerce in Northern Ireland believe that there will be. Does the Minister agree that there will be checks, or does he say that there will not be checks, on goods going from GB to Northern Ireland?
Mr Walker
The Prime Minister has been clear. Beyond our obligations under international law, there will be no changes for movements of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When discussing the protocol with the EU, the UK will be ambitious on how flexible we can make this system. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK’s customs territory.
Tony Lloyd
The Minister is of course right that the Prime Minister has been crystal clear. The very simple question for the Minister is this: is the Prime Minister right or wrong?
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
One of the ways of consolidating the benefits of leaving the EU would be to make Northern Ireland the most attractive part of the UK to trade. When I was Secretary of State, we had an all-party campaign that had the support of all the business community. Thanks to the tremendous efforts of my successor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the Executive now have the power to reduce corporation tax. Some Members of the Executive are a bit gloomy about this. What steps are the Government taking to encourage Members of the Executive to take this amazing power to match corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point—of course, he speaks with considerable experience in this area. It is right that we agreed, as part of previous agreements, that the Executive should have that power. If Ministers from the Executive wish to use it, we stand ready to engage with them, as long as they can show that the finances of the Northern Ireland Executive will be sustainable on the basis of any move in corporation tax.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the special status that Northern Ireland has, now that we have left the European Union, means that there is a bright new future for all the people in Northern Ireland, and that that future should be embraced, not greeted with the doom and gloom from Labour?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. What I see when I visit businesses in Northern Ireland is a determination to deliver for the economy to make sure that people in Northern Ireland enjoy the benefits both of being part of a global and outward-looking UK and of getting the best relationship with our European neighbours. That is an endeavour on which we must all now work together.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Julian Smith)
The UK Government are providing the restored Executive with a £2 billion financial package that delivers for the people of Northern Ireland and supports delivery of the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement. This financial commitment represents the biggest injection of new money in a Northern Ireland talks deal in well over a decade. The £2 billion of extra investment gives the Executive the means to transform the lives of people in Northern Ireland for a generation.
Jim Shannon
In January 2020, when making a statement about the “New Decade, New Approach” deal, the Secretary of State told the House that the financial package was a good start. I love a good start, but I also like good progress. Will he update the House on what progress has been made in building on the good start to ensure investment in better mental health services and dealing with the legacy of the past?
Julian Smith
Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is right. There has been a very good start, and there have been multiple meetings here in Whitehall with joint Ministers. We have had a Joint Ministerial Committee in Cardiff, and yesterday both the First and Deputy First Ministers attended, for the first time ever, a recruitment drive by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We have seen a very positive start, and I hope that that continues.
Ben Bradley
Thank you very much. I thank my right hon. Friend for his previous answer. Will he confirm for the House and for the communities of Northern Ireland that this is the most generous package of its kind that has ever been allocated to Northern Ireland through a process like this?
Julian Smith
Indeed, my hon. Friend is right. Voters in Northern Ireland realise that this is a good package. There is a Budget coming up in March, and I am sure that if the Executive prioritise their programme of government there will be a positive future for the whole of Northern Ireland.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that all the welcome financial assistance being made available to the new Northern Ireland Executive will be subject to the Barnett formula? Will he also say what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter?
Julian Smith
I think that the hon. Lady knows that this package is a unique package for Northern Ireland, and is not subject to the Barnett consequentials. She also knows that there is a very, very good Secretary of State for Scotland, who enjoys working positively with her and her colleagues.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
There is some discussion about exactly what £2 billion extra means among the parties in Northern Ireland, and it is important that the Government maintain trust with the people of Northern Ireland to honour financial and economic commitments. In the wake of the renewable heat incentive scandal it is important that the Government ensure transparency and value for taxpayers’ money. Can the Secretary of State tell us what investment is required to fund the Bengoa review, and what assessment has been made of savings from delivering an integrated education service?
Julian Smith
The answers are to be found with the Executive. It is up to the devolved Government to look at how best to spend the package. It is up to the parties and the Executive to work through how they deliver on their side of the agreement, which is to transform both the health service and education. It is not for me to come up with those answers, but I look forward to hearing theirs.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Julian Smith)
The security situation in Northern Ireland remains severe.
Robert Largan
In light of the answer that the Secretary of State has given, can he advise the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure a smooth transition and continued security and peace in Northern Ireland when the withdrawal agreement transition period comes to an end on 31 December?
Julian Smith
There are very good discussions with the EU on security matters, and there are very strong bonds with the Irish Government. I remain confident that the security situation that I have just described can be well managed with our current relationships and within the remit of the transition agreement.
Damien Moore
Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the continued presence of dissident organisations in Northern Ireland, and will he say that there is no place in our society for those who peddle hate and division?
Julian Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have to condemn the ongoing activities of dissident republicans. I pay tribute to the police and to our security services for all the work that they do to make sure that Northern Ireland remains safe.
Mr Jayawardena
What about those who have been responsible for security in years gone by? When will the Government put an end to the vexatious claims against our brave armed forces?
Julian Smith
We have said—and the Prime Minister could not be clearer on this—that we will end vexatious claims, for both the police and the armed forces. We look forward to bringing forward legislation in that regard in due course.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome that the Secretary of State just said he is going to end vexatious complaints against police officers. In the light of that, will he commit to meet Mark Lindsay, the chairman of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, and officers from the Retired Police Officers Association, so that they can put to him their grave concerns about the non-criminal charges that it has been suggested should be levelled at former serving brave police officers in Ulster?
Julian Smith
I will, of course, meet those the hon. Gentleman mentioned as soon as possible.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State will know that the Stormont House agreement is the process agreed by all parties, after consultation with victims, on how to address the legacy of the troubles on the basis of truth, justice and reconciliation. Does he agreed that that is the settled process, and is he confident that the Government will stick to it and to the principle that everybody is equal before the law?
Julian Smith
I am confident that we can deliver on the Government’s priority of ending vexatious claims for our armed forces and the police, but I also look forward to working with all parties in Northern Ireland to develop a consensus on how we move forward on the Stormont House agreement.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the support from political parties and community organisations, such as the Gaelic Athletic Association, for the new Police Service of Northern Ireland recruitment campaign? Will he encourage young nationalists to join the police and pursue a noble career and profession? Will he also join me in commending the work of PSNI officers, the Garda Síochána and, indeed, police throughout the whole of these islands?
Julian Smith
It was such a positive event yesterday, when we saw the First Minister and Deputy First Minister attending that recruitment drive. I encourage all young women and men in Northern Ireland who are interested in the police service to join, whatever their background.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Robin Walker)
Northern Ireland is a leading destination for inward investment, with employment at a record high and unemployment at a record low. However, there is more to be done to unleash Northern Ireland’s economic potential. The UK Government are providing significant funding to Northern Ireland, including through a £1 billion Barnett-based investment guarantee and £562 million for city and growth deals that cover the whole of Northern Ireland.
Mr Robertson
When the Minister discusses these matters with the Executive, will he consider discussing—along with corporation tax, which he should raise—the levels of VAT on tourism and air passenger duty? I understand that both have been reduced in the Republic of Ireland.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
We welcome the success of Invest NI and others in attracting investment to Northern Ireland, but it is essential that we continue to have unfettered access to our biggest market, which is Great Britain. Economic growth is dependent on that and we need the Government to honour their commitments to ensure that we continue to have that access in both directions.
Mr Walker
I absolutely recognise the importance of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises. We will honour our commitments and have committed, through the “New Decade, New Approach” deal, to specific legislation on the issue. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman and the other parties on delivering that.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Will the Minister indicate the timescale within which the Government hope to bring forward legislative measures? It is essential that business has the certainty that it needs at this time to take investment decisions.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I thank the House for returning me to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
A strong economy requires access to a skilled, motivated workforce. Clearly, we have to ensure that the skills base in Northern Ireland is supported and grows, but will my hon. Friend assure me that the voice and needs of the Northern Irish economy will be heard loudly in the Home Office as we finesse our immigration policies?
Mr Walker
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his re-election as Chair of the Select Committee. He makes a very important point, which I have also heard loud and clear from Northern Ireland businesses. I think they welcome some of the indications from the Migration Advisory Committee report. Of course, the Northern Ireland Office will ensure that the concerns and interests of Northern Ireland businesses are communicated across Government, including to the Home Office.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Minister is right to say that the Northern Ireland economy has enormous potential, and there is no doubt that restoration of the Executive will unlock a great amount of that potential. Will he also explain the benefits that the Northern Ireland economy will receive from being part of the fifth largest economy in the world—that of the United Kingdom?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend speaks with enormous knowledge of this area. She is absolutely right: Northern Ireland’s economy benefits enormously from its membership of the United Kingdom, and there will be new opportunities for Northern Ireland as we trade more globally and strike new free trade deals around the world.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Julian Smith)
Following the restoration of the institutions, I have of course been in frequent contact with the Chancellor and other Government colleagues to discuss the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement. This agreement, as we heard earlier, is supported by a generous financial package of £2 billion and also comes with strings attached, with reform required in health, education and justice. The new Finance Minister has already been to London to meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and me.
Liz Twist
The “New Decade, New Approach” document was created not by the five parties in Northern Ireland but by the UK and Irish Governments. It has set high expectations among the public in Northern Ireland. Will the Government commit generously to fully funding this agreement?
Julian Smith
As the hon. Lady knows, this agreement has already delivered an end to the nurses’ strike in Northern Ireland. Having sat through hours of negotiation and discussion, I say to her that it was always clear that the parties had to prioritise what they wanted from Government. They are about to do that, and I look forward to hearing their plans in due course.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Julian Smith)
The “New Decade, New Approach” deal has restored decision making to locally accountable representatives in Northern Ireland and guarantees the Good Friday agreement. It has ended three years of stasis at Stormont and is already having a beneficial effect on Northern Ireland’s citizens.
Rob Roberts
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Conservative Government have demonstrated their commitment to strong devolved government and funding for all of our nations within this United Kingdom?
Julian Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have delivered in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and we are delivering on our commitments to the Union.
John Lamont
Over the past few years, this House has made a number of important decisions on very important devolved areas of government in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that locally elected politicians in Northern Ireland are best placed to make those local decisions?
Julian Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Ensuring that the Good Friday institutions are retained and enhanced was an absolute priority of the UK Government, and Northern Ireland is best served by the power-sharing agreement that is in place.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
A stable Government needs confidence in the community. A Northern Ireland Minister was mentioned in a recent programme on the horrific murder of Paul Quinn. If that Minister— Mr Conor Murphy—has any information relating to that incident, he should make it known to both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda.
Julian Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend. I condemn wholeheartedly that horrendous murder. As with any crime, anyone with information should come forward immediately.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Will the Secretary of State clarify his earlier answer in relation to the Stormont House agreement? He did not refer to it in detail but talked in generalities. A commitment was made recently in “New Decade, New Approach” and it was Government policy back in 2015. Is it still Government policy to fully deliver on Stormont House?
Julian Smith
What I have said is that we are going to deliver on the commitment of ending vexatious claims against our armed forces and police officers. I have also said that I will discuss with all Northern Ireland parties how we will deliver on all aspects of the “New Decade, New Approach” document.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Following on from that answer, can the Secretary of State confirm that the specific assurances given on Armistice Day last year about the ending of repeat investigations in the absence of compelling new evidence is entirely compatible with the restoration of devolved government and all that that entails?
Julian Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work in this area. I was reading his Defence Committee’s 2017 report again at the weekend. I confirm that we can deliver on the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s priority of ending vexatious claims against our armed forces and the police, and we can deliver for victims and survivors in Northern Ireland.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Robin Walker)
The deal makes clear that Northern Ireland is in, and remains part of, the UK customs territory. It allows the UK to ensure unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The arrangements that we introduce will reflect this.
Wendy Chamberlain
The Minister talks about unfettered access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, but according to a Treasury document leaked during the election campaign, firms will have to complete exit summary declarations—at a minimum—so I ask him again: will firms have to complete customs declarations for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, and if I ask that again in a future questions session, will he give the same answer?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Robin Walker)
The deal implemented in domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 means that we have left the EU as one United Kingdom. The protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland guarantees Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK. This Government will never be neutral in expressing our support for the Union and our steadfast belief that Northern Ireland’s best interests are served within a strong United Kingdom.
Mr Carmichael
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told us yesterday that we do not need a deal with the European Union. If he is right, what will that mean for the future of Northern Ireland in the Union?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Robin Walker)
As I stated earlier, the deal makes it crystal clear that Northern Ireland is in, and remains part of, the UK’s customs territory. It allows the UK to ensure unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The arrangements we introduce will reflect this. As Great Britain and Northern Ireland are in the same customs territory, no tariffs will be due on goods coming from Great Britain and staying in Northern Ireland.
Kerry McCarthy
The European Commission released documents showing that EU import formalities on goods imported from the EU, such as customs declarations, would end up taking place in Belfast. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister is struggling to hear what I am saying. Does he not think that the best way of ensuring that there are no barriers to trade would be to remain in the customs union?
Mr Walker
As the hon. Lady will recognise, there are specific arrangements in the protocol that protect Northern Ireland’s position with regard to trade with both Ireland and the United Kingdom. It is in the UK’s gift—and we will deliver on our commitments—to ensure that Northern Ireland has unfettered access to whole of the UK internal market.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Julian Smith)
Here we go again from the SNP, but here we go again with the answer. As there has been no increase in UK Government departmental spending in England, there are no Barnett consequentials. Like previous Northern Ireland support packages, this funding addresses unique challenges, as was the case with city deals and support for farmers in Scotland and Wales.
Chris Stephens
We welcome the return of the new Executive and new moneys for Northern Ireland, but given the Prime Minister’s previously stated opposition to the Barnett formula, will the Secretary of State confirm for the record whether the Government still intend to abide by it?
Julian Smith
I can confirm that we absolutely plan to abide by the Barnett formula. That is why, as part of this Government’s commitments, we are levelling up across the nations of the United Kingdom.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will know that farming and fisheries are an important part of our local economy. He mentioned Barnett consequentials for farmers. Can he give specific assurances that farmers and fishermen will be looked after now that we have left the EU?
Julian Smith
I can confirm that we will look after everybody after we leave the EU, but I am also reticent, sitting so close to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making any commitments about the forthcoming Budget.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we start Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, for the first time, the House of Commons is starting a trial scheme to provide a British Sign Language interpretation of Prime Minister’s questions online. A signed version of the session is available live on parliamentlive.tv. Everyone deserves to be able to follow such a key moment in the parliamentary week, and I am committed to making our proceedings as accessible and clear as possible. I want to thank everyone who has worked hard to make this happen.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
The whole House will want to pay tribute to the police and all the emergency services for their brave response to the terrorist incident in Streatham on Sunday. That appalling incident makes plain the case for immediate action, and we will shortly introduce emergency legislation to ensure that we do everything to protect the public.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Dr Wallis
On behalf of my constituents in Bridgend, may I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on delivering on the promise made to the British people that we will leave the European Union? Will he reassure my constituents that, now that we are taking back control of our money, our borders and our laws, every effort will be made to bring jobs and investment to areas such as Bridgend that feel left behind?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. With better education, better infrastructure and high technology, we will unite and level up this country and deliver, as he is doing for the people of Bridgend.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
We were all appalled by the terror attack in Streatham on Sunday, and I want to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the bravery and dedication of the police, security services and all the other emergency response staff for the way in which they dealt with a terrifying and terrible situation.
Last Friday, this country left the European Union. Britain’s place in the world is at a crossroads, and while there are different views across the country, we will be holding the Government to account as the negotiations begin. My hope is that we will now truly come together to shape our common future and build an internationalist, diverse and outward-looking country. Indeed, we will get an opportunity to do that when Britain hosts the UN climate change conference, COP26, later this year. Despite the fact that we are at the 11th hour to save the planet, the former Tory Minister and now ex-president of COP26 Claire O’Neill said that there has been a
“huge lack of leadership and engagement”
from this Government. What on earth did she mean?
The Prime Minister
If we look at what the Government are achieving and already have achieved on climate change, it is quite phenomenal. The right hon. Gentleman will know that last year was the first year on record that renewables produced more of this country’s energy than fossil fuels. He will know that 99% of all the solar panels that have achieved that miracle were installed since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. We are delivering for the people of this country. We are reducing greenhouse gases. All he would produce, I am afraid, is a load of hot air.
Jeremy Corbyn
The problem is, the Government’s own figures show that they are missing the carbon budget —let alone 2050, it will be 2099 before this country meets net zero.
We discovered this morning that two former Conservative leaders have also turned down the job formerly done by Claire O’Neill. It might be third time lucky if we make a joint approach to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—perhaps he would like to take on that job. He is in the Chamber, ready for it.
The Prime Minister’s own former Minister said that we should have “clear actions”, “an agreed plan” and
“a roadmap for the Year of Action”,
but we do not. Why is the Prime Minister failing so spectacularly to measure up to the scale of the climate crisis that this country and this planet are facing?
The Prime Minister
This is beyond satire. This is the first country, the first major economy in the world, to have set a target of being carbon neutral by 2050. It is an absolutely fantastic thing. We are leading the world in our ambitions, and we will have a wonderful summit in Glasgow, one of the most fantastic cities in our country, at the end of the year.
Jeremy Corbyn
This country is not meeting its target and it is not due to meet its target, and I think the Prime Minister should recognise that. Even the Paris targets are not enough. The UN says that we have just a decade to change course if we want to avert a climate catastrophe. Let us look at something else his ex-Minister said—that the Prime Minister promised to “lead from the front” and guaranteed there would be “money” and “people”, but these promises are not close to being met. What on earth could she have been talking about?
The Prime Minister
As so often, I am not entirely sure what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about, because if we look at what this Government have actually delivered—if we look at our Conservative policies of backing green tech, of backing innovation, of supporting a dynamic market economy, which is the solution to these problems—we have cut CO2 emissions in this country since 2010, on 1990 levels, by 42%. That is an astonishing achievement, and at the same time, the economy has grown by 73%, thanks to free-market, dynamic, one nation Conservativism. That is our approach. What is his?
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister’s former Minister said: “My advice to”—[Interruption.] Well, Government Members may not like it, but I am going to read it:
“My advice to anybody to whom Boris is making promises—whether it is voters, world leaders, ministers, employees or…family members—is to get it in writing, get a lawyer to look at it and make sure the money is in the bank.”
Not my words—hers. The Prime Minister’s failure in government means this country will not meet its net zero target until 2099. This Government have banned offshore wind, and this Government are funding billions on fossil fuel projects abroad. Is this what his ex-Minister means by the “absence of leadership”?
The Prime Minister
I think the grotesque failure of the Leader of the Opposition to understand what is happening in this country’s economy, let alone in the fight against climate change, is quite mind-boggling. I can inform him today not just that this country is leading in producing the technology to generate offshore, but that the north-east of this country leads the world in producing and designing those fantastic turbines. It is because of that technological innovation that we are able massively to expand our renewables. I can tell him —I think he may know this—that in 1990 this country was 70% dependent on coal power. And, by the way, he would want to reopen the coalmines. Today, we are down to 3%, and by 2024 it will be zero. That is our plan. What is his?
Jeremy Corbyn
It was the Labour party that proposed the climate change emergency motion to this House on 1 May. The Prime Minister is quoting things that happened in 1990 and afterwards. During that time, of course, he was a climate sceptic who did not say anything about this at all.
Poor leadership is nothing new to this Prime Minister. When he was Foreign Secretary, he cut the number of climate attachés across the world by 60% in our embassies, and reportedly said to his staff, “You’re not going to spill this all out to the media, are you?” Considering his monumental failure in advance of COP26, is it not really just a continuation of his climate change denial statements that he was regularly making up until 2015?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. This Government are delivering a fantastic agenda in tackling climate change; we lead the world in going for a zero-carbon approach. His own approach is utterly unclear and has indeed been condemned by the GMB as a disaster for the UK economy. He would confiscate people’s cars and prevent them from having foreign holidays. We have a plan that will allow the UK economy to continue to grow and create jobs and that will tackle climate change.
Jeremy Corbyn
I really do admire the Prime Minister’s very vivid imagination, but unfortunately his vivid imagination seems to have taken over from his memory, because he might recall saying that climate change is a “primitive fear…without foundation”. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh said:
“Any consequence of failure to deliver a climate action plan must fall equally on every country…the cost of our inaction is devastating for every living person”,
but our Prime Minister is failing on the biggest stage on the most important issue of our time. And now his former Minister has described preparations in Whitehall as
“Whitehall knot-tying, infighting and obfuscation, petty political squabbles and black ops briefings”.
No wonder the Prime Minister is shutting newspapers out of No. 10 because he does not like the briefings. When will he face up to the climate emergency and take the action necessary to turn Glasgow into the turning point when this world will stop the levels of pollution and climate change we are having and go forward to a sustainable future? Because his Government’s policies simply do not take us there.
The Prime Minister
This Government are showing world leadership in tackling climate change, and we are going to have a fantastic summit at Glasgow and I look forward to it very much.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the media. Labour finally conducted an inquest into what happened in the general election, and they discovered in the Labour party that it was not the leadership that was at fault, and it was not Brexit; it was the media. They blame the media for it. I do not blame them; I am a journalist—I love journalism. The people of this country do not blame the media; they can see that the media do their best to represent the reality, and the reality is that this is a Government who are getting on with delivering 40 new hospitals and 20,000 more police, tackling climate change, and £30,000 starting salaries for every teacher in the country. It is not about the presentation of the facts, it is about the reality, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot cope with the reality.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I agree passionately with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on all he has done to campaign for the redevelopment of Queen’s Medical Centre and Nottingham City Hospital, and of course I am proud that that money is now flowing through to those wonderful projects.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I add my grateful thanks to the police and emergency services who had to react to the dreadful terrorist incident in Streatham?
In the first few days of Brexit Britain this Prime Minister has sacked an official, taken an isolationist approach to trade and banned the press from a Downing Street briefing; is he intentionally trying to impersonate Donald Trump?
The Prime Minister
I do not think anybody listening to my speech on Monday could have mistaken it for having anything but the most passionate internationalist, globalist, open, outward-looking approach. There is only one party in this country that has “nationalist” in its name; that’s them. They would break up the most successful political partnership of the last 300 years. The right hon. Gentleman and his party should concentrate on the day job and doing a better job for the people of Scotland.
Ian Blackford
The Prime Minister does not even know the name of our party. The Prime Minister is on a dangerous trajectory. Is it any wonder that poll after poll shows majority support for Scottish independence? Our former US ambassador has made clear the threat of a Tory-Trump trade deal, warning that drug prices could soar. This would see increased pressure on our frontline services. It is clearer than ever that this Government and this Prime Minister are a threat to our NHS. This afternoon the SNP will present our NHS protection Bill to remove the very real threat of Tory privatisation. Will the Prime Minister commit right now to supporting our legislation?
The Prime Minister
I think it is very odd that the right hon. Gentleman should denounce this country’s wish to have trade deals around the world when, as I understand it, their proposal is to try to re-join the European Union, and have a different currency, whose name they have yet to identify—perhaps they could elucidate that for the House—have a border at Berwick, and just after this country has taken back control of its outstanding marine wealth to hand it back to Brussels. That is their policy. I really think they should concentrate on doing a better job for the people of Scotland.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. That is why we have given another £165 million to extend the troubled families programme this year.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he is making an important point about violent crime. I share his anger. That is why we are putting 20,000 more police on the streets. That is, above all, why we are now tackling the county lines drugs gangs that are behind so much of the rise in violent crime. We will get that crime down.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is certainly right that we are going to be reducing the involvement of Huawei below the 35% market cap, but he is also right in his general vision, which is one I entirely share. What has happened, I am afraid, is a failure of like-minded countries to produce an alternative to the 5G network except that provided by high-risk vendors. That is why we are now doubling the science budget. We will be working with some of the countries he mentions in order to produce exactly that diversification in the market.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point he raises. We do need to improve our bus services across the whole country and that is why we are investing another £250 million immediately to improve bus services. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has many more such investments in the pipeline.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes indeed, and that is why—thanks partly to my hon. Friend’s urgings and his campaign—we have given the combined mayoral authority in Bolton £300 million under the transforming cities deal, plus a share of the £4.2 billion local transport fund. We have given it the tools—let us hope that it follows his urgings and builds the Metrolink that he wants.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
That is exactly why this Government are investing a record £14 billion more in education, raising funding for primary schools to £4,000 per head and £5,000 per head for every secondary school in the country. We can only do that because we are running a strong and dynamic market economy, and that is what we are going to do.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend and his family for everything that they do to encourage ex-offenders into work. I will indeed take up that suggestion with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We cut taxes on working people. We cut national insurance. The Opposition would hike taxes and keep people in welfare.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I think the whole House will understand that the people of this country will think it right to send back foreign national offenders.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
The terrorist incident last week reminds us that the rule of law remains a fundamental foundation of our democratic constitution, but the explosion of judicial review and judicial activism has led to a censoriousness and litigiousness in our society and has distorted questions that ought to remain exclusively political. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that Parliament remains the sovereign and legitimate source of law as we take back control?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer and she is right to stick up for the immense value of our legal system. We must protect judicial review. It is a vital part of our system, but we should also ensure that it is not abused to conduct politics by other means or to create needless delay.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are putting record investment in the NHS—£33.9 billion—and a total of £12 billion is now going into mental healthcare. That is a record sum.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Following on from the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) about Huawei, the Australian agencies analysed the involvement of any element of Huawei in their 5G system and determined that any involvement would lead to a major risk of both sabotage and espionage. Can the Prime Minister give an undertaking that this country will lead the Five Eyes and NATO to create an alternative to Huawei in the next two years?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we will of course do nothing either to endanger our critical national security infra- structure or to prejudice co-operation with Five Eyes partners, as my right hon. Friend has rightly suggested, and we will work to ensure that high-risk vendors cannot dominate our market.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We have instituted NHS visas in order to attract talent from around the world, but I remind the hon. Lady, who I think speaks for a Welsh seat, that that is a devolved matter for the Welsh Labour Government.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The Prime Minister has rightly put keeping our country safe and the NHS at the heart of the Government’s plans. Will he support my campaign for two new GP surgeries in my beautiful market towns of Oakham and Melton, and can I remind him that he is always welcome if he is in search of a pork pie, Rutland Bitter or stilton?
The Prime Minister
That was rude. In response to my hon. Friend, the short answer is yes and yes.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
This is a tragic case, and the hon. Lady is right to raise it. We have allocated £36 million to improve safeguarding and decision making in cases like this, including through the creation of a new independent serious case panel, which will enable us to scrutinise and learn lessons from such tragic cases. We are also improving guidance for staff.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending on behalf of the whole House our sympathy and best wishes to those injured in the Streatham attack last week? I welcome his intention to legislate as a consequence of this attack. Does he agree that Her Majesty’s Government now have no option but to legislate in order to contain the threat of ex-terrorist offenders when they still pose a threat to our country?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Most people in this country would agree that the system of automatic early release of terrorist offenders has run out of road and that it is time to find a way, as we are doing, to make sure they are properly scrutinised by a parole board or an equivalent.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It was this Government and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary who legalised medicinal cannabis, and I undertake that he will certainly be happy to meet the hon. Member’s constituents this afternoon.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Buses are a vital lifeline for residents in Rother Valley, but too often First Bus is letting down the people of South Yorkshire. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government fully back buses as an essential way not only to connect our villages, town and cities across the north, but to unlock the potential of Rother Valley and South Yorkshire?
The Prime Minister
The Government are passionate about buses. I assure my hon. Friend that we will massively improve our bus network, in the Rother Valley above all, and I thank him for his lobbying.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The report will of course be published—as the hon. Gentleman knows full well—when the Intelligence and Security Committee is reconstituted, and I think that his conspiratorial frame of mind is likely to be thoroughly disappointed by the results.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Commuters in Watford are fed up with poor rail services making them late for work in the mornings and late returning home at night to see their families. Does the Prime Minister agree that even new rail franchises that do not deliver cannot assume that they will keep their contracts if they do not sort out those issues as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely, and that is why we are putting £48 billion into improving our railways as part of the infrastructure revolution. We should never forget that that lot over there would renationalise the railways. When railways were nationalised, a quarter of rail users deserted the network; after privatisation, rail use doubled.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Last week we lost a political giant in Seamus Mallon. He was an outstanding parliamentarian, and a seeker of justice for everyone. One injustice that burned in him until his dying day was the murder of Paul Quinn, who was beaten to death by an IRA gang in 2007. They broke every single bone in his body, to the extent that his mother could not place rosary beads in his hands when he was in his coffin. In the aftermath, the now Finance Minister Conor Murphy said that Paul was linked to criminality. That was a lie. Does the Prime Minister agree that Conor Murphy should retract that lie, publicly apologise, and give any information that he has about Paul’s murder to the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I hear the hon. Gentleman, and I think that the whole House will have heard the passion with which he spoke about that injustice. I can tell him that we will implement the Stormont House agreement in such a way as to provide certainty for veterans, and, of course, justice for victims as well.
Points of Order
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Home Office press team told journalists that all the people on a deportation flight to Jamaica were serious criminals. That seems not to have been true, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) said earlier, the Government have not even received the lessons learned report.
The wife of a constituent of mine has said that he is due to be deported in just six days’ time. He was convicted under the now unlawful joint enterprise rule, and was released after two months. His wife fears that this stress will kill him because he has a heart problem. Mr Speaker, how can I get the Home Secretary to take this seriously and to be truthful about the people who are due to be on the deportation flight, so that we can halt it until we establish the true facts of the situation?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. As she knows, it is not a point of order for me personally, but I think that the whole House has sympathy with what she has said, I am sure that Ministers have heard it, and I am sure that someone will look into it as a matter of urgency.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister’s Question Time On 22 January, responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:
“Universal credit has in fact succeeded in getting 200,000 people into jobs.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 294.]
Correspondence that I received yesterday from Sir David Norgrove, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority—a copy of which has now been published on the authority’s website—shows that the Prime Minister’s claim was not correct. The 200,000 figure represents the Department for Work and Pensions’ estimate of the predicted impact on employment once universal credit has been rolled out, rather than the effect so far. Please will you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how the Prime Minister could set the record straight?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of her intention to raise that point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair to police the accuracy of statements in the Chamber, but she has rightly raised the issue, and her opinion has now been put on record. I am sure that there are other ways of raising it if she is still not happy.
Bills Presented
Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mike Amesbury, supported by Emma Hardy, Kevin Hollinrake, Ms Marie Rimmer, Justin Madders, Stephanie Peacock, Grahame Morris, Layla Moran, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Paula Barker, Huw Merriman and Ian Mearns, presented a Bill to make provision for guidance to schools about the costs aspects of school uniform policies.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 10).
Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Darren Jones presented a Bill to make provision for the appointment of the Forensic Science Regulator; to make provision about the Regulator and about the regulation of forensic science; to require the Secretary of State to publish an annual strategy on biometric technologies; to enable the Secretary of State to limit the use of such technologies when that is recommended in the strategy; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed (Bill 11).
Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Anna McMorrin, supported by Jim McMahon, Preet Kaur Gill, Gareth Thomas, Alex Sobel, Rosie Duffield, James Gray, Philip Dunne, Kevin Hollinrake, Alex Chalk, Caroline Lucas and Ben Lake, presented a Bill to enable co-operative and community benefit societies to raise external share capital for the purpose of making environmentally sustainable investment; to make associated provisions about restricting conversion to company status and the distribution of capital on winding-up; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 12).
Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Laura Trott, supported by Alberto Costa, Carolyn Harris, Judith Cummins, Jackie Doyle-Price, Caroline Nokes, Sarah Champion, Mr Kevan Jones, Dr Dan Poulter and Laura Farris, presented a Bill to make provision about the administration to persons under the age of 18 of botulinum toxin and of other substances for cosmetic purposes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 May, and to be printed (Bill 13).
Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Loder presented a Bill to make provision about the mode of trial and maximum penalty for certain offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 14).
National Minimum Wage Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Paula Barker, supported by Mike Amesbury, Mick Whitley, Navendu Mishra, Ian Byrne, Apsana Begum, Kate Osborne, Rachel Hopkins, Beth Winter and Grahame Morris, presented a Bill to make provision about the national minimum wage; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 15).
Sewage (Inland Waters) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Philip Dunne, supported by Theo Clarke, Fay Jones, Caroline Lucas, Scott Mann, Mr Andrew Mitchell, Anne Marie Morris, Stephanie Peacock, Julian Sturdy, Derek Thomas, Sir Charles Walker and Bill Wiggin, presented a Bill to place a duty on water companies to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into rivers and other inland waters; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 16).
Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Charles Walker, on behalf of Dame Cheryl Gillan, presented a Bill to make provision about substance testing in prisons and similar institutions.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 May, and to be printed (Bill 17).
Control of Roadworks Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Mark Francois, supported by Sir David Amess, Craig Mackinlay and Mr Marcus Fysh, presented a Bill to set penalties for overrunning roadworks; to make requirements regarding the duration, timing and coordination of roadworks; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 June, and to be printed (Bill 18).
Mental Health Admissions (Data) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Ben Spencer, supported by Jeremy Hunt, Ms Harriet Harman, Mr Gareth Bacon, Greg Smith and Stephen Timms, presented a Bill to make provision for the collection and publication of statistics on mental health hospital admissions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 October, and to be printed (Bill 19).
British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bim Afolami presented a Bill to provide the British Library Board with a power to borrow money.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 20).
Public Interest Disclosure (Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Philippa Whitford, supported by Peter Grant, Alison Thewliss, Mr Andrew Mitchell, Dr Julian Lewis, Kevin Hollinrake and Wera Hobhouse, presented a Bill to provide protections for whistleblowers; to create offences relating to the treatment of whistleblowers and the handling of whistleblowing cases; to establish an independent body to protect whistleblowers and whistleblowing, in accordance with the public interest; to make provision for that body to set, monitor and enforce standards for the management of whistleblowing cases, to provide disclosure and advice services, to direct whistleblowing investigations and to order redress of detriment suffered by whistleblowers; to repeal the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998; and for connected purposes
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed (Bill 21).
Trade Agreements (Exclusion of National Health Services) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Peter Grant, supported by Dr Philippa Whitford, Paula Barker, Ben Lake, Claire Hanna, Caroline Lucas, Stephen Farry, Neale Hanvey and Joanna Cherry, presented a Bill to exclude requirements relating to National Health Services procurement, delivery or commissioning from international trade agreements; to require the consent of the House of Commons and the devolved legislatures to international trade agreements insofar as they relate to the National Health Services of England, Scotland and Wales and Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 22).
Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Alex Cunningham, supported by Alec Shelbrooke, Chris Stephens, Wayne David, Mike Amesbury, Mike Hill, Bridget Phillipson and Mary Glindon, presented a Bill to prohibit unpaid work experience exceeding four weeks; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 23).
Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Liz Twist, on behalf of Mary Kelly Foy, supported by Liz Twist, Ian Mearns, Kate Osborne, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Mr Virendra Sharma, Claudia Webbe, Ian Byrne, Taiwo Owatemi, Nadia Whittome, Beth Winter and Rachel Hopkins, presented a Bill to impose duties on certain education and training providers in relation to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 24).
Registers of Births and Deaths Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Andrew Mitchell, supported by Kevin Hollinrake, Amanda Solloway, Dame Margaret Hodge, Philip Dunne, Alison McGovern, Alex Chalk, Dr Philippa Whitford, Gary Sambrook, Gillian Keegan and Meg Hillier, presented a Bill to make provision about the keeping and maintenance of registers of births and deaths; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 May, and to be printed (Bill 25).
Meat (Grading and Labelling) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bill Wiggin, supported by Mrs Pauline Latham, Mr Jonathan Lord, James Gray, Ben Lake, Andrew Griffith, Kevin Hollinrake, Mark Pritchard, Andrew Bowie, Mark Menzies, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger and Philip Dunne, presented a Bill to establish a meat grading system incorporating taste and eating quality; to define the term “grass-fed” when used in meat labelling and marketing; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 29 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 26).
NHS 111 Service (Training and Clinical Oversight) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Kate Osamor, supported by Feryal Clark, Taiwo Owatemi, Claudia Webbe, Nadia Whittome, Preet Kaur Gill, Florence Eshalomi, Yasmin Qureshi, Navendu Mishra, Apsana Begum, Bambos Charalambous and Tulip Siddiq, presented a Bill to set training standards for NHS 111 service operators; to require NHS 111 services to be overseen by clinical advisors; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 27).
Third Sector Organisations (Impact and Support) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Simon Fell presented a Bill to establish a body to assess the benefits and effectiveness of third sector organisations and provide support to such organisations; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 28).
Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Patrick Grady, on behalf of Carol Monaghan, supported by Martin Docherty-Hughes, Kenny MacAskill, Alyn Smith, Patricia Gibson, Anne McLaughlin, Angela Crawley, Richard Thomson, Alan Brown, Kirsten Oswald, Dr Philippa Whitford and Patrick Grady, presented a Bill to make provision for granting permission to work to asylum seekers who have waited six months for a decision on their asylum application; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November and to be printed (Bill 29).
Opposition Day
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Government Finance
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 190 / Noes: 329 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
I advise the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that the Government’s proposed changes to local authority funding will dramatically downgrade the importance of deprivation in deciding the distribution of funding to local authorities and will have a devastating effect on local adult social care funding; further notes that proposed changes will cause even greater reductions in foundation funding and children’s social care; and calls on the Government to scrap its Review of Local Authorities’ Relative Needs and Resources and to ensure that local authorities are properly funded through a fairer system that properly takes account of deprivation, need and differing council tax bases.
The state of local government finance is desperate. Our councils are not just at breaking point; many of them are broken. The Government’s so-called fair funding review could be about to make matters worse for some of them.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent start to his speech. How many councils does he think will fall like Northamptonshire County Council, in the next five years?
Andrew Gwynne
Of course that is the worry, because several councils are edging ever closer to the cliff edge, and the number that will drop over that cliff edge is very much dependent on the actions of this Government. If they honour their word and put resources into the local communities that need them most, hopefully we can avoid more Northamptonshires. However, if they continue along the lines that I fear they will, removing resources from the areas with the greatest need but the least ability to raise their own finances, I fear for the future of the local government sector.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend has had a chance to read the Local Governance Research Unit’s excellent annual survey of local government finances, which shows that 10% of councils are worried that their resources will be insufficient to meet their statutory duties. We could reach that clear tipping point unless the Government act.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will touch on that report later in my speech, but it highlights the impact of 10 years of cuts to our local councils and public services at a time of rising demand, particularly for adult social care and children’s services—the expensive people-based services. Given that the councils with greatest social need and the worst health inequalities have a limited tax base to make up for any financial losses, the problem is that the so-called fair funding formula could be what tips them over the edge.
I know that the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), will stand up and pronounce that the finance settlement that we are set to agree next Wednesday shows that he is investing in local services, but he is a lone voice in saying so. That shows just how detached the Government are from the sector that they are here supposedly to represent, because the truth is that since 2015—just five years—local government funding across England has fallen by 32%.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that local government is also fearful of last week’s rumours that the Chancellor will ask Departments to cut another 5% from their budgets?
Andrew Gwynne
That is very worrying, and I hope the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will stand up against it. Those of us who have been a Member of this House for some time will remember that the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Lord Pickles, was only too keen to offer up the maximum cuts from his Department, meaning that local government in England was the part of the public sector that was clobbered the hardest.
It is even worse than the 32% fall over five years because, since the Conservative party entered government in 2010, funding for local councils has been slashed by more than half. We have all seen the consequences of that neglect: the unrepaired roads, the uncollected bins, the cuts to adult learning and the closed children’s centres. Under Conservative leadership, almost a fifth of our libraries have been forced to close because of cuts to funding. One of the previous Labour Government’s greatest achievements, the Sure Start programme, has had its funding slashed in half, forcing as many as 1,000 Sure Start children’s centres to close since 2010.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is worried about the impact on the local authorities he mentioned because they cannot raise as much money through council tax. Does he accept that the shire districts get much less local government funding, so their council tax has to be much higher? It is only right that we consider a fairer funding formula, so that everybody pays a fair amount and receives a fair amount.
Andrew Gwynne
I will come on to the specific point of funding adult social care.
I will happily provide the statistics, but Liverpool, Knowsley, Blackpool, Kingston upon Hull and Middlesbrough are the five most deprived local authorities in England. Since 2010, Blackpool has lost 21% of its funding; Knowsley 25%; Liverpool 23%; Kingston upon Hull 22%; and Middlesbrough 21%. A 5% maximum increase in council tax in each of those local authorities will raise nothing like their loss of grant funding. That is not fair. If the fair funding review is carried out in the way that the Local Government Association suggests it might be, those most deprived communities will see even greater reductions in funding, and we know they will never be able to plug the gap through council tax alone.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking about the cuts to children’s centres. Does he agree that when we hear about rising knife crime, we have to attribute much of that increase to the year-on-year cuts to local government finances, youth services and youth justice? We should focus on investing in children’s provision, and especially in education and work opportunities.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been a Member long enough to remember the last Labour Government introducing Total Place, under which all the responsible agencies—the police, the housing associations, the local authorities and the central Government Departments—worked together to tackle many of these issues in the round. One of the devastating impacts of austerity over the past decade has been the breaking away from that collaboration, that partnership approach, to a situation where each agency tends to cost-shunt. Those agencies are making cuts, so it becomes somebody else’s problem—they push it on to another part of the public sector.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman is making some important points about the situation in England. He may be aware of the fiscal analysis by the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University, which shows that there has been about a £1 billion cut to local government finance in Wales over the past 10 years. I know this is a block grant situation, and that the block grant has been reduced in real terms, but Labour Ministers in Wales have decided to swing the axe at local government.
Andrew Gwynne
As the hon. Gentleman states, the block grant is set by this place, so the Welsh Assembly Government have had to ensure that their spending meets the money granted by Westminster. I have been sent a budget briefing from the Welsh Government about their intentions not only to increase the adult social care budget in the year ahead, but to give a real-terms increase in local government spending. I welcome that overwhelmingly, because Welsh councils, like English councils, need good public services.
Mr Kevan Jones
Durham County Council has lost £224 million in core spending since 2010, and the Government’s direction of travel has been to move the expenditure on to the council tax precept. The problem for County Durham is that more than 50% of its properties are in band A so, irrespective of how much the council tax is put up, it will do nothing to plug the gap left by the reduction in core spending.
Andrew Gwynne
My right hon. Friend is right on that. Councils cannot change their council tax base overnight. If their properties are predominantly in bands A and B, that is the council tax base for that local area. Governments of all political persuasions over the years have always recognised that not every council has the same baseline and the same ability to bring in enough money for basic, decent statutory public services, which is why we had the rate support grant in the 1980s and the revenue support grant from the 1990s onwards. Those things were in recognition of the need for a redistribution of funding to areas that cannot generate enough funding from council tax and business rates alone.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that not all deprivation is found in urban areas, and that places such as Cornwall, which have had a raw deal on central Government funding because of the formula put in place by the Labour party, have for decades received lower levels of funding, despite being some of the poorest parts of England? It is this Government, with the fair funding review, who are going to put that right.
Andrew Gwynne
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the fair funding review. I have never said that deprivation exists only in urban areas. Deprivation is a fundamental part of the formula that exists now, so if there is deprivation in his constituency—and it is more likely that there is—his council will get an element of formula attributed to that deprivation. But to take money from some of the poorest communities in the country in order to give it to the richest communities in the country, which have the ability to raise sufficient locally, is not one nation—it is reverse redistribution, and it is penalising the poorest councils and the poorest communities. He should reflect on what he has said.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Gwynne
I will give way a little later on, because I have been generous so far.
The Tory-led Local Government Association estimates that if we continue on this current course, the funding gap will grow to £8 billion by 2025. That is an £8 billion gap not to rebuild our services after 10 years of cuts, but just to stay still: just to prevent already heavily stretched services from falling apart under the weight of growing demand, rising costs and wage inflation. I reiterate: it is £8 billion more needed just to stay as we are today. So, even if this £8 billion funding was provided, in full, by 2025, it would barely keep the sector’s head above water, allowing councils to continue delivering services at current levels, with no capacity to meet the growing need for services. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister considers that a sustainable way to finance the sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee, has mentioned in an intervention, research published today by the Local Government Information Unit shows that 73% of councils would not agree with Ministers. The Chief Executive of the LGIU has warned:
“Our social care system is no longer on the edge, it’s fallen off the cliff. Our children’s services aren’t at breaking point, they’re broken.”
That has real-life consequences: Age UK estimates that in the past two years alone, 74,000 older people died waiting for care. An average of 81 people a day, equivalent to three every hour, died before they received the care that they needed. This is not a political point; it should shame each and every one of us, on whichever side of this House we sit. Age UK states that 1.4 million older people are not getting the help that they need to carry out essential tasks such as washing themselves, dressing and going to the toilet. That is not just unacceptable; it is appalling. It is a stain on this House—on all of us—and on our country.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Birmingham City Council and the great city of Birmingham have been hit hard by the biggest cuts in local government history—cuts of £700 million—with children’s centres and youth clubs closing, and social care and special needs provision being cut. Does he agree that it is fundamentally wrong, not only that the vulnerable have been hit as hard as they have, but that Birmingham reels from those cuts while the leafy shires of Surrey get yet more?
Andrew Gwynne
I agree with my hon. Friend, who has been a champion for not only local government across the country, but that great city of Birmingham, fighting the devastation that has befallen that great city. On the LGA’s own statistics, a further £48 million in adult social care funding could be removed from Birmingham to add to the devastation that has already hit his city. That is why the fair funding review is so unfair and wrong.
According to the King’s Fund—so this is not coming just from the LGIU—by the end of the next decade the number of older people who need adult social care support is predicted to increase to 4.1 million. That is piling even more cost pressures on our local councils, which is why the LGIU also highlights the increase in financial pressures on children’s services, as adult social care is only one part of the very costly equation that is people-based services—the services that councils, by law and by right, have to provide. Mrs Smith, on any street of any town in any shire, thinks that her council tax increases are going towards ever-reducing bin services, and she sees parks not being maintained and libraries closing. That is because she never sees the impact on adult social care and children’s services.
On children’s services, the LGIU argues that councils are no longer able to shield vulnerable children from the worst of the budgetary pressures that councils are facing. More than one in three councils said their inability to protect vulnerable children was their biggest concern. We know that there are unprecedented demand pressures on children’s services. The number of children in care has hit a 10-year high, but without the funding to support that increase in demand.
From 2009 to 2019, the number of section 47 inquiries—that is, where a local authority believes that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm—has increased by 139%. The Local Government Association warns that children’s services alone are facing a £3.5 billion funding gap by 2025. It is these pressures on people-based services that are pushing many councils towards the cliff edge, and sticking plasters will no longer suffice. The Minister will no doubt say that he gave £1 billion to be shared by adult social care, children’s services and provision for NHS winter pressures. That is not enough.
Kevin Hollinrake
We have discussed this before, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should have cross-party talks on adult social care? One of the Select Committee’s key recommendations was that adult social care funding should be removed entirely from local authority pressures and we should adopt a German-style social insurance system. Does he agree that we should have cross-party discussions and that that should be one of the options on the table?
Andrew Gwynne
As I have said in previous debates, it is incumbent on the Government to come forward with proposals. We are still waiting for the Green Paper promised in the last Parliament and the Parliament before that. The fact of the general election is that the hon. Gentleman’s party is in power and it is incumbent on Ministers to come to this House to explain how they are going to try to resolve this crisis in adult social care.
We will sit down with Ministers. We have our own ideas. We will share ideas with the Government. We will come to some kind of consensus if we can. But of course the history on this is not great; I remember the former Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, having cross-party talks in the dying days of the Labour Government, and it looked as though we were getting agreement with the shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—until the general election came, and then there were posters everywhere saying, “Labour’s death tax” and “Andy Burnham’s death tax”. We have to move away from that and tackle this issue seriously.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Further to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), a few weeks ago I intervened on the shadow Health spokesman, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), to ask whether he would support social insurance. He flatly ruled it out. All we are asking is that if we are going to have cross-party talks, surely all credible options should be on the table.
Andrew Gwynne
I reiterate what I just said: it is for the Conservatives to come forward with their proposals. We will view those in the round with other ideas and see whether we can reach a consensus. I know that there are different views on both sides of the House about a system of insurance, but I am not personally in favour of that. I think that actually the easiest and quickest way to resolve the social care crisis in local government is to make sure that we fund social care through local government.
I want to come on to the issue that could make the situation that I have set out even worse for many of the same local authorities that are already at breaking point. The research from the Local Government Association has exposed the so-called fair funding review for what it really is: a cynical plan that risks leaving more sick and vulnerable people without the care they need. If implemented in the way that the LGA has calculated—and MHCLG apparently told the LGA that its assumptions were along the lines that the Ministry is going—then funding for social care for older people is due to drop in London, the west midlands, the north-east and the north-west, while the south-east and the south-west will see an increase in many areas. For young adults, the largest decreases will be seen in the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire, the east midlands and west midlands, while the south-east and east of England will see some of the largest increases.
This research from the Tory-led LGA has shown that many of the areas that voted for, and put their trust in, the Conservatives for the first time in 2019—the so-called red wall seats—will see some of the largest cuts to social care funding if the plans go ahead in the way that has been outlined. Indeed, three quarters of those red wall constituencies—the seats that gave the Prime Minister his majority—will see millions of pounds of funding diverted from their hard-pressed councils to another part of the country. The LGA Labour group estimates that that is £300 million of funding that will be funnelled from less affluent councils to the more affluent communities.
But even worse than both those factors is the effect that there will be on the most deprived communities. The 10 most deprived local authorities in England will see, on average, a 13% cut, while the wealthiest communities in England will see their budgets grow by 13%. This model was devised back in 2014 at the height of coalition austerity; perhaps it was then politically expedient for the Conservatives to divert funds to leafy Tory shires at the expense of more deprived metropolitan and urban communities. But given that the Prime Minister’s claim that austerity is over, divvying up an ever-shrinking pot differently is so last Parliament—in fact, it is so the last two Parliaments before the last Parliament—and it is certainly no longer politically expedient.
Last week, I wrote a letter, with council leaders, to the red wall Members on the Government Benches, urging them to speak out against a plan that will see cuts to adult social care—one of the largest cost pressures facing all local councils, particularly those in deprived areas. I know from some of the responses that Government Members have given to the press that the calculations from the LGA have been dismissed as speculation. I say to those Members that this analysis was produced by the cross-party LGA and was released officially to support councils as they plan their budgets in the coming years. The analysis that the LGA produced was also informally shared with MHCLG, whose officials privately confirmed that the assumptions in the analysis are sound.
This new research is also consistent with what we already knew. Last year, researchers in Liverpool warned that removing deprivation from the funding formula would see the 20% most deprived areas lose £390 million a year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that removing deprivation from the formula would likely hit councils in inner London and most other urban areas, like Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Bristol and Kingston upon Hull, where deprivation tends to be not just concentrated but over-concentrated. The IFS states that
“proposals by the government to base assessments of councils’ needs for spending on services like homelessness prevention, public transport, waste collection, libraries, and planning on population only would shift funding from councils serving deprived areas to those serving more affluent areas.”
It has also warned that the evidence base to justify this decision is weak.
Mr Jones
It is not just about social care. County Durham, under the formula that is proposed, is likely to lose £39 million in public health funding, whereas Surrey County Council will actually increase its budget by £14 million. I look forward to my new Conservative colleagues in County Durham arguing how that can be fair to County Durham.
Andrew Gwynne
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just about social care, but the LGA has published the fair funding review calculations based on social care. It has also done the calculations for children’s services, for the foundation formula and for the public health grant. I would hazard a guess that they show exactly the same trends. He is absolutely right about County Durham, because the LGA’s analysis shows that the change in funding there since 2015 alone is already 29% down. The change in funding from the fair funding formula would equate to another 6.71% reduction—a £10,327,679 cut—for his constituency. Contrast that with Beaconsfield, for example, where there would be a 17.5% increase—nearly an extra £15 million of funding. That is not fair by any stretch of the imagination.
The issue is really straightforward for the Government. If they do not agree with the analysis, the response is simple: follow up on the promise made by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), at the LGA conference in January and publish the exemplifications of the funding formula so that we can see exactly what the impact is. It really is that simple. If the LGA assumptions are now wrong, show us. Let councils, councillors and Members of this House see the exemplifications; we will then know how fair the fair funding review is to the different parts of England.
My worry is that what we know is just the thin end of the wedge. We know that the five least-deprived local authorities have, on average, seen their budgets grow—the least deprived local authority, Wokingham, saw its budget grow by 18%—but that has been gained at the expense of the most deprived. The top 5% most deprived local authorities face cuts of 22% on average. That is not fair. As I said at the start of my contribution, we know that those same local authorities do not have the same ability to raise income from council tax.
This is a scandal for those who claim to be one nation Conservatives. I genuinely believe that across all political parties not one of us stood for election to come to this place and introduce measures that will make life more difficult not just for the people we represent but for the poorest communities in this country. I like to give the benefit of the doubt even to Members from the Conservative party, so I hope that today Members from all parties will support our motion, or at the very least intensively and strenuously lobby Ministers and take a stand against what could cause misery for their constituents. This will be a major test of Conservative Members’ commitment to their constituents. I am sure that local people will not forgive or forget if they fail to stand up for those who put their trust in them at the election, knowing what we already know.
Finally, I say this to Ministers: be open, be transparent and publish the exemplifications. If they are anything like what the LGA, the LGIU and other local government experts fear, scrap the scheme and go back to the drawing board. A fair funding review that is genuinely fair will have our support.
The Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth (Jake Berry)
I hope you will bear with me a moment, Mr Speaker, because this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak in a debate with you in the Chair as Speaker. As the MP for an adjoining constituency and a fellow Lancastrian, I congratulate you on the amazing start you have made as Speaker. You have restored gravitas to the office of Speaker and you are doing an excellent job.
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the Government’s provisional local government finance settlement, which will deliver the biggest year-on-year real terms increase in councils’ spending power for a decade; recognises the pressures on adult and children’s social care as well as critical local government services, and welcomes the additional £1.5 billion available for social care in 2020-21; notes that the Government has listened to calls for a simpler, up-to-date, evidence based funding formula and has committed to consult on all aspects of the formula review in spring 2020; further welcomes the Government’s ambition to empower communities and level up local powers through a future Devolution White Paper; and welcomes the Government’s progress on this agenda already with the £3.6bn Towns Fund and eight Devolution Deals now agreed.”.
As we entered a new decade, this country voted emphatically for a new Government and a new approach. People discarded the politics of division and deadlock that had beset the previous Parliament for so many years. It was the people who gave a new mandate to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to drive forward his vision for our nation—a vision that will see communities levelled up and opportunity spread equally throughout the country, just as talent is already spread. We will level up every single nation of the United Kingdom and drive forward our Government’s agenda.
What have we heard today from the Labour party and the Opposition spokesman? They have learned nothing from their December drubbing—nothing from the people of Redcar in the north-east, nothing from the people of Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester and nothing from the people of the Don Valley in Yorkshire. Each of those areas, which had been Labour—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not want to talk about the general election, which was the worst Labour performance for a generation, but we have a mandate and I intend to set out what that mandate means, in line with our amendment. Each of those areas, which had been Labour for a generation, rejected the politics that we heard from the Opposition today.
Let us not forget—although I bet he wishes we would—that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) was the general election campaign co-ordinator for the Labour party. Like a Japanese soldier emerging out of the jungle decades after they have lost the battle, he has chosen to return to Labour’s failed policies of division and deadlock. We heard him pit urban areas against rural areas, towns against cities and local government against national Government. It is absolutely clear that only the Conservative party—
Jake Berry
I will give way in a moment.
It is absolutely clear that only the Conservative party has a mandate to unite our nation as we move forward from a decade of recovery to a decade of renewal.
Ms Brown
I am really grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he let me know where the Secretary of State is while we are discussing local government finance? I am grateful to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place, giving us a speech, but I would quite like to hear from the organ grinder what is going to happen with local government finance.
Jake Berry
Well, I am not the organ grinder, as she has pointed out, so I must be the monkey. We have a broad team, and given that a lot of the claims made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish relate directly to the north of England, I think that as the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse I am the most appropriate Minister to respond to this debate.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s mandate extends to God’s own county of Hampshire, where we are very much looking forward to the fair funding review on the grounds that we get to spend £1,650 per person, but we look north to the local authorities that have been enumerated today that have an additional £500 per person. We spend—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sir Desmond, you are usually very good and ask the shortest of questions and make the briefest of interventions. I do not know what has gone wrong but I am sure the Minister will have a grasp of what you were saying.
Jake Berry
As my right hon. Friend knows, the fair funding review is under development, so we are unable to say today whether Hampshire will benefit more than any other area of the country, but his point about having a fair funding review that makes sure that we accurately reflect need throughout the country is absolutely right.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I am confused on that exact point. The new funding formula has not been published, yet the Labour Front-Bench team claim to know exactly what it is going to be. They also claim that the shires are going to benefit, yet Leicestershire and Rutland are the worst funded in the country, so the idea that the shires will do best out of this is most inaccurate. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Jake Berry
I do agree. I wonder how much attention the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish pays to his horoscope, because that prediction that has as much accuracy as the figures he has gone through today. Of course, the LGA itself said—in what was an extraordinary intervention from its chairman—that the figures were based on an old formula. It acknowledged that a new formula was being worked on and that therefore no further predictions could be made from those figures.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; the Opposition spokesman refused seven times.
Gloucester City Council provisionally gets 1.4%, compared with 6.3% for the country as a whole and 3.4% for all second-tier councils. While my right hon. Friend is doing the consultation, will he look closely at whether second-tier councils, particularly city councils with small amounts of space with which to benefit from the new homes bonus, could be given special consideration? Also, could he raise the council tax referendum limit from 2% to 3%? That would help us to raise funds locally.
Jake Berry
I will get on shortly to the issue of council tax referendum limits. We continue to engage with colleagues across our local government family, on both sides of the political divide. If we have not engaged directly with Gloucester yet, I will ensure that we do so as part of our discussions.
Building on the mandate given in December to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I want to set out how we will unite and level up our nation. We will devolve more power, money and influence back to communities across England. We will restore opportunity to our towns through our £3.6 billion towns fund, and we will work with every single local authority to make sure that they are the engines for economic growth in their community. This will be supported by the most generous financial settlement for a decade, while always ensuring that they have the resources to support the most vulnerable in society.
This Government are proudly the father and mother of English devolution to our regions. In the past three years, we have seen the creation of powerful metro Mayors in Liverpool, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Sheffield, Manchester, Newcastle North of Tyne, the West of England, the West Midlands and Tees Valley. Together, those mayoral combined authorities have access to £6.35 billion of investment funding, more than £1 billion of the transforming cities fund, and £1.5 billion of the adult education budget.
We understand, however, that it is not possible to measure how well devolution is working simply by looking at how much money is being received. The real power of devolution comes through putting power back in the hands of local people, and that is why devolution works.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am fully supportive—as we were during the coalition—of the Government’s plans to devolve power to the regions of England and to local authorities. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, though, that if this is about local people making local decisions, they should not be forced to accept a Mayor or, if they are a rural community, a particular urban-type structure in order to get those powers?
Jake Berry
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the recent discussions that have taken place with local authority leaders across Cumbria. I know that he has influence over his own local authorities, and I am heartened by the open-hearted and open-handed way in which they have approached those discussions. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been clear that we should seek mayoral combined authorities across the entirety of the north of England. It is my view that if we want to truly empower communities, a powerful, locally elected, singularly accountable individual is the best way of doing it. I hope that we will shortly be able to progress further devolution deals and discussions across Cumbria.
As I have said, devolution does work. It is already paying dividends, with funding and metro Mayors delivering programmes that local people want. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish might want to listen to this. I am sure that the completion of the A6 relief road to Manchester airport in Greater Manchester has assisted him and his constituents to get around the north-west of England. I know it helps me. It was done by the Labour Mayor for Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham.
In Liverpool, we are supporting new rolling stock on Merseyrail. That is important to me—I went to school on those trains and did not know that 35 years later people would be going to school on the same trains. There is a new train maintenance and technology training academy and the largest rolling stock modernisation facility in the country, creating hundreds of new high-quality, high-skilled jobs, in co-operation and collaboration with Steve Rotheram, the Labour Mayor of Liverpool. In the west midlands, the extraordinary Andy Street is investing £207 million to extend the West Midlands Metro system, re-opening railway lines and stations. That is all being done by metro Mayors.
Of course, those decisions could have been made in Whitehall but, I think as everyone knows, the process would have been slower, they would not necessarily have reflected local priorities, and crucially, picking up on the hon. Gentleman’s recent comments, they would have lacked the local democratic legitimacy of decisions made by single accountable elected individuals. It is precisely because devolution works that we intend to go further and faster. We will unleash the potential of all of our regions, delivering on the priorities of this people’s Government to level up everywhere.
Mr Betts
May I begin by thanking the Minister for his continued support for devolution to the Sheffield city region and south Yorkshire? I think we have just about got there. That is very welcome.
The Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government has in the past commented on the fact that, so far, devolution has been about powers being transferred to mayoral combined authorities in certain areas. Initially, the Government were going to allow 100% business rate retention, which would have meant more money and more powers to local government across the country. Will the Government have another look at that proposal, to see whether all councils should now benefit from devolved powers?
Jake Berry
I am very pleased that we are making such good progress in south Yorkshire. The hon. Gentleman and I, along with many colleagues across the House, welcome that. He is correct to say that mayoral combined authorities have retained their 100% business rate retention for next year. Following the successful pilots, including in areas such as Lancashire—the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) and I have benefited from that—any further business rate retention will be part of the spending review process.
Devolution is particularly pertinent to areas such as south Yorkshire. Every deal so far has been bespoke, but as part of our ambition to level up powers we have written to every existing regional Mayor and asked them to take on new powers so that they can truly drive the ambition for the region. I am delighted to tell the House that one of the first to respond was Ben Houchen, the Mayor for Tees Valley. Not only has he made the Tees fly again, by saving Tees Valley airport; he is also making his economy fly again, by working with the Government on a suite of new powers to unleash the full potential of Teesside and everyone who lives there. In addition, the Government are talking to Cumbria, West Yorkshire, East Riding, Hull, County Durham and Lancashire about their ambitions for change in their areas.
Already, 50% of communities in the north have, to coin a phrase, taken back control through devolution. More areas want to be part of our devolution revolution, and we will ensure that they get that opportunity. Later this year, the Government will publish their devolution White Paper, setting out the Government’s ambition for full devolution across England. Through this White Paper, we will work with everyone in our local government family to ensure that they are truly empowered to be partners in growth.
As this Government unite and level up cities, towns and coastal and rural areas across our country, we acknowledge that our town centres are absolutely at the heart of a growing economy. They are the ground on which local jobs are created and small businesses are nurtured, and they inject billions of pounds into the local economy. That is why, through our £3.6 billion town deal fund, we are directly intervening in local communities. We are working with local areas and councils on more than 200 investment plans that have the potential to transform their economies.
The local Member of Parliament is able to sit on the town deal board in each and every one of our town deal areas. That ensures that Members of Parliament from across this House, whichever party they represent, have the opportunity to be an active part of the conversation in driving local growth in their communities. This is a new approach that I cannot recall previous Governments taking. It is about drawing on the talents of every single Member of this House with a town deal.
I now want to briefly mention the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn)—this will probably ruin his career. He attended his first town board meeting on 23 January. He then approached me just outside the Division Lobby, fizzing with enthusiasm.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I might be wrong but I thought this debate was entitled “Local Government Finance”. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on the Front Bench made a very good speech about finance, but we have heard very little about it from the Minister, who has talked instead about devolution and other things to do with local government. Could I have some advice, please?
Mr Speaker
I think if we look in detail at both speeches, we will see that they are around the finance package and the delivery of different projects. I think there is an interconnection there, but I am sure that if we did drift too far the Minister would come straight back into line. For the moment, I am more than happy.
Jake Berry
I suggest to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that he read page 8 of the Order Paper. The Government’s amendment says that the Government will set out the devolution White Paper and mentions
“the £3.6bn Towns Fund and eight Devolution Deals now agreed.”
He is a very experienced Member of this House, so I am surprised that he has not yet learned to read the Order Paper in the morning.
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has done exactly what he wanted to, Minister, which was to get you riled. That is why his experience is best ignored at times.
Jake Berry
Well, we are having fun.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for St Helens North approached me outside the Division Lobby, fizzing with excitement. He is embedded on his town board, and is putting aside political differences to work closely with this Government, challenging us on our towns fund and ensuring that he can deliver real benefits for his community.
It is only because this Government had the determination to deliver the will of the British people and we have now left the European Union that we can seize the opportunities that lie ahead. We will drive devolution, and level up our communities and nations, while at the same time beginning an era of new investment in public services. Back in 2010 we were forced to make some difficult decisions, but we had inherited the highest deficit in the nation’s history and an economy struggling to recover from the worst recession in 70 years. The public purse was overstretched, the overdraft limit had been reached and the credit card was maxed out. In truth, there was no money left and the economy was on the brink. It is exactly because we took those difficult decisions that we can now bring forward our ambitious plans and aims for local government finance for the months and years ahead. I am determined that local government will receive the resources it needs to support its communities, and continue to innovate and deliver cost-effective services for its residents. This year will see a spending review in which we will move forward with a longer-term settlement, providing the sector with the certainty and confidence it needs to properly plan for the future.
As the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, we also plan to review the formula used to distribute money between local authorities in order to ensure that we can use the resources in the most efficient and effective way. I will say more about that later. However, I briefly want to address why the Government brought forward a one-year funding settlement for local government. In advance of leaving the European Union, it was right that we sought rapidly and urgently to bring stability and certainty to our local government sector. This meant carrying out a one-year spending review at record pace, followed by a post-election local government finance settlement, which we published as soon as we could after the election. Building on that settlement, we now have a series of bold and ambitious plans for a local government finance settlement in the financial year 2020-21 that has been devised in close collaboration with colleagues across the local government sector.
Under these proposals, core spending power for local authorities in England will increase from £46.2 billion to £49.1 billion in 2020-21. This equates to a 6.3% increase in cash terms, or a 4.4% increase in real terms—the largest increase for a decade. The shadow Secretary of State spoke at some length about adult social care, and this Government are steadfast in our commitment to protecting the millions of people who rely upon those essential services. That is why we propose to inject an additional £1 billion of new funding into the social care grant, with £150 million used to equalise the distributional impact of the adult social care precept, and continue the £410 million of the previous year’s allocations. Overall, that means that local authorities will have access to £6 billion across adult and children’s social care next year. However, our commitment to boosting social care and investment spans much further than just that one-year settlement, which is why we pledged to maintain the £1 billion of new funding to the social care grant for the duration of this Parliament, enabling local authorities to continue with long-term planning and driving improvements in the essential core services.
It was deeply irresponsible for the shadow Secretary of State to scaremonger about the figures from the LGA. He knows that those figures are at best an estimate and that they are based on old formulas, including the old area cost adjustment, which we are changing. If we thought it worked, we would not be doing the fairer funding review, so he should think on before he scares some of the most vulnerable people in society with stories about cuts and figures that are not based on the true formula.
The shadow Secretary of State claims to be a great champion of local government, so I will give him the opportunity to intervene on me in a moment. I wonder whether he can recall what he was doing on the evening of 10 February 2016—would he like to intervene? He cannot remember. I can remember. I was in the Aye Lobby with my colleagues, voting for the social care precept, enabling local councils to prioritise social care. He was in the No Lobby, voting against more money going to councils to finance social care. That one measure alone has raised an estimated £7 billion for adult social care since it was introduced. Perhaps when he is lecturing Government Members about support for adult social care, he should recall what he was doing when local authorities and the vulnerable in society needed him; he was pursuing narrow, party political lines and voting against the social care precept.
Andrew Gwynne
If we are throwing accusations about, perhaps the Minister can tell me what the social care funding gap in Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council is this year, and how much the social care levy raises.
Jake Berry
I am not throwing accusations around. I suggest the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard because whatever the funding gap may be, it would have been much bigger if he and his colleagues had got their way. He voted against more funding for social care, and I suggest he remembers that when he is giving out the lectures.
In addition to helping councils address the complexity around the delivery of social care, I recognise that councils in rural communities face some unique challenges. The services they provide are often delivered over a long distance, to disparate communities. That is why we are proposing to continue the rural services delivery grant at £81 million—the highest ever to date. This funding will continue to support residents in rural counties— including Labour-controlled Cumbria, which is a beneficiary of it and which I am sure welcomes the funding, given the challenges it faces around rurality—and people who live far from local services so rely on them being delivered by their council.
We have consulted widely on negative revenue support grant, and have concluded that eliminating negative RSG through business rates income, at a cost of £152.9 million, is the right thing to do. This will deliver on the Government’s long-term commitment to the principle of sustainable growth incentives in the funding settlement.
The new homes bonus is a very important part of how we fund local councils. It rewards councils that do the right thing by building new houses to help tackle our housing crisis. We want to ensure that they continue to be incentivised, which is why we will provide £907 million of new homes bonus allocations this year.
Council tax for the average dwelling went up by 112% under the last Labour Government. That’s right—Labour doubled people’s local council tax. Of course, in Wales they have managed to triple it, but they only doubled it here in England. That is why this Government have made a commitment to give local residents the final say on excessive council tax increases. We are determined, in a way that no Labour Government ever were, to protect the interests of hard-working taxpayers while granting local authorities the flexibility they need to raise resources to meet their needs. For this reason, we propose to continue with the council tax referendum limits.
Jake Berry
If we double the council tax that is paid by local people, then I will start to take lectures from the hon. Gentleman about what we should do. He should remember his own record. He entered Parliament in 2005 and was here when all this was happening; perhaps he would like to recall that.
Taken as a whole, this protection will mean that we see the lowest average council tax rise since 2016, ensuring that taxpayers continue to receive the breadth and quality of services that they enjoy today without, as they had under former Labour Administrations, the imposition of crippling tax hikes and rocketing monthly bills.
As we look towards future settlements, the Government intend to conduct a full multi-year spending review. We are already putting more money in this year, but the spending review will give us the opportunity once again to look at pressures in the round and provide councils with the certainty they need. We have committed to a fundamental review of business rates. As part of that work, we will need to consider carefully the link between the review and retention by local councils. We will of course continue to discuss that and the future direction with our partners in local authorities.
Everyone in this House wants to refresh the way we allocate funding, so that it reflects the most up-to-date needs and resources of local areas. That is key work to achieve the agenda set out by the Prime Minister, because dealing with local government finance is part of levelling up our entire country. We have made good progress with the review of relative needs and resources—or the fair funding review, as it is known—and I want to take this opportunity to thank Members on both sides of the House, some of whom have made constructive contributions to the process. The direction of the review has been welcomed by many, including many in local government, but now we have to deliver a sustainable approach, and we look forward to continuing to work with the whole sector.
The review is a large and complex project. Expectations are high on all sides, which is why we are committed to sharing emerging results with local government as soon as possible. We plan to share significant elements for technical discussions in the coming weeks and months. That will include formulas in the review that represent a majority of local government spending. However, I should remind Members that needs formulas represent only a small aspect of the review. As the LGA pointed out, it is simply not possible to predict the overall outcome for individual local authorities or groups of authorities and therefore the extent to which funding may move between authorities. Of course, we will need to consider the review in the context of the outcome of the planned spending review. We look forward to working with colleagues and sharing those results with the sector and the House shortly. I also look forward to updating the House once we have finalised proposals for our new and exciting settlement for local government. Finally—
Jake Berry
I have more—I can keep going.
I welcome the subject of today’s debate, because it gives us an opportunity to look at the exciting programme that this Government have for devolution, levelling up and supporting our towns. However, it would be remiss of any Member not to take this opportunity to thank everyone who works in local government. I often feel that being a councillor is a thankless task, and I want to ensure that they hear a clear message from this House today that, on a cross-party basis, we thank them and support them in their work. Of course, councils are not just run by locally elected politicians. They have fantastic officers who support the work of the council and local communities. [Interruption.] While the Labour party seems to think it is funny that I want to thank people who work in local authorities for their work, Conservative Members think that it is important to do so.
Jake Berry
I will not; I am concluding.
Let me finish by thanking our councillors and our officers, as well as the Opposition for calling this important debate and giving us an opportunity to discuss the Government’s exciting agenda.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am not putting a time limit on speeches right at the beginning of the debate, but I advise Members to keep an eye on the clock and not to go beyond nine minutes. You do not have to do nine minutes, of course; you can do less. I call Mr Clive Betts.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
This is a very important debate because these services affect millions of our constituents up and down the country. The reality is that local government has had bigger cuts to its funding than any other part of the public sector since 2010, with a 50% cut in Government grant and, even by the Government’s figures, a 25% cut in spending power. No other part of the public sector has had that level of cuts. We know that the biggest cuts have fallen in the poorest areas in the north of the country. It will be interesting to see how the Government respond to the pressures on services in areas such as South Yorkshire and the north-east following the general election; perhaps they have a bigger interest in defending those areas in the future.
Clearly there are massive pressures on social care. We know from the LGiU survey, which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned, that the biggest pressures now identified by councils are on children’s services, followed by services for the elderly. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which I chair, published a number of reports in the last Parliament. We know that the funding gap could be up to £10 billion if it is not addressed by the end of this Parliament.
We also know the impact of the attempt to prioritise social services. Council spending on social services has risen from 45% of total spending to 60% between 2000 and 2020, which has squeezed out spending for all other important services. Spending on road safety, libraries, leisure, buses, housing and environmental services—things that are really important to the vast majority of our constituents—has been cut by 50% or more. As I have said before, there is a challenge to democratic accountability at a local level when, despite what the Minister said, people see their council tax rising every year, yet the services that most families who do not get social care use are being cut as they pay more for them. That is a fundamental challenge, and it has to be addressed; I will come on to how we might do that in a minute.
I turn to the other problems, one of which is council tax. Council tax has not been revalued for 20 years. Its bands are fixed in concrete, and it is becoming increasingly regressive and out of touch. The Select Committee made recommendations in 2019 on how to address that, and I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to accept them. Business rates are, again, determined by central Government, with no say at a local level. Last night, the Government changed the basis for calculating business rates increases from the retail price index to the consumer prices index. Do the Government really think that, in the longer term, business rates growing at 2% as the major funding source for local government can deal with the rising pressures on social care? It simply does not add up, and that message has come not from other Members of this House but from local councils—from the LGA and the County Councils Network. Paul Carter, when he was leader of Kent County Council, made this point powerfully to the Select Committee. We cannot continue to fund social care simply from a business rates increase based on CPI. It just does not add up, and the Government have to address that at some point.
More money has been put in this year, which has been generally welcomed. Sheffield City Council told me that, for the first time in many years, it is not having to make in-year cuts because of the extra money that has come in. It had about £10 million extra for social services, which has taken the immediate pressures off. But looking ahead, the council does not have certainty. It was worried by the report that came out the other day indicating a possible £30 million cut as a result of the fair funding review. I know that there is disagreement, and it depends which analysis we read, but that fair funding review has to recognise the issue of deprivation right across the formulas, including the foundation element. In the end, this is about distributing money according to need and the ability to raise money at a local level, and that has to be reflected in all elements of the fair funding review.
Looking to the future, there seem to me to be some key issues that have to be addressed. First, local government needs the certainty of a three or four-year funding settlement. That was welcomed in the last Parliament, and we need it again. As I have said, we need a fair funding review that is genuinely fair. However, we cannot have fair funding for local government unless the totality of the funding is sufficient for all councils, and that is the reality. All the reports we did on the Select Committee have shown this gap of up to £10 billion, particularly on care services, by the end of the Parliament. This is about making sure that local government as a whole gets a fair deal, not just every individual council.
If we are to sort that out, we have to say, as the joint report of the two Select Committees—the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee—did in the last Parliament, that we need a specific agreement and settlement for social care. We cannot continue to fund social care out of business rates and the council tax. It simply is not going to work.
We recommended a social care premium, and I still stand by that. We went for a citizens’ assembly and set one up—the first time for a Select Committee—and we were told, “We don’t mind paying more, but we want to know that that money goes into social care”. Let us make it clear: we did not recommend a private insurance scheme, where people only get out what they pay in. We recommended something very similar to the German system, where people pay a premium—it could simply be an increase on the national insurance premium, or it could be a completely separate premium that goes to something like a friendly society, which administers the money on behalf of the Government—but, whatever happens, that money has to be separate, accountable and shown to go into social care. Social care would continue to be administered through local councils; this is not the centralisation of the social care system. There would be a move eventually—eventually, as money comes in—to having free personal social care. That was the cross-party recommendation, and I hope we can have cross-party discussions on that basis. I am certainly willing to enter into them, and I am sure that people across the House would do so if we look at this on that basis.
I would say to the Government that we ought to be able to improve local taxation. They should have another look at the whole issue of council tax bands. I know revaluation is a really difficult issue, but they should have a look at some reforms. Business rates retention is desperately complicated. It is so complicated that I think the Government have to separate out the mechanism for the redistribution of money within local government, which is what they are now trying to do through business rates retention, and the incentives to local councils to encourage local economic development. The two are separate, and the Government must do that.
In the end, there is a really big challenge when we come to devolution. I hope the Select Committee will go back to the inquiry on devolution that we started in the last Parliament. I am a passionate believer in more decisions being made at local level not just by councils, but by local communities. The real problem is that this should not just be about transferring powers down; it should be about transferring the ability to raise money and to make decisions at local level. The real difficulty—and it is not something that anyone has an easy solution for—is that that is very difficult to do in this country because of the great inequalities we have here. In Sweden, people have a much greater ability to raise money at local level, and they can do that because the country as a whole is much more equal. The differences in wealth and resources between different parts of Sweden are much less than they are between different parts of this country. That is the challenge: how to devolve powers, but also the ability to raise money in a country where inequality is so great that raising money at local level results in a big difference in the amount that can be raised from any individual tax. I know that is a challenge, and it is a challenge that I hope the Select Committee will now take up with a report on devolution. I hope the Government are prepared to listen and to be much more radical than they have so far indicated they are going to be.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), whose speech was characteristically thoughtful, and I think that, across the House, we all recognise his expertise in this matter. I can start by agreeing with him on the last part of his speech, which is in urging my right hon. Friend the Minister to be ambitious in our devolution agenda. The fair funding review is necessary and right, and I urge the Government to move forward with it. However, the Minister is right, in the wording of the Government amendment, to link this to our ambitious devolution agenda, which gives us an opportunity to break out of the straitjacket that has bedevilled local government funding for many years—throughout my time in the Department and my time as a councillor.
I am delighted to be making my speech with my new constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr Bacon), sitting just in front of me. He had a most distinguished career in local government—in the London boroughs and on the London Assembly. I think his expertise in this field will be very welcome to this House, and I am really pleased to see my friend here.
That comes back to the point: the pressures local government has had to contend with have been real, despite the fact that the sector is staffed by dedicated people at all levels, as the Minister acknowledged, and I very much welcome what he said about that. Historically, it has also been the most efficient part of the public sector, and we need to build on that strength. However, it has suffered, as the Select Committee Chairman pointed out, from the fact that it has, compared with most other countries, a very narrow tax base or revenue base from which to fund itself. I therefore hope that we will be prepared to think outside the box to some degree when we look at devolution.
The devolution of function is really important and the devolution of legal power is important—as my right hon. Friend the Minister will know, that is something my good friend the noble Lord Pickles, I and others sought to do in the Localism Act 2011—but the third bit of the equation is the devolution of resource. If we are going to be serious about devolution, we have to talk in terms of fiscal devolution as well. I commend to the Minister and colleagues the work of the London Finance Commission. It has published two reports, the first of which was in 2013. The commission was established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Mayor of London, and I know from personal experience that the Prime Minister himself is a convinced devolutionist.
I hope that we can look again at some of the sensible and practical recommendations for fiscal devolution in that first report. For example, there is the devolution of stamp duty land tax and perhaps of other property-based taxes. That also reflects another point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. Yes, there are more disparities of resource in the United Kingdom than in other countries, but at the same time there are disparities of costs as well. The cost of running a local authority service in London and the south-east is exceedingly high, and perhaps a measure of fiscal devolution to a regional level would enable greater nuance in the way we approach those matters. It is an important topic, and it seems to me that we need to think that through very carefully.
Among the other specifics I want to touch on is the need to look sensibly at the formula itself. When I was the Minister I think we had 270-odd bits of regression analysis in the formula, and I pay tribute to the officials who grapple with that. However, it is complex and opaque, and we need something that is much more transparent to those who are its recipients. For example, we could look at a couple of practical issues. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister’s commitment to eliminating negative rate support grant. It seemed to me scandalous that a well-run and efficient local authority such as Bromley would, if we had not taken steps, have been penalised by negative RSG. I ask the Minister—I sure he will do this because he looks at all this carefully—to look at the London Borough of Bromley’s submission to the consultation, which set this out in some detail and with real expertise.
Another important area is that at the moment the formula is based almost entirely on a needs versus resource matrix, and there is nothing in the current arrangements that rewards efficiency. If we want to change behaviours in local government for the better, surely we can find some incentive that we can build into the funding mechanisms to reward local authorities that have a track record of being historically efficient and historically low-cost. Bromley is exactly such an authority, but it actually loses out in consequence. As it has been efficient, any reduction made on a simple pro rata basis bears more heavily on it, because there is less slack. We need to bear in mind that, in some cases, historically high spending may be the result of historically high funding, but not necessarily the consequence purely of need or of the efficient use of resource. Therefore, we need a formula that is more nuanced in capturing those distinctions.
I hope we can look seriously at the operation of the area cost adjustment. In my experience, that has proved to be rather arbitrary in a number of areas. We have an artificial distinction in London between inner and outer London boroughs. As many Members of the House will know, that does not reflect the way London has changed. There are now areas of considerable affluence in inner London, but as they are counted as inner London boroughs, they get a more generous rate of funding than outer London boroughs, whereas many of the London suburbs are facing increasing social and economic challenges. Getting rid of that distinction would be good, and moving to a more up-to-date system of calculation would also be valuable. I often wonder whether we should be looking at assessing need on the basis of disposable income and costs once housing costs are taken out of it, because housing costs are a significant distortion across the country and perhaps some element can be put in the formula to look at how we deal with that. Again, that bears heavily on efficient outer-London authorities such as mine.
We could also look at the way that benefits data are handled in this calculation. Should we be looking at benefits data making allowance for the level of take-up, which will vary? Doing it on a flat basis can, again, potentially distort the reality on the ground. That is why taking deprivation levels after housing costs may give us a better and more realistic assessment of disposable income in local authority areas.
I shall make my final point, because I know that there is much more that we need to touch upon. We have always maintained that we would honour the new burdens doctrine, but I am not sure that that has always been possible to achieve in practice over the years. There are still about 1,100 statutory obligations on local authorities and those have grown, sometimes for good reasons of social policy—the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 is one example—but they can, again, bear heavily on some areas, particularly in London, because for a raft of reasons over which local authorities have no control, London is inevitably a magnet for new arrivals, so there will be greater pressure on London boroughs in terms of the costs of housing policy. Something that is more nuanced, which I am sure is achievable given modern data collection, would be welcome and advantageous.
I very much welcome the move back to multi-year settlements, and I hope we can look at having four-year or so settlements going forward. It was necessary to do what we did this year—I think everybody understands that—but let us get back to multi-year settlements to give greater certainty for people.
If we give local authorities more powers, as we did under the Localism Act 2011, can we look at the rules governing the way in which they can approach raising revenue for investment in capital projects? There are a number of restrictions around that at the moment? It would also encourage them to use their powers—also provided under the Localism Act—to take on more commercial activities and to do so in a more commercial manner. The take-up of that has been somewhat patchy thus far, so what can we do to encourage and assist local authorities to do more of that for the benefit of their communities?
So actually there is an ambitious agenda here, and this is an ambitious and important topic. I welcome the opportunity for us to have this debate. With respect to the Opposition, I should say that it is not simply about putting more money into a system, because, at the end of the day, the system is no longer capable of responding to the complex needs and pressures that modern local government must deal with. That is why the Government are right to have this review. They are right to be ambitious and to link it with the broader devolution agenda. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) highlighted what has been happening over the past 10 years, which is that local government as a sector has taken the biggest cuts. Added to that, Departments might have to find another 5%, and no matter what the Minister says in his reply about levelling up and making promises to northern councils, it will be very difficult, because this Government and the coalition Government had a clear policy to move funding from more deprived to more affluent areas.
Interestingly, the Minister said in reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) that he was here because he wanted to make the point that he was the Northern Powerhouse Minister. With one sole exception, the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) has been the only new Conservative northern MP who has sat through this debate. We had a brief interlude from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), who stayed for about 10 minutes, and I did spot briefly the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). If this new army—supposedly—of new Conservative MPs want to argue for their region, they should be doing it in here and they are not setting a very good example. I will work with them to argue why the Government got it wrong on local government finances over the past 10 years.
It is not just me saying that: the National Audit Office and the Centre for Cities have clearly demonstrated that money has moved from northern councils—the more deprived areas—to the more leafy suburbs in the south-east. That has not been done by accident; it has been deliberate design and policy. If the Minister levels up the system and makes it fair, I will fully support that, but that would be very unpopular among some of his colleagues in the south-east.
We have a situation now, after the last 10 years, where County Durham has lost £224 million in grant. Core spending per dwelling in County Durham stands at £1,727, whereas the figure for Surrey is £2,004, so it is clear that deprived areas such as County Durham are getting less core spending, and that has been deliberately designed by this Government.
The cover for that is the so-called “fairer funding formula”. That is complete nonsense, because it is fundamentally flawed in two respects and it is a disguise to use the word “fairer”. It starts from the premise that the needs of every single area and council are the same, when that is clearly not the case; I will give examples later. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East highlighted, it also works on the basis that each council has the ability to raise local finance on an equal basis; I am sorry, but they don’t.
Mr Jones
I will give way in a minute.
They don’t, because, for example, in County Durham over 50% of our properties are in band A, so, no matter how much we put up the council tax, we will not—unlike more affluent areas, with larger numbers of Ds, Cs and even Gs in some cases—be able to bridge the gap that has resulted from the withdrawal of core funding.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful. The right hon. Gentleman seems to imply that somehow shire counties are getting a better deal from central Government in terms of spending allocation than metropolitan areas, but that is absolutely the reverse of the truth. The reality is that the shire counties get less than half as much as the metropolitan areas allocated from central funds, and that is why our council tax is, in some areas, twice as much.
Mr Jones
Yes, but I have to say that in the hon. Gentleman’s area, North Yorkshire, the ability to raise council taxes is a lot better than in County Durham and others. I am not talking about a metropolitan council; I am talking about County Durham. In Surrey—Woking—and other areas in the south, the core spending has not been reduced at all. So the hon. Gentleman should be shouting from the rooftops about the unfairness of the current formula.
The other issue—
Mr Jones
I will give way in a minute; I know the Minister gets very excited when I make speeches.
The other issue is the ability of local councils to raise finance through, for example, the distribution of business rates. To be fair to County Durham, it is trying some ambitious plans for economic development to get business rates up, but Durham’s ability to raise extra funding through business activity is not at all comparable with that of, for example, the City of Westminster.
Jake Berry
I just wonder if I could recommend to the right hon. Gentleman’s reading the Government’s December 2018 fairer funding review consultation, in which we specifically deal with the point he has raised about differing council tax bases. So it is not correct to say that this is not dealt with in the fairer funding review. The relevant paragraph is 3.2.2 on page 50 of the December 2018 consultation document.
Mr Jones
The Minister says that, but then he actually has a situation such as the following one, based on the funding figures put out at the moment—I accept we have not had the final decision. Under the formula for public health funding—and I supported public health funding going back to local councils—County Durham was forecast to lose £19 million, or 35% of its budget, whereas Surrey will increase its budget by £14 million. I am sorry, but that just cannot be right when comparing the two areas in terms of deprivation and health needs. The Minister may say what he likes, but in the past 10 years that has been the direction of travel. If he levels it up and changes it suddenly as Northern Powerhouse Minister, he will have my 100% support, but I doubt whether he will be able to do that. The promises that he and others have made to northern councils are going to be very limited.
On the point about need, there are two areas with which all local councils have been struggling—adult social care and looked-after children. Again, to work on the basis that need for all councils in those areas is the same is to start from the wrong premise. For example, since 2010 demand for children’s social care has increased by £7.2 billion but central Government support has halved. That has pushed demand on to local councils, which have had to make very difficult decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, these services are not optional—they must be provided, by law. If we look at the national figures, in 2010, 54 children per 10,000 of population were in social care. By 2019, that had risen to 65—an increase of 20%. If we look at the figures for the north-east, the figure is 101 children in care per 10,000 of population. In the south-east of England, the figure is 53, and in Surrey there are only 37 children in care per 10,000 of population.
The demand on councils such as County Durham and others in the north-east, and in other urban areas, is far greater than it is on Surrey. Demand for statutory services, which councils have to provide, is going up and they are very costly. At the same time, core funding from the Government is being taken away from some areas and redistributed to areas such as Surrey, which is not just flatlining but receiving an increase in funding. I am sorry, but that just cannot be fair.
I said at the start of my speech that the direction of travel has been pork barrel politics of the worst type, doling out money to people who vote Conservative in certain parts of the country. The problem for the Conservative party is that the pork barrel has got bigger. The big test will be whether the Government can actually spread that around the country and meet all the pledges they have made. I doubt whether they can, because this has not just happened in local government funding. On fire and police, the direction of travel has not just been cuts, but moving revenue collection to local taxpayers. For example, the Government announced an increase in the amount of money going into policing, but that has been moved on to local taxpayers. Councils like Durham County Council are less able, because of their council tax base, to raise that type of financing.
I do not like using the phrase “fairer funding formula review”, because I do not think it is that at all. I doubt whether the new system will be, either. A lot of promises have been made and we shall have to wait and see whether they will actually be met. I will work with anyone to ensure that County Durham gets a fair hearing. I am sad that my new Conservative colleagues are not here today to join me in demanding fairer funding for County Durham, but I will certainly press the case for County Durham to receive the fair funding deal it wants.
I will end with a point raised by the Minister. I came from local government. I was a councillor for 11 years. I respect, and am very grateful for, the work done by councillors of all parties. They are remunerated at a very low level for the amount of work they do. However, I find it a bit difficult to take it from this Government, who have demonised certain people in local government over the past few years and used them as scapegoats for decisions that have been taken—[Interruption.] The Minister says codswallop, but I remember—as I am sure we will witness again in the next few weeks in the local government elections—the Government using the issue of pay and so on in local government to argue that local councils were being profligate. Those are diversionary tactics to remove attention from the core issue, which is that the Government have decimated local government over the past 10 years. We shall wait and see happens in the review, but I shall continue to make the case to ensure that the people of County Durham get the funding and services they require from what is a very good council, and to ensure that the Government have a formula funding that is not only fair but equal across the country, and recognises need.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The best piece of advice I was given on delivering my maiden speech was, “Don’t worry”—easier said than done, I guess—“treat it like a love letter”—I have not written one of those for a few years—“only that it is back to your constituents.” My wife told me—I should be careful about what I say because she is watching—that I did not have a romantic bone in my body, so that might be quite tricky. But it should be easier for me because this is to my home, to where I grew up and to the place that I love so much. It is a genuine love, and it is exactly why I stood to be the Member of Parliament for North Norfolk.
It has been said before in this Chamber quite a few times, but this time listen up: North Norfolk is the most beautiful constituency. [Laughter.] And I am going to prove it. Where else would we see some of the most iconic and beautiful parts of the country all in one area? From the miles of stunning coastline, taking in areas such as Holkham, Wells, Blakeney and down to the easterly end of Horsey, we have no fewer than six blue flag beaches. There is also the rural countryside, full of beautiful landscapes, quintessential villages and names like Baconsthorpe, Happisburgh and Sloley, which I will admit reflects somewhat the slightly easier pace of life we have in North Norfolk. We also have the glorious Norfolk Broads. It is idyllic, stunning and breathtaking in every inch of its 400 square miles.
It is, of course, no surprise that we see 9 million tourist visitors every single year, bringing in £500 million through the tourism sector. Indeed, in this House many Members have grabbed me in the Tea Room and said, “I remember holidaying in North Norfolk when I was a child.” Even more have grabbed me and said, “Can you recommend somewhere good to go in the recess?” Sooner or later, you will have gone on holiday to Sheringham or Cromer and tasted the world-famous delights of the Cromer crab. Its heritage takes some beating, too, for this is Nelson’s county.
Then there is my home town of Holt for which, I will agree, I have something of a soft spot. It is famed for its Georgian beauty and its independent high street. It is very much where the journey started for me to become an MP. I went into politics to help others: to help the people I grew up alongside and lived with. Over the past decade, I have cut my teeth in the cut and thrust of Holt Town Council and North Norfolk District Council, never once doing it with an eye to becoming a Member of Parliament, but getting involved because you genuinely care enough to help others and make a difference to your home. On that journey, I was at one stage the portfolio holder for revenue and benefits on North Norfolk District Council. I welcome the Government’s £2.9 billion funding, or 4.4% increase, to local authority spending, which is one of the highest in the past decade.
I believe that the passion to help others not only led to my election success, but very much cemented my predecessor, Sir Norman Lamb, in the seat for over 18 years. There can be very few Members of Parliament who command the level of respect that Sir Norman garnered. Indeed, whether in Parliament or on the door- step, he continues to be commended for his hard-working, considerate and kind nature. I thank you, Sir Norman, for your hard work over the years, and I know—putting all partisan colours aside—that we will work together, cross-party, on projects for the good of our constituents. Indeed, the best compliment that I got when I knocked on one door was, “Ah, you’re like a young Norman”— 25 years ago maybe—but I will take that, knowing the high regard that he is held in.
I could not fail to mention in my maiden speech the amazing people who put me here. I have worked with many incredible charities across the years, and friends and colleagues have worked so hard to get me elected—not least those who voted for me. I am truly humbled by a result that I never saw coming, which gave me the second biggest swing in the country. I pay tribute to all those people.
All of us know that a life of public service is a sacrifice. That really hit home in the middle of last year when my young daughter was heard saying in the playground at school that she did not like the Conservative party. [Laughter.] She is getting a bit embarrassed. When her friend said, “Why is that?”, she said, “That’s because if my daddy wins, they’ll take him away to London” —so thank you.
Now we need to set about making the constituency even better, not just for today but for tomorrow. We are the oldest constituency demographic in the country, and I will fight for the health services that we need, the right housing across our region and the infrastructure, and I will strive to protect our precious natural environment. But we can have none of that, in my view, without a strong economy of jobs and growth. That is what I want to mention because I believe that, in 2020, we will see just that: a better future for our country, with optimism, our new standing on the world stage and our ability to work in partnership with the European Union but not be governed by it.
Business is my background; I grew up in a family that ran independent businesses—not multinationals, but small and medium-sized businesses. They are the lifeblood of the economy. I know that it probably broke every health and safety law there is, but I started off life with a broom in my hand at 10 years old, sweeping up the shop floor. I think that is where I learned the essence of hard work. That was instilled in me by my stepfather, Michael Baker, who built a business up for 46 years to what it is today. He was my inspiration. He passed away before I became an MP last year.
Entrepreneurs like my stepfather are not alone. There are people like him up and down the country who drive small businesses forward, including those on the high street. Indeed, here in this country we have nearly 6 million private sector businesses. Three fifths of our employment comes from those types of businesses and they account for well over 95% of all businesses. To me, without business, entrepreneurs and risk-takers, we would have nothing, because we would not have the economy to pay for hospitals, schools and infrastructure, and nor would we have the jobs that give us the ability to buy a good home, settle down and live a fulfilled life. Our businesses and high streets—those that create jobs in this country—should be supported and revered, and I very much want to be a voice for them.
There is more to do but I am confident that in this Parliament, we will achieve it. Already, business rate cuts extend from one third to 50%, as the Government commit to levelling up and supporting high streets. With better broadband across our country, a mobile signal in every corner and investment in young people, we will nurture and grow our SME sector and produce the next wave of industry that will inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs and business leaders.
Across my constituency, I have the most incredible businesses across a raft of sectors, whether that is tourism, agriculture, manufacturing or retail. Talent abounds in every corner. I want to see more apprenticeships for young people. I want to see more opportunities for young families to excel together and promote the ability to work and live in my wonderful region. That is what I am going to do: support those entrepreneurs, those small and medium-sized businesses—those risk takers.
Finally, I thank my family for their unwavering support —my wife is watching—and my stepfather, who inspired me and unwittingly started me on this path to Westminster but died before I could be here. I stand here wearing your shoes—my feet are killing me. [Laughter.] I am wearing your watch, so you are with me today. I know that you will be looking down and I know that your proudest achievement came true: we got Brexit done.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. It is a great honour to serve in this House. It is also the greatest honour of my life to be elected to represent the constituency of Jarrow, and I would like to thank the people of Jarrow for putting their faith in me. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Stephen Hepburn, and thank him on behalf of the constituents of Jarrow for his 22 years of unwavering support for the place where he was born and raised. I wish him well for the future.
It is fitting to be called in this debate because as a councillor for the past 10 years, I have fought for local government funding and services, hit by unending cuts to local authority budgets. I am blessed to represent such a fantastic part of our country. The constituency of Jarrow is not just the town of Jarrow; it is also Hebburn, Boldon, Cleadon and parts of Gateshead. It is also the only constituency beginning with the letter J.
Jarrow, with its proud history, powered the industrial revolution, built as it was on coal, shipbuilding and metal works, but that was to change. Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company closed in the 1930s, Leslie’s yard at Hebburn stopped shipbuilding in 1982 and the last pit in Jarrow closed in the 1980s. Successive Tory Governments, from Thatcher to Johnson, have decimated industry and come after our communities—not just in Jarrow but across the whole of the north. Many good, hard-working, decent people were discarded, and we are still living with those scars to this day. The closures and the misery they caused were and will always be a tragedy. They are a constant reminder of what Thatcherism brought to our region.
Sadly, like a lot of the country, particularly in the north-east, we now have food banks, high unemployment, poverty and struggle, but the people of Jarrow are resilient and proud of their history, community and working-class solidarity. They never give up, and I say to this House and them: neither will I.
There is no better example of this resilience than the MP for Jarrow from 1935 to 1947, Red Ellen Wilkinson. To be the first woman MP for Jarrow since Ellen fills me with pride, and it is only right and proper that I pay tribute to her here today. Ellen, outraged by injustice and the transgression of power at home or abroad, sought to do the right thing. She was and still is a legend. As a young trade unionist, she helped to organise the suffrage pilgrimage in 1913, where more than 50,000 women marched to a mass rally in Hyde Park. In 1935, as the MP for Jarrow, Ellen played a key role in organising the Jarrow march, an iconic protest against the unemployment and poverty in Tyneside. Like me, she would be outraged that today around 2,500 people are having to claim unemployment benefits in Jarrow.
Ellen, as an internationalist, condemned General Franco and supported the Spanish Republicans. She also, in no uncertain terms, denounced Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany. Here at home when she became Education Secretary, she had the monumental task of rebuilding Britain’s schools after six years of war. A pioneer, she raised the school leaving age from 14 to 15 and introduced the school milk Act of 1946, which gave free milk to schoolchildren. Her powerful speeches can be read in Hansard today. I would encourage all Members to have a read.
Sadly, Ellen died a year before the Labour Government’s greatest achievement, the national health service, and she would be disgusted by the systematic dismantling of this vital service. The crisis in our NHS means that staff are overstretched, GP waiting times are longer than ever, and mental health services are lacking. I would like to assure this House and the people of Jarrow that I will never stop fighting for our NHS. I will continue the fight to save South Tyneside Hospital and to make sure we have palliative care within the constituency after the closure of Saint Clare Hospice. I will fight against precarious work, zero-hours contracts and unemployment, and I will fight for skilled, unionised, well-paid jobs.
Like Ellen, I will fight for our children and young people to have the education they deserve. We need increased funding for our schools and investment in further education. I will not shirk one of the biggest battles still confronting us today, and that is against universal credit, a catastrophe that has had a cruel effect on our most vulnerable families. There are vulnerable children in need across the country—children without a stable environment to call their home—and it was in order to provide these children with a much-needed lifeline that I became a foster carer. I strongly believe communities should look after each other. In Jarrow, we understand what being a community really means. We know all about solidarity, collectivism, trade unionism —all values that I hold dear.
I have been a trade union rep all my working life—I worked for Royal Mail for 25 years, on the frontline, as a Unite representative—but now I will shift my focus by holding this Tory Government to account. I will defend our public services, our NHS and our hard-won rights, and I will fight for equality and social justice—for a society in which nobody is left behind. To the people of Jarrow, I say: I won’t let you down.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to make my maiden speech as the new Member of Parliament for Keighley and Ilkley and to be making it in a week full of optimism, as we go forth as an independent nation.
It is an awesome feeling to be standing here speaking in this place, having started my role in politics in local government. I will never forget the moment when I walked in here for the first time, with goose bumps on my shoulder, and took my place on these Green Benches. But before I go any further, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, John Grogan, an incredibly decent and kind gentlemen. John served the constituency well for two years after being elected in the 2017 election, and I wish him the best in his new endeavours beyond politics.
It must be said that of all of my colleagues in this place I am honoured to be the one who represents the most incredible part of our country. Keighley and Ilkley has a little bit of everything, from the windswept heather and moor, farmed courageously and with passion by many farmers, to the urban landscape of Keighley, once the epicentre of the textile industry and now harbouring fantastic businesses at the forefront of manufacturing, engineering and technology. We are home to the Keighley and Worth Valley railway. We have the first public library in England funded by Andrew Carnegie. We are home to the mighty Keighley Cougars and to Timothy Taylor’s, which produces some of the finest ale this country has to offer. We have many talented and hard-working people from across the world in my constituency, from the many Italians and eastern Europeans, to the Indian population and the strong and proud Pakistani community. Striving for peace and respect for the rights of my constituents’ families in Kashmir will be one of my priorities in this place.
Towards the north of the constituency lies the beautiful spa town of Ilkley, with an array of independent shops, and even a Bettys tea room. Across the constituency, whether in Keighley, Ilkley, the Worth valley, Riddlesden, Silsden or Steeton, it is the people and their passion for and pride in the place that shines through. I think of people such as Ben Barns, a constituent in his early 20s in the process of setting up his first business, as a butcher in Keighley’s market hall, or Steve Kelly and his team at Keighley College, who are passionate about ensuring the young people in my constituency have the very best start in life—I was inspired by their “can do” attitude and willpower to raise aspiration on a recent visit—or the Ilkley Clean River campaign group, who through their own drive and determination have made national headlines by applying pressure on Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency to ensure that our River Wharfe flows sewage free and has bathing water status. I could go on. It illustrates that it is incredible people who are the real catalyst for driving positive change. I am honoured to represent a constituency that has so many.
On the subject of this debate, local government is vital, but it must work and deliver for those on the ground by being truly representative of what people want. In Keighley and Ilkley, things are not quite working. For too long, Keighley has sat in the shadows of Bradford, with a feeling of being forgotten, undervalued and on the periphery of any real, tangible local investment offered by the Labour-run council administration, but things are about to change. Under this one nation Conservative Government, we will get on and get things done, and we are seeing that already, through our towns fund project. I will be bold and aspirational for my constituency. I am going to put Keighley back on the map as the No. 1 place to live, work and thrive. We need to revive and revitalise our town centre and get businesses booming again. We have a rich history, but our potential is so much more exciting. We have world-class manufacturing businesses based in Keighley, and now is the time to go forth and seize new trading opportunities, to become nationally—in fact, internationally—recognised as a centre of engineering excellence.
Some of our schools do need improving, and we need more special educational needs provision. Our much-loved Airedale Hospital needs a financial boost. However, all that is achievable under this Conservative Government.
I want to see Keighley as the beating heart of the northern powerhouse—the sparkplug that fires up that northern powerhouse engine. I want to see our farmers, who produce the very best food in the world, get the credit and recognition that they deserve. I want Ilkley to go even further, and to flourish as the ultimate white rose of Yorkshire. After all, it is the proud home of the official Yorkshire anthem. But in getting there, I will not be frightened of addressing some of those darker challenges that come before us. Drug crime in my constituency is a big problem which needs tackling, and the underlying issues surrounding grooming still remain and must be called out. I will not shy away from these responsibilities.
So I use this maiden speech not to talk about me, and my reasons and drivers for coming to this place. I use this key speech—my first speech in the House—to say a huge thank you to the people of Keighley and Ilkley for entrusting me with their faith to be their voice in this place. It is that trust which is lent at the ballot box, and which must now be earned. So as the only ginger male MP to enter the House through the new 2019 intake—[Laughter]—I look forward to using the inherited red fire to crack on, roll up my sleeves, graft hard to deliver real, tangible outcomes through this one nation Conservative agenda, and put Keighley and Ilkley back on the map.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this crucial debate. Let me first congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches today and represented their constituencies so well, and wish them good luck for the future.
Once again, we have come to the Chamber because the Government are failing the people of the United Kingdom. Money is being kept from those who need it. While local authorities in Conservative areas are awash with money, Labour areas lag behind. The typically Labour metropolitan boroughs are set to lose, on average, £300 million under the Tories’ so-called fair funding formula, while—as my right hon. and dear Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out—leafy, well-off shire counties such as Surrey and Buckinghamshire will find the vast majority of that money funnelled into their already gilded pockets. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), agreed in 2016 that this iniquity should not continue unabated. The Conservatives have repeatedly cut the budgets of local authorities since 2010. Councils in London have been the hardest hit, having seen a decrease in core funding of more than 60%.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the huge cuts of £142 million resulting from central Government settlement funding assessments for Birmingham between 2015 and 2020 are unsustainable, and that any consequent reductions in services should be firmly and resolutely laid at the door of the Conservative Government?
Mr Sharma
I completely agree, and that is the story of every borough and every area in the country.
My own local authority, Ealing Council—where I served as a councillor for more than 25 years—now has only 34p for every pound that it could spend in 2010. Austerity and government cuts mean that less money goes to those who need it, particularly vulnerable children and adults who rely on social care services. Mental health and child safeguarding services have all been put at risk by the Government’s plans. Ealing is the third most populous and fastest-growing London borough, yet it has no maternity unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) raised the parlous state of GP surgery provision in our borough. With an ageing population and a homelessness crisis in London, demand for services is set to soar beyond sustainable levels.
Funding for youth clubs and youth workers has also been slashed. The link between cuts in youth spending and the knife crime epidemic has been made clear by the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime. Youth clubs in the heart of my constituency that once welcomed young people are now shuttered. Young people need safe spaces and positive role models to prevent them from sliding into a cycle of criminality and poverty that will follow them throughout their lives. Far from saving money, local government spending cuts have driven the costs of policing and welfare ever higher and have proved to be a false economy, not just in terms of the social cost but as an added drain on the public purse. They have made our streets less safe and have put our young people at risk, and it is incumbent on the Government to do more to make our streets safer. However, it is not just our young people whom this Tory Government are hurting; it is also the elderly and vulnerable, who rely on strong social care and public services to live independent, dignified, full lives.
Throughout his time as London Mayor, the Prime Minister supported a Government who oversaw swingeing cuts in the London boroughs that he was supposed to stand up for. More recently, when he first took office as Prime Minister, he promised that he would fix the social care crisis once and for all. That undoubtedly lofty aim cannot be reconciled with the reality of this paltry local government finance settlement. London is home to some of the most deprived areas in the country, and Tory cuts have only made it worse as successive Conservative politicians have pursued frivolities such as the Garden Bridge.
Local government is the only part of government that most people experience. It means their everyday life: bin collections, potholes, schools, and green spaces. After a decade of neglect and years of undue pressure to make savings, this Tory Government have pushed local government to the brink. The funding settlement favours Tory shires, and takes from the most in need. Our society needs investment to get rid of the inequalities that are so rife in this country. The Government must act, and offer more money for our public services, more money for our young people, more money for social care, and more hope for those who are still faltering under a decade of austerity. That is why I will vote for the motion tonight.
Mr Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) on their excellent contributions to the debate. I must say that I envy them the huge relief that I am sure they must now be feeling. I look forward to feeling it myself in a few minutes’ time.
I rise to speak as the seventh Member of Parliament to be elected to represent Orpington since the constituency was created in 1945. I follow some distinguished predecessors, who are noteworthy for a variety of reasons. Time does not permit me to talk about all of them, but I will touch on a couple. The first is William Sumner, who represented the seat between 1955 and 1962. The reason that I mention William is that he did something very rare indeed. In order to secure the Conservative nomination, he defeated a young lady called Margaret Thatcher. That defeat led her to resign from the candidates’ list and to temporarily abandon her political ambitions. Fortunately, however, history shows that she recovered reasonably well from the setback. Baroness Thatcher, as she later became, and the values that she championed are what drew me into public life. She made Britain great again, and we on these Benches are the inheritors of her world-shaping legacy.
I directly follow in some famous footsteps, because my immediate predecessor was Jo Johnson, a man with impeccable family connections. However, he is significantly more than merely the sibling of his famous older brother. He is known for his great intellect, his glittering academic achievements and his distinguished career in journalism. He rose to high office in Government and continues to be highly regarded for having been extremely diligent and hard-working for his constituents. This was shown most clearly by the fact that he quadrupled the majority of slightly under 5,000 that he inherited when he was selected to almost 20,000 at the last election he contested, in 2017. I truly have a tough act to follow.
The Orpington constituency was included in the boundaries of the newly formed London Borough of Bromley as part of the London Government Act 1963. While officially part of Greater London, it is in reality a collection of idyllic villages in the county of Kent. Country lanes, country pubs, village churches and farmers’ fields are spread across great swaths of the area. That is what makes it the best place in the country—contrary to what I heard earlier—to be a Member of Parliament. It is the largest geographical constituency in Greater London, and two thirds of it are rural. The Darwin ward alone is larger than the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Given the rural nature of large parts of the constituency, much of Orpington has not received adequate broadband investment over the years, so the Government’s pledge to roll out full fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the UK by 2025 is especially welcome. I will be pushing for this to be expedited locally as swiftly as possible. Similarly, the rural nature of Orpington means that I have a keen understanding of the huge benefits that open green spaces bring, and any attempt to dilute or remove planning protections for outer London’s green belt would have significantly adverse consequences for my constituents. I will therefore lobby for such attempts to be resisted. The main town centre has a vibrant high street, ably supported by the Orpington 1st business improvement district, and I will always stand up for my local businesses.
Orpington has had its fair share of famous residents. The aforementioned Darwin ward is named after its most famous resident. Charles Darwin lived in the village of Downe, where he wrote his groundbreaking work, “On the Origin of Species”. Challenging orthodox thinking is not restricted to historical figures, however, as the constituency is home to contemporary figures who have made an impact on public consciousness. By a quirk of fate, that same village has been home to one of my new constituents—a certain Nigel Farage, who, although never a Member of this place, has had an undeniable impact on British and European politics.
We are fortunate to have some of the best schools in the country, and I am looking forward to visiting those that have kindly invited me to do so. St. Olave’s Grammar School can trace its roots back to 1571 and its long list of notable alumni includes my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). Its counterpart, Newstead Wood School for girls, has as its most famous alumna the reigning women’s 200-metre world champion, Dina Asher-Smith, who grew up locally and of whom we are extremely proud.
Orpington has also played its part on the national and international stage, including in the hour of this country’s greatest peril. Biggin Hill airport is now a general aviation airport that caters mostly for private aircraft, but during the second world war it was an RAF base and played a major role in the battle of Britain. Spitfires and Hurricanes from a variety of squadrons were based there, and its fighter pilots destroyed more than 1,400 enemy aircraft. Many of the nearby housing developments are named after those RAF personnel who gave their lives to defend their country. Reading of those pilots’ exploits, and in particular of the age at which so many of them made the ultimate sacrifice, is truly humbling.
I shall turn now to the business at hand: local government finance. With the fair funding review ongoing, this is an opportune moment to examine that subject, and I speak as someone with 22 years of local government experience. The economic shambles left behind by the previous Labour Government in 2010 obliged the incoming coalition Government to make significant reductions in public spending. It is true to say that local government has had to share a considerable portion of that burden, but careful management of the country’s finances over the past decade means that this Conservative Government are now able to address the long-term structural problems that the Blair and Brown Governments created.
Critically, there is now an opportunity to review historical baseline funding and to recalibrate it, with particular consideration being given to factors such as current population levels and future growth projections. A number of qualitative actions can also be taken, such as conferring greater flexibility on local authorities to raise and spend their own resources, as well as improving business rate retention. Most importantly of all, we need to recognise and reward those local authorities that have delivered high-quality public services while continuing to make efficiencies, such as my own excellent London Borough of Bromley.
The scale of the Conservative victory in Orpington on 12 December, with more than 63% of the vote, was a ringing endorsement of our campaign to “get Brexit done” so that we could move on to the people’s other priorities. In sending me here to represent them in this place, the people of Orpington have done me the greatest honour of my life. It is a great privilege to be here and I pledge to serve them, and my country, to the best of my ability in the years to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am not going to impose a time limit, and if everybody behaves, we will get everyone in with a decent time for their speeches before the wind-ups begin.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I will characteristically endeavour to behave, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a massive honour to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr Bacon). I hope that he is now feeling the relief that he was looking forward to earlier. The combination of Orpington and nerves rings a bell with me. I spent the night in Orpington before Blackburn Rovers won the league in 1995, and I could not sleep. I got the train back home, and the rest is history. I am also, by the way, the sixth-great-nephew, by marriage and adoption, of Charles Darwin, so it is a delight to know that I had a famous relative in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It was also a delight and an honour to listen to the maiden speeches of the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), and to engage in some ginger solidarity with the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). I wish them all the very best for their time in this place.
Turning to the matter in hand, local authority funding cuts are the easiest for any Government of any colour to make. They make the savings, then someone else gets the blame. It is a transparent tactic, but I am not sure that it is as politically risk-free as Governments tend to think it is. It has certainly caused serious harm to families and communities right across the country. In my time serving in this place since my maiden speech—which I think was recorded on Betamax—our county council, our district council and our two national parks, the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, have suffered significant cuts. It is worth bearing it in mind that national parks unofficially form part of the local government family, although they have no council tax-raising powers. The Lake District is the national park with the biggest population of any in the country, and it acts as a local authority in relation to some housing, planning and environmental matters for anyone who lives there. With that lack of ability to raise money of its own, those cuts are felt more keenly, to the extent that the Lake District national park is even talking about selling off iconic pieces of land.
Cuts are not without consequence. Our police service also has to live with the cuts that have effectively been imposed upon it. Our police and crime commissioner has been forced to raise additional council tax just to prevent the Conservatives’ cuts from getting any worse over recent years. Our police are left increasingly vulnerable, with a mere handful of officers—sometimes as few as six at any given time—left to protect my constituency, which covers an area the size of Greater London.
Owing to the Conservatives taking money away from our councils, most head teachers in South Lakeland have had to lay off staff, reduce teachers’ hours or merge classes. The Conservatives take advantage of the fact that heads want to be professional, disguise their financial hardship and protect children and parents, so those cuts are often safely hidden, but they hurt. They hurt children with special needs the most, but that is apparently okay so long as the Government can find a way to escape the blame and pass it on to local government.
Like the constituencies of all today’s maiden speakers, my constituency is stunningly beautiful, but it is also vast, and its communities are dispersed. Public transport is vital to keeping people connected, preventing isolation and loneliness, and ensuring that people can get to work, school or college or, indeed, go shopping. Government council cuts mean that Cumbria no longer has any subsidised bus services. We recently successfully fought to protect under-threat services in Arnside, Levens and Cartmel, but we should not have to fight tooth and nail to save every single route. We should have a settlement that underpins a vibrant, affordable and reliable bus service right across the south lakes and Cumbria.
The Government have even slashed funding in areas where they promised investment. Just over a year ago, having loudly proclaimed their commitment to preventive health care in the NHS long-term plan, the Government then cut public health budgets by £85 million within a matter of weeks. That means that Cumbria’s spending is now set to drop to just £36 per head. That is barely half the national average of £63 per head and ridiculously lower than the £241 per head per year that the City of London receives.
The impact of that has been tangible. With the loss of school nurses, children have been left vulnerable to slipping into bad mental, dental and physical health, and the Government’s cuts mean that Cumbria now spends only a pathetic 75p per child per year on preventive mental health. We know that proper investment in public health budgets would allow us to place a mental health worker in every school, which is key to young people being resilient and healthy and to ensuring that problems do not become so severe further down the line. This is also the Government who promised a specialist one-to-one eating disorder service to the children and young people of south Cumbria, but they have still failed to deliver that service four years on.
The motion rightly mentions both adult and children’s social care. As we speak, a 96-year-old constituent of mine has been stuck in a care home for more than 10 months because the council has been unable to put a care package together. At his advancing age, he is being denied the ability to live out his time in familiar surroundings with the ones he loves. Social care is now threadbare. A lady who had life-changing injuries, rendering her severely disabled, has sought my help on many occasions when carers have not turned up, leaving her completely unable to access food or water. It is, of course, always the most vulnerable who are hit first and hit hardest by the loss of services. The omission of deprivation from the Government’s calculation of funding seems to be a case of the Conservatives looking at the injuries that they have caused and then choosing to throw insult on top of them.
According to the usual metric, my constituency is not the most deprived. We have unemployment at less than 1%, although 2,300 children are living in poverty, which is a reminder of the growing number of people in work and in poverty, and other parts of Cumbria, especially in the west, will be hugely hit by the Government’s choice to ignore deprivation. But the Government have made a choice, and it is to be cloth eared to the needs of rural northern communities such as mine. Local government funding is not some dry municipal concern; it is about the people who need care, the children in our schools, and the safety of our communities. That is why fairness matters. The Government must do a U-turn on their cuts to rural northern communities, because Cumbria deserves better than this.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), whom I always listen to with care, and the several maiden speeches from both sides of the House, especially those of my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Orpington (Mr Bacon) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). It is great to hear such strong voices on the Government Benches, and I look forward to further contributions.
Local government in Dorset has changed significantly over the past year, with nine councils merging into two in the run-up to the elections. My constituency is one of only two that covers both new unitary authorities. Of course, there were many reasons for the changes, but one of the main drivers was financial. Back-office savings, the rationalisation of office space, and a reduction in the number of senior staff have been painful but necessary decisions to ensure that frontline services can continue to be maintained.
Despite the changes, both Dorset Council and BCP Council remain in a challenging financial position. Additional funding is welcome, of course—I always say that—and it has added to both councils’ spending power. However, that is often offset by greater demands, not least in relation to adult social care and children’s services. Dorset has many advantages. It is a great place to live and work, but is also a great place to retire to, with an above average 17% of the population over the age of 70. That proportion is growing, so we are facing adult social care challenges. Social care is by far the largest part of the budget, placing considerable strain on our local councils.
I therefore welcome the Government’s promise to produce a social care Green Paper. A long-term solution is absolutely required, and I particularly welcome the recognition in the Prime Minister’s amendment this afternoon of
“the pressures on adult and children’s social care”
and the move to a fairer funding formula. Much has been said by Opposition Members about the fairer funding formula, but it will be absolutely crucial for residents in Mid Dorset and North Poole. We need a fairer settlement that reflects the challenges of living in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) made an intervention at the outset of the debate noting that deprivation was not only found in inner-city areas, because it is found in all our constituencies and in rural areas.
However, despite what we have heard from Opposition Members, the majority of the increases in council funding this year have been seen in urban areas. Once again, shire counties have received comparatively less. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), refused to take my intervention earlier, so I will tell him now—I am pleased to see him still in his place—that rural and shire counties receive an average of £240 per person. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) was making in several interventions, but he is better than I am at intervening. Rural and shire counties receive £240 per person compared with £419 for metro- politan and city authorities and £601 for inner-London authorities. That is why it is crucial that the Government grapple with this issue in their fair funding review, as I know that they are doing.
Preet Kaur Gill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that councils of all political persuasions are already, as he said, in severe financial trouble following 10 years of savage cuts by the Conservative Government? The Government’s new adult social care funding formula, which will actually see Birmingham lose almost £50 million, will further exacerbate inequalities both within and between councils.
Michael Tomlinson
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, but I do not accept her point. My point is that we need to look more broadly. The funding given to rural areas is not enough, including in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I do not accept or recognise her figures. Indeed, I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), will dispute those figures, as the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth did in opening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said that our local authorities needed greater security through a longer-term financial settlement. I understand what he says, and he makes a valid point about the need for a one-year settlement, but we need a longer settlement to give councils the greater financial certainty that is required. That will mean they can move on and be more strategic in future, so I welcome what the Northern Powerhouse Minister said in opening.
I hope the Under-Secretary will echo and re-emphasise the importance of this funding and reassure my councils in Dorset and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole that he recognises the need for a longer-term financial settlement.
Councils in Dorset have taken the brave and commendable steps to reorganise and to ensure that frontline services are given the greatest priority. Ever-increasing council tax is not a long-term solution, as I know Ministers recognise. I welcome the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I will support it in the Lobby this afternoon.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I am pleased that we are having this Opposition day debate on a topic that directly impacts on all our constituents’ day-to-day lives. The aim of any Government should be to ensure that people’s day-to-day lives are improved and to give people a greater stake in society. To achieve that, we must empower the collective voice of our communities—our local councils.
Instead of listening to and supporting our councils, the past 10 years of Tory austerity have seen their resources cut, with no account taken of deprivation and demand-led need. Many services have been pushed to breaking point. It has created an impossible task for local councils so, rather than looking to improve lives, as councils want to do, they are now desperately trying to sustain the safety of local people.
We have a brilliant Labour-led council in Luton that listens and responds to its local community, but it can only do so much when, year on year, central Government funding is cut, which has led to over £130 million-worth of cuts since 2010. Spending has needed to be redirected to address the increasing demand for adult social care and children’s services, on which much has already been said, and to address the disgraceful rise in homelessness, which is particularly affecting Luton. Both issues require a national strategy, not just local sticking-plasters.
Since 2010, Luton has seen spending on libraries, museums and heritage services cut by 55%; spending on transport and local bus services cut by 55%; and spending on community safety cut by nearly 30%. This Government have completely dismantled our local councils’ ability to improve communities on the frontline. Now our councils’ simple aim is to best soften the blow of austerity.
These irresponsible cuts have directly led to the suffering of vulnerable people in my constituency. By cutting the revenue support grant and central funding, the Government are increasing the emphasis on regressive taxation such as council tax and business rates. In areas such as Luton, we cannot raise as much council tax due to the size of our houses—the majority are band A and band B properties. Even if we could raise council tax, we know that many people are struggling to pay it. We cannot raise much income through the new homes bonus because we are a very urban area and cannot build many more houses.
The Government profess to be increasing spending as part of their council funding review but, as has been repeatedly said, a simple increase in per-head funding would not be based on need. In our area, such an increase represents a giveaway to the Tory leafy shires—I could go on—at the expense of more deprived post-industrial towns, which have disproportionately higher levels of deprivation. The situation is stark in my constituency, which differs from the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson).
The whole of Luton South deserves investment. Will the Minister explain to me and my constituents why the Caddington area of my constituency, which falls under Central Bedfordshire Council—a more rural, Tory council—will receive an indicative 20% increase, whereas the Luton Borough Council area of my constituency, which covers many more areas of deprivation, will receive only a 1.5% increase? Taking those figures another way, can he explain why people living in Luton Borough Council’s Biscot ward, where child poverty is at 55%, do not deserve at least the same increase as those living in Caddington, where child poverty is at 15%? Are children in Biscot worth less than children in Caddington? I say not. In my constituency we are all equal. Funding needs to be allocated based on people’s needs, not on political giveaways.
Decisions made in Whitehall are completely detached from the streets of Luton. I ask the Minister, or any of the ministerial team, to come and visit Luton—it is a short hop on the train, so it is easy to do—to see the difference. Come and visit Biscot, Dallow, South or Farley and tell my constituents that they do not deserve increased investment in their services.
If the Government’s latest funding announcement actually represented a fair funding review, I guarantee that Luton would be receiving a much higher funding increase than 1.5%.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate all my colleagues who have made their maiden speech today, including the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr Bacon), who is no longer here, with whom I serve on the London Assembly.
As a former councillor and a current member of the London Assembly, I am delighted to speak on an issue that is so important to us all. Local government may not be the hottest topic on everyone’s lips, but the decisions made by our councillors on local regeneration, housing, bins and potholes are important—many councillors have been taking pictures with potholes for their council websites—and they matter to the people we all represent.
Our local councils play a crucial part in all our communities and make a massive impact on our day-to-day lives, but the reality is that local government has suffered over the last 10 years under this Conservative Government and the coalition Government before them. Councils up and down the country have been crippled by budget cuts, and in Lambeth we lost over half of our core funding from central Government between 2010 and 2018. Lambeth Council has been forced to make over £200 million of savings just to make the books balance.
At the same time, the pressure on our councils has shot up. Social care has become a massive issue across the country. In Lambeth, we have also seen the number of families in temporary accommodation almost double between 2012 and 2019, at a time when the cost of housing and temporary accommodation has increased. Councils in England are spending 78% more on temporary accommodation than they did five years ago.
One of the biggest challenges we have seen in Lambeth has been the response to the Grenfell fire disaster. Lambeth has 122 medium-to-high-rise blocks and although the £600 million fund from the Government to remove dangerous cladding is welcome, that is just a small pot. The money must be spread across the entirety of the country and it will not be enough to cover the vital work to provide the fire safety improvements that residents deserve, nor will it reduce the horrific amount of time that it has taken some private block owners to remove hazardous cladding from their buildings. Councils and local authorities were not responsible for the regulatory failures that led to Grenfell, yet they are having to pick up the pieces, out of squeezed budgets, to make their areas safer. It is time for the Government to support our councils and provide the funding not just to remove dangerous cladding, but to provide other critical safety work needed in social blocks and to give powers and funding to councils to confiscate private blocks that fail to remove cladding and make their residents safe.
It is not just on the council level that the Government are failing administrations. Here in London, the Government are passing the buck to the Greater London Authority. Unfortunately, we have seen a stark rise in violent crime in the capital over the past few years. The Metropolitan police are taking the issue seriously, but they have been let down by this Government because their funding has also been cut. Thankfully we have a Mayor, in Sadiq Khan, who recognises the need for urgent funding. Just last week, he announced an increase to the City Hall precept in council tax, which will provide almost £15.7 million to fast-track the introduction of 600 new officers. I am sure all Londoners will welcome that change and I applaud our Mayor for taking that action, but why should a Labour Mayor be raising taxes to pay for a Conservative manifesto promise? If the Conservatives party wants authorities to deliver on its manifesto promises, perhaps it should give councils and authorities greater powers to raise funds through sensible borrowing for investment or through progressive taxation systems, instead of tying their legs and forcing the ideology of austerity on councils.
What links all these things is the fact that the Government continue to pass the buck on many of the issues that have a big impact on people’s day-to-day lives. It is councils that take the blame when council tax goes up but bin collections go down because our authorities have to fill the gaps left by the Government. In London, it is the Mayor who has taken the flack for increasing his council tax precept when the Government have cut the funding for the Met police since 2010. This is not bold governance; it is political opportunism, at the expense of hard-working councillors and local authorities. I urge the Government to take responsibility and give our local government bodies the funding they urgently deserve.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who made some interesting points, particularly on Grenfell and the cladding situation, which I have spoken about many times in this Chamber. I agree with some of the points she made about that. It was also a great pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), who made an excellent maiden speech, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr Bacon), for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who are no longer in their places. I have definitely tasted some Cromer crab in my time and probably more than my fair share of Tim Taylor’s Landlord beer.
It is good to see that the Opposition acknowledge the need for a fairer system of spending distribution, and I concur with that. The Government started on this road to try to make the system fairer, as it is certainly not fair at the moment. It is not fair in the amount of money allocated to shires and to cities; there is a huge disparity there. We are talking about more than twice as much money—in some cases, almost three times as much—per capita in cities compared with counties. Let us look at overall spending power. North Yorkshire, if we add in both tiers of local government, has about £770 of spending ability per capita, whereas in London—in the top 10 authorities—the figure is about £1,000 to £1,100. That is despite the fact that their populations are younger and better-off than my local populations in North Yorkshire. It is simply an unfair system and it needs to be rectified.
Council tax in many shires, including in North Yorkshire, is almost twice as high as in many places around the country. The Opposition say, “That means you can raise more money more easily by increasing council tax.” That is, of course, true, but there is a failure to see the irony: the iniquity whereby, despite getting less money, we contribute much more locally for our services ourselves, because lots of these cities are getting a far bigger slice of the pie from central Government moneys. That is where the iniquity lies.
I am glad the Opposition see that we need a fairer system, as I agree with that. We also need to make the system fairer progressively. I do not think it is right to rob Peter to pay Paul, but that is not what this consultation is about. It is about introducing extra money over a period of time, so all boats are lifted in a rising tide. That is exactly where we need to be. The system has to be progressive so that those who are not getting a good deal now are better treated than those who are getting a much larger slice of the pie today, and, as the consultation says, it happens over time—three to five years. I absolutely accept that it would not be right for some people’s share to go down, but that is not what the consultation is saying.
The key to all this is that the biggest area of discretionary spend by local authorities is in adult social care. That is the major problem that we need to solve. The Government are absolutely right to say that we need to do that on a cross-party basis, because that is the only way we will get a sustainable solution. Otherwise, the Opposition will say at the next election that they are campaigning to do it differently and the issue will become a political football again. We need to move away from that and agree on something cross-party. The Government have said that, and I absolutely accept that we need to bring forward a Green Paper so that we can look at the options.
However, it is not right when someone like the shadow Health Secretary says, “We’ll agree to cross-party talks as long as you agree to our preconditions before we start; we want our solution to be the solution.” I have heard that from Opposition Members a number of times, although I do not think that this shadow Minister is of the same view, and I have been given that answer on the Floor of the House. It is simply wrong. We must have cross-party talks on the basis that everything is on the table, we sit down and discuss it, and we see where we can find common ground.
We do that, of course, in Select Committees. The most constructive thing that any of us do in this place as Back Benchers is to sit on a Select Committee where we discuss things cross-party. I have served on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for four and a half years. It has a fantastic Chair in the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). We have done dozens of inquiries over that time and have never had a single falling-out: all the reports are published with unanimous support. That means that we can get to a position where we can agree on some basic principles to take policies forward, which is what we have to do with social care.
Last year, the HCLG Committee held a joint inquiry with the Health Committee on future funding of social care. In our report we came up with a number of options, all of which we should discuss in the cross-party talks. One of them was to adopt a social insurance-style system similar to the one introduced in Germany in 1995. It is great to see Opposition Members nodding in agreement with that. Until that point, Germany also had a local authority-funded system, but that was seen as an inappropriate way to raise money to pay for social care because there was no correlation between the need for social care and the money that could be raised at a local level. They need to be totally separate. We held a long inquiry. In fact, the HCLG Committee visited Germany to look at its system, which is simple, scalable, and—critically—will stand the test of time.
We cannot solve the issue through general taxation. A report by the Office for Budget Responsibility said that if we carry on taxing things as we do today in terms of the need for things like social care, healthcare and pensions, our debt-to-GDP ratio will rise from 80% to 280%. The taxpayer simply cannot pay for that out of general taxation; we have to find a different solution. For me, an insurance-based solution is the best thing. We developed a similar system for pensions with auto-enrolment, although that is not mandatory and this does need to be mandatory. So we do have a precedent in the UK for something that is scalable and sustainable.
The 22 members of the Select Committee, cross-party, endorsed the German system. It is a very good, simple system. It is based on about 2.5% of earnings, some paid by the employer and some by the employees. The basic principle is that everybody gives something so that nobody has to give everything. In my business life, whenever we were faced with a big problem, we always looked for somewhere else that had solved it. This has been solved over in Germany. The biggest benefit of the system is that when someone needs care, they are independently assessed and choose either to take that care from a provider such as the local authority or to draw down the money and pay it to a relative, neighbour or loved one who can look after them. It is by far the best system. We need to develop this whole policy area cross-party, and I look forward to doing that with Opposition Members.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
First, I congratulate hon. Members who have given maiden speeches, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne)—I loved her stuff about Ellen Wilkinson, who has always been a massive heroine of mine. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr Bacon), for Keighley (Robbie Moore), and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). I was reminded of my husband complaining to his business partner after I said that I had booked a weekend away in Keighley. He said, “What, we are going to Bradford?” Never mind.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and other hon. Friends, the Government’s rhetoric about levelling up is not really going to do much for the constituencies that they won in December. To be honest, I am worried about what it is going to do in my constituency too.
I would like to set the scene a little bit and introduce Government Members to Newham, which is one of areas worst damaged by austerity. If the proposed funding settlement is approved, Newham’s grant will go from £244 million in 2013 to £148 million in the coming year. In that period, our population has grown by 15%, so the cut is almost 50% per person over seven years. We have the second-highest child poverty rate in the country, made worse by cuts to children’s services. We have terrible problems with knife violence, made worse by a decade of cuts to youth services. We do have, thank goodness, strong communities, but they are struggling after a decade of across-the-board cuts.
Today I want to focus on just one point, because time is short. I talk regularly about the harm that homelessness in temporary accommodation does to our children. Going into temporary accommodation means losing a sense of security. It means losing a safe, warm home. It often means parents losing jobs, and losing the support network of family and friends, because people are moving away from their family, often miles and miles away, with no choice whatever. It means having to change schools constantly, or travel for hours to keep the one little thing that is solid and secure in a child’s life—a place at their secondary or primary school. More and more often, it means being moved halfway across the country.
We should be clear about why this is happening—it is because of low wages, extortionate private rents, and slashed housing support. That is not all the responsibility of the Secretary of State—I get that, and it is a shame that he is not here to hear it—but if council homes were available, like the one I had when I was growing up, none of those causes would lead to the extent of homelessness that we now see. In Newham, we have 27,000 families on the homelessness waiting list. They need and deserve a safe and affordable home, but they are denied that home because council houses were sold off and never ever replaced. Grants to replace those homes have now been cut. The rise in temporary accommodation has causes in Government decisions.
That has massive consequences for council finances. Our local authorities are spending over £1 billion a year on temporary accommodation, often at absurd prices for dire quality. The net temporary accommodation bill for Newham has reached £5.5 million a year. The scale of the crisis is absolutely massive. There are 7,725 children in temporary accommodation paid for by the London Borough of Newham. Newham covers 36 sq km, but we have more children living with that form of hidden homelessness—poverty, and poverty of opportunity —than entire regions of England. Let me be clear: that means Yorkshire and the Humber, north-east England, south-west England and the east midlands combined. Greater need, and greater costs for the council, are located in 36 sq km than in 63,000 sq km.
I thought the Secretary of State might be present for this debate, so I looked at his local authority, Newark and Sherwood District Council. There is deprivation and unfairness in the Secretary of State’s patch—I have seen the deprivation map—but overall the number of children stuck in temporary accommodation in Newark is 16. That is 483 times lower than the figure in Newham, so how exactly is it fair to prioritise places such as Newark over places such as Newham? Newham and Newark are not the same—none of our places are the same—and different places do not have the same level of need. They do not have the same deprivation or the same projected population growth for the very near future as we have. They do not have the same living costs for council staff, the same numbers of old people or the same numbers of children needing care. As we know, those latter two services are the most expensive council services of all. Different places cannot raise an equal amount of revenue. In Newark, a 4% rise in council tax raises £14 million; in Newham, it gets us just £3 million.
This is not actually about fairness. All these fine words are cover for a massive transfer of resources from historically Labour areas—including the seats just won by Conservative Members—to the Tory shires. The Government’s plans will not help areas like mine, and they will not solve our problems or heal our divisions, either. To be honest, they are only going to deepen them.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I am grateful, at this point in the debate, for my experience in local government, where a three-minute limit is standard when speaking in chambers. Mindful of the time, I wish to focus on a key point for Ministers to consider as we welcome the consultation.
The Local Government Finance Acts of 1988 and 1992 are the main underpinnings of what happens in this country when it comes to local government finance decisions. Local authorities’ duties are driven largely by the legislation passed in this House over the years, including the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Children Act 1989, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and many others. We can all recognise that over many years the funding level has not kept pace with the legal obligations imposed on local authorities by the duties agreed in this House. It is therefore welcome that the Government are beginning to think of a funding formula that is fair in that it addresses the fact that, in many parts of the country, funding now lags significantly behind the legal obligations that local authorities have to deal with.
My own constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is no exception in having significant numbers of elderly residents who are asset rich but cash poor, for whom the local authority has a legal duty to provide social care but who would not be recognised in any of the funding formulae we saw under the previous Government, which prioritised poverty in general as opposed to local authorities’ specific duties arising out of their obligations.
When they take forward the consultation, I urge Ministers to consider the broader picture of local government finance, because the core grant—the revenue support grant, as was—is only a small part of that picture. We have heard Members mention council tax and business rates, but of course elements such as the housing revenue account are a significant factor in local authorities’ ability to deploy resources. Indeed, one challenge we have seen is that the benefit of the new homes bonus has in many areas accrued to district councils, while the costs of providing adult and children’s social care services has to be met by counties. That is one reason why the pressure has become so acute.
Across the picture, we see a situation in which local government resources are under significant pressure. More flexibility about how we deploy those resources and more recognition of the innovation and entrepreneurial approach that many local authorities have brought to the issue would be welcome, as would an approach that recognises that, given that resources are tight, we must prioritise the meeting of local government’s core legal obligations to our citizens, which is absolutely a fair approach to dealing with local government funding. I commend to the House the approach that the Government have taken.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to wind up this important debate. We all believe in the power of local public services, but you can’t do it on the cheap.
May I congratulate Government Members who have made their maiden speeches today? The hon. Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Orpington (Mr Bacon) all displayed a real sense of place and community.
May I also thank my fellow Labour Members for their contributions? My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is, of course, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which has done a great deal of work on local government finance and devolution in particular. He was very clear that unless we address the crippling pressure on adult social care and children’s services, there will be a £10 billion funding gap. He also commented on the real pressure on and costs for neighbourhood services, which we all see in our communities. Many of the services on which we rely have had to be removed so that adult social care and children’s services can be kept going.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out that the red wall Tories were all absent from this debate, even though the areas they represent—[Interruption.]
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) is waving, but he has not been here for most of the debate.
Jim McMahon
Better late than never. The hon. Gentleman has missed contributions highlighting the impact of austerity and cuts on many of the seats now represented by Conservative MPs. It is little wonder that the actual formula—the data, analysis and impact—has not been shared with the House at all. Why is that? The answer is that the Government realised that they need to go back—[Interruption.] I am going to continue, so that the Minister has time to respond.
Council tax increases generate very different amounts of money, depending on the locality and its funding base. A 5% increase in Wokingham would generate £5.2 million, while the same percentage increase in Knowsley would generate just half that amount, even though both areas have a similar population base. That is no way to fund adult social care. There is a genuine postcode lottery whereby house price valuations that are nearly 30 years old determine whether somebody gets looked after in their old age. I just do not think that is a fair way to do it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on her fantastic maiden speech. What stood out in particular for me was the sense of the power of community. In spite of deindustrialisation and the real pressures faced through austerity, it is the power of people and place that binds and makes communities. The Government just need to be a bit more on their side in future, compared with the past 10 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) highlighted that £300 million has been taken from his local authority budget, and noted that the fair funding review is far from fair. It takes money from areas of high deprivation and directs it to more affluent areas, which is absolutely the opposite of fair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) highlighted a £130 million cut and its impact on neighbourhoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) highlighted the important role that councillors play in making sure that we have strong local leadership, but they need Government on their side. Far too often, when we ask the Government to step up and to do what is right, they are late in doing so, like some Members arriving in the Chamber. The example was given of the Government being far too late in responding to the cladding issues facing many tower blocks. I am afraid that that is just not good enough.
The truth is that the Government do not want to talk about finance. They know that they are not on strong ground on that issue. They certainly do not want to give any detail about the fair funding review, because it would highlight just how unfair the review really is. I am glad that the Ministers are sitting down, because this will surprise them: we are not going to accept the amendment tabled in the Prime Minister’s name. It does not mention finance; it talks about devolution. The Prime Minister wants to be able to pretend that his flavour of devolution is all about giving people power, but that is not what we have experienced.
Under this Government, many parts of this country have been denied devolution. There is no clear framework to enable local areas to know exactly what types of powers can be devolved to them. What we see with this Government is a flavour of devolution that goes from Ministers to Mayors, whereas Labour recognises that to give real power to communities, we need to start off in neighbourhoods and work up to the nation. Neighbourhoods and communities have not been central to the Government’s devolution agenda, and that has been the hallmark of all we have seen from this Government. I am glad that Labour Mayors are using their powers to ensure that the worst excesses of this Government do not filter down as strongly through to their communities they serve.
We have talked about the town centre fund. Clearly, all of us want to see investment in our town centres. We recognise their importance at the heart of our communities, and the decline that many have seen while retail has struggled to catch up with the online world. But frankly, we will never make progress if the Government are not willing to recognise that the business rates system is actively harming our high streets and town centres. It is not good enough to give just the local independents a boost. Of course that is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Doing only that massively underestimates the importance of anchor stores to bring footfall into big town centres.
Kevin Hollinrake
I think the shadow Minister said that the business rates system is driving the change on the high street. I speak as somebody who has a number of properties in my business, and that is not what is driving this change. It is a change in consumer behaviour that is driving the change on the high street.
Jim McMahon
It is right to reflect that the high street will always evolve. It will never be what it was, and it will of course be different in the future. But that does not mean that we should just give up and accept that decline is inevitable. The types of spaces that are often talked about are bespoke spaces. It might be possible to reuse a single shop front, but how it is possible to reuse a whole shopping centre that was built to be a retail core?
The Government’s agenda of only supporting independent traders massively underestimates the impact of anchor stores such as Debenhams or Marks & Spencer, which bring footfall through a town centre. How can it be right that companies such as Amazon can have very clever accountants to hide their profits away from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—which cleaners in their factories would not be able to do, by the way? How can it be right that Manchester airport’s warehouse distribution centre pays half the business rates of Debenhams in Manchester city centre? Where is the fairness in that system? If the Government really want a future for town centres and high streets, they really have to address that issue.
The Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), was right to thank local government, but I am afraid that it will be beyond ironic to many that these thanks came from the Minister who has lorded over austerity and who tries to ignore the fact that the last 10 years have been under a Tory Government, whether in coalition or not. I am afraid that it is not good enough for him to disown the last 10 years as if they had never happened.
Most councils have done a fantastic job to survive. It has been the hard work and leadership of local councillors that has meant that many areas have not just been about decline, but have been offered hope. Council officers have worked so hard to ensure that public services can be delivered. But while thanking them, maybe we should give consideration to the fact that there are more than 900,000 fewer council officers today than there were in 2010; they have been sacked and sent out the door because councils do not have the money to pay them. That is the reality on the ground.
When we were told that austerity was over, I do not think that anybody really expected that we would go back to 2010, but nor do I think that anybody expected the cuts to go even deeper even faster, and that is exactly what will happen under the fair funding review. I challenge the Minister—if he is so confident that that his fair funding review is well thought through and genuinely fair, and that the evidence base is robust and can be tested, what is there to hide? Why not place the data in the Library by the end of the week, so that every Member of this Parliament can hold the Government to account?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I want to start by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate. It has been a lively and, at times, fiery debate, but certainly a constructive one, and we had some genuinely important issues to discuss.
I would like to congratulate all Members who made their maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) gave a passionate speech about the industrial heritage and history of her community and the inspiration that Ellen Wilkinson provided. I congratulate her on what she said about fighting for the principles she believes in and for health services, children’s services and workers’ rights. From her maiden speech, her constituents will be assured that she will be a passionate and doughty champion for them in this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) talked about his 14,000 majority, which I am sure all of us are jealous of. He started his speech by explaining that it would be a love letter to North Norfolk, and it certainly was. He talked passionately about his work on both the town council and the district council. He mentioned that he was nicknamed “a young Norman” during the campaign; I am sure that that will follow him in the House. He talked passionately about his late stepfather, who built up a business and was an inspiration to him. I am sure that everyone who heard his speech agrees that his stepfather would be proud of him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) talked about the beautiful rural and urban landscapes in his constituency and the unanimous support in the House for the Timothy Taylor’s beer produced there. He talked about how local government must be representative. From his speech, we will all be reassured of the excellent representation he will provide in this House as a Member of Parliament, and I know that he will succeed in putting Keighley and Ilkley on the map.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr Bacon) talked passionately about his predecessors and the big shoes that he had to fill. He was right to pay tribute to Jo Johnson, a hard-working local MP, and to mention his belief that his constituency is the best place to live in the country, although I am sure that there will be 649 other opinions on that. He also talked about the importance of the fair funding review. I am sure that we will come on to talk about that, but I know that we will all benefit from his 22 years of local government experience, and we are grateful for his contribution this afternoon.
Local government has a unique and far-reaching role to play in our communities. It delivers services that we rely on day in, day out, and debates on the funding of the sector and the challenges and opportunities ahead for it are some of the most important that we have in the House. We will provide the funding for social care, education, transport, housing, health and local growth to flourish, and that is why core spending power for local government will increase from £46.2 billion to £49.1 billion in 2020-21—a 4.4% real-terms increase across the sector.
A number of Members talked about the pressures facing adult and children’s social care. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) gave an important speech about the pressure on social care in his constituency and the unique challenges faced by parts of the country with high levels of internal migration. The Chairman of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), was right to talk about the importance of cross-party discussions on this matter getting under way and how the work that he and the Committee have done on ways to make progress could be an example for talks. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the pressure on social care, and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) highlighted the importance of cross-party work and support.
It is absolutely true that councils face pressures on adult and children’s care services—that is something we are hearing from the sector and from councils across the country. This settlement, when it is put before the House, will address that. We have given almost £6 billion of dedicated funding across social care. That includes the extra £1 billion grant for adult and children’s social care, on top of the continuation of existing social care grants worth £2.5 billion.
It is not just about the grant funding that we have provided. Councils are paying for their services through locally raised revenue. That is why we have proposed a 2% adult social care precept, which will enable councils to raise a further £500 million for social care. That will help local authorities to meet rising demand and recognises the vital role that social care plays in supporting the most vulnerable adults and children in our society.
I will touch on the fair funding review in a minute, but it is worth saying that, as part of the initial consultation, we have developed a new formula for children and young people’s services that uses world-leading research and up-to-date data from a strong evidence base for assessing relative needs and then distributing the funding accordingly.
As part of the injection of £14 billion into primary and secondary schools over the next three years, a package of £700 million was provided for supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. One of the best ways to improve outcomes for children is to remove the need for them to enter the care sector in the first place. That is why we have committed to a further year of the troubled families programme in 2020-21. In addition to the resource injection in social care through the settlement, the NHS’s contribution to the better care fund—the purpose of which is to increase health and social care integration—will increase by 3.4% in real terms, in line with the additional investment in the national health service in 2020-21. However, we of course want to think about the long term, and that is why we are committed to fixing the crisis in social care once and for all to give people the dignity and security they deserve. We will seek to reach across the Floor and build cross-party consensus to ensure that we do have a long-term solution.
One of the other main themes of this debate has been the fair funding review. We heard from the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about his long experience in local government and the importance of simplifying the formula, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) about delivering the formula. I think we should be clear that the sector has asked us for a simpler, up-to-date, evidence-based funding formula, and that is what we are going to deliver.
The figures we have heard this afternoon are pure speculation. They use out-of-date cost adjusters and out-of-date population data, and they are pure speculation. It is worth saying that this should be a completely evidence-based review. It is being developed hand in hand with leading academics; it is not a simplistic exercise. I understand why hon. Members have raised it today, but this is not about north versus south, rural versus urban or Labour versus Conservative. It is about developing a needs-based formula that takes into account deprivation, rurality and other cost drivers; that is weighted appropriately and adjusted for the costs of delivering services in different areas; that is balanced with the resources available to different authorities to fund those services; and, of course, that is considered against any transitional arrangements the Government may wish to make. It is simply not possible to predict the overall outcome for individual authorities or groups of authorities based on one or couple of these formulas.
Ultimately, this review should be a collective endeavour with our colleagues in local government, and it is underpinned by real analytical rigour. Very soon, in the next few weeks—we hope to do so by the end of this month—we will share the emerging results with the sector, and we will go to full consultation in the spring. I will keep Opposition Front Benchers fully informed about the progress of that. It is hugely important that we deliver this cross-party to make sure that it works for all of the communities that we represent in this House.
A number of colleagues spoke about the importance of delivering for rural communities. Again, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole about the pressures on his areas. It is important to note that we will maintain the rural services delivery grant at its highest ever level of £81 million in the coming year. It will be distributed using the same methodology as last year, which distributes funding to the top quartile of local authorities on the super-sparsity indicator.
This will form part of the fair funding review, which will include factors such as rurality and sparsity, but also the other geographical factors that affect the cost of delivering services across the country, and it will take account of them in a robust manner. In the December 2018 consultation, we set out the initial proposed approach to the area cost adjustment, which will include the adjustment for additional service costs associated with sparsity, isolation or market size. For example, if an authority has longer journey times from service points to households, they will have to pay their staff for more hours in order to deliver the equivalent level of service. That will be reflected in the review.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) raised the importance of tackling homelessness last week, and she did so again today with passion and vigour. I have met the Mayor of Newham to discuss funding, and I would be very happy to visit Newham with her and the Mayor to look at this issue and talk about it in greater depth.
A number of colleagues raised the importance of policing and the work we are doing to tackle this issue. This is a clear priority for this Government: 20,000 more police officers on the streets, with 6,000 in the coming year. It is also why we have launched the £25 million safer streets fund, which will support areas disproportionately affected by crimes such as burglary and theft to implement well-evidenced measures tackling security, street lighting and other issues that affect their communities.
This is a settlement that injects significant new resources into protecting the most vulnerable adults and children in our care. It maintains grant funding and increases core funding in line with inflation, and it does all of this while protecting council tax payers from excessive increases that they neither want nor often can afford.
It is clear that everybody across this House wants to see local government not just properly funded, but able to adapt, innovate and improve the services it provides for residents for generations to come. Through the reforms that we have outlined this afternoon, that is exactly what we will deliver: a 4.4% real-terms increase across the sector; an extra £1 billion for social care; over £900 million for new homes bonus allocations; and the highest ever rural services delivery grant, at £81 million.
I look forward to further discussing these issues when we meet in this place next week to debate the most comprehensive and generous settlement for a decade.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At oral questions earlier today, the Prime Minister assured me that the Government had responded to the tragic case of Errol Graham by creating a new independent serious case panel. Last week, the Department for Work and Pensions admitted that, far from being independent, the serious case panel was composed entirely of DWP officials. I understand that this afternoon the Department has indicated that the panel will now include some members independent of the Department. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you received any notice from DWP Ministers that they intend to make a statement on these new arrangements?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice of it. Obviously, the content of Ministers’ replies is a matter for them, not the Chair, but I am sure that if there was any inaccuracy in anything the Prime Minister said, he will want to make a correction at the earliest opportunity. I am also confident that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her concerns—I am looking at the Whip—and will ensure that her comments about what was said at Prime Minister’s Question Time are fed back so that if anything needs to be corrected, it can be done quickly.
Transport
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House acknowledges that the UK’s transport emissions have not substantially fallen since 1990 and have increased since 2010; and calls on the Government to develop and implement a plan to eliminate the substantial majority of transport emissions by 2030, to decarbonise the UK’s entire bus network, to invest in an electric vehicle charging network that can support the majority of vehicles on the UK’s roads by 2030, to cut bus and rail fares, to increase public transport patronage, to provide funding for cycling and walking, including investment in cycleways and grants for ebikes, to introduce a network of clean air zones to tackle illegal levels of air pollution, and to bring aviation emissions within the UK’s climate targets.
The fires blazing in Australia are a catastrophe for that nation and its people, but it is not the only country at risk from such ravages. The burning infernos are a reminder of the new landscape that the climate crisis is creating across the world. The challenge is no longer abstract but a very real and devastating reality. I am proud, therefore, of the Labour party’s pledge to put tackling the climate crisis at the heart of our transport and wider economic policy. It is both right and necessary, not least because since 2010 the transport policies of Tory Governments have done so much to undermine sustainable transport.
The Government have failed to provide leadership on climate change. Those are not my words, but those of the former Conservative rail and environment Minister Claire O’Neill. She also said that the Government were “miles off track” in the setting of a positive agenda for the COP26 United Nations summit in Glasgow, and that “promises” of action were
“not close to being met.”
The Prime Minister’s pledge yesterday to make the UK a world leader in the tackling of climate change is beyond risible. This is not year zero. The Tories have been in power for a decade, and some of us have not forgotten the last 10 years of broken promises and empty pledges on transport. Here are a few.
The “Road to Zero” transport decarbonisation strategy had no money or political will behind it, so is barely worth the paper it was written on. There have been vast cuts in bus funding and services; huge cuts in rail electrification programmes; support for airport expansion; and major road expansion programmes. Those actions are a matter of fact and public record. They are not the actions of a Government who are serious about tackling the climate crisis; they are the actions of a Government without a relevant transport policy.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend contrast that with the approach being taken by the Welsh Labour Government? In my constituency, for example, they are supporting the building of a new station east of Cardiff, St Mellons Parkway, with funds working to ensure that more people can have access to public transport—green public transport —in the east of the city.
Andy McDonald
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Welsh Government are taking a serious issue more seriously, and they are to be commended for their work.
What is more, transport is the most emitting sector of the UK economy. It is responsible for more than a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, and that is excluding international shipping and aviation. It is also the worst-performing sector when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, which are higher now than in 2010. Progress has been poor in comparison with that of other sectors: transport emissions were just 2% lower in 2016-17 than 1990-1991, compared with 60% for energy supply and 30% for businesses more generally.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on what happened to transport emissions under the Labour Government in the 10 years following 1997, before the financial crash?
Andy McDonald
We are dealing with 2020 and the risible record of this Government. I know that a number of Conservative Members think that the world started in 2020, but the Government have been in power since 2010, and they should take that on board.
The facts that I have given compound the Government’s depressing lack of ambition. Their failure to reduce transport carbon emissions and act on the crisis is a huge missed opportunity to lead the world in developing and manufacturing low-carbon technologies. Yesterday’s announcement of a 2035 phase-out of the production of petrol and diesel cars highlights the poverty of vision for the climate and for industry. Electric vehicles will be as cheap as diesel and petrol cars by the mid-2020s. It makes no sense to go on selling polluting vehicles that will be more expensive to buy and run into the 2030s. In its alternative strategy, Labour has set out a clear pathway to achieving significant reductions in climate emissions at the same time as reducing regional and social inequalities and improving the quality of life.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that under Labour’s plans we would decarbonise our transport, but would also ensure that there was an exclusive network so that disabled people could have a good quality of life and could have access to our public transport network?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Access to public transport should be treated as a right, so that disabled people can travel spontaneously as other people can. Many of our policies say exactly that,.
Andy McDonald
I will give way one more time, but then I really must crack on.
John Redwood
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he accept that the UK has done more than practically any other country in the world to cut its carbon dioxide emissions since 1990, whereas China, for example, is greatly expanding its coal extraction and coal power? What is the Labour party’s message to China in the run-up to the conference?
Andy McDonald
My message is that our country is about to miss its own targets for the fourth and fifth carbon targets, and that is an appalling record. That is on the Government’s own statistics, so we really need to focus on getting our own house in order.
Successful bus networks are key to achieving a modal shift from private to public transport and reducing carbon emissions. A fully loaded double decker bus could take up to 75 cars off the road. We are hearing references now to buses from the Conservative Benches, inspired no doubt by the Prime Minister’s painting of cardboard buses, but there needs to be more than that. Under this Government, bus funding has been slashed in real terms by £645 million a year, and more than 3,000 routes have been cut or withdrawn. Fares have soared at more than two and a half times the rate of wage increases, while bus patronage in England outside London has fallen by 10%.
Labour has committed to extending the power to franchise bus services to all local authorities in England and to overturning the ban on new municipal companies. That would allow for the cross-subsidisation of services, smart and integrated ticketing, and London-style price caps. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) remarked the other day that a £1.50 bus fare takes her four stops on the West Road in Newcastle. I endure the same thing: a £2 bus ride from my home in Middlesbrough to the bus station a short distance away is truly ridiculous when people can cross this wonderful capital city very economically indeed.
Andy McDonald
I will give way one more time, but then I must make progress.
Dr Huq
I want to give my hon. Friend a London example. We have the 70 and 94 buses in Acton and Chiswick, and on Friday they became electric, despite the massive cuts to the Transport for London support grant that this Government have placed on our London Mayor. Many people in London are worried that our capital will be punished for voting Labour. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more joined-up thinking and more funding if we are to decarbonise transport?
Andy McDonald
I agree entirely. It is remarkable that London is the only city of any comparison that is without a central Government grant. Some of the measures that we would be taking, were we in government, would have gone some way to addressing that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not be taking any more interventions. I am very much aware that a great number of people want to speak in the debate, so if colleagues will bear with me, I will carry on.
We said that we would totally reverse the cuts made to bus services since 2010, then invest the same amount again. That would allow for 3,000-plus route cuts to be reversed, and for the expansion of new services through the redirection of funds currently being channelled into road building. We could then provide free travel for the under-25s in the areas that own or regulate their buses, in order to address generational inequalities, encourage lifelong public transport use and help reverse the long-term downward trend in bus patronage in England outside London. Electrifying 35,000 buses by 2030 would reduce their emissions by 72% as well as boosting manufacturing. However, progress has been painfully slow over the past decade, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State might furnish us with any proposals in that regard.
Similarly, we have seen rail fares rise by 40% since 2010. In contrast, fares in Germany were cut by 10% at the start of this year to encourage more people to travel by train in order to cut emissions. It is frankly absurd that UK rail fares have risen so excessively while the cost of short-haul flights remains low, with taxes broadly frozen. That is why we pledged in the election campaign to reduce fares by 33% by using part of the revenue brought in by vehicle excise duty. This financial offer to commuters would have encouraged the shift from car usage to public transport that will be essential in the coming years if we are to be successful in decarbonising the transport sector.
However, capital investment in our railways will also be required to reverse the electrification cancellations that we have seen under the Conservatives. Despite the clear environmental and performance benefits of rail electrification, the Tories cancelled the promised electrification on the midland main line, on the line between Windermere and Oxenholme, on TransPennine and on parts of the Great Western route.
Rail freight is a low carbon transport choice, emitting 76% less carbon than the equivalent road journey, and has massive potential to lower UK transport emissions, so I regret that the Government have done so little to encourage it. For example, the TransPennine upgrade has no new capacity for freight. Labour’s policy of bringing the railways into public ownership would allow a long-term strategic approach to investment, delivering a more consistent approach that would better support UK industry and help to decarbonise our railways.
I welcome Eurostar’s announcement this week that full direct rail services from London to Amsterdam will begin on 30 April, with direct services to Rotterdam beginning on 18 May. More rail links between the UK and Europe are vital to reducing carbon emissions from short-haul aviation, and I will work with EU colleagues to promote better rail connectivity.
Ahead of the Budget next month, I remind the Transport Secretary and the Chancellor that we cannot road build our way out of the climate crisis. New roads quickly fill up with cars, and “predict and provide” is a 20th-century concept. Ministers claimed that the road investment strategy for motorways and major A roads between 2015 to 2020 would revolutionise the network. In fact, one in three of the projects has been cancelled or delayed, and the strategy is in complete disarray. Road spending should focus on providing more capacity for sustainable transport, such as provisions for bus priority and integrated transport schemes. We need to develop a more holistic approach to transport funding that is geographically rebalanced across the UK.
Labour committed to repurposing vehicle excise duty to establish a sustainable transport fund. Such a fund could provide £550 million a year for walking and cycling routes, £1.4 billion a year to fund free bus travel for under-25s when bus services are re-regulated, £1.3 billion a year to restore the 3,000 bus services lost and deliver an additional 3,000 on top, and £500 million a year to fund local road improvements and maintenance. Most journeys start and end on local roads, which are also used by cyclists and pedestrians, so fixing potholes and better maintaining those roads and pavements should be a priority.
Tackling road transport emissions requires an enormous investment in electric vehicles to see a just transition of the UK’s fleet of road vehicles.
Andy McDonald
I am aware that many people want to speak, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will carry on.
Labour set 2030 as the date for ending the sale of new diesel and petrol cars. The Government’s new target of 2035 is not ambitious enough for our climate, our industries and our motorists. It is also deeply worrying to hear that the Government may be planning to scrap the £3,500 electric car grant when it expires next month. Perhaps the Transport Secretary can confirm whether that is the case when he comes to the Dispatch Box.
Electric vehicles are already cheaper over the lifetime of a vehicle, and up-front costs are likely to fall sharply by the mid-2020s. It makes sense for the supporting industry and for reducing emissions that motorists should transition soonest. Last year, Labour announced plans to invest £3.6 billion in a vast expansion of the UK’s electric vehicle charging network and to offer 2.5 million interest-free loans for the purchase of electric vehicles, saving buyers up to £5,000. Furthermore, our plans included the introduction of a targeted scrappage scheme to replace cars over 10 years old powered by fossil fuels with new electric cars. We would also have put 30,000 electric cars on UK streets through publicly owned community car sharing clubs. In contrast, the Government have repeatedly slashed EV subsidies and have failed to invest any of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure fund announced in 2017. Not only is that preventing the UK from making necessary emission reductions, but it leaves our motor manufacturing industries lagging behind foreign counterparts.
In the midst of an air pollution crisis, active travel remains massively underfunded. The Government are predicted to miss their own cycling targets, achieving just a third of the 800 million extra trips that they hoped for by 2025, and much of the growth in cycling is limited to London. Labour set out plans to boost cycling and walking and to make England one of the most cycling and walking friendly places in the world, making our towns and cities cleaner and greener, and transforming the environment, travel opportunities and quality of life right across the country. The emissions-reducing plan would also have addressed the local air pollution crisis and the epidemic of ill health caused by sedentary lifestyles. This investment in walking and cycling would, for the first time, have made active travel a genuine option for the many, not just the brave.
The plan included: doubling cycling for adults and children; building 5,000 km of cycleways; creating safe cycling and walking routes to 10,000 primary schools; delivering universal affordable access to bicycles and grants for e-bike purchases; and providing training for all primary school children and their parents, extending training to secondary schools and making training available for all adults.
Aviation emissions are a particular issue: in the UK, they have more than doubled since 1990, while emissions from the economy as a whole have fallen by around 40%. The Government plan to build a third runway at Heathrow. According to the Department for Transport’s projections for Heathrow expansion, the UK’s legally binding targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 will be missed. The Government should rule out any expansion that is not compatible with our climate targets. Who are we expanding airports for?
Andy McDonald
I have already indicated that I will not give way because so many people want to speak.
Fifteen per cent. of the UK’s population accounts for 70% of all flights, and half the country does not fly at all in any given year. Ahead of a possible tax cut for the aviation industry next month, Ministers should be thinking more imaginatively, such as replacing air passenger duty with a fair and just levy that targets frequent flyers. The Government’s advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change, has called for the introduction of a frequent flyer levy. Such a move could reduce demand for flying without penalising the annual family holiday in the sun, instead making it more expensive to fly out for a weekend at the second home in Provence for the umpteenth time that year.
Andy McDonald
No, it is not.
Is the Secretary of State aware that it is more than a decade since the effectiveness of regulators in the transport industry was seriously questioned or considered? [Interruption.] I know he is not listening, but he really should.
Regulators could and should have a positive role in driving carbon reduction in the industries they oversee. Does the Secretary of State agree that the powers of the Office of Rail and Road and the Civil Aviation Authority should be strengthened to ensure that the road, rail, bus and aviation industries meet their climate crisis obligations? Have the Government issued any guidance to the transport industry regulators in that regard?
Finally, the Department for Transport does not have a carbon reduction budget or target. The Government should set a carbon budget consistent with the aspirations of the Paris agreement and beyond. In addition, each of the sectors—rail, road, aviation and maritime—should have carbon reduction targets in line with that departmental budget, and departmental spending should be reallocated to achieve the changes required.
Claire O’Neill is correct to say that the Prime Minister “doesn’t get it” on the climate crisis. The Transport Secretary has an opportunity to show that he does get it by halting the colossal road-building programme and his plans for airport expansion, and by boosting investment in active travel, public transport and electric vehicles.
Dealing with transport is critical to confronting the climate crisis. We are compelled to take action by decarbonising not only to respond to the existential threat to our one and only planet but to embrace the green industrial revolution and, simultaneously, to address the gross and obscene deficits in social justice. We must level up so that everyone across our nation has affordable, accessible and sustainable transport. We must connect our communities and businesses, and we must give people the means to get to work, to get to college, school or university and to get to hospital, and to help address social isolation.
The moral, social and economic imperatives are urgent and stark, and I urge this Government to take the bold and radical action that is necessary. The country, indeed the world, is watching. I commend this motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I welcome this opportunity to debate transport and climate change. Despite some of the less well-thought-out jibes across the Dispatch Box, we are all pretty much in agreement on the need to address this issue; after all, we have all legislated to reach zero carbon by 2050. That may be where the agreement ends, but it is only right, in that spirit of co-operation, also to agree that this country has made remarkable, world-beating progress towards the targets in recent years, particularly in the past decade or so.
We have already heard mention from the Dispatch Box today of all the solar installations, 99% of which have been installed since 2010. We have seen a huge increase in the amount of renewable energy, particularly from offshore wind—53% of the power now produced comes from wind, solar and nuclear. That means we are getting much more renewable in our energy. That is a good thing and we ought to be celebrating it, but clearly many greater challenges are coming down the line. That is why decarbonisation is so important, but also why we should recognise that we have decarbonised faster than any other G20 country; last year, we led by passing that legislation. Across the House, we clearly agree on reaching zero emissions by 2050 and making that legally binding, which is essential. We are consulting on bringing forward the date for ending the sale of fossil-fuel diesel and petrol cars earlier than 2040, which was previously highlighted.
When I hear us being lectured about the electrification of our railway lines, it is worth remembering that in 13 years of power the Labour party electrified one mile of lines per year. We have done 10 times better, having electrified hundreds of miles. I was grateful to hear the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) welcoming the new line that I helped launch yesterday. Indeed, I helped work on getting the treaty signed. He described it as London to Amsterdam, but in fact trains were already running from London to Amsterdam and this was about the journey the other way around; the launch means that people no longer need to decant at Brussels, which was a 50-minute process, to go through passport control. From April, people will be able to come straight back, without getting off. He is absolutely right to say that that is an enormous benefit in terms of efficiency and saving carbon dioxide when travelling from Europe.
The new line is the not the end: we are looking to develop further routes, including Frankfurt, and, in the summer, Lille, Lyon, Bordeaux as well as many others. This is an excellent example of how, although we have left the EU, we have most certainly not left Europe and we are able to strengthen our ties in a meaningful way.
John Redwood
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lot of our public want us to bust congestion and get people on the move, so that they can get to school and work more easily? That requires short-term measures to improve junctions, change light arrangements and so forth, and medium-term measures to put in bypasses and additional capacity. That is a very green thing to do, because then we stop people churning out emissions in traffic jams.
Grant Shapps
I agree with my right hon. Friend on the importance of stopping those pinch points, where traffic just idles, pumps out all this CO2 and creates pollution. That clearly is not sensible, so we have a big programme in place; we are putting £28 billion into our roads. We will shortly be announcing more developments on our road investment strategy, RIS2, and getting rid of more of those pinch points. It is also important to get the traffic that runs on those roads to be greener and to get greener quicker, with electric and other forms of lower carbon and zero carbon production. I will talk a little more about that shortly, but I am clear that simply saying that we will not build any roads anywhere will increase pollution and the toxins in our atmosphere, not reduce them.
The targets have to be tough, and they have to be challenging. That will help to focus the minds not just of the consumer and business but of Government, and that is absolutely right. Targets also have to be viable and practical. That goes to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). It will not be easy to meet these goals if we simply try to do it by destroying industry along the way. That point is easily forgotten, but if we do forget it, we will not get the miracle that we have had of a 42% reduction in the amount of CO2 at the same time as a 73% increase in the size of the economy.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that actually the best way to tackle congestion is to get people off the roads and on to bicycles, walking, and indeed using public transport? I want to come back to his point about electrification of the railways. It is good to hear that he is now committed to, and an advocate for, electrification. We are getting electrification of the midland main line to Kettering and Corby. The only way to decarbonise an intensively used railway like that is to electrify it. Is he willing to look at electrifying it all the way through to Sheffield and Nottingham?
Grant Shapps
I can absolutely reassure the hon. Lady that under this Government we are seeing, and will be seeing, a lot more electrification. I do take slight issue with the idea that the only way to get to a decarbonised railway is to electrify it. There are other possibilities, including, in particular, hydrogen, which we are starting to experiment with on the railways right now—an excellent plan going forward. On her point about roads, bicycles and other forms of transport need roads, so we still have to have them built in this country. I simply do not believe that there is a way round that.
Grant Shapps
I will make a little progress, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
It is important to realise that we are very keen not only to reduce CO2 but to grow the economy at the same time. The two things are not incompatible; in fact, they go hand in hand. We can do this more successfully if we grow the economy, because then we can get in front of the technology. One of the measures in the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday was to consult on ending petrol and diesel car sales in 2035 or earlier rather than 2040, with the aim of ensuring that the British car manufacturing sector gets the advantage of completely clean travel, which they can then exploit by selling it to the rest of the world. That is one reason why we should be so ambitious to do this. The sector can create jobs—millions of jobs. It is already employing very large numbers of people in this country. This Government want to help society and the economy adapt towards the new decarbonised world.
I recognise—I have said this at the Dispatch Box as recently as last week—that transport contributes over a quarter of the UK’s domestic greenhouse gases; it is a big number. It has become the leading source of greenhouse gases, considering that energy, as described before, has become so much less polluting. That is why, as I say, we came out with the target to move forward with the end of petrol and diesel. That is faster, I should say, than any other European market. In a country that does not produce cars, it is easy to say, “You must only buy an electric car”, but we have a dozen different domestic car producers that we have to take with us on this—and we will. That is why we are investing £1.5 billion over six years to make the UK the best place to own and to manufacture electric cars, and why we are delivering a further £1 billion to transform the automotive sector. Schemes like the Faraday battery challenge and the Advanced Propulsion Centre are funding development of the supply chain, and that can be massively important to this transformation.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend on getting electrification of our cars and support his energy in doing so. Our electric cars obviously do need roads to drive on. May I therefore thank him for the contribution that he has made to making sure that my local ancient flyover is coming down next week? Can he confirm that there is funding for pinch points, for instance to replace that junction, and for ensuring that a new, modern, all-singing, all-dancing option of electric vehicles, buses, bicycles and so on remains available for the whole country?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to argue that the Army and Navy flyover should be removed now that it has been closed. We want to make sure, whatever happens, that very low carbon—zero carbon—alternatives are available for people commuting in that area.
I have said at the Dispatch Box that some of the speeches I have heard show that the point has been missed. We have more charging locations in this country than petrol stations. I am not talking about charging points in driveways, where people are fortunate enough to park off-road. I am talking about publicly available charging locations. There are more of those than petrol stations, with one of the largest charging networks in Europe. As a driver of electric cars, who has experienced range anxiety once or twice, I am relieved that that network is growing all the time. An electric car is sold every 15 minutes and the number of people registering for electric cars has more than doubled in the past year, so we have reached the point where this is starting to expand massively.
Jessica Morden
Electric vehicles need steel—crucially, electrical steel. Just before Christmas, Tata mothballed the only maker of electrical steel in the UK. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government have to step in and help the steel industry at this difficult time if we want an end-to-end supply chain in this country?
Grant Shapps
That was worked in well, and there is an important point to make. We want to ensure the supply chain not just of steel and electrical steel but of batteries in a gigafactory. Last October, we announced that we are putting up to £1 billion into supporting a gigafactory in this country. People can also expect us to want to support the supply chain, because it is good business, rather than providing subsidy for the sake of subsidy, to make this country a leading one in Europe. We sell one in five of the electric cars sold in Europe and we build them here, and we want to expand that a lot further.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will make progress, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
Last year, we announced investment of £220 million to make buses more efficient and green. I shall say more about that very shortly. Since 2010, we have provided over £240 million to replace and upgrade our bus fleet, resulting in more than 7,000 cleaner buses on our roads. That is on top of £576 million for local authorities to develop innovative plans for buses, and £288 million for the clean air fund to support individual businesses affected by all those things. I agree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who said that we had to move to green buses—he is absolutely right—and that is exactly what we are doing. Everybody should have the opportunity to get on a bus that is reliable, efficient and clean.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I had a conversation yesterday with some firefighters, and it came to light that if lithium batteries caught fire they would need to be put out with sand. Our firefighters are not equipped with that on their fire engines, so will the Secretary of State respond to that?
Grant Shapps
That is not something that I have come across, and I am happy to look into it with my team of Ministers, because public safety measures need to be investigated properly. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will write to her with details.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I have another few minutes, and I want to give other colleagues a chance to contribute, so I will conclude by mentioning a few more things, particularly promoting healthier forms of transport such as cycling and walking. A number of principles will guide our future mobility urban strategy. We are investing £2.5 billion in the Transforming Cities fund, to help cities and regions throughout England tackle congestion with greener forms of transport, particularly cycling and walking. There are brilliant examples in Manchester, for example, with the Bee Network, and in Birmingham, where there is a network to do the same things. We will be going further and faster on cycling and walking.
We have briefly touched on rail and our enthusiasm for it. It is worth mentioning the £48 billion being provided just in this particular period—control period 6 of Network Rail’s expenditure. That is without Northern Powerhouse Rail and without whatever decisions we reach on high-speed rail. The amount of money going into rail is a record in this country. I know that many colleagues were in Parliament yesterday when we discussed the £0.5 billion going into the Beeching reversal fund, reopening lines that were closed in those savage cuts in the ’60s and ’70s. As I said before, only the Labour party could think that half a billion pounds is small change. And that is just a down payment—that is where we are starting, folks. Yesterday, we had a fantastic meeting with colleagues from all parties—I have not heard any of them complain—who are interested in the reopening of their local Beeching lines, which were savagely cut, mostly under the Labour Governments of the 1970s. Some 5,000 miles of track and 2,300 stations were closed; now that we are opening them all up, all Labour Members say is that we should have done it sooner. You could not make it up.
We are absolutely to committed to the plan to get railways open, and we also take a much more realistic view when it comes to aviation. Just last night I was with representatives of the aviation sector, which has itself signed a plan to get to zero carbon by 2050. The challenge is straightforward enough with cars, because we already have the technology. It is possible with buses and it is easier with other forms of transport, but it is uniquely complex with aircraft, given their weight and the performance requirements that have until now required aviation fuel. The aviation sector’s commitment to get to zero carbon is one of the most serious challenges for this country’s transport plan. I am impressed by the sector’s ideas and the Government will work closely with it, through carbon offsetting—
Grant Shapps
That is just the start. We will work closely with the aviation sector through reduction schemes, by working with international aviation and by producing fuels that do not emit carbon in the same way that fuels do today. The Future Flight Challenge includes £300 million for greener aviation, to make aviation electric. I was not going to repeat the point, but I will now that I have been challenged: we are working on programmes to produce electric and hybrid planes and to use biofuels and other technologies to cut emissions from fuel. That is extremely important.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has not mentioned the tube as a means of decarbonising our transport infrastructure. In 2015, the Prime Minister claimed that the Bakerloo line extension was firmly on track to open by 2030; where are the Government at on that now? Will the Secretary of State meet Members who represent the communities that that extension would benefit?
Grant Shapps
As the hon. Gentleman will know, that project is led by the Mayor of London and Transport for London, but I meet and speak to them regularly and would be happy to chase up the project on his behalf, because it is in all our interests to see Crossrail and the Victoria line completed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point that out.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming down to Gloucestershire during the election campaign to see the Air Balloon roundabout which, as he knows, is a pinch point that causes pollution and danger for motorists. He mentioned road investment strategy 2 earlier in his speech and said that it would be announced shortly; can he provide any further detail as to when we can expect to see it?
Grant Shapps
It will arrive before very long. I have seen the problems at the Air Balloon roundabout with very own eyes, along with my hon. Friend and other colleagues, and I am keen to see that pinch point addressed. Although I cannot announce the RIS2 outcome, my hon. Friend will not have to wait long to find it out. I look forward to visiting the area again in the near future.
To sum up, we are well aware of the effort that is required—it is a great national effort. This is not something that will happen in one Department or in one corner of the economy; it has to happen throughout the whole of Government and the whole of society. I fully recognise that transport needs to lead the way when it comes to departmental reductions in the amount of greenhouse gases and toxins in the atmosphere. That is why we are working on our transport decarbonisation plan, which in itself will be world leading, both in its scale of ambition and in what it will produce for this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Colleagues will be able to see that a large number of people want to speak in the debate, so after the SNP spokesperson there will be an immediate time limit of six minutes.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I will start in a positive vein by welcoming the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of an acceleration in the phasing out of new petrol and diesel vehicles. Of course, he still lags a good few years behind the Scottish Government’s target of 2032, but it is progress none the less and we welcome it.
The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Michael Matheson, today set out Scotland’s national transport strategy. It is an ambitious and bold strategy that places decarbonisation and our net zero target at the heart of all the Scottish Government do. It also places active travel where it should be—at the top of the transport hierarchy. The benefits to our transport system and the environment are manifold, but the wider benefits are in many ways greater still. Diseases of inactivity are among the biggest killers in western society. Placing walking at the centre of any transport strategy boosts life expectancy and allows our NHS to spend resources and time elsewhere. This debate, therefore, is not just about the environmental benefits for all; it is also about the environment in which each of us lives and how we can improve it to give everyone the best outcome possible for life.
That requires a strategy—something that is missing from the UK Government’s approach. There is no national transport strategy for England or the UK as a whole. There are investment strategies, inclusive strategies, strategic plans for the north of England, and infrastructure skills strategies. They are all important and part of the mix, but there is no overall plan to improve transport in the round. My colleague at Holyrood deserves praise for the work that he and Transport Scotland have done to embed in a national plan of action the principles of fairness, environmental justice and sustainable growth in tackling inequalities and transitioning to net zero.
To achieve those net zero targets, we need a strong lead from the state, with clear-headed policies, not just in terms of our obligations to cut emissions and tackle climate change, but in order to develop our economy and society more generally. Gone are the days when millions of us lived within a short walk of our workplaces and neighbourhood shops. We now need and expect to be able to travel with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of comfort, which is exactly how it should be in a wealthy 21st-century society.
That sort of system cannot focus on one solution alone; we need a basket of policies that fit all our lives and take into account our varying geography and topography. We can look at what works and at what can be done now and in the near future to accelerate sustainability. One example, as both Front-Bench representatives have said, is to improve our buses. In Scotland, nearly 400 million bus journeys are made every year, which is four times the number of ScotRail passenger journeys. More than one quarter of all people use a bus at least once a week, and nearly one fifth of our school students travel to school on a bus. Four thousand buses result in more than 1 million journeys every day, travelling the length and breadth of Scotland, from Shetland to Stranraer.
For far too long, however, the public bus system has been overshadowed by rail. Barely a week goes by without some breathless coverage—often merited, sometimes not so much—of an incident on our railways. Meanwhile, the slow decline of bus services and the drift downwards of patronage and coverage largely goes unreported and is not commented on.
That is exactly why last September the Scottish Government’s programme for government announced a record half a billion pounds of investment in infrastructure designed to improve bus services by reducing and removing the impacts of congestion, giving more priority to buses, and fundamentally increasing buses’ modal share and reducing our use of private cars. That modal share slipped below 10% for the first time in the most recent round of transport statistics, which is just one reason why that £500 million represents a massively positive breakthrough in transport priorities.
Investing in the bus network is not just about reducing emissions and congestion or moving to decarbonisation; it is also about social justice. Put simply, the lower somebody’s income, the more likely they are to rely on the bus. Social mobility is not just a figure of speech. Flexible transport services go hand in hand with ease of access to employment and they improve labour market options for employees. Supporting bus travel is a fully progressive policy that shifts wealth and income to the poorest in society and empowers people to have a much wider choice of where and how they want to earn a living.
I welcome the Government’s announcement of extra funding to reinstate some of the slash-and-burn policies instituted by Beeching nearly 60 years ago, but I am concerned about the “reversing Beeching” programme. How does a series of separate branch lines scattered around the country form part of a system-wide plan for a rail network with a bigger picture for the regional and national level? Whatever people’s opinions of HS2, it is at least an attempt to think strategically about future transport needs.
I know the Secretary of State will disagree with me, as he has done previously, on the £500 million being a drop in the ocean, but that is the truth. The Borders railway, which was a strategic project aimed at massively boosting connectivity and the economy of a part of the world that is too often left to fend for itself with crumbs from the table, and was one of the final victims of the Beeching report in 1969, cost £294 million for 40 miles of single-line track over a distance of 31 miles. With consumer prices index inflation factored in, that is £328 million. By the time the consultants, the press officers, and the hi-vis and hard hats for visiting dignitaries and—dare I say—Secretaries of State have been paid for, the £500 million promised by the DFT will pay for about one and a half Borders railways somewhere in England. That would be 60 miles of track, added to a network of over 16,000 miles in England and Wales—an increase of 0.38%.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Member is making an important point. The budget for HS2 is about £100 billion, and Lord Berkeley’s dissenting report says that the cost-benefit ratio is 60p for every £1 spent, so the British Government are about to burn £40 billion. Would it not be better to chuck that £100 billion into the Beeching reversal fund, because that would do far more for connectivity than HS2?
Gavin Newlands
I certainly agree that the money that has been promised thus far is insignificant in reality. I think Transport for the North put it best when it said that around £70 billion is required just to increase connectivity to the requisite level in the north of England, let alone the rest of the country. The best I can say is that £500 million is a good start.
Gavin Newlands
I will give way briefly, but I am conscious of Madam Deputy Speaker’s urgings about time.
Alan Brown
I have just received a response to a written question about that £500 million, but the Government have confirmed that it is not new money in the Department’s spending. It is actually money that has clearly come from somewhere else. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is another Tory con trick, and that the investment coming forward should actually be new?
Gavin Newlands
I absolutely agree, but I am hardly surprised by the response to my hon. Friend’s written question. It is not unusual for this Government to double- count money and re-announce the same figures.
I do welcome the new openings, if they occur. My concern is that they simply do not go far enough in creating an integrated network of the type that Beeching was happy to destroy. In 20 years of devolution, successive Scottish Governments—both SNP and Labour-led, to be fair—have understood the importance of bold action to reverse the cuts made in a previous era. Airdrie to Bathgate, Larkhall, the Borders railway, Stirling to Alloa and the extension of the Maryhill line are all reinstatements of Beeching closures. We have the biggest programme of electrification and decarbonisation of the rail network in 40 years, with all services between our two biggest cities running under the wires, as well as Stirling, Alloa, Falkirk, Paisley Canal and Whifflet, with much more in the pipeline as part of the rolling programme of electrification. The result of all this—and much more—will be a carbon-free rail system that helps Scotland to achieve net zero. I hope that the UK Transport Secretary will visit the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in Edinburgh during his tenure to hear how it is done, and see the real investment going into Scotland’s railways day in, day out. These are not magic fixes or changes beyond our economic capacity. They are realistic, achievable solutions to the challenges that we all face.
Many of our roads are at—or, in some cases, over—capacity, which brings increased congestion and the resultant increased emissions. There are those who say we should stop building roads altogether. I say, tell that to the residents of Aberdeenshire, who have seen their travel transformed by the western peripheral route, or those crossing the Forth on the replacement crossing, which has seen not one day of closure due to high winds—a bridge built in the face of opposition from many who are now curiously quiet about their lack of support. Tell it to the residents of Dalry, who, thanks to the newly opened bypass, which was completed seven months ahead of schedule, have seen traffic and pollution in their town plummet.
Targeted investments in our road network, combined with the massive expansion in electric charge points and projects such as the electric highway along the A9 are all part of the mix in reducing emissions. Private transport must be available to as wide a cohort of society as possible. That is why Scottish households can now access grant funding that will, on average, pay for 80% of the cost of installing a home charge point—30% more than the rest of the UK. There are more public charging points per head in Scotland than anywhere else outside London. We are rolling out support for e-bikes, social landlords who want to develop zero-emissions infrastructure and car clubs. The low carbon transport loan means that more households than ever are in a position to make the switch now, rather than later. With used electric cars now becoming eligible, the choice available is getting wider all the time.
Scotland is doing well, but Norway is soaring ahead in electric car deployment. By the end of 2020, half of all new cars sold there will be electric—the result of bold policies and a determination by Government to tackle a societal and environmental challenge. Those bold policies are only possible because Norway has the resources and the power of an independent state to make those changes. If the UK does not want to use the powers it has to make those changes, it should ensure that Scotland does.
Scotland has shown global leadership by being the first country to include international aviation and shipping emissions in its statutory climate targets. Aviation is undoubtedly the most difficult sector to decarbonise, although I welcome the industry’s recently announced commitment to do so by 2050. The SNP has already committed to decarbonise flights within Scotland by 2040 and aims to have the world’s first zero-emission aviation region, in partnership with Highlands and Islands Airports.
Too often, transport policy appears to be a contradiction in terms. In the short time since taking up my position as the SNP’s transport spokesperson, I have been genuinely surprised at the lack of joined-up thinking that pervades so much of what is sketched out for the future. Putting the zero-emission society at the heart of transport planning and wider Government policy means joining up some of that thinking towards a common goal and a common strategy. That is exactly what the Scottish Government have been doing and continue to do, and it is what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance will be doing tomorrow when he unveils the Scottish budget. It is what the Cabinet Secretary for Transport did earlier this afternoon at Holyrood, and I hope it is what the UK Transport Secretary will begin to do as he reflects on this debate in the weeks and months ahead.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank all the colleagues who supported me—or told me they did—in the election for the Transport Committee, which it is a great privilege to chair. I have not done much for diversity, because I think I am the first male to chair it. There is a serious issue with diversity in the transport sector, and I recognise that I am not exactly waving the flag for that. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who chaired the Committee previously with such rigour. She was an incredibly popular Chair, and it is a delight to see her back on the Committee. She has promised not to be a backseat driver, but another formidable female politician once said the same thing in this place. I am happy to be driven from the back.
It is a delight to speak on such a wide-ranging motion tabled by the Opposition. I do not agree with many parts of it, but I welcome the fact that we are debating them, and none more so than the need to decarbonise our transport sector. We have had great success in reducing emissions by 40% since the 1990s. Pretty much every sector except transport has reduced emissions over the past few years. It has remained stubbornly difficult to reduce transport’s footprint. Surface transport accounts for 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions, and transport as a whole accounts for 33%. In fact, between 2014 and 2016, emissions from transport went up, so it is clearly the sector that needs the most focus, and I welcome the fact that it is getting that focus today.
I want to talk about some of the exciting innovations in the transport sector that we need to harness and encourage in order to meet our net zero carbon commitment.
Ian Paisley
Is it not interesting that the Secretary of State is the only person in the debate so far to mention hydrogen, the true zero-emission product that can help us to achieve the goals set out by the Government?
Huw Merriman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In fact, I was just about to talk about hydrogen, so that is a brilliant segue.
The Transport Committee visited the engineer who first retrofitted a conventional train with hydrogen technology. We talk about the need to electrify and move away from diesel, but 2% of the national grid is taken up by electrified rail, and if only 40% of energy is coming from renewables, that means that 60% is still unpleasant. We need to invest in hydrogen, and it is very exciting that we have the engineer in this country who will enable us to do just that.
Huw Merriman
I will take one more intervention, as I am conscious that others wish to speak.
Alex Sobel
I congratulate the hon. Member on his election. On hydrogen production for trains and transport in general, we need to think about how it is produced. ITM Power in Yorkshire produces its hydrogen using electrolysis, which actually means it is a zero carbon fuel. We need to take this in the round, because sometimes decarbonisation does not mean decarbonisation if the fuel still needs carbon and fossil fuels for its manufacture.
Huw Merriman
The hon. Member is absolutely right. If we are to call it completely green technology, it needs to be as he describes. Perhaps we should have in mind a trip to Yorkshire.
I want to talk about the development of batteries in trains. On the Southern network, for example, there are still two diesel services, even though there is usually a third rail, because part of it does not have the third rail and the services therefore need diesel all the way through. The idea with batteries is that we charge and then use them for the part where there is no third rail. As I have mentioned, that incredibly exciting technology will allow us to move away from diesel.
I want to touch on parts of the motion that involve a more wide-ranging set of issues. There is the desire to cut rail and bus fares, and I absolutely agree that we should be looking to lessen increases in rail fares. It is very frustrating that we still use RPI rather than CPI to calculate rail fare increases; in the past year, fares would have gone up by 2.5% instead of 3.1%. The challenge is that a third of all the train operators’ costs go on employing staff, and if the staff continue to be paid on an RPI basis it will be very difficult to move that over.
I am excited by the ideas on fare reform that have been put forward mostly under the guise of the Williams review. It is absolutely ludicrous that those travelling to work for three days of the week, perhaps working from home during the rest of the week, are still unable to get a three-day-week ticket. That can make it too expensive for people to commute, so I would welcome such a reform.
I would dearly love to see automatic rail compensation. The train operators take the money they receive from Network Rail when there are delays, but two thirds of passengers who experience a delay do not claim compensation, so the rest is banked by the train operators. I would like them to have to ring-fence that money in a fund, and to invest in technology that allows us to tap on and tap off the train, so that if the train is delayed by more than 15 or 30 minutes, we would get compensation into our bank account without even needing to know that we had been delayed. We must get the train operators to deliver that technology, so that commuters and passengers feel that they are getting value for money, or at least that they are getting compensated when they have not had value for money.
I will not mention HS2, because I fear that will come up in many other debates, but I certainly envisage the Committee looking at it. However, I do want to talk about buses. Three out of five of all public transport journeys are undertaken by bus, yet it just does not receive the attention it should. I am looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), and he and I may be about to disagree, but when he was the Buses Minister, we had the Bus Services Act 2017. I really felt it should be a case of franchising for all authorities that wanted it, followed by partnerships and then followed by municipals in situations where partnerships and franchises did not work. I know the view was to stop further municipals, but if we now say to local authorities, “If developers aren’t building out, then you build council houses and compete with them”, why can we not do the same thing when the bus service disappears?
On the buses strategy, may we examine more closely whether deregulation is working? With train operators, the trains are paid for by the passengers who use them, so there is no subsidy as far as that is concerned, yet we tell the train operators when the trains stop and how often. However, when it comes to buses, which receive a £2 billion public sector subsidy, we do not impose the same conditions, so bus services may disappear, or get rerouted so that they no longer pass the GP’s surgery.
The buses strategy, which I absolutely welcome, needs to set out some teeth in terms of what bus service providers provide to our constituents. I say that very much looking at my new parliamentary party, with colleagues from parts of the north that we have not represented before, where the bus is even more of an essential service than in other parts we have previously reached. I very much hope that we will have the power, on the Conservative Benches, to ensure that bus services are properly restored. I also ask why young people cannot get to places of Saturday or part-time work because the bus service is too expensive or does not exist, yet we allow millionaire pensioners to receive free bus travel. It is essential that we ask these very searching questions.
We have talked about aviation; it is going to be incredibly difficult to green, but I disagree with the Liberal Democrats’ amendment that we should not proceed with Heathrow. We need to demonstrate that we can still build big.
I do not have time to talk about motor vehicles, but 70% of the footprint is motor vehicles, and a third of all journeys taken by e-scooters would have been by car. We must legalise e-scooters.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
This is the first time that I have spoken on transport in this Parliament, but it is far from the first time that I have spoken on these issues over the past decade in this House. Indeed, the fact that I shall repeat many of the points that I have previously raised with other Ministers shows just how little progress there has been in delivering a reliable, affordable and integrated public transport system for people throughout the north-east, including my constituents.
We are a region with incredible potential, but our inadequate transport links hold us back. An expanded, integrated network would address so many of the challenges we face, from the economy to the environment. It would unlock job opportunities by allowing people without a car to access areas they would have struggled to get to before. It would help ward off loneliness and isolation. And it would tackle the poor air quality that is present in so many communities across our country.
Making sure that areas such as mine can benefit from a well-run, integrated system that puts passengers first should not be beyond us, but in my constituency it has been decades since we were last served by any form of passenger rail service. That means that buses are the only option for those wishing to use public transport, but those services are often unreliable and costly, and are too often run for the benefit of shareholders, not the taxpayer. In the last decade alone, several routes have been cut or altered, often on spurious grounds, usually connected to profit, with little warning for local people, leaving residents cut off from GPs, hospitals and schools.
The demand for good public transport in the north-east is there; we are the region that, outside London, has the lowest rate of car ownership in the country. We also have great economic potential; we are the only UK region to consistently deliver a trade surplus and the leading exporting region in the UK.
For years now, we have heard great rhetoric about the Government’s commitment to the north, and we have heard even more in recent months, but that has not been matched by action. For too long our region has suffered from a major imbalance in transport spending per head when compared with other English regions.
There are a number of credible and viable ways in which access to public transport could be opened up. Houghton and Sunderland South is home to a section of the Leamside line, a mothballed rail corridor running between Newcastle and Durham, passing through Fence Houses and Penshaw and then over the incredible Victoria viaduct. Nexus has identified the long-term strategic benefits of reopening the Leamside line. It would add capacity for both freight and passenger services operating at local, regional and national level. That would relieve pressure on the east coast main line, which is already at capacity and is set to face greater demands in years to come. I invite the Minister to come and see the Leamside line, to appreciate what could be achieved if we were able to reopen that important line. I would also urge the Secretary of State to look favourably on funding if any business case is put before him, in the context of the strategic outline business case.
Another long-term prospect would be the extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro to Doxford international business park in my constituency, where thousands of workers are based. There is a real desire among my constituents to make that a reality—a point I made when responding to the Government’s consultation on light rail. Ministers had hoped to respond to the consultation by the end of last year. I take the opportunity to ask the Minister when he expects the Government response to be forthcoming.
Reopening the Leamside line and extending the Metro are just two examples of how investment in rail and light rail could benefit my constituency. Doubtless we shall hear many similar cases made by Members across the House. I appreciate that what I have set out represents longer-term projects that will take time and capital investment to deliver, but there is one straightforward way that the Government could immediately address the quality of public transport in my constituency—by sorting out our failed bus network.
We have seen bus routes cut on a whim, with the absolute minimum of notice, and with no requirement to release the data on profitability that leads to those decisions. It is unsurprising, therefore, that in the north-east bus patronage among adults has continued to fall substantially in recent years. These are the consequences of deregulation in the ’80s, which, as I have argued before, has been an unmitigated disaster for constituencies like mine. There is no reason why local bus services in the north-east cannot operate on the basis of an integrated transport system with genuine smart ticketing that allows people greater flexibility in travelling.
Ministers should give us the powers we need to franchise bus services, so that local people have a greater say, and ensure that passengers and taxpayers are put ahead of the interests of bus company shareholders. Making such a change in legislation need not be difficult if the political will exists, and it would provide a much quicker solution to tackling the inadequate public transport network that we see throughout the north-east.
If all this talk of so-called levelling up is to mean anything, we need to see much more action and fewer platitudes from Ministers, and a clear demonstration that they will work with us—communities, businesses and politicians, right across the north-east—to unlock our potential and invest in our transport network.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). I want to use my time this afternoon to speak about a project, the argument for which is often that it reduces overall carbon emissions from our transport network, although that argument is debatable. The project, inevitably, is HS2.
The motion is really about the strategic outline of transport policy for the foreseeable future. I believe that high-speed rail can be a part of that. From an environmental point of view, trains are better than planes and high- speed rail can provide genuine competition for short- haul flights. Taking city-to-city passenger traffic off the conventional rail network and on to high-speed rail lines can leave more space for stopping passenger services to more destinations and can leave more train pathways for freight services that take freight off our roads. Those are all, in my judgment, good arguments, but they are arguments for a well-designed and well delivered high-speed rail network. I am afraid that I do not believe that HS2 qualifies for that description.
If it is to be built, HS2 will be a significant part of our strategic transport infrastructure, with many miles of new track. I accept, of course, that building such infrastructure in a small and crowded island is bound to be disruptive, but those responsible for building the infrastructure have a responsibility to minimise the disruption. People whose homes, businesses and farm land will be demolished, diminished or devalued by HS2 have a right to be treated fairly and with decency. In the decade of this project’s development, and in my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, they too often have not been. Communication is invariably poor, consideration for distress caused is lacking, and compensation is grudgingly agreed and painfully and slowly extracted.
I accept, of course, that taxpayers’ interests must be protected, but the nation has an obligation to those who take a personal hit for national benefit. That obligation falls to be discharged by HS2 Ltd in this project. There are individual HS2 Ltd employees who do their best to be compassionate and responsive, but I have to say that I find HS2 Ltd as a corporate entity to be both chronically inefficient and institutionally callous. If HS2 is to proceed, that must change. What makes it worse for so many of those individually affected is that they do not accept the case for HS2 in the first place. Many more of our constituents who are not directly affected by HS2, but are profoundly concerned about the environmental damage it will do and the price tag it has, feel the same.
A project of this scale will inevitably cost a great deal and its cost cannot be properly considered in isolation from its benefits, both direct and indirect, but the financial cost of HS2 is not just high but rising fast: £32.7 billion by 2012; £55.7 billion by 2015; and at least £72 billion by last year, with few believing it will stop there. What makes HS2 very high cost is its very high speed and the expensive engineering required to achieve it. It is also the requirement for very high speed that removes the project’s ability to divert around sensitive areas and reduce environmental damage. Very high speed used to be the primary argument for HS2, but significantly it is now capacity improvements that are argued as justification for the project. Those capacity improvements do not require the very high speeds to which this project is currently working.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I wholly agree with many of the arguments that my right hon. and learned Friend is making. Does he agree that there are other schemes out there, such as reopening the Great Central line, that would improve capacity without having to go down the environmentally damaging route of HS2?
Jeremy Wright
I do. We should use the pause that the Secretary of State has sensibly ordered to develop a cheaper, less environmentally damaging high-speed rail network—perhaps one that lays additional track along existing transport corridors. With the money that we can save, we can invest in more of the transport projects that are mentioned in this debate while still investing in high-speed rail. To my mind, that would be a better strategic balance in transport policy.
I recognise that going back to the drawing board on high-speed rail will cause a delay to its coming into operation, but as my hon. Friend rightly says there are alternatives that have already been partially developed. Let us recall that only last year we were told that phase 1 of HS2 would, in any event, be delayed by at least two years and that phase 2 would be delayed by at least three years. High-speed rail will change our transport future for generations to come. It is too important to get wrong, and we can do better than HS2.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a great pleasure to call Tahir Ali to make his maiden speech.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I am truly honoured and privileged to be here representing the people of my constituency of Birmingham, Hall Green. I am forever grateful to the constituents who have put their trust and confidence in me, with such a huge mandate.
I have waited until today, 5 February, to make my maiden speech for two reasons. Many Members in the Chamber may not be aware that today is Kashmir Solidarity Day. Kashmir Solidarity Day is in observance of support for and to express unity and solidarity with the people of Indian-administered Kashmir, and to pay homage to the tens of thousands of Kashmiris who have been martyred in the conflict by Indian armed forces.
On 5 August—exactly six months ago today—the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Indian Government decided to strip the state of Jammu and Kashmir of autonomy after seven decades, characterising it as the correction of a historical blunder. This act is illegal and the international community’s silence on the matter is worrying. In south Asia, the long drawn-out dispute over the state of Jammu and Kashmir remains a hanging fireball between two hostile nuclear neighbours, India and Pakistan. It has been bringing human misery in the form of wars on the issue and it continues to threaten regional and global peace. My role is not to take sides, such as to be pro-Pakistan or anti-India. I believe, as a Kashmiri, that it is my duty to highlight the abuses and human rights violations to this House.
Even after seven decades, the people of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir are waiting for their right of self-determination, promised by the United Nations. Notwithstanding over 25 United Nations resolutions calling for a solution to the dispute, India remains reluctant to grant the Kashmiris their right of self-determination. The Scottish people were rightly afforded a referendum to express their desire for independence. The UK had a referendum on remaining in or leaving the EU. Seven decades later, the people of Kashmir are still waiting. This is not, in my view, a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan—the international community needs to take responsibility.
More than 40% of my constituents come from the region of Kashmir, so it is important to them to see the matter resolved, but that can happen only if the international community, through the United Nations, seeks a peaceful and lasting resolution. By abrogation, the special status of Indian-administrated Jammu and Kashmir was violated on 5 August last year. The Indian Government have audaciously defied the basic norms and principles underpinning the concepts of democracy and human freedom. India has deprived the Kashmiris of the right to express themselves peacefully. Even elderly women who marked a silent protest in Srinagar, the capital of India-administered Kashmir, were not spared and have been detained.
The Indian army and paramilitary forces operating in Indian-held Kashmir have deliberately and methodically violated the fundamental norms of international human rights law, for which the Indian Government are responsible, despite their being a signatory to these laws. I demand an end to all elements of siege in the Kashmir valley and the full restoration of telephony and internet and of the democratic and basic human rights of the besieged Kashmiris. I demand that they allow them and foreign media to travel and report unhindered and commit to providing a safe environment for human rights defenders and organisations so that they can conduct their work without fear. We have an international obligation to support peace, equality and just treatment for all humans. To quote Martin Luther King,
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.
It would be easy to make headline-grabbing jibes at Conservative Members, but I will rise above that in my maiden speech and talk about the issues that need to be addressed in Birmingham, Hall Green. The second reason I have chosen to make my maiden speech today is that this is National Apprenticeship Week. In 1989, at the age of 17, I secured an engineering apprenticeship with Royal Mail. Apprenticeships are an excellent way of providing secure jobs, a regular income and an early start into employment, and are an alternative to the academic route. My apprenticeship provided me with an opportunity to go to university; I was the first in my family to do so. Much has been done in recent years on apprenticeships, as is acknowledged, and much is being done by many councils across the country, but a lot more could be done. The next step has to be Whitehall giving control to the regions and local authorities. Many have benefited from apprenticeships, but many more could benefit, and not just the young either; older people can benefit too.
The climate emergency needs to be taken seriously and can be avoided if bold and ambitious steps are taken. Hundreds of properties have been flooded in Birmingham, Hall Green and remain at risk of flooding from the River Cole. Urgent and adequate funding and a programme are required to prevent such disasters from happening again.
Many schools in Birmingham, Hall Green do not open for the full five days a week owing to inadequate funding. Immediate steps need to be taken as a matter of urgency so that all schools receive the adequate funding they need to open for the full five days. Part-time schooling needs to end immediately. It is also appalling that in this, the fifth-richest country in the world, children are going to school hungry. The only meal some of them have in the day is the one they have at school. It is shameful that, while we enjoy the benefits of a subsidised canteen here in Parliament, many children in our constituencies remain hungry and are resorting to food banks in record numbers. We ought to be ashamed.
As long as I am in this House, I will continue to speak up for investment in services and the creation of opportunities for everyone in Birmingham, Hall Green. I will continue to speak up and challenge the Government to invest in public services that will have a positive and lasting impact for my constituents. The people of Hall Green have placed their trust in me, and I pledge to represent their interests and concerns to the best of my ability for as long as I remain in this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid that after the next speaker, the time limit will go down to five minutes, but it may have to be reduced quite quickly after that.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a huge pleasure and privilege to follow our new colleague the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), who spoke with passion about some incredibly important issues. I was particularly pleased to hear him talk about National Apprenticeship Week. So many of us have had opportunities to interact with it in Parliament this week, and will continue to do so when we are back in our constituencies in a couple of days. The hon. Gentleman’s own career is clearly a very impressive back story, and I think it is abundantly obvious to all of us that he will be a great asset to this place.
Climate change is the defining challenge of our age. Although there is still so much to be done, we can take some pride in the fact that this country has been decarbonising faster than comparable countries in the G20. Much the greatest part of that reduction so far has been our success on energy supply; transport is now the sector with the most emissions, and we must therefore prioritise it strongly.
I do not know where the figures in the Labour party’s manifesto come from, although, to be fair, not knowing where the figures come from is hardly a novel experience with today’s Labour party. I challenged the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), the shadow Secretary of State, to say what had happened to transport emissions under the Labour Government, but he declined to engage in that conversation. I can tell him that, in fact, they rose in the 10 years after Labour came to power in 1997. At the time of the financial crash of 2007-08 they did fall dramatically, but for all the wrong reasons. Then, when we returned to government and started to rebuild the economy and build up employment, they rose from their level in 2012-13, but not to anywhere near the level to which the Labour Government had taken them in 2007.
It turns out that, although our success on energy is something of a stand-out story, our experience of transport emissions being stubborn and difficult to reduce is rather more common in other countries. The European Environment Agency has added together domestic emissions and international aviation emissions, and has found that between 1990 and 2017—the latest period for which it has figures—the change in transport emissions in the UK was basically the same as that in France, and comparable with what happened in Germany. Only Liechtenstein experienced substantial decreases in its transport emissions, and I am afraid that in the EU28 as a whole they rose by 28%.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—he is very generous. Does he agree that one way of reducing transport emissions would be to site train stations in areas to which people can walk rather than drive? As the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), is listening, may I now make a pitch for a new station for Gamesley?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend has made a good point about walking. Along with cycling, it is an important part of the picture, as are buses, which so many Members have mentioned today. I hope that the potential for “on demand” buses will benefit constituencies such as mine. We have also talked about rail electrification. As for heavy goods vehicles, there is a strong link with the development of autonomous vehicles. I am pleased that the UK continues to take a strong line internationally on aviation and shipping; it is important to remember that the targets for international aviation and shipping are set internationally.
We have heard more this week—encouragingly, I think —about alternative jet fuel technologies. As was mentioned by both my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), hydrogen remains potentially a very exciting technology for the future. However, the single most important element in transport is roads, and within that it is cars. In 2018, this country was the second largest European market for ultra low emission cars and the fourth largest for battery electric cars, and a fifth of the battery electric cars sold in Europe were made here. We now have far more charging points—over 22,000—and a penetration of rapid charging points relative to the extent of the road network that compares very favourably with the continent of Europe. Of course, there are many Government subsidies and support programmes that go with that.
We clearly need to do more, however. We had a debate in Westminster Hall the other day in which I talked a lot about how we can try to help consumers through questions about cost and help them to understand that it is important to look at the whole-life cost, particularly now that so many people are getting their vehicle through personal contract hire rather than buying it, even on finance. That comparison should be a lot easier. Clearly, we need to carry on working on the infrastructure network and do more on roaming, interoperability and the visibility of charging points. We also need to ensure that new homes have charging facilities. In my discussion with the Minister in Westminster Hall, I also mentioned that we need to do more on last-mile deliveries, given the huge growth in home shopping. Amazon lockers are great for Amazon, but that is a proprietary system. Can we start to use our post office network as a hub and spoke facility? That would be a good way of reducing the need for last-mile journeys as well as bringing useful footfall and business into post offices.
I will finish now because I know that others want to speak. It is possible to recognise that there is a huge amount to do while also recognising the progress that has been made. People need to know that we in this place understand the gravity of the problem, but also that we are committed, together, to doing what is necessary, and that we can and will do that. It would be so much better if we could return to doing that on the basis of the cross-party consensus that we have had in the past.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. In an attempt to get everybody in, the time limit will go down to four minutes after the next speaker.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). I would like to speak about two important transport issues. The first is the campaign to save the Queensbury tunnel in my constituency. The second is the urgent need for more transport investment in the north and the fact that the Government must deliver both HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The Queensbury tunnel is a 1.4 mile-long heritage rail tunnel that lies beneath the village of Queensbury, which is situated between Bradford and Halifax. The last train ran through it in 1956, but there is an exciting local plan to transform the tunnel into a walking and cycling route. Unfortunately, Highways England has mismanaged the tunnel over several years and is now spending millions of pounds to pump out flood water to prepare for the tunnel’s abandonment. There is widespread local and national opposition to this, with more than 6,000 people objecting, and Members from both sides of this House are supporting the campaign to save it. Put simply, the Government have a choice. Either they can spend a significant amount of money to abandon the tunnel, destroying an historical asset with no public benefit, or they can invest for the future by restoring the tunnel and transforming it into the centrepiece of a new walking and cycling route between Bradford and Halifax. I know that the Secretary of State and other Ministers in his Department are aware of the situation, and I ask them once again to commit to visiting the tunnel and, more importantly, to working with me and the local authority to get this situation resolved.
Turning to the broader question of transport in West Yorkshire and across the north, the Government’s own Industrial Strategy Council said this week that
“regional differences in UK productivity are at their highest level for over a century.”
Clearly there is no silver bullet to solve this long-standing problem, but as I have said many times in this place, improving the north’s outdated transport system must be part of the solution. We can begin by getting rid of the either/or choice between HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. We all know that this would not be a question if it was being asked about London. The north needs and deserves both projects. All we are asking for is fairness in funding and a rebalancing to ensure that the economy of the north is no longer held back by underinvestment. For my constituents to really benefit from these projects, the Government must commit to Bradford having a city centre stop on Northern Powerhouse Rail.
However, we must go beyond those big-ticket infra- structure projects, and buses must be at the heart of this. Funding cuts, services being withdrawn and fare increases over the past 10 years have let passengers down. They deserve reliable and affordable services; that is the only way we can build a sustainable and balanced economy. The Government can use all the soundbites in the world, but that will not solve regional inequalities. What my constituents and people across the north want and need is fair funding to fix a creaking transport system. The north is a diverse and complex place, but the Government are apparently reluctant or unable to invest in its infrastructure at the same levels as in other parts of the country, which has undoubtedly led to a twin-track economy. That needs to end, and it needs to end now.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
My colleagues on the Department for Transport Front Bench have one of the most difficult problems in government, because not only are they dealing with constituencies that have different transport needs—I only have to compare the needs of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) with those of mine in Basingstoke just a few miles away—and with different rural and suburban transport challenges, but they also have to deal with decarbonisation and with eye-wateringly long lead times when trying make a meaningful difference to this country’s transport mix.
That is the Ministers’ challenge, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire was right to say that we will tackle the problem only with a cross-party approach. I hope everybody welcomes the Government putting an extra £1 billion into the development of next-generation electric vehicles, and their plan to bring forward the ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars to 2035. We all see Government policies trickling down into our constituencies. I certainly have in Basingstoke, with the proliferation of charging points, particularly rapid charging points, and the renewal of the bus fleet, with Stagecoach launching 32 new low-emission buses in Basingstoke just before Christmas. So there are signs that some of the policy changes are trickling down, but I will focus on two particular issues that we have not said a great deal about so far in this debate. The people whom we represent would think we were living in a parallel universe if we did not talk about the importance of improving road transport as well as public transport more generally.
If we are to ease congestion on our roads, we have to be prepared to talk about this. Roadside emissions massively contribute not only to overall climate change emissions, but to some of the health problems that many of our constituents experience. I commend the British Lung Foundation and Breathe Easy Basingstoke for their work in raising awareness of the importance of tackling roadside emissions. Basingstoke council has run a “clear the air” campaign to encourage people to cut their engines when in congestion, and Members should consider something similar for their own constituencies. We must also tackle congestion pinch points if we are to tackle roadside emissions. I put on the record my thanks to Basingstoke’s local enterprise partnership for securing around £50 million to improve pinch points around the Brighton Hill roundabout and a whole host of other roundabouts, which are causing so many problems in terms of increasing pollution levels.
The other thing I want to focus on is the importance of investing in south-east England, which Ministers would of course expect me to raise in this debate. The truth is that transport expenditure in the south-east is 15% below the UK average. If we are to rebalance the economy, I urge Ministers to work closely with councils in the south-east to ensure that the region moves from receiving the lowest public sector expenditure per head of population to receiving something nearer the average.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
We know that asking people to get out of their vehicles and to adopt cleaner methods of transport like rail will be essential if we are to significantly reduce our emissions in the necessary timeframe. We are asking people to make different lifestyle choices, while knowing full well that rail in the north is a toxic combination of unreliable, uncomfortable and expensive, but it is not a big ask.
People in my part of the world are desperate to use trains, as Halifax is almost equidistant between Leeds and Manchester, but we cannot accommodate the demand or provide the service those passengers deserve. Passengers on the Calder Valley line face overcrowding that is uncomfortable at best and dangerous at worst. We are only just starting to see new trains replacing the Pacers, but driver shortages crippled Northern’s ability to operate those services, resulting in delayed and cancelled journeys. Given how long it takes to train a driver and the almost predatory poaching of Northern’s drivers by larger rail operators, there will not be a quick fix to the problem.
In the summer I spent a day with Northern Rail on the Calder Valley line and at Leeds train station, as the best way to understand where the problems are is to spend time with people at the coalface. It was both fascinating and terrifying to see just how fragmented and dysfunctional rail in the north is. My worry is that without investment in enhancing rail capacity across the north, both at the stations and on the tracks, we are setting up any train operating company or model to fail.
How can we both deliver a rail service that is fit for purpose and shrink carbon emissions from transport? I thank Stephen Waring of the Halifax and District rail action group for his unwavering attention to detail on all things rail-related. HADRAG launched its electric railway charter in May 2018.
The “Northern Sparks” report by the North of England Electrification Task Force was published in 2015, and its purpose was to advise the Government on where they should focus their investment. The report recommended full electrification of the Calder Valley line as its first priority. Sadly, there has been no progress to date. I fear that, for all the anguish about the state of the railways in my part of the world, the current proposals lack any sense of ambition. Even the most common-sense, low-key improvements, which have been identified time and again as essential, take far too long to deliver, if they are delivered at all.
Network Rail planned an upgrade scheme back in 2014 to provide two extra through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly and increased capacity at Oxford Road station. The scheme has been with three different Secretaries of State over five years, and still no progress. Without it, we will continue to see delays and cancellations right across the region, not least on the Calder Valley line.
At Leeds station, which has become another crippling bottleneck, a single new platform is being built to increase capacity, but it is not expected to be finished for at least another year. We need to take a good look at why even the most necessary works have taken so long to deliver and at what can be done to speed up the process to ensure Network Rail projects are a reality for passengers without the years of stalling, red tape and endless reviews we are currently seeing.
Finally, the failings of rail in the north are in no way the responsibility of frontline staff. The vast majority of Northern Rail’s workforce are good people who are doing their best in an incredibly challenging operating environment. I am pleased that the Secretary of State was able to reassure them, when Northern was taken into public ownership, that their jobs are safe and that improvements to staff facilities will be forthcoming.
If we are to meet our targets for decarbonisation and end our contribution to global emissions by 2050, adopting rail in a serious way will be the most obvious route to driving down transport emissions. By investing in rail infrastructure, we can simultaneously unlock the potential of the north. People want to use trains, so we will not have an uphill struggle to change behaviour, as there is clearly already demand. It is up to this Government to rise to the challenge and deliver a rail service that is both good for passengers and good for the planet.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I think the Government are doing a good job, as they have both reduced emissions and kept the economy rolling. The key policy has to be to create jobs and wealth while having a cleaner environment, so we need to be patted on the back, rather than criticised. We can still make progress, but things are going pretty well as they are.
If we want to make quick progress, we have to invest in roads and pinch points to stop congestion. That is the best way to get a quick economic hit. If we want to make a big difference through public transport, it has to be buses.
HS2 has been part of this debate, and I had some small role in it by chairing the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill Select Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) made a good and well-balanced speech. He and many other Members have had a high-speed rail line landed on their constituencies, which creates a number of great difficulties, particularly because of the long timeframe of any such developments. The public think that schemes are produced by people in Whitehall, who know all the answers, the scheme is then in a filing cabinet and they just will not tell them things because they do not want to tell them. The reality is that these things often are designed, with the detail done, well down the line, by which time people have lost faith in the organisation.
In the 20 months that I was chairing the Committee, I came to the view that, on balance, HS2 is a correct thing to do. We have capacity constraints on the west coast main line and if we put a fast line in, which takes all the commuter traffic, it opens up all sorts of opportunities for freight and for various communities. If we do that, we have to see HS2 in terms not of one line, but of the enhancement of the whole rail network. That does not mean we should not be responsive to people affected or that we should not give them fair compensation. A lot more has to be done by HS2 Ltd to interact with members of the public and Members of Parliament affected, but the scheme is a good one, which I still support. It will make a big difference over 20 to 30 years. The good thing about it is that it is a strategic decision, and it will lead to considerable work and a considerable increase in capacity.
Most of the money spent on the scheme will be on the stations and on redevelopment. The key point is that we are spending about £2 billion on Euston—whether that is a good or bad amount of money, the fact is that it will have a big effect in Camden; we are spending money on Old Oak Common, where there is to be a station; we will be spending money on Solihull international, where there will be housing, offices and development; and we will be spending money rebuilding Birmingham Curzon Street, which creates all sorts of opportunities—there will be offices, houses and all sorts of things in the centre of Birmingham and points north. So we should not look at the line purely in terms of the line; we should look at it in terms of the opportunities as we build new stations all the way up it. That is why Stoke-on-Trent petitioned our Committee for the line to go through Stoke-on-Trent. People there see an opportunity for their community. At the moment, the line is going through Crewe, which also sees an opportunity. Although people in the south worry about the line and the impact on communities, many in the midlands and the north see it as a great opportunity for them. So I suspect that, as the project gets under way, as I hope it will, there will be many arguments between colleagues about why the railway should be going through their communities, not around them, because of the impact it will have in areas of the north.
If we are going to be a country that represents the whole nation, if we are going to join up north and south, if we are going to have redevelopment, we have to build HS2. It is expensive. The payback time on most of these major projects is probably 100 years, rather than 20 or 30 years. Most of the Victorians who developed the railways went bust, but they have left us with a wonderful legacy. I think we should support this project.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the Labour Front-Bench team for moving this motion, and I welcome the unanimity across the Chamber, and the growing sense of urgency among the public, on taking tougher action on the climate emergency. The question arises as to whether the political rhetoric matches the reality in terms of policy and action.
So the two areas I wish to focus on briefly are rail and aviation. The motion calls for a cut in rail fares while the Government fix the mess that is the railways. Sorting out that mess has to start with the travesty of a “service”—if we can even call it that—that is South Western Railway. SWR dominates my email inbox and my Twitter feed. Commuters in my constituency are reliant on SWR and they are at their wits’ end, as not a day goes by without problems: lost income; lost working hours; lost time with loved ones; missed medical appointments; and just the general stress of not being able to get a rail service that is not constantly delayed or cancelled. This is just not acceptable. Those who live on the Shepperton line, which serves Hampton, are disproportionately affected, because it is a branch service, which is often cut. On other lines, such as the Teddington loop, there are regularly skips of stations when trains are delayed. Residents are telling me that as a matter of course they are driving part of their journey, which is not helping to cut emissions. All that is coupled with the 27-day strikes we saw in December, where there was no proper compensation, and the financial situation the company finds itself in. As the Secretary of State has said, the situation is unsustainable. I have written to him to ask for a meeting to discuss this matter, and I hope he will get back to me, granting me and other colleagues a meeting to discuss this important issue.
We need to do much more to expand our railways if we are to tempt people out of their cars and away from domestic flights, in order to reduce emissions. So I particularly welcome the motion’s call to bring aviation emissions within the UK’s climate targets. It is therefore somewhat surprising—no, negligent—that neither this Opposition motion, nor anything we have heard from those on the Government Benches today calls for the cancellation of a third runway at Heathrow.
I am disappointed that the amendment that I tabled with Liberal Democrat colleagues has not been selected for debate. Heathrow is the UK’s biggest single source of carbon emissions, and a third runway would increase carbon emissions by up to 9 million tonnes, making achieving net zero significantly harder. Indeed, the Committee on Climate Change said in 2016 that the construction of a third runway might break the Government’s own climate change laws. How can the Conservatives or Labour be serious about their commitment to tackle climate change unless they join my Liberal Democrat colleagues and me in calling very clearly for a third runway to be cancelled?
Heathrow expansion is projected to increase the number of flights by 300,000 annually. My constituents and many other people across south-west London already have their lives blighted by noise and air pollution, and over half a million people in the area surrounding Heathrow suffer noise levels above World Health Organisation standards. There is air pollution from surface transport, as well as particulates from flights, which go well beyond the airport boundary, despite the claims of Heathrow and, indeed, the Department for Transport. According to some studies, particulates travel up to 16 to 22 km downwind.
The Prime Minister does not even have to keep his promise of lying down in front of the bulldozers to stop a third runway. He has the power to cancel it at the stroke of a pen, and it is time that Labour came off the fence. Its spokesperson suggested that it might be shifting its policy. Heathrow expansion is bad for climate, bad for our health and wellbeing, and—
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I recently raised the subject of public transport in north Staffordshire in my debate in Westminster Hall because, as our local newspaper, The Sentinel, highlighted, its decline in the Potteries has been faster than in England as a whole. Bus use in north Staffordshire has declined by more than 10% in the past year alone. The decline in public transport and the growth of congestion has seen us breach World Health Organisation limits for air quality. Our bus services are just not good enough.
In north Staffordshire, the journey time taken by a bus can be over double that for a car, sometimes easily treble or worse due to the loss of direct cross-city routes. Locally, Conservatives have plans to fix our poor public transport. Key to the plans for improved public transport in north Staffordshire is the superbus proposal. High-frequency, high-priority bus services would operate on a network of cross-city routes, creating a bus-based urban transport system. Travel costs would be attractive, capped at £3 for a day ticket.
With hard cash already promised from the Transforming Cities fund, we are looking at little short of a revolution in seamless public transport for north Staffordshire. An essential part of the Transforming Cities bid is improving interconnectivity between rail and bus, including at Longton station in my constituency, which will undergo major improvements if we get the full ask in the second round. I hope that we have the full support of Government. I am delighted by the new announcement of funding to reopen stations and rail lines. I am campaigning to reopen Meir station in my constituency, and there is a definite feeling that, as for Stoke-on-Trent itself, the trajectory for rail locally is on the up.
The economy in Stoke-on-Trent and wider north Staffordshire is now one of the fastest growing in the country, and needs comprehensive transport connectivity. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) for his comments. If HS2 is given the go-ahead, it is essential that it serves Stoke-on-Trent. To remove the Handsacre link that facilitates services to Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield at this point would be of huge detriment to what we have achieved locally.
HS2 should not just be about infrastructure and addressing issues of capacity. It should be about a step-change in those areas that have been left behind historically. If there is anywhere where the Governments agenda of levelling up resonates, it is Stoke-on-Trent. We are developing Stoke-on-Trent’s urban regeneration and inward investment strategies, and have received private investment on the assumption that HS2 will be completed in full. That investment has been made viable in the expectation that HS2 services will stop at Stoke, which has an extremely low-value property market. Our communities suffer from some of the worst levels of multiple deprivation in the country. Opening up our communities to new job prospects will help to improve life chances and living costs.
We have a strong vision for our area that builds on the economic resurgence we have seen under Conservative leadership, both nationally and locally. It is essential that we now deliver for the people who put us into government. The benefits of the Handsacre link, in terms of additional passenger capacity and unlocked freight capacity on the west coast main line, are clear. I urge the Government to back Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire by levelling-up our connectivity and connecting us to HS2. We can be one of the leading contributors to global Britain if our potential is unleashed.
In conclusion, improving transport in Stoke-on-Trent is critical for our economy and for opportunities for local people. Whether it is in respect of local bus or rail, or through HS2, we must benefit from the investment needed to revolutionise local connectivity. Conservative leadership has produced a clear vision, through initiatives such as the Transforming Cities fund and superbus. I hope that we will receive the Department’s and the Government’s support in levelling-up Stoke-on-Trent and ensuring that we can reach our true potential.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Recent years have seen a rise in emissions, largely caused by increased traffic growth, which is encouraged by an ever-expanding road building programme. Although the Government are expanding roads, they are not concentrating on safety, which is specifically what I want to focus on.
My constituent Jason Mercer was killed last summer on an all-lane running section of the M1 in South Yorkshire. All-lane running is often branded by Highways England and civil servants as “smart motorways”. It is not. All-lane running means using the hard shoulder as a permanent live traffic lane without fitting the required safety features. Mr Mercer and another motorist were forced to stop, following a minor collision. Without a hard shoulder, they were left vulnerable and exposed in a live lane when one of their vehicles was struck by a lorry, killing both men instantly. The lack of hard shoulder also meant that the men eventually had to be airlifted out because there was no other way for the emergency services to reach them.
The same 16-mile stretch of the M1 that claimed Jason’s life has seen five fatalities in just 10 months. Nationally, the number of fatalities on “smart motorways” continues to rise at an alarming rate. The Secretary of State recently announced that no further smart motorway schemes would begin until the outcome of the Government review of their safety. He has insisted that smart motorways must be at least as safe as traditional motorways or should not proceed. That is most welcome, but what about the existing death traps?
I want to be extremely clear: all-lane running is fundamentally flawed. It is profoundly unsafe. The existing sections need to be reverted back to roads with a hard shoulder, with immediate effect. If we keep all-lane running open, more people will die, simply to increase motorway capacity on the cheap. That is not hyperbole. Yesterday, The Times detailed a 2012 report by the Highways Agency—the precursor to Highways England—that stated that for the 10 miles of the M1 that borders my constituency, the Highways Agency had decided not to include the planned safety features, as that would increase the cost of the scheme by between £1 million and £2 million—just under 2% of the total budget. There have been five deaths in the past 10 months on that stretch of motorway, for a saving of £1 million to £2 million. Each death, in near identical situations, was because Highways England’s penny-pinching meant that the safety features were never installed.
Highways England knew that rolling out all-lane running would result in deaths. That is not speculation: Jim O’Sullivan, the chief executive of Highways England, told the Transport Committee on 23 October 2019 that that was the case—that by avoiding the safety features, he was likely to see deaths. We have seen deaths. Highways England knew that the all-lane running motorways would kill. Someone, somewhere will have signed off a report that identified the risks and put a figure on the cost of saving lives—a cost that they decided it was not worth spending the money on. I have supported Jason Mercer’s widow, Claire, in her campaign. She is now looking to sue Highways England for corporate manslaughter. It is clear that Highways England knowingly failed in its duty of care to motorists.
A key safety feature that Highways England decided to scrimp on in South Yorkshire was refuges. We originally should have had six on our stretch of road, but we do not have them. Stopping the roll-out will not save lives on my stretch of road and in other constituencies. Will the Minister please, please revert all-lane running back to where it was—roads with a hard shoulder—until the money is found to put the safety features in place? If the Government cannot find the money, the roads should be left as they are, with a hard shoulder.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
I start by commending the Government’s track record on transport. Spending £100 billion on infrastructure across the nation to improve our roads, railways and broadband is an unprecedented commitment to our national circulation. I am glad that it is this Conservative Government who are confidently leading the way.
I want to raise three issues. First, I am incredibly excited, thanks to the support from the Transforming Cities fund, about the proposals for the new South East Hampshire rapid transit system in the Solent region, where Fareham is located. We need to make it easier, quicker and more convenient for people to use public transport in the Solent area, and the proposals of Portsmouth City Council, Hampshire County Council and the Isle of Wight will significantly improve transport links between Portsmouth, Fareham, Gosport, Havant and the Isle of Wight.
The new network will eventually serve 14 large development sites, consisting of about 17,000 new homes. It will build on the success of the Eclipse route and provide a new rapid transport corridor, running from Gosport to Fareham bus station, the Delme roundabout and Portchester, and on to Portsmouth and Waterlooville. It will include high-quality, frequent services; a single and simple ticketing system; push notifications with travel information for passengers; bus priority lanes; an enhanced park and ride system; and cleaner, greener low-emission vehicles. I wholeheartedly support the scheme and look forward to its continued progress.
Secondly, on smart motorways, the M27 is the main expressway artery going through my constituency, connecting Portsmouth and Southampton, and several junctions lie in Fareham. Thousands of people in Fareham use that motorway daily. I understand that motorways are dangerous—there is no doubt about that. Many motorists, including me, are often nervous about driving on a motorway, but for the many thousands of people in Fareham who use the M27, which is in the process of being converted into a smart motorway, the prospect of using it is becoming terrifying.
In the past five years, 38 people have been killed on smart motorways, according to a recent “Panorama” programme, and there have been 1,485 near misses on the M25 alone. Many local people in Fareham are concerned about safety. The refuge areas on some smart motorways can be up to 1.5 miles apart, when they should be located every 600 metres. The obvious problem with that is that vehicles do not always break down at a refuge area. The technology for smart motorways is not always responsive or effective. Many people in Fareham are calling for the smart motorway upgrade on the M27 to be scrapped and reversed.
I welcome the Government’s recent announcement of a review of the smart motorway programme nationally. I ask them seriously to question the safety measures in place, and to consider whether a hard shoulder could be reintroduced on parts of the motorway. We need to improve the robustness of the safety measures so that public confidence can be restored.
Finally, junction 10 has been a headache for Fareham for far too long. The junction urgently requires an upgrade into an all-moves junction, so that the infrastructure can enable the strategic development area of Welborne, a proposal for 6,000 new homes in my constituency of Fareham. That will greatly improve economic activity and benefit the region. However, we face a situation that could prove terminal for Welborne. Construction cannot take place without that junction, but we face a £40 million funding gap. I urge the Government to support me and others in Fareham to make Welborne and junction 10 happen.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Transport is the most carbon-emitting sector of the economy, with emissions higher now than they were in 2010. Under the Tories, road traffic growth has soared while support for public transport has been stunted. We are now one of the most car-dependent countries in the whole of Europe. If we are serious about stopping the climate crisis and creating a future fit for our children and grandchildren, we must do more to promote sustainable forms of transport and active travel.
My constituents in Ealing, Southall are heavily dependent on public transport. I am strongly supportive of the local campaign to enable step-free access at Northfields, Boston Manor and South Ealing stations. The Government and Transport for London must do more to ensure that access can be improved for disabled passengers, which will help build confidence and safeguard independence.
Although those working in the public transport sector have worked tirelessly to improve services—I must declare an interest at this point, as I started my working life as a bus conductor for London Transport, so I am quite familiar with this work—they are hamstrung by the Government and a privatised system that is failing them. Rail fares are up by over 40% since 2010, having risen twice as fast as wages. Over the same period, 3,000 bus routes across the country have been cut or withdrawn, leading to soaring fares and crowded buses. That has had a corrosive effect on our high streets and local communities. It has also reduced the independence of the groups that are particularly reliant on public transport, including older people, women and those with a disability.
The Conservative Government have demonstrably failed in their aim to create and maintain a fit-for-purpose public transport system. Instead of paying lip service to looking after our planet, the Government must reverse their cuts to help reduce our damaging dependency on cars. The case for a substantial programme of investment in public transport is clear.
I was shocked to discover that just 2% of journeys in the UK are made by bicycle. A chronic lack of investment in active travel has led to our becoming one of the worst-performing countries in Europe. Increasing investment and reshaping our cycling and walking strategies will help to improve air quality and arrest the growing public health crisis caused by an inactive lifestyle. Through a programme of infrastructural investment, we will not only reconnect and restore the fabric of our local communities but tackle the climate emergency—the gravest threat that humanity has ever faced.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I listened carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s opening speech, and was curious about his comments regarding investment in buses. Across Cornwall, we have seen the roll-out of a brand new fleet of buses that are easy-access and have audio-visual information, as do many bus stops. In addition, we have had £23.5 million to pilot an even greater public transport system on our roads, with reduced ticket fares and the greatest investment in rail links since the time of Brunel and the introduction of the railway in Cornwall.
There is an appetite across Cornwall to decarbonise transport, and the work under way between Cornish MPs, the Government and Cornwall Council to deliver that is ambitious and welcome, and will continue. We will get more people out of their cars and on to public transport. However, I see no conflict between the road improvements and reducing our carbon footprint. In fact, reducing car congestion by improving roads contributes to cleaner air, and a reduction in harmful emissions must be an essential object of the Government’s infra- structure programme.
It will come as no surprise to Ministers that I wish to talk about the A30. The single-carriageway A30 between Cambourne and Penzance is the main route in and out of west Cornwall, and it no longer meets the demand, irrespective of the mode of transport or the fuel used to power vehicles—diesel, petrol or electric. Residents are rightly fed up with the congestion, regular accidents and incidents, and poor air quality. Will the Secretary of State and his team look again at the need to commit to a route appraisal for that section of road as part of RIS2?
Let me turn to the need to deliver a resilient, affordable and accessible transport link between the Isles of Scilly and Penzance. The current transport provision is the primary cause of concern for residents on Scilly, who rely on that link to provide the goods and food they need; the most affordable method of transport for passengers, including to and from medical appointments; and the main method of travel for tourism, which accounts for the lion’s share of the local economy. I refer the Secretary of State and his team to current dialogue between the local transport board and his Department regarding the provision of cash to work up a plan to deliver a resilient, affordable and accessible transport link between Scilly and Penzance.
Finally, as more and more people switch to electric cars, will the Minister meet me to consider the implications of that? A vibrant tourism sector such as mine in west Cornwall relies on good transport networks, and public transport is nowhere near to offering a viable alternative for most tourists. Lots of people arrive for their holidays at roughly the same time and on the same days. The implication is that lots of electric vehicles will need to be charged. How we provide the charging capacity for hotels, resorts and camping and caravan sites has not been properly considered, but the challenge is fast approaching.
In summary, consideration of the A30 in RIS2 will be welcome; support to deliver a resilient and affordable transport link to Scilly is vital; and consideration must be given to radically increasing charging capacity and infrastructure, to ensure that Cornwall remains a location of choice to decarbonise, detox and unwind for hard-working families.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the £220 million announced recently by the Government for bus investment. Mine is the only constituency in the whole United Kingdom that has a British-owned bus-building company. That is an essential strategic measure by the Government, especially if they invest in bus building in Northern Ireland. It will affect every constituency in this country, whether in Aberdeen or Cornwall, because it is a bus-building company owned by British entrepreneurs and invested in by British taxpayers. It is also the home of the hydrogen bus. The opportunity is in our hands to make Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK the flagship for hydrogen power as a public transport solution and a world leader in use of that zero-emissions product and world-leading technology.
Hydrogen power is much more advanced and cleaner than battery power. Batteries are a fantastic opportunity for cars and other vehicles, but we must remember that if we buy a battery car, the entire battery component will need to be replaced in seven years’ time. Of the old battery component, 50% gets recycled, and the other 50% can only go to landfill, increasing a problem that we must still address.
I welcome the £1 billion investment in a battery gigafactory here in the United Kingdom. That is a great opportunity, but it pales into insignificance when we consider that China has monopolised world battery production. Indeed, one factory alone on the Chinese mainland employs 260,000 people. We cannot catch up with world battery production, so our nation needs to lead the way with new technology and solutions such as hydrogen power, which was mentioned by the Secretary of State—and I believe we can.
Jo Bamford, with his Ryse technology and the Bamford Bus Company, and Hugo Spowers, with his Riversimple Rasa hydrogen car, have demonstrated that entrepreneurs are looking at ways of using hydrogen power as a new solution beyond batteries. Batteries are fantastic for lightweight, short-range applications, but hydrogen offers a solution for distance and heavyweight vehicles such as buses, lorries, trains and ferries. Who knows what it could offer in the future for aviation? Members today have talked about low emissions for transport, but hydrogen is a zero-emissions solution, so let us grasp it. What plans do the Government have for hydrogen investment in the United Kingdom? What can they offer to investors in innovative new technologies that will turn waste into energy?
I support the third runway at Heathrow, which is a brilliant opportunity for investment and aviation. Some 51% of people who fly from Northern Ireland to England are coming here to do business. We need a third runway because Heathrow has reached capacity. We have to remember that 95% of the global economy lies within reach of a single direct flight from Heathrow. Heathrow has facilitated £118 billion of trade outside the EU in the last 12 months alone. It is a wonderful airport, and it must—
Ian Paisley
No, we are not destroying our planet; don’t be silly. Accelerating investment in sustainable alternative fuels will only happen if we increase air passenger travel.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
We know full well the challenges of and the solutions to climate change, and we all know just how worried our constituents are about this crisis. Only this morning, at Smallberry Green Primary School in Isleworth, I got asked about climate change not just by a year 5 student, but by a year 2 student.
Transport is the largest sector for emissions, and it is the sector cutting emissions the least. Within transport, the sector with the fastest growing emissions is aviation. During the time that emissions from the economy as a whole have fallen by 40%, aviation emissions have more than doubled. Passenger numbers are set to increase by 70%, and that growth is not business travel. Over half of the British population do not fly at all in any given year, but the highest 15% of the UK population by income are taking over 70% of all our flights. The growth is in outbound leisure travel, with UK-based tourists in the top income bands taking their holiday money away from the UK three or more times a year, including from places such as those represented by the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas). That is money that many of those in our beautiful places would be delighted to see spent here.
The aviation industry mentions magical solutions that will allow it to continue with a business-as-usual approach in a carbon-constrained world, but electric planes—particularly for short haul and long haul—will not be online until 2050 at the absolute earliest. There is no current industry development for these longer flights. For example, long-haul planes make up 70% of UK air travel, yet there is no current development for electric planes going on in those areas.
Yesterday, the chief executive of Heathrow airport was on the radio talking about sustainable fuels for aviation, but we know that a rise in biofuels will only lead to more deforestation. This means more habitats destroyed, more communities displaced and more carbon emissions. Carbon offsetting by planting trees only removes, years from now, the carbon emitted today. It is not an alternative to cutting emissions in the first place.
Obviously, the chief executive of Heathrow Airport Ltd dearly wants a third runway, but even Department for Transport figures—from work done in the run-up to the vote in this place in 2018—show that the additional passengers using runway 3 will almost all be UK-based passengers taking leisure flights overseas. Expansion will draw long-haul flights away from regional airports, thus impacting on their direct international connections. Furthermore, expanding Heathrow will mean an extra 6 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year.
I am glad that the Labour Front-Bench team led by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) concluded in June 2018 that Heathrow expansion is incompatible with our climate change obligations and that Labour would not authorise Heathrow expansion or any other plans that jeopardise those climate targets. The solution we should be promoting—the only carbon-saving solution for aviation that will make a difference before 2050, when electric planes come online—is to address the growth in demand. We need to stop runway 3 at Heathrow, address the pricing disparity between rail and flying, and implement a frequent flyer levy to replace air passenger duty.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sorry, but I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Some 78% of people in Ellesmere Port and Neston use private motor transport to get to work, compared with a national average of 63%. Perhaps in a constituency known for building cars that is not so much of a surprise, but I think it is more a reflection of the poor public transport links we have. It seems that for much of the last decade we have, every couple of months, faced a battle to save bus services that are already inadequate. Sometimes we persuade the bus company to keep the route and sometimes it will retain the service with a slightly different route, but sometimes we lose the route altogether. We then see people who rely on a bus to get to work, to care for their family or to access medical appointments left high and dry, usually at just a few weeks’ notice.
We need to take back control of the bus network. We need a locally directed bus network designed to meet the needs of the local community, so that we are no longer at the mercy of commercial considerations and so that people, no matter where they live, are never too far away from a regular, reliable bus service. We can spend billions of pounds on shaving 20 minutes off the journey time from Crewe to London, but we still cannot guarantee the most basic bus service for many of our citizens. How are people supposed to be able to get work in certain places if they just cannot get there? How is one of the biggest employers in my constituency, Cheshire Oaks, expected to maximise the number of local young people it employs if they cannot get home from work after six o’clock?
This picture is repeated up and down the country; no wonder so many young people feel they have no choice but to leave their home town and venture into the city. It is no wonder that we have a chronic loneliness and isolation problem when so many older people cannot get anywhere because the bus service has been cut.
I look forward to hearing the Government’s decision on HS2 shortly. If it goes ahead, I have supreme confidence that it will eventually be delivered over budget and late; I have considerably less confidence in whether it will bring any benefit to the north, and my constituency specifically. We have a real chance of delivering real benefits to the north through HS2 if the project is accompanied by a meaningful rail investment programme across the whole of the north, alongside a concerted effort to attract new businesses to the north; otherwise, advertising the benefits of getting to London quicker will probably encourage more businesses to locate in London than the other way around.
My constituency is a perfect example of why rail investment must be matched pound for pound in the north. If I want to travel the 30 miles from Ellesmere Port to Crewe by rail, I have to get on three separate trains and the journey will take around an hour and a half. It will probably end up taking longer than the whole of the rest of the journey from Crewe to London.
Finally, in the time I have left I want to say a few words about the Mersey Gateway tolls. I make no apologies for raising this subject again because the same basic unfairness of that system is still there. We have repeatedly heard from Ministers about how tolls being removed can improve an area’s economic performance, such as in south Wales and Scotland, and there are no toll crossings in Northern Ireland and none in London either. Some 90% of road crossings are toll-free except in Merseyside. That needs to end.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Aviation emissions in the UK have more than doubled since 1990. The Government plan to build a third runway at Heathrow airport and according to the Department for Transport projections for Heathrow expansion, the UK’s legally binding targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 will be missed. While there is an economic argument for expanding Heathrow airport, there are clear legitimate concerns about the environmental impact and a need to reform the aviation sector.
In Lewisham East, residents have been, and are, suffering from concentrated flight paths from City and Heathrow airports. Rebecca, who represents many constituents, wrote to me to say:
“We strongly oppose City airport’s plan to increase flights by 45% and to abolish the 24 hour no flying rule at the weekend.”
She was woken at 5 am by a low-flying City airport flight. The Government must conduct a review of the impact of concentrated flight paths across Lewisham East and south London that fully assesses inequalities. Our poorer and more diverse areas have been subjected more to overhead flights.
Jessica, another constituent, says:
“I have noticed a definite increase in large aircraft frequency and consequent noise. Obviously, this concerns me for daily disturbance and environmental reasons.”
So constituents are writing to me expressing their concerns and worries.
Another constituent was diagnosed as suffering from a low-frequency noise:
“It is an extremely depressing, debilitating and painful condition”,
she said to me.
Last summer, I held a public meeting on this issue. The room was filled with residents who had come together to discuss this concern. The fact that flight paths from City and Heathrow airports are currently overlapping means planes arriving at City airport must fly lower and for longer. This has created corridors of noise that reach unacceptable levels and increase emissions, which are affecting my community.
Air waves, and sound and noise from flying aircraft need to be regulated. The proposals in City airport’s draft masterplan to lift the restrictions on flights in the evening and at weekends to significantly increase the number of flights are unacceptable and would mean that residents had no respite from excess noise, which would have a detrimental effect on their wellbeing.
According to the World Health Organisation, noise is the second largest environmental cause of health problems, just after the impact of air quality. My constituents cannot tolerate the present flight paths and certainly cannot tolerate increases to their flight paths caused by City airport or Heathrow.
I call on the Government to take action to significantly reduce aviation emissions, to review the impact of concentrated flights across Lewisham East and south London, to conduct an equalities impact assessment, and to introduce regulation to prohibit sound waves from exceeding acceptable world health limits.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak on this very important issue for residents of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, transport issues, social justice and climate action go hand in hand. My constituents know this only too well. I would like to outline some of the major transport issues they are facing, which are interlinked.
First, on Heathrow airport expansion, a third runway will stop us being able to reach our carbon emissions reduction target. It will be a disaster for my constituents in Putney and, as other hon. Members have said, across south-west London. Their quality of life and health will be blighted: some 260,000 extra flights a year deliberately routed over our green spaces, dumping carbon and particulates on important habitats such as Putney Heath as well as on residents; an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from air travel by 9 million tonnes a year; and 2.2 million people impacted by increases in aircraft noise.
For my constituents in Putney, those effects will be acutely felt. They will not have any daytime respite at all from aircraft noise on half of all days when planes are operating in a westerly direction. We will have planes flying overhead almost continually for approximately three days out of four. This will put an unbearable strain on the sleeping patterns and the health and wellbeing of my constituents. That is not to mention the inevitable increase in air pollution that a third runway and expansion will bring. Putney already suffers from some of the worst air toxicity levels in London. This is the last thing we need. In light of our legally binding climate change targets and the declaration of a climate emergency, I request that the Minister reviews the national policy statement and cancels the expansion plans.
Secondly, South Western Railway is causing endless misery for my constituents who rely on that service to commute and to get around. For two years, there have been frequent delays, cancellations and dangerously overcrowded services. I am glad the Transport Secretary has recognised the problem. I hope he will meet me soon to talk about next steps.
Delays on the District line have been terrible. The modernisation project must go on, but the upgrade has to be faster and we need a lift at East Putney station. The Alton estate in Roehampton is about to undergo a major regeneration, but that will work only if transport plans come in behind it. Otherwise, people will not be able to get to work and it will fail. Transport is not joining up with this regeneration, and I ask the Minister to look at the situation.
Finally, on air pollution, we need far more infrastructure for cycling. There just has not been enough in the whole of Wandsworth. I commend the work of Little Ninja and the Putney Society on this issue. Far more needs to be done.
In conclusion, my constituents will not accept any more half measures, half-hearted apologies or half-baked excuses on transport from either service providers or the Government.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
When His Excellency the President of China Xi Jinping visited my constituency in 2015, he spoke eloquently about 30 years of the twinning arrangement between Manchester and Wuhan. I want to say on the record that the prayers of Manchester are with the people of Wuhan as they try to contain the coronavirus.
Pope Francis said, five years ago in his seminal encyclical “Laudato Si’”, that we should hear the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor. Economic productivity goes hand in hand with social justice, and I think that that is the essence of the debate. I just want to touch, in the few minutes I have, on how it impacts on my constituency.
First, 28 million passengers go through Manchester Airport—some might say that I have the most visited constituency in the north of England—but we need a more sustainable aviation industry. HS2 will reduce journey times from two hours, 24 minutes from my constituency to London to 59 minutes. That is an incredible amount, but it is not about the speed; it is about releasing capacity on the west coast main line. Tens of millions of freight trucks could be taken off the road and on to our railways. Metrolink needs to be expanded through my constituency. We need the bid that has gone in to the Government—for Metrolink to be able to go from the current stop at Manchester Airport to the new terminal, and eventually to loop right around my constituency—to succeed,. because we know that is a green way to travel.
I have some sympathy for Northern Rail. The Government did invest in the Ordsall Chord and connect Piccadilly railway station to Victoria railway station, but we are still waiting for a decision on platforms 15 and 16. There is a bottleneck across the north, and whoever is operating rail in the north will still have to deal with that bottleneck.
I am pleased with Stagecoach in my constituency, at Sharston bus depot. It has committed to making every bus going through my constituency electric in the next few years. We need the national infrastructure fund to help Mayor Burnham and Chris Boardman, our excellent cycling and walking commissioner, with our network in Manchester—£43 billion needs to be spent on cities outside London.
Finally, air quality has been mentioned. Up to 1,200 people die annually in Greater Manchester because we have the poorest air quality in the country. That has to change by having a joined-up transport system with lower emissions. We need to level up outside the south-east.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is an honour to close today’s debate. There can be no doubt that tackling the climate change emergency is the most pressing problem facing our country and, indeed, the wider world. Today’s debate has reflected both the urgency and the overriding importance of that issue, and I want to highlight a series of contributions from colleagues across the House.
Some powerful speeches were made highlighting the rising emissions from transport, particularly from road transport, and important points were made about the pressing need to end our addiction to car use, with calls for more investment in public transport, walking and cycling. I also point out the need to go further and reduce the need to drive in the first place by encouraging new development that puts housing near places where people work and where public transport is easily accessible.
The contribution by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) was very thoughtful. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) rightly raised the issue of investment in the north of England, and I found the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) interesting in highlighting the importance of high-speed rail, even if he has some issues with HS2.
Other notable contributions were made by a range of speakers, including a number who referenced the need for much greater investment in rail. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch), the hon. Members for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) all mentioned the importance of rail investment across the country. There was also an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) calling for more investment in buses. Many other contributions were made.
Above all, I remind the House of the key points that were made the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who called for urgent action by the Government. He said rightly that the challenge is no longer abstract; it is now a very real and devastating reality. Those points were all important, and I believe that the contributions today reflected Members’ deep concerns about the climate emergency. Sincere views are held across the House about the enormous challenge that we now face.
It is interesting that there is also an emerging consensus in the House, among the public and among the business community about the scale of the issue and the need for an urgent response. What is needed now, above all, is a plan for determined action. The Government have a working majority, and it is clearly the duty of Ministers to address this challenge as a matter of urgency. However, the question facing the House is whether the Government have the political will to rise to the challenge, or whether Ministers will continue to fail to acknowledge the scale of the task that we face. As my hon. Friend said, so far the record is clear, and I am afraid that it is one of the Government failing to step up to the challenge.
The coalition Government and the last two Conservative Administrations have presided over rising carbon dioxide emissions from transport, due largely to increased pollution from road vehicles. At the same time, rail fares have increased dramatically, hundreds of bus services have been cut, and walking and cycling growth is flatlining, with the Government missing their targets to increase active travel.
The failure to tackle rising emissions at a time of climate crisis is simply unacceptable. What is needed now is a completely and utterly different approach, and it is clear from the progress being made by other countries, the Labour Mayors of our great cities and the Welsh Government that investment in public transport and in walking and cycling works and delivers real and tangible change and benefits. Investing to cut carbon dioxide emissions is not only desirable, but absolutely essential.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to these points. I urge him to press his colleagues in the Treasury for the necessary resources and investment and for real incentives for behaviour change—both for drivers to scrap polluting vehicles and to encourage far greater use of public transport and far more walking and cycling.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (George Freeman)
It is a great pleasure to close this debate on transport emissions and decarbonisation as the Government’s first ever Minister for the decarbonisation of transport. I want to begin, however, by saying that while we have been in this debate there has been an accident in Turkey. A passenger plane has skidded off a runway and there are reports of injuries. I know the whole House’s thoughts will be with those affected.
There have been many valuable contributions this afternoon. I cannot go through them all in the limited time available, but I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) on his maiden speech. He talked powerfully about Kashmir and apprenticeships. I know more about one than the other, although I hitch- hiked through Kashmir 30 years ago and I recognise the beauty of the place he described. I also want to highlight the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), and to congratulate him on becoming Chair of the Transport Committee, and the speech by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has been running a powerful campaign on all-lane running on the M1, on which one of her constituents was killed. I thank her for the comments she made the other day in the Westminster Hall debate, which the Secretary State and I are taking very seriously.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the former Secretary of State for Education, spoke powerfully about the importance of pursuing the electrification and decarbonisation agenda in a way that goes with the grain of everyday travel to work, families and the realities of getting around our country, particularly in the last mile.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) raised the important issue of Heathrow. Whatever happens at Heathrow, we are committed to making sure that it does not damage our commitment to our climate change obligations. In response to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), the SNP spokesman, I should make it clear that the UK Government want to support Scotland in its decarbonisation agenda. That is one reason why I am looking at hydrogen, which is a particular strength in the Scottish economy.
As Minister for the decarbonisation of transport, my brief, which has been worked through with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, is to dramatically accelerate the pace of progress on decarbonisation in transport, but I also look after disconnection and digitalisation. The two are connected. We must do more to tackle the disconnection of people and places left behind, the clusters held back, and the disconnection between agencies, not least those with responsibility for decarbonisation. The digitalisation of our transport networks—particularly the railways, but also the buses—can play a huge part in decarbonising our transport system and making it easier for passengers to make that modal shift.
The Prime Minister yesterday set out our groundbreaking commitment to be the first nation to ban diesel and hybrid cars after 2035, as recommended by the Committee on Climate Change. I am surprised we have not had more of a response and welcome for that from Opposition Members. They asked us to do it, and we have done it. It is a key step in tackling transport emissions and builds on our £1.5 billion investment in ultra low emission vehicles and our £400 million investment in charging infrastructure announced since the new Prime Minister and the Government took office.
We are looking across all modes of transport. On aviation, we have already committed to producing an aviation strategy looking to 2050 and beyond. We have made it clear that Heathrow expansion must meet strict criteria on air quality and noise and will not be allowed to materially affect the Government’s ability to meet our climate change obligations. On shipping, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Maritime Minister for launching our first clean maritime plan. The UK is one of the first countries to publish a domestic strategy to reduce shipping emissions—invisible to many but none the less hugely significant globally, particularly for this maritime nation. This followed the UK’s crucial role in the agreement of the International Maritime Organisation’s first strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. On rail, we have committed to getting rid of all diesel trains on the rail network by 2040, and we are looking at electrification and at hydrogen trains in the peripheral areas not likely to be electrified.
We will, however, go much further and faster than even this. I am clear that we want to make Brexit the moment when we step up to our global responsibilities to lead in the decarbonisation of transport and the growth of a green economy. That is why I am working with the Secretary of State on our first ever comprehensive transport decarbonisation plan, which Opposition Members might be interested to hear about, and which we will publish shortly. It will set out a groundbreaking approach to all modes, explaining how road, rail, shipping and aviation can reach net zero.
We will take a place-based approach, looking at the dirtiest motorway junctions, railway stations, ports and airports, and ensuring that everyone has a target that can be met. We want to establish the first ever digital metric for emissions per passenger per kilometre, and, using that metric, to drive “red, amber, green” digital mapping of emissions around the country. We are significantly increasing our research and development science budget, particularly in relation to hydrogen, biofuels and electric planes, to ensure that we have the technology that will help us in carbon budgets 5 and 6.
I also want to highlight the power of data and digital, which has traditionally been overlooked in this sector, but which I believe has a powerful role to play in harnessing our digital economy to ensure that we map and measure properly and empower consumers, through their phones and their local communities, to make the choices that will contribute to the driving down of emissions. I ask Members to imagine their Citymapper as a green carbon route-mapper, giving them points and allowing them to make informed choices about routes and how they can reduce carbon emissions. We can lead the digitalisation, as well as the place-based choices, that will drive modal shift.
I understand that behavioural change alone is not enough, which is why we are significantly increasing our R&D and technology spending. I am launching the first ever Department of Transport research strategy, and a list of priorities for the budget period is being prepared at this moment. We shall be considering hydrogen, biofuels and electric planes.
My aim in this decarb plan is to ensure that this country leads in both the policies and the science and technology to drive the decarbonisation of transport. Our new future transport strategy sets out a comprehensive plan to do two key things. The first is to make the UK a world leader in the testing, development and financing of innovation in transport, because it is an industrial strategy for global UK leadership. Secondly, it is a strategy for local, healthy, place-based neighbourhood choice to make it easier for households, families, communities and councils to drive the modal shift that we need. We believe that by doing both, we can get on track to hit carbon budgets 5 and 6.
I know that time is short: I have no more than 40 seconds left. Let me end by saying this. A number of colleagues have spoken about cycling, and we have committed £2.5 billion in this investment round and in this Parliament to double it. We have invested a further £200 million in buses, we have a £2 billion programme for decarbonisation, and there is £400 million for electric vehicle charging and another £400 million for hydrogen.
We are acting fast to repair decades of neglect. It is all very well for Opposition Members to laugh, but I do not remember their being able to set out such a record after 13 years in office. We have a grip on this issue. In view of the United Nations climate change conference in Glasgow later this year, COP26, let me make very clear that this Government get it. We are also absolutely committed to making clear at that conference that we will make Brexit the moment at which we inspire a new generation, lead globally, and do that most Conservative thing of all, which is to leave our environment in a better condition than the one in which we found it.
Question put.
Nuclear Energy Policy: Climate Change
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to introduce this important debate tonight.
Our country’s ever-increasing energy requirements and, more importantly, how those requirements are met have long been the source of much debate under Governments of all political colours. Hitting the right energy mix is the aim of all high-consumption countries around the world but, of course, it is easier said than done.
Never has the energy mix been more evident than in my constituency of Ynys Môn in north Wales. Wave and solar energy specialists on Ynys Môn are leading the way in their respective fields, and some of the first offshore wind prototypes were tested on the island. However, this is only part of the all-important energy mix.
New nuclear power has the capability to meet rising demand, and this Conservative Government can be incredibly proud that the UK is the first major economy to pass a net zero emissions law with a carbon target of net zero by 2050. Wylfa Newydd on Ynys Môn is critical to achieving that target for a number of reasons, and I will touch on only a few of the most salient points tonight.
First, there is rising demand for electricity, and the Committee on Climate Change predicts that demand to double. The electricity we produce cannot be any electricity: it must come from clean sources and, of course, it must be dependable. This report introduces the idea of firm power—electricity generation that can be relied on to supply demand at all times. We cannot ignore our population’s ever-increasing requirement for electricity as we decarbonise heat and transport.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on a vital subject and on her wonderful introduction. Does she agree that, as with all things in life, a balance must be struck and that we must balance the provision of energy with a safe and secure foundation for that provision? Does she also agree that nuclear power, which I support, is not the answer to all our needs but is currently necessary and that, while we consider viable replacements for nuclear energy, we must take care of our nuclear plants to the highest safety standards?
Virginia Crosbie
This reactor technology is proven and has already been delivered four times. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this technology must be proven to be safe.
Secondly, nuclear power fits in with decarbonisation both here and in the world at large. Nuclear energy has been powering UK homes since 1956, doing the heavy lifting of decarbonisation long before global warming was near the political agenda. According to the “Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2019” published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, nuclear power provides over 45% of our domestically generated clean power. Over the next decade, however, all but one of our current fleet is due to come offline. If that capacity is not replaced with nuclear, our emissions will go up.
Countries like Germany have tried to decarbonise by shutting down their nuclear power stations and opening open-cast lignite coal mines—the dirtiest form of coal possible—to keep the lights on when their wind and solar fleet is not generating enough electricity. Their long-term solution is to pipe in gas from Russia, but that is still a polluting fossil fuel. The Nord Stream 2 project risks Germany becoming too dependent on gas from Russia, at a time when the world’s political instabilities risk supply cut-off. This would not be an appropriate course of action for us to take.
If we were to exclude nuclear in the UK, we would need to install 478 GW of capacity, compared with between just 70 GW and 80 GW in a balanced mix. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded in 2018 that not only is it more difficult to reach net zero without nuclear, but it is significantly more expensive.
Lastly, but most importantly, for my constituents of Ynys Môn the economic benefits are clear. As a Government, we promised our voters in areas such as mine that they would not be forgotten any longer.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I wish to emphasise the point about economic benefits. An arc goes from Anglesey all the way up to Sellafield, with South Ribble and Mr Speaker’s own patch of Chorley very much at the heart of it. With the number of high-skilled, technical, brilliant engineers within that arc, it is not unusual for someone to live in Warrington and work in Anglesey one day, at Sellafield the next and at BAE Systems in Barrow the next. Does my hon. Friend agree that this proposal is economically vital for the north of Wales and the north-west of England?
Virginia Crosbie
I thank my hon. Friend for making that clear point about the nuclear arc and how this will benefit so many more people than just the people on Ynys Môn; it will benefit people throughout Wales. This nuclear arc is going to be very important.
Virginia Crosbie
If I may, I will continue. As I was saying, my constituents deserve jobs, skilled employment and investment to reduce dependency on the instability of seasonal tourism. Many of them tell me that they are worried about the future of the Welsh language, as our young people leave the island for cities across Wales and the north of England to gain meaningful employment. Once operational, Wylfa will create up to 850 permanent jobs, with 8,500 at the peak of construction, many of which would be highly skilled roles and training opportunities. We simply must turn the employment situation around on Anglesey and demonstrate that this Government are on the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life. There would also be thousands more jobs in the supply chain beyond the island in north Wales. Wylfa would undoubtedly see a multi-billion-pound investment into the region.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making some salient points about the importance of nuclear energy. Contracts from Hinkley Point C to suppliers in my constituency are worth more than £61 million, so many of my constituents will be keenly awaiting the energy White Paper to see what commitments are made to new nuclear projects that could bring even greater benefits locally. Does she agree that the Government should confirm the date on which this White Paper will be released, in order to give the 3,500 people employed in the civil nuclear industry in my constituency certainty over their futures?
Virginia Crosbie
I also thank all the people who work so hard at Sellafield on nuclear research. One of my asks of the Minister will indeed be about the timescale for our getting the White Paper.
If this project does not go ahead, these talented people will inevitably look further afield for work. We cannot and must not allow north Wales to lose out. Even so, it is not the north alone that would lose out; estimates put the wider benefit to Wales as a whole at about £5.7 billion. Moreover, after the plant begins to generate electricity, it is estimated that the contribution could be nearly £87 million in gross value added each year of its operation. As a scientist, I understand that these are not insignificant numbers. But even if we all agree that, as part of the energy mix, nuclear power is the way forward, why Wylfa? Why Ynys Môn? It is because Wylfa is hands down the best nuclear new build site in the UK. The local community on the island understand nuclear energy, having seen at first hand the benefits of the original Magnox station, and there is a large amount of support for the project locally. It is encouraging that despite many major political differences, there is cross-party support for this project, with senior figures from both Labour and Plaid Cymru backing the development.
The Wylfa project is all but ready to progress into construction. It is based on proven reactor technology, which has been delivered four times—on time and on budget in Japan—as elements of the design are based on modular construction. The advanced boiling water reactor has already been put through the UK nuclear regulator’s generic design assessment, a process which took nearly five years, and the development consent order is expecting a decision from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the end of March this year. If the process had to be restarted with a different developer, we are looking at the very least at another four to five years of delay. So much of the groundwork has been done. Why would we waste this opportunity? Why would we waste more time?
Financing the project through a model such as the regulated asset base will ensure that the project is funded and started as soon as possible. I would like to know when the Government intend to respond to the consultation responses on adopting such a financing model for new nuclear.
Mike Hill
I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for advanced modular reactor and small modular reactor provision, particularly from the perspective of Hartlepool and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear. The important point is the money that is generated for the local economy. In Hartlepool, it is roughly £10 million for the local economy and 500 jobs. Does she agree that companies such as EDF that run our nuclear power stations are investing wisely in green alternative provision, so nuclear is effectively a bridge to that future?
Virginia Crosbie
Absolutely. This is a balanced approach to our energy. We need that so that we can achieve the 2050 target. Have the Government considered any robust alternatives to the RAB financing model? Will the Minister say when the Government will publish the energy White Paper?
In conclusion, this project is the only way forward to ensure that we can meet our 2050 target on decarbonisation. It renews the UK’s infrastructure, drives economic growth in the regions, boosts our manufacturing and construction sectors, and strengthens our links with key tier 1 non-EU partners—a vital source of investment and collaboration now that we have left the European Union. Most importantly, this Government and our message are all about people—people who put their trust in this Government to deliver. Our Prime Minister promised
“Colossal new investments in infrastructure, in science, using our incredible technological advantages to make this country the cleanest, greenest on earth with the most far-reaching environmental programme.”
People and their priorities were at the heart of our successful election to government. Now we must deliver across the UK, particularly to constituencies such as mine, Ynys Môn. Let us unite this country, let us spread opportunity to every corner of the UK, with superb education, superb infrastructure, and technology. It is the people of Ynys Môn who will benefit most from Wylfa. Together we can realise the potential of Anglesey as the “Energy Island” and we can share in the opportunity and ambition to succeed in life that many neighbouring areas have come to expect as a given. I therefore urge the Government and the Minister not to forget about people when making the decision about the future of nuclear power and Wylfa Newydd specifically. The people of Ynys Môn and north Wales are looking to us to change their lives and give them hope and opportunity. In the words of the Prime Minister the day after the election:
“Those people who voted for us want change. We cannot—must not—let them down.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) not only on securing this evening’s debate, but on her fantastic recent election result. I thank colleagues who have made interventions—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and the hon. Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Hartlepool (Mike Hill). When the Cabinet went to Sunderland, the Prime Minister met an apprentice from Hartlepool. With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, it is not just about apprentices; it is about skilled workers across the country, including in the north-west arc, dating all the way back, Mr Speaker, to 1956.
Nadhim Zahawi
Quite right, Sir. It has been over three decades since Ynys Môn elected a Conservative Member of Parliament and I look forward to working with her over the coming years to ensure that this Government deliver for the people of her constituency and across the entire region of north Wales.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the important issue of nuclear energy, and I am eager to speak to her and the House this evening about the huge number of benefits that the UK expects to receive as a result of the Government’s commitment to the sector. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for her presence. She, too, takes an eager interest in nuclear power, not only because of her constituency and her constituents’ needs, but for the wellbeing of the energy sector nationally.
New nuclear is likely to have a significant role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. In September 2016, we gave the go-ahead to the first new nuclear power station in a generation, at Hinkley Point C; and in June 2018 we committed £200 million through our landmark nuclear sector deal, which includes millions of pounds for advanced nuclear technologies. The Government understand the important role that nuclear plays, and will continue to play, in our economy. That role includes ensuring that local and national benefits are realised, whether through increased employment opportunities or improvements in skills.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn reminded us, on 27 June 2019 the UK Government set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from across the whole UK economy by 2050. We were the first major economy in the world—followed by France and the rest of the EU—to legislate for net zero, and we want to deliver our commitments in a way that maximises the economic benefits of the transition to net zero. Between 1990 and 2017, we reduced emissions by more than 40% while at the same time growing our economy by more than two thirds, decarbonising our economy faster than any other G20 country. The net zero target requires us to build on that progress by transforming the whole of our economy and, of course, changing the culture in our society—our homes, our transport, our businesses and how we generate and use energy.
I thank my hon. Friend for talking about the energy White Paper. It will form a key part of our journey to net zero. To answer her question about its publication date, I can inform her that the Secretary of State has stated that she intends to publish the energy White Paper in the first quarter of this year. The White Paper will set out a clear, decisive strategy—a strategic approach to decarbonising energy, driving up clean growth opportunities and demonstrating international leadership in the build-up to COP26 at the end of the year. I am sure we are all delighted that COP26 is to be hosted in the great Scottish city of Glasgow.
Net zero is not just good for the environment; it is good business. It is already abundantly clear, however, that a substantial increase in low-carbon generation will be needed to reach net zero by 2050. Nuclear will have an important role to play in the UK’s future energy mix, providing firm low-carbon power and complementing variable renewable generation. Britain was the world’s first civil nuclear nation, and nuclear energy has powered homes and businesses in this country for more than 60 years. There are currently 15 nuclear reactors operating at eight sites throughout the UK, and they provide a fifth of our electricity. In 2016, the Government gave the go-ahead for the first new nuclear power station in a generation, at Hinkley Point C in Somerset. Once operational, Hinkley will provide 3.2 GW of secure, low-carbon electricity for around 60 years, meeting an estimated 7% of the UK’s current electricity requirements. To put that another way, it will power nearly 6 million British homes—twice as many homes as there are in London.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Hinkley site, and it was incredible to see the sheer scale of the endeavour that is being undertaken. There has been significant progress at the site; in December, the developer announced that all key milestones for 2019 had been achieved. Those included the successful delivery of J-zero for the first reactor, which marked the point at which the foundations for unit 1 were complete and the above-ground work could commence. They also included the first big lift for Big Carl—who I met—the world’s largest land-based crane, which towers 250 metres over the site. In one single lift, it can lift the equivalent weight of 5,000 shire horses, or of two A380s. It is a remarkable piece of engineering. On 18 December, engineers at Hinkley worked through the night to lift a 170 tonne part of the reactor’s steel containment liner into place, and it was fantastic to see the results at first hand.
During its construction and operation, Hinkley Point C will provide the local region, as well as the entirety of the UK, with economic benefits. In July 2018, the Government published “Hinkley Point C: wider benefits realisation plan”. The plan, produced with support from EDF Energy, sets out how the wider benefits of the project will be delivered. For example, Hinkley Point C is expected to provide more than 25,000 new employment opportunities and up to 64% of the value of construction contracts to UK-registered companies.
Jim Shannon
During the previous Parliament, I met some of the people involved in the project. They told me that all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would benefit from those jobs. Can the Minister confirm that Northern Ireland will gain from the construction of the project?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am happy to write back to him on how much of the benefit has gone to businesses in Northern Ireland.
A total of almost £4 billion in today’s money will go into the regional economy over the lifetime of the project, composed of about £1.5 billion during construction and about £2.4 billion during operations.
Katherine Fletcher
Does the Minister agree that we should not only seek to replicate established technologies, but use the new nuclear base-load as an opportunity to innovate and become a world leader in the sector?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right and I hope to address that point in a few moments.
EDF has informed us that Wales is already benefiting from work at the project; more than 1,000 Welsh residents have worked on it so far. Twenty-one apprentices who were previously employed at Wylfa are now working at Hinkley Point C, and more than 100 Welsh companies are working on the project, with contracts totalling more than £150 million going their way. The project is also sourcing more than 200,000 tonnes of Welsh steel from Express Reinforcements in Neath and large components from Vessco Engineering in Bridgend. I hope those examples go some way to showing that this Government recognise and value the highly skilled nuclear workforce and established supply chain that Wales offers.
I understand, however, that talking about successes in Somerset does not diminish the disappointment that north Wales felt upon hearing about the suspension of Wylfa Newydd nuclear power station. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn that we worked extremely hard during negotiations to find a deal that was right for everyone, with Government ready to contribute significant investment.
We were clear from the outset that any deal that was made would represent value for money, and be the right one for taxpayers and consumers. Ultimately, we were unable to reach such a deal and Hitachi took the commercial decision to suspend the project. However, the Wylfa site remains a potential location for new nuclear development, and Hitachi has stated that it is keen to discuss future options for the site with us, based on alternative funding models.
The Government are committed to looking at alternative funding models that could improve the value for money and reduce the cost of capital of new nuclear projects. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn correctly noted, we recently consulted on a regulated asset base funding model as a potential new option that could attract private sector capital at a lower cost to consumers. The consultation closed on 14 October 2019, and we are currently considering the feedback to inform the best approach to the financing of future nuclear projects.
Ynys Môn will always be the energy island, and this Government are proud of the expertise and skills that north Wales brings to the UK’s civil nuclear sector. In September 2019, we published the Government response to the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report on the suspension of work on the Wylfa nuclear power station. We welcomed the report, and our response reiterated our recognition of Wales’s world-leading capability across the sector. I hope that we can continue to build on the great nuclear history that exists in north Wales.
In June 2018 we launched our landmark nuclear sector deal in Trawsfynydd. As my hon. Friend is aware, the nuclear sector deal comprises a package of measures to support the sector as we develop low-carbon nuclear power and continue to clean up our nuclear legacy. Worth £200 million, the deal is about Government and industry working in partnership to achieve significant cost reductions across the nuclear sector, and to ensure that it remains competitive with other low-carbon technologies.
The deal includes a number of commitments to ensure that the UK’s nuclear sector has a highly skilled and more diverse workforce. I recently signed the nuclear sector gender commitment as part of the Government’s commitment to the nuclear sector deal target of 40% women in nuclear by 2030—and I say that to someone who has clearly had a leadership position in Women2Win.
We believe that apprenticeships and higher education will be a key component in achieving this goal, and are working closely with industry and skills bodies through the Nuclear Skills Strategy Group to understand the skills requirements and potential challenges faced by the sector.
The Government also consider that new technologies, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble mentioned, could play an important role in supporting our economy and allowing the UK to continue to be a world leader in tackling climate change. That is why our £200 million nuclear sector deal includes millions for advanced nuclear technologies. We believe that both small and advanced modular reactors have significant potential to support a secure, affordable decarbonised energy system, alongside other low-carbon generation. That is why we have awarded £18 million to the low-cost nuclear challenge proposed by a Rolls-Royce-led small modular reactor consortium. The challenge aims to design a working model that could be deployed as early as 2030. The consortium believes that a UK SMR programme can support up to 40,000 jobs at its peak, with each SMR capable of powering 750,000 homes.
To support advanced modular reactor development, we have committed up to £40 million to research and development through our AMR competition, the outcome of which will be announced shortly. Additionally, we have committed up to £26 million for an advanced manufacturing and materials competition and up to £12 million to build regulatory capability, which is also important, to take future licensing decisions on small and advanced modular reactors in a safe way.
I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn once more for securing this important debate, and the Members who have made interventions. Nuclear can not only help us along the route to net zero by 2050, but is a key part of our economy. In 2018, there were around 89,000 people employed across the UK nuclear workforce and its supply chain. Our nuclear sector deal is looking to develop the skills that the sector needs and build a more diverse workforce. Hinkley Point C will kick-start new nuclear in the UK, providing firm base-load power and energy security for generations to come as we transition to a low-carbon economy. I look forward to working with all colleagues, and especially new ones, to ensure that we deliver for north Wales and support the energy island.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
It was our honour on Friday to bring home 29 other Europeans on the UK-commissioned charter flight from Wuhan, along with the 97 Britons, because we will always look out for our European friends, with whom we share so many interests. I am grateful to the Spanish Foreign Minister for Spain’s help in co-ordinating that effort and to the French Foreign Minister in relation to the flight that came home on Sunday.
[Official Report, 3 February 2020, Vol. 671, c. 26.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab).
An error has been identified in the statement I made on Monday 3 February 2020.
The correct statement should have been:
Dominic Raab
It was our honour on Friday to bring home 29 other Europeans on the UK-commissioned charter flight from Wuhan, along with the 83 Britons, because we will always look out for our European friends, with whom we share so many interests. I am grateful to the Spanish Foreign Minister for Spain’s help in co-ordinating that effort and to the French Foreign Minister in relation to the flight that came home on Sunday.
Petition
Traffic situation in Strathaven and safe walking routes to school
Westminster Hall
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Operation Augusta
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Operation Augusta.
This is a story of the gross failure of public policy, and the implementation of public policy, to protect vulnerable children. Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester watched “The Betrayed Girls”, a BBC programme about the sexual abuse and exploitation of young people, in 2017. Afterwards, he set up what became the independent assurance review of the effectiveness of multi-agency responses to child sexual exploitation in Greater Manchester. I want to discuss part 1, which is an assurance review of Operation Augusta.
I watched “The Betrayed Girls” on Sunday evening on BBC iPlayer, and it was a harrowing experience. Reading the report, one varies between despair and outrage at the failures of Greater Manchester police and Manchester City Council to protect mainly young girls, but young boys too, from predatory sexual exploitation.
If we had the same rules as the US Senate, I would ask for the report to be read into the record so that people could read it, but we do not, so I will have to summarise it. Part 1 focuses on Operation Augusta, which was set up following the death of Victoria Agoglia on 29 September 2003. She died after being injected with heroin by a 50-year-old man. Shockingly, although she died in 2003, the report states that there has been no follow-up investigation into her death, despite the fact that Peter Fahy, the chief constable, told her relatives afterwards that he was quite happy to look at the case again, which led them to believe that it would be. Since then, Peter Fahy has said that he was just being open. I think that is dissimulating to the point of dishonesty. It was clearly the intention to reassure the family that the death of this girl would not be forgotten.
There has been no investigation, although there has been a coroner’s inquest. Four of my colleagues from Manchester and I have written to the Attorney General asking for a fresh inquest. Reading the report, it is difficult to see why the coroner came to the conclusion he did. It is particularly difficult because the current coroner is refusing to release documents. In the absence of those documents, we would like the Attorney General to order a fresh inquest.
The coroner’s conclusion was that
“there was no evidence of a gross failure to meet Victoria’s needs that would have had a significant bearing on her death”
and that there could be no inference that the events leading to her death were “reasonably foreseeable”. She claimed she had been raped, sexually abused, assaulted and plied with drugs for two years, and the coroner could not see how her death was reasonably foreseeable. The social workers knew what was happening; they had given her recommendations about what to do. I think her death was eminently foreseeable, so I hope that the Attorney General will agree to order the opening of an inquest and that the Home Office will support that.
That was the genesis of Operation Augusta, which was set up to see whether many children—mainly girls aged between 13 and 16—were in the same situation as Victoria Agoglia. A dedicated team of police officers was set up with embedded social workers to look at the situation. Relatively quickly, they found that there were 57 girls in a similar situation and 97 suspected perpetrators of this kind of vile abuse.
The report makes it clear that although Operation Augusta was successful in identifying those girls and suspected perpetrators, it was bedevilled by a lack of resources and territorial disputes between three police divisions in Manchester and about access to HOLMES, the police computer that records cases. The situation was difficult, and it is clear that leadership was lacking. After 16 months, Operation Augusta was wound up.
One of the many worrying factors about this report is that the social workers and more junior police officers have vivid and clear recollections of the operation.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The report is scandalous, harrowing and difficult to read. I quote one thing with reference to what the hon. Gentleman has just said:
“the decision to close down Operation Augusta was driven by the decision by senior officers to remove the resources from the investigation rather than a sound understanding that all lines of enquiry had been successfully completed or exhausted”.
On its own merits, that is scandalous. That is in the report. I also read—
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman is underlining and emphasising my point about the lack of resources and leadership.
Two of the senior officers became chief constables afterwards, and their recollection of events is either non-existent or hazy. I simply do not believe that someone who had been in charge of such an operation and received such awful reports would not remember—the junior officers have clear memories of how it was finished. That, of course, meant that the perpetrators, who were known about by the police and social workers, carried on, as the report says, in plain sight. A lot of the abuse took place above Indian restaurants on Wilmslow Road—the so-called curry mile—in south Manchester. Cars were known to pull up with girls, and the police did nothing—in fact, they withdrew from acting on that information. As the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) said, that is scandalous.
Since the termination of Operation Augusta, the response of Greater Manchester police and Manchester City Council to this quite shocking report has been to apologise and to say that they are improving co-ordination and intensifying work to identify people, and they have done that. The awful thing is that, for the last 50 years, many of the children who have been abused and murdered have become the subjects of well-known operations. Reports always make 80 or 90 recommendations after such failures, and those are always agreed to, but we carry on writing reports, and children carry on being abused. Although I believe that Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester police are sincere in their attempts to be more effective and to get their act together, we need to understand the issue more deeply by asking why these things have happened time and again and what can be done to prevent a report from being written in 16 years’ time about children who are on the streets now, while we discuss this situation.
I referred to the clear memories of the more junior police officers and the amnesia of the senior officers involved. If there had been a different culture and stronger protections for whistleblowers, allowing those junior police officers and social workers to report such cases in the knowledge that they would not lose their careers, I believe more would have been done. In no sense would the public have put up with what happened if they had known about it—they expect our children’s services departments and the police to protect the most vulnerable young women—but they know about it only 16 years later. We need stronger protections for whistleblowers and an acceptance that bringing such issues to the attention of the public and senior politicians is a good thing.
Although there were disputes about resource allocation in the police force and between Greater Manchester police and Manchester City Council, one has to remember that, at the time, police numbers were going up and local government was better funded. That is no longer the case; there is not a children’s department in the country that is not short of resources for the protection of children. We cannot wish, as I do, for better service provision for those vulnerable people without providing the resources. Police numbers have also gone down. However, that decline in resources does not apply to the time of Operation Augusta.
Another point that was made in “The Betrayed Girls” and in the report, and that has been made more generally, is that the vast majority of the men involved were of Pakistani origin and of the Muslim faith. The police, who probably had good intentions, made a mistake in saying, “We will be accused of racism if we point this out.” Nazir Afzal, the previous director of public prosecutions in the north-west and a practising Muslim, said that such activities are against the teaching of Islam and of the Koran, and that the vast majority of Pakistani people are as appalled by what has happened as the rest of the population. That is not to say that one should hide what has happened on Wilmslow Road or in other parts of the country, such as Telford, Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford or Ipswich—one can go on and on listing different towns where such cases have happened.
A final point on resources is that a number of requests have been made for the Home Office to do serious research into grooming. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) recently asked that of the Home Office, both by letter and on the Floor of the House. It is a mistake to think that the grooming of children, as described in the report, is the same as paedophile rings. The Home Office has done good research on paedophile rings. They are understood by the police and the Home Office, which know how to disrupt them. However, very little research has been done on grooming gangs. For instance, we do not know whether there are “Mr Bigs” behind the gangs at a national level or whether the cases represent major crime or decentralised local activity. That is important for our understanding; if it is major crime, organised on a national and international basis like drug crime, the National Crime Agency should be involved in disrupting that activity. I would be grateful if the Minister explained when the Home Office will fund and sponsor research into grooming gangs.
As I said, if people had blown the whistle, a stop could probably have been put to these things, because the public would not stand for them. I want to mention two people who have stayed with this issue and have continued to bring it to the public’s attention since the first Rochdale and Rotherham cases came to light. Sara Rowbotham, who worked in Rochdale as head of its crisis intervention team and is now a Rochdale councillor, and Margaret Oliver, who was a detective on the Augusta team before her maternity leave, have constantly brought it to the public’s attention. Margaret has argued very strongly, alongside the family of Victoria Agoglia, for the case to be re-opened and for the police to take more action against the perpetrators. Those two women deserve serious praise for what they are doing. I do not want in any sense to trivialise this serious debate, but they are more worthy of being nominated to the House of Lords than some of the people who have been put forward by the Labour party, which has put forward a pretty eccentric list, to put it mildly.
James Daly
I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman on that. Why has nobody from the GMP or Manchester City Council been held accountable for the failings identified in the report?
Graham Stringer
I am not sure that I have a good answer for the hon. Gentleman. Some people, such as Pauline Newman, who was in charge of children’s services at the time, have moved on. The senior police officers who took the decision to wind up operation Augusta have moved on and are not co-operating—one is not talking at all, and the other says he cannot remember. In such circumstances, when people are no longer employed by the city council or Greater Manchester police, it is difficult to know what action could be taken or by whom. However, the hon. Gentleman asks a good question. A line of accountability is needed. When one reads the report and some of the reports since, records of meetings or of attendees at those meetings are absent in some cases. That makes things difficult. However, if his point is that somebody should be held accountable, I agree with him. That is clearly right.
The final point I want to make in this sad story is that the police and Manchester City Council have said that they will improve. Today, however, Greater Manchester police have declared a “critical incident” in the introduction of their iOPS computer system, which 90% of police officers rely on to get information. The system cost £29 million and is not working. With the best will in the world, if the officers whose job it is to look into these allegations do not know what is happening, they cannot do their job. We need not only resources—more police officers—but the proper use of resources and computer systems. Currently, when I have no doubt that many perpetrators are still walking the streets of Greater Manchester and other cities, we need Greater Manchester police to do better.
This is an awful and shocking story of the failure to protect some of the most vulnerable people in the country. One of the failures, which was a mistake, is that action was not taken in some cases because the police said that the girls were not reliable witnesses. However, there have been policy statements to the effect that we do not have to rely on the victims to protect themselves in order to take the perpetrators to court. I hope that the Home Office and all the councils in the country will redouble their efforts to ensure that such activities, which I am sure still happen, are stopped.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
First, I draw attention to my entry in the register. Secondly, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for bringing this case before the House. It received very little coverage—a few headlines in the newspapers—and was not mentioned at all in this House. Yet the report was of huge significance, not just historically, but for the lessons that still need to be learned, as he alluded to today: how we are still not dealing adequately enough with child sexual abuse in all its forms; and in particular whether we are policing it properly.
As everyone will agree, the report is troubling and makes for uncomfortable reading, such as the tragedy of Victoria Agoglia, the 15-year-old so badly let down in the care of Manchester City Council. Her treatment has many wider implications for vulnerable young people exposed to child sexual exploitation.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Maggie Oliver, who has been the hero throughout the whole of this sorry episode. She called out the neglect—to put it mildly—in effect sacrificed her career and has at last been vindicated after all that time. I met Maggie at the “Newsnight” studio when this issue came up and we were interviewed, just a few weeks ago. I hope the charity that she is looking to set up to continue her good work will be a great success.
I pay tribute to the Mayor of Manchester for commissioning his review—historical, because it was many years before Manchester had an elected Mayor. This is only the first phase of that review, and four further stories that may make equally uncomfortable reading will come out in future. I also pay tribute to the BBC and the “Betrayed Girls” programme, which highlighted some of the horrors that happened.
I am afraid that the situation is not untypical. When I was Children’s Minister, one of the least enjoyable parts of my job was, every Monday morning, a run-through of all the cases that had come in of child abuse or child fatalities, often at the hands of carers, and of the latest state of play in the court cases. Only a few high-profile issues—the Victoria Climbiés, the Baby Ps and some of these gangs—reached the headlines, but they were just the tip of the iceberg. This was going on wholescale, at an industrial level, and to an extent it still is.
Reading the report, I am afraid that I had such a sense of déjà vu. It talked about the horrendous way in which Victoria Agoglia met her death, stating that “No action was taken” by the police or social care to address the issues. The “scoping phase” of the investigation
“built up a compelling picture of the systemic exploitation of looked after children in the care system in the city of Manchester”,
and found that “97 persons of interest” were
“identified as being involved…in the sexual exploitation of the victims”.
None of those 97, it would appear, has been brought to justice. The report concluded that although “significant information” was
“held by both Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester Police on some individuals who potentially posed a risk to children, the review team can offer no assurance that appropriate action was taken to address this risk.”
Sixteen children in the sample were being sexually exploited, and the review team could offer no
“assurance that this was appropriately addressed by either Greater Manchester Police or…the responsible local authority.”
Evidence was presented and victims—often vulnerable children in the care system—were not believed, even when they were brave enough to present. Victims were almost tarred as perpetrators, for bringing it on themselves. In some earlier studies, comments referred to “child prostitutes”—but there is no such thing as a child prostitute. If you are a child, and if you are engaged in sexual activity at the hands of somebody else, that is not prostitution; that is child abuse. It is child sexual exploitation, plain and simple. That phrase “child prostitution” should have no place in our lexicon. We are talking about children, particularly vulnerable children who were ruthlessly exploited and taken advantage of by some very unpleasant individuals.
The whole thing was therefore all too difficult to handle. There were ridiculous considerations of political correctness—which I am afraid were all-pervading, particularly in those days—and the police and other local agencies did not want to rock the boat, so it was swept under the carpet. Even with those 97 identified potential suspects, the inquiry was prematurely closed.
One phrase from the report about the perpetrators summed it up for me:
“They weren’t viewed as sex offenders per se, just a group of men of all ages, from one ethnicity taking advantage of kids from dysfunctional backgrounds.”
It was almost the kids’ fault; those people just happened to be there and took advantage. There is clear evidence that young people were not served or protected by the statutory agencies. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton made the point that there is no evidence of any misconduct charges having been brought against anyone involved in the failures of this case. There was a clear absence of identifying where the buck stopped. Some of those police officers are still in the police force, in one case at the level of chief constable, and their careers have advanced with apparently no consequences of the failures raised in the report. That must be addressed.
That attitude was all too common before 2011. There was a combination of ignorance, inadequate training, complacency, political correctness and indifference to vulnerable children. However, I believe that there was a sea change in 2011. Operation Retriever, which was the first high-profile operation, identified, prosecuted and jailed a gang of British Pakistani men based in Derby and other cities across the north. It was bravely brought by Sheila Taylor, who at the time was running a charity for victims in Derby. Through her constant badgering of the police to take the matter seriously, she made sure that it was properly investigated. That was the turning point.
That case was about the scale abuse of mostly but not exclusively teenage girls, by mostly but not exclusively British Pakistani gangs of men. Let us be clear: child sexual exploitation is committed by all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds. Most of those in jail will be white men who have committed various forms of child sexual exploitation, but this was a case of organised, systematic gang abuse by predominantly British Pakistani men and it was not properly called out, identified and prosecuted so that those people could be brought to justice. That sea change came about in 2011.
James Daly
The report mentioned a 2014 interview in which Victoria’s grandmother said that the men were still walking around in the local community. Nothing happened between 2014 and 2018, when the investigation took place. If there was such a sea change in 2011, can my hon. Friend explain what happened between June 2014 and 2018?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there are still serious shortcomings in this case, but I am trying to draw a picture of why things changed nationally and why there are grounds for optimism, although one would not believe it to look at this report.
The report needs to lead to further investigation into the culpability of the perpetrators and the people who failed to identify and do something about them. Back in 2011, the Government produced the first comprehensive child sexual exploitation plan. I launched it, together with Barnardo’s, and worked with other agencies. It made it clear that that sort of CSE was going on in all parts of society and all parts of our country; it is not just a preserve of northern metropolitan cities such as Manchester. It happens in all parts of town; it is not something that just happens to those sorts of people in a different part of town. It happened to the children of doctors, lawyers and other professionals from all walks of life. The shocking images of gang members started to appear in the newspaper, and people started to wake up to it.
What really caused that sea change was the Jimmy Savile scandal the following year. It became a different world. From October 2012, most people in this country came to realise what child sexual exploitation actually was, and that it was happening. Awareness rose hugely. It was widespread throughout all sorts of society: in the health service, in education, in children’s homes, in the Church of England—I refer to the recent exposure about Bishop Peter Ball. Again, the police just shoved it under the carpet and did not properly pursue it. It happened in politics, with Cyril Smith and Operation Midland, where there were serious shortcomings—that will be the subject of further debate in this House in due course. It was happening in Rotherham, Oxford, Cornwall, Rochdale, Telford and so on. That led to the historic child abuse inquiry, which is still undertaking its huge job of work.
The question is: have things changed? Have the police, and all agencies, got wiser to detecting and taking seriously allegations of child sexual abuse? Have mindsets changed since 2004? The people who should have been looking after vulnerable children were just not; they were questioning whether anything serious was happening to them. Back in 2004 we were focused on cases such as that of Victoria Climbié. We had just had the Laming review. Abuse of children was largely down to carers inflicting violence on vulnerable children. The whole business of gangs and sexual exploitation was not on the radar. Some seven or eight years later, that very much came on to the radar.
What has changed—I saw this in my time as Children’s Minister and subsequently—is that now every single police officer is trained to identify child sexual exploitation. We have better joint working between agencies, although it is still not nearly good enough—I have serious concerns about the successors to the local safeguarding children boards properly joining up all the local interested parties. More cases are coming to court. Indeed, some 50% of cases going through the courts at the moment are to do with historical and contemporary sexual abuse. The problem is that far too little is ending up in prosecutions, particularly for contemporary sexual abuse and rape. It is still a big problem in this country.
I would like to finish with some of the statistics. Last year something like 104,000 children went through the care system in this country. It was estimated by an all-party group led by our former colleague Ann Coffey, who did a lot of very good work, that 11,500, or 11%, went missing at some stage. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children estimates that a child is abused in this country every seven minutes. There were some 76,000 reported sexual offences—a record level and a big rise over recent years—and 20% of those relate to children under the age of 10. That is down to better reporting and better police recording, but also to the fact that it is still a problem and we are not doing enough about it. It is also to do with children in the care system not being properly looked after.
Too many children are excluded from school— 42 children a day are permanently excluded from school and 410 are on fixed-term exclusions. They end up in gang and knife culture and become vulnerable to predators. Back in 2011-12 we produced heat maps of where children should be placed. Senior police officers and heads of schools from Kent, where a disproportionate number of children in care are placed—largely from London boroughs—came to see me. They told me that they were seriously worried about being overwhelmed by children in the care system who were not properly looked after and were placed in wholly inappropriate areas. We had cases of children being placed in children’s homes on the same streets as sex offender hostels.
We changed the regulations so that where children are placed out of the area of the local authority responsible for them, the director of children’s services will be responsible for a risk assessment of whether the place is appropriate and safe—not just whether the house was okay, but whether the area was okay. Still, 41% of children across the care system are placed out of area. In the case of going to children’s homes, that is over two thirds. Those heat maps are still not being properly enforced. That is part of the reason why too many of our children are still vulnerable.
My plea is that we learn the lessons. We need to know why people were not brought to account, and they still need to be brought to account. Are perpetrators still out there who could be prosecuted? What are we doing for the victims—those children who are still suffering the trauma of having gone through their experiences, which have been brought up again by the publication of this report? Are we properly looking after their interests? What are we doing now to ensure that those vulnerable children are properly looked after by agencies who get it? Agencies must know the extent of the problem, know what they have to do and act together in the best interests of the welfare of those children, so that tragic cases such as Victoria’s never happen again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Sarah Champion, let me point out that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred at the outset of his speech to his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but that in itself is not sufficient in a debate. People who are not privy to that register entry need to know the relevance of it, so I will point out that the hon. Gentleman’s register entry includes a reference to the fact that he is a paid adviser to the board of the Outcomes First Group. That is the relevance of it. I remind hon. Members, particularly at the beginning of a new Parliament, that the whole purpose is to promote transparency.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
I am going to be brief, because I have said the same thing for six years. However, I think it needs reiterating, because it clearly is not getting through. I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for bringing this debate forward. These things need to be heard, because things are still going wrong. I, too, watched the drama “The Betrayed Girls”, but it could have been a documentary and, to be honest, it could have been almost anywhere in the country. Time and again, I meet girls—often, they are now young women—who have been through an identical experience.
There is an almost identical pattern of grooming and then sexual exploitation, which often leads to trafficking and prostitution as the children become adults, so I am concerned that there is still no national strategy for the disruption and prevention of this specific form of child abuse. Why is that? There are incredibly close similarities between grooming and exploiting children for sex, and grooming and exploiting children for criminal activities. My hunch—I do not know this; it is just a hunch—is that those things are probably done by similar gangs of people. Will the Minister please commission research on that?
As my hon. Friend said, we also need a perpetrator profile. Unless the police understand the way these networks operate, they are unable to disrupt them—they are unable to get ahead of the curve and prevent children from being harmed. We absolutely must have that profile. It would be a simple thing to do. A forensic psychologist could be commissioned to do it. Again to be blunt, we have probably 300 perpetrators of exactly the same method of criminality in jail. Please, let us use that resource and use their experience for a positive purpose.
I also want to focus the Minister’s attention on the fact that statutory support for victims and survivors just disappears as soon as they turn 18. That is very important because, under this method of criminality, although children tend to be groomed at around 12 or 13 and the sexual exploitation happens between 13 and 16, it continues into adulthood. Often, because of the mental torture and manipulation that victims have gone through, it takes them years once the abuse has stopped to be able to articulate it, let alone to be believed. That is why it tends to be adults who come forward to speak about these crimes. We need support in place for adults to enable them, I hope, to have the strength to go through the court process.
Next week, I will launch a report by my all-party parliamentary group, the APPG on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, on the impact of this crime and the likelihood of justice. It impacts every aspect of the lives of survivors, from their mental health to their physical health. It affects their likelihood of being addicted to drugs, their ability—or inability—to maintain long-term relationships, and their ability to fulfil their education and therefore their career. I say to the Minister that he needs to work in a cross-departmental way to establish a fund so anybody who discloses this sort of abuse, particularly if they are an adult, can immediately get, for example, six sessions of counselling or support. That would enable them to stabilise their life so they can go on and have a good life, and to be a good witness so we can get the prosecutions we so desperately need.
A number of Members mentioned accountability. Accountability is important because, clearly, people have failed in their duty to protect those children, for whatever reason. Accountability is important because we need to know it will not happen again. If there are training needs or if some sort of disciplinary action should follow, that should be implemented so other children are not let down in the future.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has done so much in this area, said that this issue was not really on the radar of the statutory agencies until 2011. I agree, but he also knows that this model of behaviour has been going on since the early ’60s. That is the earliest I can find it documented. I have people in Keighley, Birmingham and, indeed, Rotherham who can testify that they saw it going on in the early ’60s. It was not on the radar of the statutory agencies, but it was on the radar of the wider communities. There was a lack of trust and respect because people knew a crime was being carried out but the agencies did not act on it. Unless there is accountability now, it will be very hard to bring forward that trust and respect. I therefore urge the Minister, on behalf of the survivors and of children who are still vulnerable, to ensure that we have a fund for survivors and that we see accountability for these crimes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at 10.40 am. Five people wish to speak, so I encourage a self-denying ordinance of a maximum of five minutes each. I call Chris Green.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing this important and timely debate.
We remember what Operation Augusta was about: the death of Victoria Agoglia due to a drug overdose inflicted on her by a 50-year-old man. She was in care. She should have had a huge amount of support from the state, but it was not there. It is right that the review commissioned by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, reflected on that, and it is right that we should look at the support for victims and seek to punish the criminals who were there at that time, but we should also challenge the decision makers.
Those people—people in Greater Manchester police, and social workers in Manchester City Council—made the decisions. Those people knew exactly what was going on, but they have not been challenged for their actions, whether they amount to negligence and misconduct or criminal actions. Because of the lack of challenge at the time, and the apparent lack of challenge now, we do not know where those people are. Have they been promoted elsewhere? We know they were involved in a cover-up. It seems clear to anyone who looks at this that there was a cover-up. If those people were promoted elsewhere or moved sideways, did that cover-up and that culture move with them?
A number of colleagues wrote a letter to Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, challenging him on a number of concerns in the report. I think we were all pretty disappointed at his rather supine response. He accepts that Operation Augusta stopped solely due to lack of resource, but the number of police officers in Greater Manchester police increased by more than 1,000 between 1997 and 2004-05. It had 1,000 additional police officers in that time, yet we hear there was a lack of resource.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) highlighted, there were a number of live inquiries, and we know the nature of the crime committed against Victoria Agoglia, but we ought to focus on the Manchester Evening News headline, which captures so much: “A paedophile grooming gang was left to roam the streets of Manchester—and police knew who they were and exactly what they were doing”. That is what we know to be true. The people who were involved in the decision making at that time have not been held to account. I am not sure it is credible to say this is only about resources.
It is also incredible that the identity of the gold commander—the person who made the decision to end Operation Augusta—is not known. It is also incredible that, just as his or her identity is not known, the minutes from Greater Manchester police of the meeting where it was decided to end Operation Augusta have disappeared—and, by amazing coincidence, the minutes from Manchester City Council disappeared at the same time. How many people at this stage would not suspect a cover-up?
The report references successes. It has been highlighted that of the 97 individuals under scrutiny for grooming, plying children with drugs and raping children, three were imprisoned—three of 97. That is referred to in the report as a success. In no way can an objective person see Operation Augusta described as a success. It was an utter failure. Its closure was a decision by the gold commander, and in Andy Burnham’s response to our letter and his description of it, he accepts the lack of knowledge. There is no challenge and no sense of an injustice.
Data sharing is incredibly important in these matters. The Mayor watched the television programme, and he started the inquiry in September 2017. In January 2018, Greater Manchester police agreed what access the review could have to that data. In September 2018—a year after the review started—Rochdale Borough Council agreed on access, and a month after that Manchester City Council agreed on access. Considering that we are talking about the production-line rape of children, it is extraordinary that it took Rochdale and Manchester councils a year to agree access to information. This was a serious review, with serious people heading it, and it took a year to reach agreement. I do not see how anyone cannot be aghast at that.
It is a consistent feature that when the Mayor of Greater Manchester ought to be challenging what has—or has not—been done, there is silence. If council leaders or people in the councils were not handing over information or being forthcoming, he should have used not just his position as police and crime commissioner of Greater Manchester police but his public platform as Mayor of Greater Manchester to challenge them to hand it over, but he chose not to.
A huge amount of follow-up work needs to be done. The report should have been in one piece, but it has been split up because of the delays. The sense of a cover-up and everything being kicked into the long grass is clear to anyone who reads the report and the response from Andy Burnham to our letter. The Minister, in reading Andy Burnham’s response, will find he mentions throughout it his lack of ability to act. If he cannot or will not act, I call on the Government to intervene: to look at Greater Manchester police and Manchester City Council and to take action where it is needed.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for bringing this important issue to the House. The devastating revelations about Greater Manchester police’s Operation Augusta published last month brought home the shocking truths of institutional failure in the safeguarding of children. That damning report catalogued the failings of Greater Manchester police and Manchester City Council. It identified a grooming gang of up to 100 members in Manchester who were found to have abused at least 57 children, some as young as 12, who were all in the care of Manchester social services. That included 15-year-old Victoria Agoglia.
It is evident from the report that the attitude of the police and council at the time was dismissive. They dismissed Victoria’s account of her abuse and instead focused on her
“propensity to provide sexual favours”
thereby painting her and the other girls experiencing abuse as the problem rather than the victims. The report makes for extremely difficult reading, but I welcome its publication and thank Greater Manchester’s Mayor, Andy Burnham. It is only by fully facing up to the facts and past failures that we can correct them and ensure that they cannot not happen again.
Victoria Agoglia’s family have been calling for her abuse to be investigated ever since her death. My thoughts are with them and other survivors of child sexual exploitation. No child, at any age, should be able to slip through the net in society. We have a moral duty to ensure that every child is protected from exploitation. We know all too well that what happened to Victoria Agoglia was not an isolated case. In the last 10 years, we have seen high-profile scandals across the country, from Oxford to Rochdale and Rotherham, and each time the failures of the police and social care services are plain to see.
My concern is that there are even more child sexual exploitation scandals that have not been identified. Just as Greater Manchester police is reopening its historic child sexual exploitation investigations, other cities and towns across the country should look back on theirs to ensure that no victim of abuse has been left without justice.
Thankfully, since the high-profile cases in Rotherham and Rochdale, significant changes have been made to how our institutions safeguard vulnerable children. Lessons have been learnt from historical cases, but we must never again be allowed to forget that the safety of children is paramount. That is why I, along with other Manchester MPs, wrote to the Attorney General, following the review’s publication, calling for a new inquest into the coroner’s verdict on Victoria Agoglia’s death. We are all committed to finally getting justice for Victoria, her family and all survivors of child sexual exploitation. I hope the Minister will support our request.
It is easy to say, “never again will children be subjected to abuse or sexual exploitation,” but sadly that is not within our power to dictate. All we can do is ensure that safeguarding measures for vulnerable children are absolutely watertight. Our institutions must be equipped with the knowledge and resources needed to deal effectively with safeguarding concerns when they arise. No victim should ever go through what Victoria suffered in Manchester 15 years ago. On child sexual exploitation, we must never again choose the easy path over the right path.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for securing the debate. My thoughts, like those of other hon. Members, are with the family of Victoria Agoglia and the other 25 victims identified in the recently published review, who were so tragically let down, as well as with the many for whom suffering is ongoing.
While the terms of reference of the Operation Augusta assurance review, commissioned by Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, indicated its intention to be a forward-facing exercise, the comments on the failures to protect Victoria are damning. Chapter 2.11 sets that out clearly, leaving no doubt that
“Victoria Agoglia was exposed to the most profound harm, at least from the age of 13. Her exposure to sexual exploitation by adult males was known to police and social services and, despite the risk of significant harm caused by the men who were sexually exploiting her, statutory child protection procedures, which should have been deployed to protect her, were not utilised”.
The report is set out as an assurance review, yet, from a sample of 25 children, there are no assurances. In the case of Victoria and 15 others, where there was
“significant probability of child sexual abuse”,
the report gave “no assurance” that that had been appropriately addressed by Greater Manchester police or Manchester City Council.
Those young schoolgirls were known to be being abused. They were not being protected from harm, and yet the investigation, Operation Augusta, which commenced following the death of Victoria in September 2003, was summarily and prematurely closed down on 1 July 2005. Some 12 years later, the BBC documentary “The Betrayed Girls” exposed the shocking extent of child sexual exploitation in Greater Manchester, and the Mayor of Greater Manchester commissioned the assurance exercise that reported in January, more than two years later.
In the light of the review, I joined other Greater Manchester MPs and co-signed a letter, sent by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), to the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham. I hope to hear reassurance that people who see failings and neglect can bring them to light and challenge the system without fear. It takes incredible bravery to be a whistleblower, but it should not. People who speak out and highlight negligence and misconduct can save lives—people such as Maggie Oliver and Sara Rowbotham, whose actions were instrumental in exposing the failure to protect children and led to the opening of the investigation.
Many whistleblowers who fight uphill battles to get justice for victims too often find themselves becoming the target of retaliation and unfounded allegations to undermine their actions.
Chris Green
We hear about Greater Manchester police and the culture having shifted, but when it comes to whistleblowers and the failure of iOPS—it crashed overnight, and there might be a serious incident in Greater Manchester—off-duty police officers have told me that they are threatened with summary dismissal if they talk to an MP or the press about it. The culture of clamping down on whistleblowers seems to be alive and well in Greater Manchester police.
Mary Robinson
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Without action to tackle that, we will see more of these cases. It is imperative that such issues are taken seriously in Greater Manchester and across the country.
I am not wholly satisfied with the response that we received from the Mayor to our letter. While recognising the bravery of the whistleblowers in this case, he offers no indication of what action he will take to ensure that future whistleblowers are valued and protected. If people are afraid to speak out or suspect they will not be listened to, negligence, malpractice and abuse will continue to go unchallenged.
A recent report by the all-party parliamentary group on whistleblowing highlighted the case for having an independent office for the whistleblower and a ban on non- disclosure agreements in whistleblowing cases, as well as protection against retaliation. I hope the Minister will be able to consider some of those potential resolutions.
The Manchester Evening News and its investigative reporter Jen Williams have given this case extensive coverage, and we owe them thanks for their reporting. One of the headlines read: “A paedophile grooming gang was left to roam the streets of Manchester—and police knew who they were and exactly what they were doing”. Amid ongoing concerns that a cover-up took place in the case of Operation Augusta, questions remain. Who knew about the scale of the abuse of those children? Why did nobody speak out? Could it happen again? In the light of today’s revelations that the iOPS system is not properly recording, or allowing officers to access, information on potentially serious cases, that is a live issue.
I welcome the Home Office’s intention to publish a national strategy across law enforcement and government authorities to tackle child sexual abuse. When can we expect that strategy to be published? Will the protection of whistleblowers form part of it so that the shocking incidents of abuse, neglect and abject failure highlighted today are not repeated?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for setting the scene. I respect him for bringing this sensitive and distressing topic to the attention of the House. I remember the BBC documentary being aired and the girls in the office discussing it in terms of shock, anger and distress. The years have passed, but when I read the assurance review of Operation Augusta, I remained shocked, angered and distressed.
I will not go into the individual cases reported in the document, which hon. Members have referred to, but I highlight the fact that these are not simply cases or numbers: they are the lives of young girls, their families and, in some cases, their children. Those lives have been ruined, a community has been torn to shreds and authorities, even now, at this late stage, must take a long, hard look at the way things have been done. Their inaction has led to loss of life and the destruction of many lives.
Sometimes a series of events merge to create a perfect storm. Without one of the elements present, the storm could not take place. This was not a perfect storm of aligned, mutually exclusive events; this was a series of authorities, and the individuals working for them, simply not acting to protect these vulnerable girls. Different factors played into that: some people did not have the time or resources to do more than nod towards good practice, while others were frightened of rocking the boat, seeming racist or stirring racial tension. Whatever the underlying reason, the result was at least one death and thousands of instances of unaccountable abuse. That is truly unforgivable.
Through my work as an elected representative, I have tried to help a lady who was dreadfully abused as a child and used in the same way as these girls. Her scars are apparent and she has no peace. She cannot get over what happened to her and the lack of justice for those unpunished crimes. The same has happened on a wide scale to these girls. They must not be wandering around at the age of 40, still dealing with the trauma of what happened, without help or support, and with no one saying that it was unacceptable.
In my opinion, the report has been commissioned not only to prevent these things from happening again, in any town, in any local authority and in any way, but to send a message to these girls that a price has been paid, that notice has been taken and that the hurt they suffer will not go unanswered.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for the report to be truly effective somebody has to be held to account? The collective amnesia of the people involved at the highest levels is simply not acceptable.
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly agree. We are all here with the collective impression that that is what we want to see.
The first part of the report clarifies the dreadful litany of failures, which were followed by an investigation that did not achieve its aims and was halted in order to reallocate resources, without protecting the notified vulnerable children or ensuring that the hands that had stolen the innocence of these children—stolen most of the happiness of their future—were behind bars and prevented from harming anyone else. The operation was not brought to a conclusion, but simply concluded. That is not good enough.
I support my fellow MPs who are raising the issue again to ensure that no more children, cases or attacks on the vulnerable fall through the cracks. We must learn from this terrible ordeal, and put in place safeguards that are effective and a structure that does not allow those safeguards to fall like dominos, leaving a child open and vulnerable to abuse. It should not have happened, and it must not be repeated. I look forward to hearing how the Government will make necessary, long-lasting changes to help keep our children in care actually cared for.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
My thoughts are with the victims of these crimes. I hope they have had the help and assistance they require to come to terms with what has happened to them, and that they go on to live positive and fruitful lives. I am sure they will.
In the short time I have, I want to make one point. The report is horrific. For 14 years, men in an area of Greater Manchester were allowed to commit the most horrific offences, and it was known to the authorities. That speaks for itself. In the report, individuals are identified who must be held to account. As a Member of Parliament representing a seat in Greater Manchester where police are investigating similar offences, I ask the Minister what the Government can do to hold to account those officers who have taken decisions and behaved in a way that has put young lives at risk and ruined them? Despite those circumstances, nothing seems to have happened.
The underlying tone of the report is that, for too long, nobody cared and nobody had any interest in these girls. I hope that is going to change. One of the ways we can make that change is by ensuring that those who are responsible for the decisions—or the lack of decisions—to protect their interests are held to account. Putting it bluntly, we cannot allow them to get away with it.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is of course always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in Westminster Hall, Sir Christopher, but today’s debate has been both sobering and searching. I pay credit first to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for raising these important matters—the events that have flowed from the awful, tragic death of Victoria Agoglia on 29 September 2003 and the extent to which she and many other victims of child sexual exploitation have been let down in the years since.
My hon. Friend put the case for a fresh inquest persuasively, and I am sure that that will be considered in due course by the Attorney General. I think we would all agree that the first duty of Government is to keep the public safe, but there is a particular duty with regard to vulnerable children—particularly those in the care of the state, whether that is under public authorities or, indeed, elsewhere. Clearly there has been a systemic failure in the case we are considering and in others. My hon. Friend made a persuasive point about Home Office research into grooming. I hope the Minister will take that on board and consider it when he makes his remarks.
I am also grateful for the contributions by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who drew on his well-known expertise from his period as the Minister for Children, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and the hon. Members for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bury North (James Daly). They made powerful contributions. Although he did not make a speech, the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) made a powerful and important contribution to the debate in an intervention.
The BBC broadcast in July 2017, “The Betrayed Girls”, was harrowing and seems to have triggered the second phase of investigations. However, serious questions must be raised about why it took so long. Operation Augusta was launched in February 2004, after Victoria Agoglia’s death the previous autumn. Many right hon. and hon. Members have described the report as harrowing, given the talk of abuse in plain sight of officials, and what it says about the death of Victoria Agoglia. As has been said, she died of a suspected overdose, months after telling social workers she had been forcibly injected with heroin and raped. Abusers seem to have been able to pick up girls from care homes in and around Manchester’s curry mile and to abuse them in the city.
However, on 1 July 2005, Operation Augusta was closed down. It had identified 57 girls at risk and 97 suspects. Those 16 months do not seem to have been wasted; they must have been pretty productive to have found that information. That makes it all the more incomprehensible that the operation was closed down. Hon. Members have referred to the review that was made available in January this year. The review team identified 68 individuals known to Operation Augusta who could reasonably be assumed to be part of that group of 97. Instead of the 97 persons of interest being prosecuted, and the victims protected, the operation was closed down. That decision has been described today as scandalous, and I find it incomprehensible why it would be taken, in the circumstances.
The hon. Member for Bury North quoted paragraph 1.18 of the independent assurance review, which said that
“the decision to close down Operation Augusta was driven by the decision by senior officers to remove the resources from the investigation rather than a sound understanding that all lines of enquiry had been successfully completed or exhausted.”
Paragraph 1.16 refers to
“fundamental flaws in how Operation Augusta was resourced”.
However, as the hon. Member for Bolton West pointed out, it was hardly a period that could be described as lacking resources, so it is extraordinary that that should have been the case. Clearly, in considering the matter, there must be a review of how that came to pass in 2005.
The consequences were even more worrying, because the review team examined a sample of 25 children and could offer no assurance at all that appropriate action was taken by Greater Manchester police or even the local authority to assess the risk in relation to 16 children in that sample. That—I remind the House of my opening remarks about the importance of children in the care system—is utterly unacceptable.
The BBC drama that has been referred to, “The Betrayed Girls”, gave rise to the investigation that we have all been quoting from. I understand that the police have accepted their failings in relation to Operation Augusta, and referred themselves to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. There is also the new investigation, Operation Green Jacket. I understand that, to date, the investigation has resulted in one man being arrested and another interviewed under caution, in September 2019, in connection with the abuse of Victoria Agoglia. The men have been released under investigation. I will obviously be careful about commenting on an ongoing investigation, but I think I can make the general point that it is far easier to investigate these things closer to the time than it is to do it 14 years later or, in the case of Victoria Agoglia, 16 years later.
The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, has said that there is the same problematic institutional mindset in public authorities elsewhere. He is absolutely correct about that, and it is something we now need to tackle. As we consider the matter today, so many years after the event, there are three things to raise with the Minister. First, can he guarantee that full funding, including special grant resource if necessary, will be provided to Greater Manchester police to ensure that they have all the resources necessary to bring perpetrators to justice, even after the time that has elapsed?
Secondly, there needs to be a reassurance that lessons are being learned. It is all very well saying, “Never again”, but that has to mean something. I would like the Minister to give some assurances. There should never be an expectation that vulnerable children and young people can provide protection for themselves. Also, as has clearly come out in the debate, we must listen to what child victims say, but in considering standard investigative practice, there is also the question of whistleblowers. We have heard today about the powerful testimony of those who have been willing to take risks in coming forward to expose shocking abuse.
Thirdly, and on the broader issue of the exploitation that has occurred, it is still extraordinarily worrying to see the number of children in care who have either been abused or ended up in prison. In the light of Operation Augusta and all the other failings, what consideration will the Government give to an independent review of whether authorities up and down the country, of whatever political stripe, are meeting their statutory responsibility to carry out that most important of tasks—the safeguarding of children in care?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I want to thank the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for securing this debate on the independent assurance review on child sexual exploitation in Manchester, and particularly for the serious and effective tone he set for the debate. The subject is clearly important not only to Members for Greater Manchester constituencies, but to Members representing places across the country, given what the review uncovered.
The report of the first phase of the review, focusing on Operation Augusta, was shocking. It told a story that has sadly become far too familiar, of vulnerable young people let down by those whose job it was to protect them. The Government welcome the publication of the report. While it is distressing to read, we must bear in mind that reviews such as the independent review in Manchester are critical. If we do not confront the failures of the past, we risk repeating them. Reviews such as this give a voice to the survivors of abuse and allow their stories to be heard—stories that previously were too often ignored.
I turn to one or two of the points raised during the debate by hon. Members. Regarding the query from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), we expect the review later this year. However, we as the Government cannot commit to a specific date, because the report is an independent one and therefore the exact date of publication is in the hands of the reviewer. There were particular queries in relation to the coroner’s report; I understand that there has been correspondence between the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the Attorney General, and that the Attorney General is considering the request to look at reopening that particular inquiry.
There were also some comments, not surprisingly, about what is being done to hold to account those who failed so visibly in this investigation. My understanding is that the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is rightly independent of the Government, has been in discussions with the Greater Manchester authority and is scoping a potential investigation. I hope hon. Members will realise why the Home Office cannot go much further than that at this stage in commenting on particular individuals.
There was also commentary about the iOPS system in relation to Greater Manchester Police. I understand that the Mayor has commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to undertake an inspection, and we are awaiting the written report. We expect it to be published shortly and will, of course, closely consider any recommendations that it brings forward.
It was partly because of cases such as this that, in 2015, the Government established the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse to get to the truth, expose what has gone wrong and learn lessons for the future. The inquiry is investigating institutional responses to child sexual exploitation by organised networks, with public hearings scheduled to take place from 20 April this year. There was some talk in the debate about commissioning research; I understand the inquiry has already announced it has commissioned research into the motivation and behaviour of perpetrators who operate as part of organised networks. Given that, we do not believe it would be appropriate for the Government to set about duplicating the work while it is under way. We will wait for the findings and are ready to commission further research if necessary. I feel I might be about to get some comments on this from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who I will happily give way to.
Sarah Champion
I am a core participant in that bit of the IICSA inquiry, and unfortunately the Minister has been sold a pup—it would be a nice pup—because it is looking very much at those six organisations and how they deal with the problem going forward. There is no retrospective accountability, and there is not the detailed investigation into the profile of perpetrators that the police really need.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I am sure that my ministerial colleague will be happy to hear her response and discuss it, perhaps at greater length, if there are specific concerns. Obviously the independent review is independent and will scope its own research as it sees fit and appropriate, so the Government are loth to potentially duplicate that. Moreover, the point of having an independent review is to hear the view of an independent source, rather than its being the Home Office as such that is commissioning research. Certainly we would be more than happy to engage perhaps a little bit further than we will be able to do in the remaining six minutes of this debate, if she has particular concerns.
The victims and survivors of these crimes demonstrate enormous courage and strength in coming forward, reporting what is happening to them and sharing their experiences. In some cases, they have to relive those experiences to share them. For too long, the police and other agencies treated vulnerable children and young people as a problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, they referred to them as “child prostitutes”, when there is no such thing—there is a child being seriously abused.
The victims’ voices were not heard, children were left unprotected and predators were left to continue to abuse those most vulnerable in our society. I want to make it clear that we will not accept that now. Children and young people rely on both Government and local partners for safeguarding and support. It is therefore our duty to protect them from these appalling crimes. Their voices must be heard. We must recognise abuse for what it is and treat victims with empathy and respect, not doubt and suspicion.
The Government have driven change in the way that these crimes are responded to, and it is right that child sexual abuse is now prioritised as a national threat. We are clear that, when victims come forward to report abuse, they should expect every effort to be made to bring offenders to justice. One point I share with the shadow Minister relates to the idea that resources were reprioritised or investigations ended; it is almost impossible to think what could be more important than preventing children from suffering serious sexual offences. What could be more important than that?
The Home Office has therefore provided support through its police special grant fund for investigations relating to child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, north Wales, west Yorkshire and other areas. In response to the shadow Minister’s point, we would of course consider any application that came forward from Greater Manchester as well. We are changing the way police respond to crimes against vulnerable people, including child sexual abuse. As part of this, we have worked with the College of Policing to draw up a comprehensive package of training to ensure the police are better placed to respond to child protection issues. We are also funding the Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice programme to develop policing best practice in response to vulnerability as a whole.
Yet, as has been touched on, keeping children safe is not just the job of the police. We have also changed the way police and other agencies work together to ensure an effective response in safeguarding children. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 introduced the most significant reforms in a generation, ensuring that police, health and local authority partners within an area work together to protect vulnerable children. We have also introduced joint targeted inspections of local agencies’ performance in protecting children from threats such as child exploitation. Effective multi-agency working is recognised as the foundation for success.
In 2019, the Government launched a new tackling child exploitation support programme to help safeguarding partners in local areas to tackle a range of threats to children from gangs, sexual and criminal exploitation, online grooming, trafficking and modern slavery. We have already seen some effective multi-agency working, such as the Home Office-funded Lighthouse in London. This ground-breaking service is based on international best practice and under one roof provides child-friendly, victim-centred, multi-agency support to child victims of sexual abuse.
However, we must go further and deprive predators of the opportunity to abuse and exploit our children in the first place. That is why, as part of our efforts to prevent abuse and exploitation, we have launched the Trusted Relationships fund. The fund supports local authority-led projects across England, working with 10 to 17-year-olds identified as being at risk of child sexual abuse or exploitation, criminal exploitation or peer-on-peer abuse, to build their resilience and strengthen their relationships with the trusted adults in their lives. As part of that, more than £1 million will be awarded to Greater Manchester for the four-year programme. The Home Office has also provided funding support for a regional network of exploitation prevention officers, who are helping local partners to join up, spot the signs of abuse and intervene early to safeguard vulnerable children. It is our priority to ensure that all victims and survivors believe they can come forward to report abuse and get the assistance they need.
That is why we have increased grant funding for victim support services across the country: in this financial year, the Government are providing more than £7 million of funding for non-statutory organisations supporting victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, and in September the Government announced an additional £5 million of funding for separate specialist sexual violence support services, including £1 million towards recruiting more independent sexual violence advisers, who play such a critical part in supporting victims through the criminal justice process. The Government have also increased spending from £31 million in 2018 to a planned £39 million in 2020-21 to improve services and pathways for survivors and victims of sexual violence and abuse who seek support from sexual assault referral centres.
While we can and must do more, it is important that we acknowledge how far we have come in the years since the closure of Operation Augusta and recognise the improvements in how police forces and other agencies deal with these crimes. Inspection reports tell us that professionals’ understanding of vulnerability has improved and there is now a real emphasis on the safeguarding and protection of vulnerable children across England and Wales.
On 4 September 2019, the Government announced an additional £30 million to safeguard children from child sexual exploitation and abuse, increasing funding for cutting-edge technology and making available the best intelligence and law enforcement capabilities, which will enable police officers to target offenders and provide more support to victims. Later this year, the Government will publish a national strategy, the first of its kind, to tackle all forms of child sexual abuse. Our new strategy will set out our whole-system response and how we will work across Government, law enforcement, safeguarding partners and industry to root out offending.
I thank the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton once more for securing this debate. Vulnerable children, victims and survivors of these appalling crimes, rely on us, both in Parliament and in local communities, to represent their needs and ensure they receive the support to which they are entitled. As a Government, we will continue to work tirelessly across all Departments to tackle child sexual abuse in all its forms.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Operation Augusta.
User-led Social Care
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered user-led social care.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I draw inspiration today from Jerry Ndi, a student at Northolt High School who just last night won the Ealing regional final of Jack Petchey’s “Speak Out” challenge. I am sure that all Members here will join me in saying that everyone who took part and spoke last night should be very proud of themselves.
Social care is in crisis. Some 1.5 million people over the age of 65 do not get the social care they need. More than a third of people who receive local authority-funded care or support have to purchase additional support themselves. In fact, over the past two years nearly 10,000 people have had to approach their local authority for help after running out of money. That is the result of the Government’s deep cuts to public services since 2012, with a total of £7.7 billion taken out of social care budgets. As councils have been forced to narrow the eligibility criteria for social care, far too many people are denied the support that they need. This chronic underfunding, alongside a shift to private providers, has hit not only those who need social care, but those working in the sector—people who are routinely paid below the London living wage or the living wage outside of London.
There are more than 122,000 vacancies in the adult social care sector. Care workers are far too often undervalued, underpaid and overworked. The numbers providing care informally to friends and family is growing rapidly too; 1.25 million people in the UK, nearly 70% of whom are women, combine looking after young children with caring for older or disabled relatives. Nearly 90,000 of these care workers provide more than 35 hours of care each week, and half are still in paid work.
Our social care system is in urgent need of proper funding and a system that no longer incentivises a race to the bottom on quality and on workforce conditions, which is why, on 16 January, after giving my maiden speech, I voted to ensure that health and social care are properly funded, with an additional £26 billion in real terms. This extra funding is vital to support the social care system that we need.
Alongside greater funding, we also need to look at the way that social care is provided, which is why the focus of the debate is on the key role that co-operative principles can play. Under a co-operative approach to social care, care services should be not-for-profit. We will never be the caring society that we should be when services supposed to help the vulnerable are driven by profit. Services should protect workers’ rights. Those who protect this most valuable and often difficult of services deserve our support and protection, not to be forced on to lower wages and insecure contracts. Services should put care workers and providers at the heart of decision making. The commissioning and running of services should benefit from the invaluable knowledge of those who receive and provide care.
These principles and co-operative approaches to care are not just theoretical; they are beginning to be implemented and developed in places across the country. The Equal Care Co-op in the Calder Valley is just one example of a local area leading the way. I am pleased that the London borough of Ealing is also taking a lead on this. Following the local elections in 2018, Ealing Council held a public meeting for local residents who were interested in establishing a care co-operative. That led to a founding group being formed, including carers and those receiving care, who deserve our thanks for their valuable work on this matter. The group is currently developing a feasibility study, and their experience, particularly of the challenges they face, can help us to better understand the barriers that co-operative models of care face more widely, and therefore what support is needed from national Government.
It will not surprise anyone listening to learn that the feasibility study faces the challenge of growing demand for care services in the face of inadequate funding. However, it also faces challenges with the competitive commissioning regime, the current system of Care Quality Commission registration and the lack of an appropriate Government funding framework.
The experience in Ealing shows that councils could do far more if they had support from national Government, so I will put several points to the Minister. First, there should be a right of first refusal for social workers to step in and take over failing private organisations that provide social care. At the moment, when private organisations face financial difficulties, they are often sold on to another private organisation or simply closed down. Where private organisations are failing, employees should have an opportunity to take on all or part of that organisation.
Secondly, we need protection against asset stripping. Mutualised social care services should be asset-locked, to ensure that assets of all types are locked within the organisation, which is crucial to preventing asset stripping or demutualisation. Thirdly, we need regulation to support co-operative models over for-profit ones. Currently, all non-state providers are categorised as independent, which undermines the ability of care users and their families to distinguish between for-profit and not-for- profit providers. The CQC should modify its inspection methodology to ensure that the benefits of non-profit co-operative models can thrive. Fourthly, local authorities should be given a duty to promote co-operative organisations to deliver care in their area. We can learn from the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, which puts a duty on local authorities to promote co-operative organisations to deliver care in their area.
These steps by national Government would help support co-operative approaches to social care, putting the people who need social care, their families and their care workers at the heart of decisions about how social care is provided. We must stop allowing private companies to profiteer while those who rely on social care, and the workers who provide it, pay the price.
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) on securing this important debate. I welcome him to his role—I know that he was only recently elected—and hope that he will have a long and enjoyable career in Parliament.
I join the hon. Gentleman in recognising and paying tribute to user-led organisations, carers, care professionals and the army of incredible unpaid carers working in adult social care, striving for the best possible care and support for people across our country. They do a remarkable job every single day, and they work with great skill and compassion.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress that the sector is under enormous pressure, but he is wrong to say that this is new or the result of Government cuts. Unfortunately, I am a very elderly lady—he has the benefit of being a lot younger—and I can recall successive Governments over past decades wrestling with how to fund adult social care.
We have had unpleasant exchanges where adult social care was used as a political football, with unhelpful language on both sides of the argument—nobody is blameless—describing attempts to solve adult social care issues as a dementia tax or a death tax. In the 2017 general election, the Labour party committed in its manifesto to tackling adult social care and putting it on a sustainable footing and never actually got around to doing it. Successive Governments have wrestled with this. We have had numerous Green Papers, White Papers and independent papers and, one after the other, every Government has put this in the “too difficult” pile.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Surely the Minister recognises that, notwithstanding our need for a long-term, cross-party solution to this issue, it is a fact that more than 1 million people who do not receive care today would have been entitled to care in 2010.
Caroline Dinenage
I think those facts are a little misleading. We often read about the facts that the hon. Gentleman cites—the Age UK fact that 1.4 million people out there have unmet care needs. In fact, that is a little misleading, because it suggests to me that there are people out there whose care needs are not being met at all. A large number of those people are actually self-funding.
We do need to have a conversation and to try to build a consensus on how much people should be contributing to their care, and whether they should be contributing to it at all, but their care needs are being met. However, the fact is that one in 10 of the population will have catastrophic care costs—care costs in excess of £100,000—and of course that is not acceptable, and we need to find a way to address it. There are more than 10 people in this room, and one of these 10 people will have catastrophic care costs, but the terrible thing about it is that we cannot predict—there is no way of predicting—which one of us it will be. That is why we need to work collaboratively, in a cross-party way, to seek some kind of consensus on how we move forward and address the issue.
Let me talk about some of the things that this Government have done. We have provided councils with access to £1.5 billion for adult and children’s social care next year. That includes an additional £1 billion of grant funding for adult and children’s social care and a proposed 2% council tax precept, which will allow them to raise a further £500 million in council tax. Let us just think about those sums for a moment. We throw around the words “billion” and “million” as if this were pocket change. They are huge sums of cash, which just shows the extent of the issue that we are dealing with. The new funding is on top of maintaining £2.5 billion of existing social care grants. That will support local authorities to meet the rising demand, which has been referred to, and continue to stabilise the social care system. I often hear talk about cuts to the social care system, but thanks to that investment, public spending on adult social care in 2018-19 reached £17.9 billion in cash terms. That is the highest level on record, and since 2016-17 that sustained investment has enabled spending to increase by 7% over this period, so we do need to be up front with the facts.
There has also been a much more open and competitive market in adult social care. For more than 30 years, private providers and voluntary sector organisations have increasingly been responsible for providing services, which leads to increased choice and better outcomes for individuals. That results in improvements in quality. In January 2020, for example, 84% of all registered adult social care locations were rated good or outstanding by the Care Quality Commission, which of course is independent. High-quality, personalised care and support can be achieved only where there is a vibrant and responsive market of service providers. The role of local authorities is of course critical to achieving that, both through the actions that they take to directly commission services for providers to meet needs and through the broader understanding and interactions that it facilitates with the wider market for the benefit of all local people and communities.
The Government want to give people much more choice and control over their care and support, and user-led, strengths-based approaches will help to deliver on our ambitions to achieve better outcomes for all. That is why I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ealing North has brought this debate to the Chamber today; I really welcome the opportunity to talk about this issue. I am delighted that we have taken substantial steps to embed person-centred care and support at the heart of our social care system. Personalised care has demonstrated the ability to improve outcomes and enhance quality of life, enabling people to take a level of control and responsibility that they feel comfortable with. Fundamentally, it recognises what we all know: a person is an individual, with their own unique needs, wishes and opportunities. That is why in the Care Act 2014 we enshrined personal budgets—including user-led, co-produced personalised care and support plans—as the default model of delivery. It is a bespoke way of meeting their needs and circumstances.
Having had this ministerial role for two years, I have met some of the individuals who have benefited from personal care budgets and seen the immeasurable impact that they have had on their lives. They included one incredible lady called Jackie, a former Metropolitan police officer who was injured in the line of duty, and who had quite extensive health and care needs. She is in a wheelchair and has a whole range of physical and mental health needs, to the extent that she was being blue-lighted to hospital about 70 times a year. By using her personal care budget, she now has an assistance dog, called Kingston. He is quite remarkable and fabulous: he understands about 200 commands, which is incredible, and he has changed her life. He is able to predict an epileptic fit about 45 minutes before she has one, and he can ensure that she is in the right position to be able to cope with it. Also, without any training, he can predict a diabetic attack about 15 minutes before she has one, and he then brings her the insulin kit. Since having Kingston, Jackie has not been blue-lighted to hospital at all. That shows that, as well as being an amazing friend and companion to her, he has had an immeasurable impact on her health and wellbeing. That is the strength of a personal care budget. It is really remarkable.
Ultimately, our ambition is for high-quality, personalised care to become the norm across the health and social care system. I am confident that we will maintain the energy and commitment necessary to meet that goal, but the ambition cannot be achieved without a cultural shift to holistic, strengths-based practice. What I mean by that is shifting the focus to what people can do—their strengths—not what they cannot do. It concentrates on the things that really matter to the individual, their family and their local community. It engages and empowers people to identify solutions that will allow them to experience the care and support that they need to live as independently as possible and to fulfil their wishes. Through that approach, social care practitioners and commissioners can connect people to the types of support and community organisations that will enable them to improve their overall quality of life. It is gaining ground across the country and working very well in areas such as Wigan, Hertfordshire and Thurrock.
Person-centred practice and co-production are at the heart of social work. The hon. Member for Ealing North mentioned social work, and it comes as no surprise that social work has led on developing and applying strengths-based approaches. In 2017 we published a report, alongside the Social Care Institute for Excellence, on strengths-based social work, and last year the chief social worker for adults produced a practice framework for supporting practitioners. Social workers are unique in working alongside people to consider the totality of their life and advocate for their freedom, dignity and human rights. They are also key in working with our communities as a whole, supporting people to live independently and to live much more included lives.
To achieve the transformational, personalised care across the country that we want to see, we must work much more collaboratively. Cutting across multiple agencies and professions, social workers undoubtedly play a role in ensuring that that happens. Together with the chief social worker, we will continue to support local authorities to embed that kind of practice in adult social care. We will also continue to collaborate with leading—they are incredible—user-led organisations such as Think Local Act Personal, which encourages good person-led practice locally.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about co-operatives. Under the Care Act, local authorities are required to shape their whole local markets to ensure that they are sustainable and diverse and that they offer high-quality care and support for people in their local area. Clearly, there will be local areas where co-operatives can play a really important role in the provision of care services. More- over, as part of their Care Act responsibilities, local authorities have successfully worked with individuals and communities to develop preventive and community-led social care opportunities.
We know of course that social care is under pressure, because of growing demand from the ageing population. Sometimes I get frustrated because we all talk as if the ageing population is a terrible thing. That people are living longer is a good thing and something to be celebrated, but we need to ensure that those additional years of life are happy and healthy for as long as possible, that people are able to live independently for as long as possible and that care is there when people need it. That is why we are providing councils with a £1 billion grant for children’s and adult social care, on top of maintaining £2.5 billion of existing social care grants. The additional resources will help councils to commission care services that are sustainable and diverse and that offer sufficient high-quality care and support for people in their areas.
The Government have been very clear that fixing the issues with social care is a significant priority. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, the Government will deliver on our promises: we will bring forward a plan for social care this year. These are complex questions to address, which is why we are seeking to build a cross-party consensus, but we have been very clear that everybody will have safety and security, and nobody will be forced to sell their home to pay for their care.
Question put and agreed to.
Beer and Pub Taxation
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered taxation on beer and pubs.
I am delighted to have secured another important debate covering the brewing and pubs sector in the UK. This one is particularly timely because the all-party parliamentary beer group will hold its event celebrating the beers of the UK in Parliament this evening, to which, of course, all Members are very welcome.
Beer and pubs in the UK are a home-grown manufacturing success story. They are represented in every part of our United Kingdom and in every one of our constituencies. Some 80% of the beer brewed by this country’s fantastic brewers is consumed in this country. The industry supports almost 900,000 jobs in all corners of the country, including more than 1,000 in my constituency.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, and he is absolutely right about the success story of our pubs and brewing industry. However, does he agree that we have seen far too many pubs close in recent years and that we really need to value them as community hubs?
Sir Greg Knight
I am most obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. May I amplify the point that was just made and ask whether he agrees that the public house is the heart and soul of the local village in many rural areas?
Mike Wood
I would go further than that: in many areas, and not only rural areas, the pub is the last service, and often the last facility, in the town or village. Often, it is not just a place to drink, but also the place with the shop or where people get their hair cut. There might also be a jobs club or any number of other services there.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Plough Inn in Radford, which is in the inner city of Nottingham and which is also the brewery tap for Nottingham Brewery, is precisely the sort of nucleus of the local community that he has described and the landlady, Mel, is a legend. Does he agree with the managing director of Nottingham Brewery, Phil Darby, who says he is worried that if action is not taken on beer duty and small brewers relief, the price of a couple of pints in a pub will simply not be able to compete with the price in supermarkets for much longer?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The debate is about taxation of pubs and breweries. I received an email from one of the three excellent small breweries in my constituency—it was from Les O’Grady, who runs Neptune Brewery, as well as a taproom there. He employs three people, and he makes the point that his challenge is the current relief—the taper—and the fact that it is difficult for him to overcome that barrier in growing his business. That is a challenge faced by all small breweries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for pressure to be put on the Treasury to change those rules, to enable these brilliant manufacturers and employers to grow as they wish to?
Mike Wood
The small and microbrewers of this country have been one of the great success stories of the past 20 years in brewing. They have transformed brewing and beer across the country—both the diversity and the quality. The small brewers relief scheme that was introduced under the previous Labour Government has done a fantastic job in increasing the number of small brewers. However, we now need to look at the disincentives the existing thresholds create in terms of growth, expansion and employing more people. For example, Black Country Ales, which is based in my constituency, faces exactly the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and my hon. Friend are exactly right about the importance of the small brewers tax relief. Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is about not only changing the shape of the relief curve, to remove that barrier to growth for the really successful craft brewers, but maintaining the 50% reduction in duty for the very small craft brewers so that they can get a foothold in the marketplace?
Mike Wood
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I have a feeling the Minister might just touch on small brewers relief in his response to the debate, because the Treasury has of course conducted a review into it, and we are all looking forward to seeing some of the results of that review—hopefully, we will see them before too long.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr Cameron
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this extremely important debate to the House today. Does he agree that we also need common-sense rateable values? The Glassford Inn in our community is under threat of closure due to the ridiculous rateable value that has been placed on it, meaning that it would actually have to sell a drink to every single person in the village every single night of the week just to meet the rates, never mind make any profit and pay the staff. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that common sense is needed in this agenda and that we must support our rural pubs so that they can continue?
Mike Wood
The system of non-domestic rates—business rates—is fundamentally a system of local taxation that was designed in the 19th century, building on the previous poor law. It really does not suit the needs and features of a 21st-century economy, particularly one where so much retail is increasingly moving out of town or on to the internet—as yet, nobody has designed an effective virtual pub that can serve a virtual beer that is quite a satisfying as the real thing. We are in a position where our community pubs are at an unfair disadvantage, as the hon. Lady says, compared with businesses that can reduce their liabilities.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene before he moves on?
John Howell
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. One of the things I have been most proud about over the last 12 years is that, at the beginning of that period, we introduced assets of community value. If that system is operated properly, as it has been in my constituency, it allows a huge number of pubs to become self-owned by their communities so that they can continue to prosper. Does he see that system as a good way forward?
Mike Wood
We have some exceptionally good community-run pubs up and down the country; I visited one in Stafford a couple of years ago. It was on the point of closing down and could easily have become derelict. However, because of the assets of community value system, it was possible for the local community to take it on and see it succeed. We are also seeing such pubs in Twickenham, and I have a feeling that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) may refer to similar schemes in her own constituency later in the debate.
As well creating and supporting jobs, the beer and pub sector is a massive contributor to the economy more widely and, of course, to the Exchequer, as the Minister will know. The sector’s total value to the economy is almost £23 billion; in my constituency, our breweries and pubs contribute £30 million to our local economy. Nationally, the sector pays almost £13 billion into Treasury coffers, which I am sure the Minister is grateful for ahead of the Budget.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the pub is not only, as he described, a great financial asset to the UK, but a unique selling point for it? People come from all over the world to visit our pubs, including our rural pubs, right across the country. That is why we must support them by having differential rates.
Mike Wood
Again, my hon. Friend pre-empts a later part of my speech. In terms of attracting tourists and investment into the United Kingdom, beer and pubs are one of the top three things tourists say they want to do while they are visiting. Of course they want to have fish and chips. Normally, they also want to visit some of the heritage, whether it is Buckingham Palace or Stratford-upon-Avon. The third thing that always comes up is that they want a pint of proper British beer in a proper British pub.
Mr Steve Baker
My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way, and I know he wants to make progress, but will he help me put on record the sheer scale of the attendance at this debate? Clearly the Minister would be incredibly popular if only he cut tax on beer and pubs. With that, I will let my hon. Friend resume his magnificent speech.
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman prompts me to comment that this debate is hugely popular. A lot of Members would like to speak—I have some 17 on my list. It is of course up to the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) whether he takes interventions, but constant interventions will mean that his speech is very long and that there may be time for only five to 10 speeches from Back Benchers. If we keep interventions a little bit under control, we can get more speakers in later on.
Mike Wood
I will endeavour to follow your guidance, Mr Gray. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) makes the point extremely succinctly. I would like to pretend that I was the big attraction in this debate, which has brought so many Members from all parts of the House to this Chamber, but it probably has a little more to do with the quarter of a million people who have signed the Long Live the Local petitions. That has resulted in nearly 130,000 emails being sent from constituents to Members of Parliament, encouraging them to support our beer and pubs and to press for the kind of support that my hon. Friend was calling for the Minister to announce. I know the Minister will not feel too confined to his briefing and his mandate; I am sure he can go a little off-piste later.
It is not an exaggeration to call the pub an essential part of British life, but the link between beer and pubs is completely inextricable. Seven in 10 of the alcoholic drinks sold in pubs are beer, and beer accounts for more than half of a pub’s turnover. A thriving brewing sector is intimately entwined with successful local pubs. The statistics, the employment and the economic contribution are extremely impressive—including the £100 million raised for charity every year by pubs up and down the country—but there is so much more to beer and pubs than figures alone.
The great British pub is one of our most loved national institutions and is the heart of so many of our communities. We only have to think of the times we have stopped for directions in our constituencies. Those directions are more likely to be, “Turn left at the Old Cat and then go straight on at the Red Lion”, than to refer to street names. Pubs also make a huge difference on social issues. Loneliness and isolation are among the top social issues facing our society, and pubs do so much to help.
We have already talked about the many services that pubs offer. When the pub is the last service or facility in the town and it closes, it is not only a place to drink that goes, but all the services. Visiting Cornwall with the wonderful Pub is the Hub charity in 2018, I saw pubs that were home to convenience stores, hairdressers and jobs clubs. Last year, the all-party parliamentary beer group conducted an inquiry into unlocking pubs’ potential, which we should be publishing in the next few weeks. We heard evidence of the social contribution made by pubs in rural and urban areas alike, whether that was pubs providing meals for people with dementia and their partners, Christmas meals for the isolated and lonely, free meals for older people, yoga classes, literacy groups, or parent and toddler groups. Pubs are the original social network, bringing people and communities together. Unlike some more modern social networks, Facebook pays just over 1.5% of its UK turnover in tax; pubs typically pay about a third. That averages to some £142,000 a year a pub to the Exchequer.
A large part of that money is in the form of business rates. The recently announced extension of the pub-specific relief, which knocks £1,000 off the bills of pubs with rateable values of less than £100,000, will help a huge number of pubs—in particular, smaller ones—as will the 50% reduction in business rates bills for certain businesses. For pubs, the burden of business rates remains particularly acute because of the way pub valuations work. Pubs account for 2.8% of all business rates revenues, despite accounting for only 0.5% of rate-paying business turnover. That amounts to an overpayment of £500 million every single year. Pubs pay more in business rates compared with turnover than any other sector. That is a basic fairness issue.
Every extra pound on the business rates bill makes it harder for a pub to survive, while some sectors of the economy simply do not seem to be paying their fair share. We need the fundamental review of business rates that the Government promised in our election manifesto and a new system that reflects the realities of the 21st-century economy.
The other main tax burden on our beer and pubs is duty, and beer duty remains much too high. It is much higher than in any other major beer-producing country in Europe. In fact, someone who bought a pint in each of the five other major beer-producing countries—Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Poland—would still have paid less duty on those five pints than they would on a single pint in Britain.
Successive coalition and Conservative Governments have taken action to limit the impact of beer duty on pubs since abolishing—I have to call it this—the hated beer duty escalator in 2013. That has saved pubs and pubgoers millions of pounds, which can be seen in the change in the fortunes of many of our brewers and pubs. I hope the Treasury will go even further by offering support for British beer and pubs in next month’s Budget, because keeping a lid on beer prices helps to keep pubs viable. What is more, taking action to limit beer duty increases sends a positive signal to the quarter of a million supporters of the Long Live the Local petition, not to mention the 25,000 individual pubs backing the campaign. A cut or freeze in beer duty will appear on the Treasury’s books as a cost, but evidence suggests that keeping costs down for brewers and consumers leads to increased revenue.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman may wish to remind his colleagues in the Treasury of a helpful precedent that they may wish to follow. The coalition Government cut the duty rate on spirits by 2p. At the time, that was expected to reduce revenue; in fact, revenue increased fairly significantly as a result.
Mike Wood
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, there is an even more recent example. The excise revenue from beer is up £250 million compared with Treasury forecasts since 2017-18. That appears largely to be down to boosts to beer and pubs following freezes in duty in the 2017 and 2018 Budgets. Further action on beer duty in the Budget would clearly boost jobs and investment in beer and pubs. It would also likely lead to additional custom, which generates extra revenue.
Beer duty needs to be lower overall. Within that, we need to look at how that beer duty is levied. We need a wider review, first to look at the operation of small breweries relief and whether it acts as a disincentive to growth and expansion, and secondly to look at how beer duty can better support our community pubs, rather than the “stack ’em high, sell ’em cheap” produce in some off-licences and supermarkets.
Now that we have left the European Union, with the implementation period ending at the end of the year, there is an opportunity for a fundamental review of how duties are structured. I urge the Treasury to look at how beer duty could be levied at a lower rate for beer that is likely to be sold in pubs, and particularly when it is levied on draught beer, kegs and casks rather than small-pack cans and bottles. Supporting our community pubs in that way, without giving the dead cost of duty cuts to supermarkets, would make a big difference to many of those pubs.
Members on both sides of the House will not need persuading of the intrinsic value of pubs to not just the economy but society as a whole. As ever, it bears repeating that the pub is in many ways synonymous with the UK.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this incredibly important debate. Alongside what he said about the economic and social value of pubs, does he agree that the pub is also the safest place for drinking to take place, particularly for problem drinkers? Supporting our pubs has a huge benefit in terms of health expenditure too.
Mike Wood
Further to that, research from Professor Dunbar of the University of Oxford suggests not only that it is safer to drink in moderation in a well-run pub, but that people who drink regularly and in moderation in a local pub are more likely to be happier and healthier—both their physical and mental health is likely to be better. Although the immediate appeal of the modern temperance movement, calling for large increases in duty to try to reduce consumption, is understandable, high levels of duty tend to move consumption away from well-regulated and licensed premises to people buying cheap alcohol to consume at home, or in public, without the protections that licensed premises provide. The issue is therefore one of safety, health and public health.
I am delighted to see so many Members present to support Great British brewing and the pub industry. I hope the Minister will hear the messages of gratitude for the action that has already been taken, as well as the messages of hope and desire for—and even expectation of—continued support, which is needed to ensure that brewing in pubs remains viable for many years.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. It will not take a genius to see that around 22 Members wish to speak in the 40 minutes or so before I call the Front Benchers, which would mean around two minutes per speaker. I do not intend to impose a limit, because I think that that sacrifices quality in favour of quantity, but I appeal to colleagues to limit their speeches, if they can, to two or three minutes, to allow each other in. I call Siobhain McDonagh.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Gray. I am delighted to be called to speak so early. My only problem is trying to rule out a lot of my speech, and the important pub puns I had included in it—there was to be a gift of a pint for those who identified all of them.
My contribution will focus on small breweries and small breweries relief, particularly in relation to the Wimbledon Brewery in my constituency—I cannot imagine why they wanted to call it the Wimbledon Brewery, rather than the Mitcham and Morden Brewery, but I will leave that to Members’ imaginations. Although the relief is vital, the current system stifles growth and profitability for small brewers, discouraging exports and mergers. For the benefit of Members without small breweries in their constituencies, let me explain that if a brewery produces less than 5,000 hectolitres per year, it pays 50% of the full excise duty of the big breweries. That is to help balance the economies of scale from which the biggest breweries benefit, ensuring that the consumer has a greater choice and that smaller breweries can stay in business.
However, the 5,000 hectolitres point is a cliff edge. If production goes above that level, the brewer pays excise duty not just on the additional amount produced over the threshold, but on the whole production. A brewer would need to reach levels of around 20,000 hectolitres to offset the additional tax by the economies of scale. Wimbledon Brewery was in no man’s land, producing around 8,000 hectolitres per year—above the threshold but far below the 20,000 summit. It was therefore burdened with the extra tax, but without the economies of scale. For a business of that size, no man’s land is simply not an option, and it was forced to fall back below the threshold, limiting production and reducing the staff count from 15 to 10.
In its current form, the small breweries relief has punished Wimbledon Brewery’s good business practice and disincentivised its growth. The relief has acted as a barrier to mergers and acquisitions for everyone other than the biggest breweries in the industry. Surely a more progressive scale of relief is necessary, aligned with the industry’s economy of scale, to ensure that all brewers are incentivised to grow. Take the Irish relief for small brewers—the Irish are always good people to look to when talking about alcohol. A proportion of their export volume is excluded, yet such brewers can still obtain the maximum relief.
Urgency is paramount, with small brewers warning me in advance of the debate that a further period of consultation would simply lead to even more unintended consequences. For those brewers, this hangover really has gone on for too long. The upcoming Budget is the Government’s opportunity to support this much-loved sector, to make the system fairer and to support business growth. Long live the local.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I had prepared a speech but will throw it away, as you have 17 speakers; you will be delighted with the speech I will read instead, as it is very short and to the point.
There has been a 0.8% increase in pub numbers, which has led to a 1.6% expansion of employment in the pub industry. That sounds very good, but it is all to do with food and town centres rather than our rural pubs. For 55 years I have been an actor touring the country, and I am known in most pubs across the country. My wife is always amazed when we turn up in some strange town, and I go into the local pub in the wilds of Nottinghamshire or somewhere and the landlord says, “Hello, Giles.”
The pub is a feature of our countryside and it is terribly important to preserve it. There is a little village near the wonderful town of Stratford-upon-Avon. When I first stayed there, 25 or 30 years ago, it had a beautiful pub called The Crown. The community would coalesce in that pub of an evening. The landlord was responsible; if he saw that old Fred in the corner was drinking too much, he would ensure that he was all right, that he could get home, and that he did not drink to his detriment. If Mrs Miggins around the corner had a problem, they would talk about it and look after each other. The pub was a great centre of the community. At that time, the village had a vicar, the pub, the village hall and the local copper. Well, the copper was taken back to Stratford-upon-Avon because there was no crime in the village; everybody looked after each other.
I went back after 20 years or so to work again in the Stratford-upon-Avon area, and I went back to the same village. The pub had closed and been developed into housing. I now found a place where people were no longer talking to each other. The heart had been torn out of the community. It is not about going out and drinking too much, because in that pub everyone was under the watchful gaze of a responsible landlord, who had a very good reason to look after his clientele: he wanted his pub to thrive. However, it had gone and the village had fundamentally died.
People were now buying their cheap supermarket booze, going home and watching their high-definition, widescreen televisions. Who could blame them? The booze is cheaper and the entertainment is superb. If we went back to 405 lines, we would go to the pub again. But no; we have widescreen televisions. People were no longer talking to each other, so people did not trust each other. That is why I support not just a cut in taxes, which we have done—since 2010, a pint is now 14p cheaper than it would have been—but a differential cut, to support our rural pubs, which are the centres of communities right across the country.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on securing this most important and popular debate.
In the brief time available, I want to make a few points about the value of supporting and expanding the resurgence that we have witnessed in British brewing. The debate is of interest to me on several levels—my interests are very well known. I am fortunate to have the exceptional Castle Eden Brewery in my constituency, under the excellent leadership of Cliff Walker and David Travis. They have provided me with an insight into not just quality beer—I hope we will be able to sample it in the Strangers’ Bar at some point— but some of the problems that the industry faces.
As we have heard, British beer is being exported to markets right across the world in traditional markets such as the USA and the EU. In more recent years there has been significant growth in new regions, particularly China. Some years ago, before I was a Member of Parliament, I had the opportunity to visit the huge Tsingtao Brewery in Shandong. Beer is the UK’s third largest food and drink export. The brand of “British beer” is a global trademark of excellence and innovation, which we must exploit, support and promote post Brexit.
I fully support the points that have been made by Members across the Chamber today. I support the campaign to reform business rates and freeze beer duty to support our local pubs. I am also a proud supporter of the Long Live the Local campaign, and I want to highlight the importance of small breweries relief. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned that it was Labour that introduced small breweries relief in 2002—some credit should be given. That has seen some success in that we have seen a resurgence of the British independent craft brewing industry, with a fivefold increase in small brewers.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, in setting alcohol duties and regulating the price of alcohol, which the Scottish Government are leading the way on, it is important that we protect small-scale breweries, craft brewing, high-quality products and local jobs, including those provided by the Kelburn Brewery in my constituency?
Grahame Morris
Absolutely, and there are a number of measures that the Minister can take. Despite the success that we are all very proud of within the craft brewing sector, it accounts for only around 7% of the UK market, compared with the 88% share of the market controlled by the big four global brewers. Small breweries relief has given small brewers the opportunity to compete with their larger multinational counterparts, but they benefit from economies of scale, brand recognition and huge and expensive advertising campaigns on a scale that small brewers simply cannot compete with, and which allow the big four to dominate the market and to offer significant discounts to wholesalers.
The other challenge we face across the country is the shrinking number of outlets that the brewers have for their products, with the number of pubs falling from around 54,000 in 2012 to 46,000 last year. That is a separate debate, and I know we are very short of time, Mr Gray, but I must take the time to criticise the large pub companies and the unfair rents and terms that they offer their tenants, which has contributed to the situation.
Post Brexit, manufacturing and exports will be vital in determining whether the UK will be successful outside the EU. I hope the Minister will take on board the comment made here today. There will be consensus across the House, if he comes up with a suitable formula.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I will be quick. I very much welcome this debate, which comes in the context of a great thrust of Government policy towards investing in economic infrastructure, which I wholeheartedly welcome. Equally, we should surely be investing in the institutions of our communities, and that should be just as important an area of Government focus. We are thinking about all sorts of interesting ways that we can do that and about new forms of investment in the social capital of our communities. What we have already is the tax regime around pubs and, as we have heard, in many places pubs are the absolute heart of our communities.
Mr Gray, the Devizes constituency is of course the most beautiful part of Wiltshire. We have a whole number of brilliant pubs and brewers there. There is the great Wadworth Brewery in the heart of Devizes town, there are Ramsbury ales, and there is a small micro-brewery that I visited recently, called Stonehenge Ales, run by a Danish couple who came over here many years ago because of our culture of brewing and because they believed in the traditions of English ales and brewing. They have made a tremendous success of that.
I echo the points that have been made, particularly around small breweries relief. There is a clear problem with the cliff edge and a need to smooth the withdrawal of the benefit. Surely any loss to the Exchequer that would follow from increasing the tax relief for brewers would be more than made up for in the growth in receipts as the industry grows.
Business rates are probably the biggest barrier to the hospitality sector and the role it plays, particularly in towns and high streets. I very much welcome the Government’s review of business rates, because we need to see our pubs strengthened as the heart of our communities.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for securing this debate. As the newly elected vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for beer, I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate.
In St Albans, there are a number of independent businesses that do not know if they will survive this financial year because of eye-watering increases in business rates. This Government have seven weeks to save them. St Albans is not only home to CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale, of which I must declare I am a member—but has regrettably also become home to the Save St Albans Pubs campaign and the national Save UK Pubs. More than 30% of our pubs have a rateable value greater than £51,000, which means they are not eligible for the business rate relief announced in the Queen’s Speech. I urge the Minister to look at that cap again and, as an immediate measure, extend the business rate relief beyond the £51,000 cap for pubs.
We all know that the business rates system is broken. We all know that it punishes property-based businesses, as well as those successful licensees who increase their turnover, but the implication of that is that our landmark pubs are most at threat—the landmark pubs that draw people into our towns and city centres. They are part of our landscapes and our tourist guides. They are the pubs that are printed on postcards, that are at the centre of food and drink festivals, and that host the charity events. They are steeped in our nation’s history and heritage.
Let me try to persuade the Minister with a few examples. Sean Hughes is the licensee of a pub called The Boot—the war of the roses started on its doorstep. The pub’s rateable value has gone up by 281% from £27,000 to £76,000. The Boot now has to sell an extra 22,000 pints a year just to cover the increase in business rates. It is simply not possible.
Christo Tofalli is the owner of Ye Olde Fighting Cocks, which dates back to the eighth century and is recorded in “The Guinness Book of Records” as the oldest inn in England. It has been forced to close two days a week to make savings to off-set the increase in business rates. The Cock, a grade II listed building, dates back to around 1600. Its rateable value is up by 216%.
Let us consider this disparity in a tale of two pubs: the Rose and Crown, and the Six Bells. These two pubs, both in the beautiful village of St Michael’s, on the edge of Verulamium Park, are less than 30 metres apart—it takes just one minute to walk from one to the other. They are a similar size and, until 2017, the difference in their rateable value was just over £8,000. Since the business rate review, despite being broadly the same size and practically next door to each other, the Rose and Crown has had a very welcome decrease in its rateable value, but that of the Six Bells has almost doubled. The gap has widened from £8,000 to a massive £43,250. The rateable value of the Six Bells is now three times as much as the Rose and Crown.
How on earth does the Minister expect that pub to compete, when the Government are hammering its ability to do so? They have got to get a grip. They have been dragging their heels on business rates reform for years and years. We need immediate rates relief to save some of these pubs, which are at the heart of our heritage, and we need wholesale reform of the entire system.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for securing this debate. If he is successful in his mission, this will surely be the last time we see him sober. In my constituency and across the country he will be welcome in taverns and pubs. I want to make four brief points, but first I should like to welcome the Government’s decision to reduce business rates for pubs across this country, and I also welcome the further rate review mentioned by the Chancellor and Chief Secretary. It is welcome news indeed.
To add to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), the essence of a pub makes it community-orientated. When I think about the pub, I think about community ownership through organisations such as the Pub is the Hub, which provides services such as libraries. I think of the integral value that it has for rural and urban communities. It is important to remember that urban communities play a significant part in the role of the pub.
I want to touch on the economic aspect. We know that when we reduce the tax revenues on beer duty we can get more people into pubs and see revenue rise. Perhaps Members will cast their minds back to the 1600s and the introduction of tea and coffee into this country. The high prices drove people out of the coffee shops and into the pubs and taverns, and I would like to see that again. I am sure many Members will agree.
On the essence of localisation, every Member in this House embraces having a strong local community and a vibrant local economy, and pubs are at the heart of that. Perhaps we can encourage further business and attach new businesses to our pubs. We have an opportunity to do so. The history and culture of our pubs goes back to the Romans. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) could do the Latin; if only I could, but I am afraid I shall disappoint colleagues.
I want to mention three pubs in my constituency. The Queens Arms in Brixham has recently fund-raised to put a defibrillator outside its own building as a service to the local community. The second is the Avon Inn, which has recently branched out to help host local community groups. The third is the New Inn in Moreleigh, which has been there since the 1700s and is family-run. Those are all embodiments of community spirit. They are localised and drive the local economy.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
Ms Rimmer
Pubs have always sat at the heart of our communities and our societies. I remember how my dad, at the end of a hard day’s work, would go to his local for a pint to enjoy the companionship and relax. If we look back at history, we see how many of our rights originate from people sitting down in the local and planning for a better world: democracy, workers’ rights, trade unions. All of those had many of their roots in this country in the local pub. Even today, pubs play an important role. They are where we celebrate our success in work, love and life. It is where we cheer on our nations in sport and mourn our losses in wakes, raising a parting glass for those we have lost.
Pubs remain an integral part of the St Helens, Whiston and Prescot communities. We have many fantastic pubs across the constituency, including the Cricketers Arms, which deservedly won the 2017 national pub of the year award, but we have seen dozens of pubs close. Many local pubs across the country are struggling under current taxation arrangements, which makes it extremely difficult for local pubs to compete with massive supermarkets and large pub chains. People in the UK pay almost 40% of all the beer duty in the EU, while consuming only 12% of the beer. If we compare ourselves to similar sized nations such as Germany, their beer duty is 11 times lower than the UK’s rate. We need to ask ourselves why our taxation rate is so much higher. Some will argue that it is to discourage people from excess drinking: an aim I completely agree with. It is vital we make sure that people drink responsibly.
If we look at the Green Budget published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in February 2016, we see:
“The current structure of alcohol duties is not well targeted at harmful alcohol consumption.”
In fact, because local pubs cannot afford to offer the same prices as supermarket chains, people drink excessively at home in pre-drink sessions. They feel under pressure to drink as much alcohol as they can before going for a night out at a pub or wine bar, where prices for drinks are higher than in supermarkets, partly because of the way in which our taxes are applied.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Many independent pubs in my constituency, particularly in Otley, complain about business rates as well as beer duty. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is also an important taxation issue?
Ms Rimmer
Of course it is. We have heard colleagues talk about it today.
If the aim is to raise money for the Exchequer, I agree with that aim, as taxes are important and pay for the vital things our society needs. However, the brewing and pub industry is a massive employer, with almost 900,000 jobs across the UK. The loss of those jobs would have a major impact on our economy and offset much of the income from the high taxes. We also find that the taxes are not applied evenly, with wine and spirits’ duty rates per litre of pure alcohol on an almost constant decline since 1978, yet beer has largely stayed constant and has gone up in some cases.
I therefore call on the Government to look at the way in which we support our local pubs. One way to do it is by improving the current structure of the small brewers relief. I also call on the Government to implement a modest cut in beer duty so that we can help our local pubs.
As the hon. the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) has said, 250,000 people have signed up to the Long Live the Local campaign, showing that the British people want to protect our pubs. Let us take the steps necessary to ensure that our great British institutions do not have to call for last orders permanently. I urge the Government to act.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on securing this debate. My brief speech will not be a tale of gloom and doom, but will be about success and Bar SO16, a new pub set up by the community—I went to its opening on Friday night. It was incredibly badly timed because it was still dry January. The community found an investor and premises and really pulled behind a new venture in an area that has lost both the Stile and the Stoneham Arms in the past few years. So that is a success story.
In Nether Wallop, the community has come together with a neighbourhood plan and the Five Bells is going through the process to be registered as an asset of community value. People are optimistic that they will get a pub that has been closed for seven years back up and running again. Likewise, people in Longparish are pursuing the same objective for the Plough Inn.
The challenge is not finding the community that wishes to pull behind its local. It is finding the economic environment in which it can thrive. I respectfully point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that that is about the taxation of beer, as we have heard this afternoon—I will not bore anybody with stats again—and it is about business rates. It is about making sure that we have an environment in which the pubs we are hearing about this afternoon from all corners of the Chamber have the circumstances in which they can not only set up, but go on to thrive.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Diolch, Mr Gray. I am sure many people will offer to buy the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) a pint after this debate. As a south Walian MP, it will come as no surprise to Members that I have numerous breweries, big and small, in my constituency that I know will be impacted by the proposed changes to beer duty.
Along with rugby and music, pubs and clubs are a vital part of our community across Rhondda Cynon Taf. They were at the heart of our miners’ institutes, and today they serve as a common meeting place for a range of people and remain at the heart of our communities. Long may they continue to do so. When Wales plays at the Principality Stadium, one would be hard pressed to find a pub that was not full to the brim of passionate fans, full of hwyl, eager to support our team on the turf. I promise not to mention the weekend scores.
Although I am lucky to have small breweries such as the Bragdy Twt Lol and the Glamorgan Brewing Company in my constituency, I know that they face immense pressures and tax burdens. We all know that UK beer duty is among the highest in Europe. It has already been mentioned that there is a 5% beer duty on a UK pint. It is 54p compared with 5p in Germany. For Bragdy Twt Lol in Treforest in my constituency, where a team of five led by Philip Thomas produce a quarter of a million pints every year, the duty has a massive impact.
Like other colleagues, I am also concerned by the review of the small brewers relief, which has allowed breweries specialising in British independent craft beer to grow and thrive. If the relief is reduced, or the production level lowered, it will make the market extremely challenging for the small breweries that are so central to the local economy, in south Wales and beyond. Smaller breweries are often denied access to markets because larger breweries are often tied to pub chains, and I am aware that some larger breweries are using what we might call more aggressive approaches, offering incentives to pub landlords in return for buying all their beer through their brewery chain.
I am sure that all colleagues will agree that we need to support small businesses that produce beer unique to our areas and heritage. I fear that if beer duty is reduced it will be the local economy across Rhondda Cynon Taf that will suffer. Far from being just about output, small breweries such as those in my constituency often support local talent and other local companies, procuring their services for a range of purposes. Small breweries in Rhondda Cynon Taf are also regularly involved in charity events. As others have said, they make a vital contribution beyond just their beer production. I shall continue to work ceaselessly with breweries in my constituency to oppose any plans to reduce the small brewers relief. It must not happen, if we are to continue our proud heritage of brewing craft beer in Pontypridd and beyond.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate. I have the great honour of representing a constituency with St Austell Brewery at its heart. St Austell Brewery should be of particular interest to us, because it brewed the beer for the Long Live the Local campaign. I had the great honour of sampling one of the very first pints that were produced. I pay tribute to James Staughton, who has for many years been the chief executive of St Austell Brewery, and recently retired and stood down from that position. He was rightly recognised in the honours list with an OBE. He has been the driving force that has led the brewery’s success over the past 20 years or so, so that it now produces the finest beer in the country, Tribute.
There are 85 pubs in my constituency. I do not claim to have visited every one of them, although I suspect that over the past 40-odd years I have probably visited the vast majority of them. Every one of them is important to the community that it is a part of. As we have heard from many hon. Members, pubs are about much more than drinking beer. They are the heart of our communities—important for bringing people together to celebrate, commemorate and even, at times, mourn together. They are great for social cohesion and good for mental health. I believe it is possible that one reason we see mental health deteriorating is that people are not gathering to socialise, support one another and build friendships around a pint. We should therefore recognise the important role that pubs play. They are also important for raising money for charities. Many community pubs raise thousands or even tens of thousands of pounds every year to support local charities.
I am all for taxing things that do harm. I am all for tax on cigarettes. I think it should be higher. My question, however, to the Minister is why, if we recognise that pubs are so good for and important to our communities, we tax them so highly. According to the statistics that I have, pubs in my communities contribute about £105 million a year to our local economy, but they pay £30 million a year in taxation. That is too high. I call on the Minister: let us do all we can in the coming Budget and in the years to come to reduce tax on pubs. Yes, we can do it by cutting beer duty. We should do it as quickly as possible by reviewing business rates for pubs; but I ask him also to look carefully at how we can have a differential duty rate for beer sold in pubs—particularly on draft beer. If we can find a way to lower the duty on beer sold in pubs it would be an important step towards protecting pubs and making sure that they succeed for the future.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for securing the debate. Is not it interesting that it is so well attended, and that we are all in such accord on one issue? I think it will be a long time before we find another one on which we are in such accord.
None of us has a monopoly on fantastic breweries and pubs in our constituencies, and that fact signifies the key importance of the issue. The debate, by my reckoning, focuses on two principal issues: one is the fairness of taxes that breweries and pubs face, and the disproportionate burden they must support; and the other is the value of pubs. To begin with the second issue, the pub, as many hon. Members have pointed out, is a venue for solidarity between members of communities—particularly small communities, or communities within larger conurbations. It is an opportunity for company for the isolated, and it provides opportunities for entrepreneurial advancement, whether artistic or in micro-brewing and other things. Notwithstanding any of those softer, more pastoral benefits that pubs generate for communities, they also generate £23.1 billion for the economy, which is not to be sniffed at either.
It seems to me there is something important for the Government to do. First, they need to admit that there is a problem. By the calculations of the Office for National Statistics, 11,000 pubs—23% of the entire estate—closed in the past 10 years. I think that we would all pretty much recognise that that signifies a problem that we need to deal with. We need to take a collective look at the burden of rates, VAT and duty on pubs. I am pleased that pubs in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland benefit from the most competitive rates regime in these islands, but that is no help to anyone in England, Wales or Northern Ireland—so there is work to be done there.
I am not sure whether we should touch on the question of VAT, but we should touch on duty. In the research that I undertook to prepare for this speech, I could find only Ireland and Finland ahead of the UK, in the European context, for beer duty. I cannot speak for Finland, but I know that Ireland is also wrestling with a pub closure problem. A yawning gap between the price of on-sales and off-sales in the UK is feeding directly into the pressure on pubs. As many hon. Members have pointed out already, off-sales products are much more attached to the more harmful types of drinking—particularly lone drinking. Also, something that I believe is now popular with younger people is pre-loading before going out. I do not know anything about that, but it is definitely associated with problems of excessive consumption, leading to matters of public health concern, and to public order concern when things get a little out of control. If we do nothing else by coming here, I join colleagues in other parties in their pleas to the Minister to take a serious look at beer duty. I hope it will be reduced. Many of our brewers need that, and many pubs will not survive without it.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
No area or constituency has a monopoly of beer and brewing heritage, but Suffolk comes close. In Adnams, Greene King and Aspall, it has some of the largest brewers in the country, and it has many small ones as well. When I think about the time I spend in my constituency, many of my best moments have been in pubs. Last Friday I was at the Kingfisher pub at the heart of the Chantry community, celebrating Brexit. Also, I decided on my flat on the basis of where the nearest pub was—the Greyhound, a fantastic pub. We have a fantastic heritage, but we are struggling. In 2010, there were 75 pubs in Ipswich: in 2017, there were 55. That is quite a rapid rate of deterioration in the number of pubs in our town.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) about the importance of urban pubs as well as those in rural areas. They are crucial in Ipswich. There are 1,500 jobs tied to pubs in my constituency, with more than £19 million in wages, so I want to say to the Government that the tax regime in which pubs must operate at the moment does not work. It is bad for jobs and communities, and for the country. Earlier this week I wanted, before speaking today, to talk to local landlords so I could relay the points that they raised with me directly through the debate. One of them said that he sometimes feels like a tax collector, not a small business person. The small business people who own pubs are creative and dynamic. They want to move their businesses forward and strengthen our communities. Let us get 150% behind them in the Budget.
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
To say that pubs are the pillars of our community and the foundation stone of British culture is a cliché; but it is a cliché for a reason, because it is true. There is much to be said for pubs and what they bring to the country. I am sure that we all have some great memories of being down the local, although I could not possibly comment about my own experiences. Derby North has some spectacular pubs, such as the Wilmot Arms in Chaddesden, with its incredible quiz master, Jerry, and the Nags Head in Mickleover. In London, especially within zone 1, one would think that pubs were going through a renaissance. However, it is very different outside the metropolitan zone, where pubs are closing in their droves. So many of our communities have lost their heart as a result of those closures.
Pubs bring so many benefits, which I could talk about until the end of days, really. They combat loneliness; in fact, I have a nibble and natter down at our local, the Travellers Rest, for that very reason. They foster community cohesion and promote social wellbeing, and if somebody happens to have one or two too many, there is always a friendly face to offer them a glass of water. It goes without saying that pubs also make an economic contribution. In Derby North alone, there are 52 pubs and 11 breweries supporting 888 jobs. The industry in my constituency pays about £10 million in wages, £2 million in investment, and £9.1 million in taxes. However, pubs are under a lot of strain as a result of high rents and supermarket prices.
The Government are not blind to the issue. They have introduced a raft of measures such as the asset of community value scheme, a freeze on beer, cider and spirit duty, and business rate reliefs. The results have been spectacular: the rate of pub closures has halved. However, we can do more. We can bring down the number of closures even further, so that no pub has to close its doors. The Budget would be an excellent opportunity to do so, and I would wholeheartedly support the Government in that endeavour.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for securing this important debate. Pubs form the iron core of British culture. Whether we are going for a Beck’s Blue in January, sneaking in a swift half on a Sunday with our mates, or soaking up the sun and spilling out on to the pavements at five minutes past 5 on an idle summer afternoon, pubs facilitate a strong sense of community and act as a social fabric across the country. They are indispensable.
In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, we are the proud home of the Titanic brewery, which has benefited from small breweries relief. Titanic is a local, family-run success story; as its website boasts, the brothers Keith and Dave Bott went from brewing
“7 barrels to over 4 million pints a year”.
Is that not the Conservative vision: family, passion and the entrepreneurial spirit to be the change we want to see in the world? How then can it be right that Titanic’s tax contributions are more than Amazon’s corporation tax, and 10% of what Facebook pays? I want to see more entrepreneurial spirit. I want this Government to make it easier for breweries, landlords, business owners and punters. There are three ways in which that could be done, many of which have been touched on already.
First, we need to establish a long-term, sustainable model for business rates. If a pub wants to expand, or a new starter wishes to get on the property ladder to become a publican, that investment in a site is immediately taxed through business rates. Secondly, we must reduce beer duty. We have one of the highest rates of beer duty across the continent, and I want this Government to take advantage of our release from EU regulations and provide relief to pubs by lowering beer duty.
Thirdly, small breweries relief is a fantastic scheme, and I very much support its principal aim. Currently, a 50% reduction in beer duty is offered to all breweries that produce under 5,000 hectolitres per annum. However, there is a harmful cliff edge for breweries that go above that amount. Increasing the threshold for the volume of beer produced per annum will relieve all brewers of some extra cost, while removing a barrier to growth, investment and the creation of employment opportunities. Just under 900 people in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are already the beneficiaries of those opportunities.
Pubs are so important in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke that on the day of recent general election the Foaming Quart was part pub and part polling station. As I have said, pubs are the very fabric of our society. I have been busy working hard on behalf of pubs in my constituency, nominating them for national and regional awards, and I am scheduled to hold my first pub surgery soon. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I hope that more help will be offered to publicans and brewers alike.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on securing the debate. There will be a huge level of excitement and enthusiasm across the publicans’ world when they see the number of Members of Parliament who are showing their support for the industry. Many important points have been made about the overall burden of taxation, the inequities of the business tax regime, and the importance of making sure that small breweries relief continues to work and acts as an incentive for those brewers to grow into new areas.
It is also important that we continue to put pressure on the Government regarding beer duty. A lot has been said about the beer duty escalator introduced in 2008, but we should remember that it remained in place for three years under a Conservative Government. They milked that cow very well until 2013, and the level of duty paid on beer is actually more now than it was in 2010. However, whichever side of that argument Members are on, a message is being sent loud and clear right across the political divide that there needs to be a reduction in beer duty.
Finally, we sometimes overlook the role that taxation plays in damping down investment in the production of goods that can be exported around the world. We export huge amounts of whisky, gin and other spirits, and British alcohol producers are also tremendous innovators in many ways, including by creating products such as the ready-to-drink beverages that are manufactured in my constituency by companies such as Global Brands. If the Government listen to what has been said today, that will make a real difference to our industry.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I, too, wish to speak about how small breweries are taxed. Unlike pubs, which are closing, small breweries have experienced amazing growth over the past 20 years; there were 400 in 2002, but now there are over 2,000. As we have heard, every constituency seems to have one, and Hampshire has 35. However, that growth has stalled, and I believe that the Government can help.
I look forward to the review of small breweries relief. That relief is vital but, as we have heard, it tapers away at over 5,000 hectolitres. A brewery that doubles its production from 5,000 to 10,000 hectolitres might incur a 250% increase in duty. This Friday I will be visiting The Flower Pots in Cheriton, a Meon Valley brewery, which has told me that this punitive tax tapering means it is unable to expand. Small brewers everywhere face the same problem. This well-intentioned tax regime benefits small breweries, but it can also hamper their growth. Relaxing the taper rate could result in more production and employment, leading to higher tax receipts in the long run. I hope that the Government will consider giving small breweries that much-needed shot in the arm in this year’s Budget.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on securing the debate. I will be brief.
We have over 100 pubs in my constituency, many of which I have already visited, and I pledge today to have visited them all by the time of the next general election. As my hon. Friend for Dudley South has said, in many parts of my constituency pubs are the last community facility. I support the recent business rate changes but want them to go much further. I also support relief for small breweries and hope to see the cliff edge removed. That cliff edge particularly affects Consett Ale Works, a brewery in my constituency located behind The Grey Horse. I look forward to getting its beer behind the bar at the Strangers’ before the summer recess.
As an MP, I personally back all local pubs in my constituency, including by holding meetings and surgeries in them. However, I was recently attacked by some local Labour activists for holding surgeries in licensed premises in my constituency. It has come to something in our country when Labour activists are attacking the Tory MP for North West Durham for holding surgeries in the Steel Club in Consett. I continue to support the Long Live the Local campaign, and urge colleagues on both sides of the Chamber to ignore the woke, new-age temperance movement and back their local pubs. I hope that the Minister will pass on our collective pleas regarding the Budget to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Loughborough has 80 pubs and two breweries—I declare an interest, because my son works in one of them. In my maiden speech I referred to reducing business rates for pubs, which I am very keen to do. I am also keen to support the campaigns to cut duty on draught beer. There is an old-fashioned premise that a pub should be a cash cow for the Treasury, but the choice of cheap alternatives is now vast, and the impact of the loss of a pub on the local community is huge. That pub is often a community centre, a club headquarters, a friendly society or a meeting place that also just happens to sell beer. We need to save those local facilities.
I welcome the Government’s review of small breweries relief. My constituent Andrew Reed, who founded the Charnwood Brewery, emailed to inform me that the brewery is a small family business that supplies pubs and restaurants in a 15-mile radius. Although it does not enjoy the economy of scale of other brewers in the area, and its annual turnover is below £1 million, it still contributes £300,000 to the Exchequer. He says that losing the relief would have an impact: how could the brewery compete in the local market against national and international brewers?
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for securing the debate. This is my first experience of a Westminster Hall debate, and it is fantastic that so many hon. Members are interested in beer—more than are interesting in sitting in the main Chamber most of the time. That is the state of play in politics.
We have heard some interesting contributions, not least from the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), who highlighted the fact that he is well kent in many pubs. I invite him to come to Aberdeen South any time he wants to go for a beer, but the pint is on him.
I actually have shares in a brewery company, but I do not need to declare them because I have only two. I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of the company, BrewDog, which is one of the huge success stories of north-east Scotland. We have many brilliant local craft breweries in north-east Scotland that must be celebrated, such as Park Brew in Angus and Eden Mill in the constituency of the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who I saw earlier. We have to celebrate the number of breweries in Scotland and across the UK.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The brewing industry is important to the Scottish economy across the nation. In my constituency alone there is the Caledonian Brewery, the headquarters of Heineken UK, the award-winning Edinburgh Beer Factory and the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling at Heriot-Watt University. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Chancellor wants to help the Scottish economy, he will cut beer duty?
Stephen Flynn
It is an important discussion and I will come on to that point. I have been an elected Member in Scotland for a considerable period of time, and what I hear from Conservatives there is that the business rates in Scotland are a complete and utter mess. Having listened to this debate, it appears that they are an even bigger mess in England, if the contributions from Conservative Members are anything to go by.
The important point in the Scottish context, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) noted, is that Scotland has the most competitive business rates in the entire Isles. Indeed, more than 100,000 businesses, many of them local pubs, are in receipt of the small business bonus, without which they would not survive. In the Scottish Parliament the Conservatives have put that at risk in the last few days. It was only after a dramatic U-turn that they decided to side with the Scottish Government to ensure that the small business bonus was kept in place. That was right, but it should never have been in doubt. With regard to business rates, we in Scotland are well placed to say that we support local pubs and local industry, but there is certainly more that can be done.
One aspect that has not been touched on in enough detail when it comes to taxation is the public health impact.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The cost to the NHS of excessive drinking is clear. Does the hon. Member agree with the sentiments put forward by me and other hon. Members that pubs offer a secure method of drinking? The key is moderation. A landlord can give drivers free soft drinks all night or remove keys from someone who is still standing and talking yet unable to drive. When it comes to the message of drinking sensibly, that is the way to do it.
Stephen Flynn
The hon. Member makes an important point, which many hon. Members have also made. That is why we have to take a holistic view. We cannot simply say that taxes need to be cut without looking at the public health impact. Notwithstanding that, a pub is a much safer place to drink than the pre-loading we heard about earlier.
It is important to note that about 22 individuals die every week in Scotland due to alcohol abuse. That is a shocking figure that none of us can be happy about. There has been action on that in Scotland, through the introduction of minimum unit pricing, which is expected to save 392 lives over just five years. We certainly support the reform of beer excise duty, but we need to look at taxation holistically and in terms of public health.
The elephant in the room is the fact that great swathes of our hospitality sector rely primarily on the work of EU nationals. In Scotland, roughly 11% of EU nationals work in the hospitality sector. They are crucial to the success of our pubs, hotels and the entire hospitality industry. That is why Scotland needs freedom of movement, and why it is incumbent on Conservative Members to ensure that when the Brexit deal goes through, free movement of people from the European nations to Scotland continues.
James Gray (in the Chair)
The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who was supposed to wind up for Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, apologises for being unavoidably detained elsewhere. I am grateful to Stephanie Peacock for standing in.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is an unexpected pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on securing this important debate and on his work with the all-party parliamentary group, of which I am proud to be a member. The fact that the debate is so well attended by hon. Members from both sides of the House shows how important pubs are to our constituents. Indeed, this month, I have had more emails about this debate than about Brexit, so that is some progress.
Several important issues were raised by hon. Members on both sides, including how important local pubs are. They are a world-renowned institution that dates back to the 11th century. In Barnsley, we sadly lost the Black Bull pub a couple of years ago, which was 250 years old. That is just one example, but pubs often have an historical and cultural significance. Through the generations, people have gone to sit in the pub and talk about their everyday lives.
Supporting our pubs makes economic and social sense. The statistics have been rehearsed today. Pubs provide more than 600 jobs in my local economy in Barnsley. The Acorn Brewery is one example. Across the country, they provide 900,000 jobs, £23 billion of economic value and £13 billion of taxation.
A number of issues have been raised, and the Minister has a number of questions to respond to. Labour has called for a radical overhaul of business rates to help local pubs, and a review of the pubs code and pub closures. As CAMRA has pointed out, 18 pubs close a week, which is a tragedy. Once we let them go, we will find it much harder to get them back.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of closures on high streets? I represent a town. I am not saying that pubs are not important to cities, but in small villages and towns, they are the hub of the community, so it is important to look at the impact. That also feeds into the Government’s loneliness strategy, in which pubs were cited. What assessment has been made in relation to that?
The crucial issue for this debate is the impact of high taxation. For every £3 made in a pub, £1 is sent to the Treasury, so surely we need to reconsider beer tax. On average, pubs in the UK pay £140,000 in tax, which is disproportionately high. We need to look at that. There are also important issues about public health. While there is a public health impact, they do provide a safe, secure and perhaps moderate area in which to drink and socialise.
I thank and congratulate all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I look forward to listening to the Minister.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
I join hon. Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). He has done the unusual thing of bringing half of Parliament along to a Westminster Hall debate, which is not only a great tribute to his popularity as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, but a reflection of the importance that we all ascribe to this issue, which affects our communities.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. As has been said, there has been a tone of great unity on the issues. There is a clear consensus about the centrality of pubs and the beer industry, and about the solutions that exist in terms of making sure we help the sector to thrive long into the future. It must be said that asking elected representatives to talk about lowering the burden of tax on beer and pubs may be the nearest thing we ever get to motherhood and apple pie in this place, but it is a serious issue that goes to the heart of community life, as the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said. Pubs are places to meet and socialise, and breweries are important regional employers.
In his delightful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) reminisced about his trips to Stratford. As we know, Shakespeare has a line for everything, including the following from “A Winter’s Tale”:
“a quart of ale is a dish for a king.”
He was, of course, right—we can surely all agree on that. With that in mind, it is a great tribute to the United Kingdom that we have over 2,000 small breweries, and beer exports accounted for almost £500 million-worth of sales last year.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, with a benign tax regime, independent British brewers can be an even greater exporting strength? The DEYA brewery in my constituency has achieved extraordinary international strength over the past five years. Has the time not come to back independent British brewers to go global?
Mr Clarke
I could not agree more, and that is the spirit of Brexit. We need to take advantage of opportunities to drive exports. It is something that we want to do across the piece to ensure that we deliver a successful economy, have a competitive business tax regime and support businesses large and small. That is what the Government have been intent on doing. Our employment allowance changes reduced national insurance contributions by up to £3,000 for over 1 million employers. We have cut corporation tax and frozen or cut beer duty in six of the last seven Budgets, which means that beer duty is now at its lowest level in real terms for over 30 years, and we have repeatedly given support to pubs through the business rates system.
Jim Shannon
UKHospitality has said that these businesses represent 10% of UK employment and generate £39 billion of tax for the Exchequer. Does the Minister agree that engaging with the sector would help businesses to survive and to grow?
Mr Clarke
The hon. Member is an assiduous attender of Westminster Hall debates, and I am absolutely delighted to say that his persistence will be rewarded. My officials and I will always be glad to engage with the sector.
One of the most important issues that came up in the debate was raised by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for North West Durham (Mr Holden): the impact of business rates and the associated challenges. Since 1 April 2019, eligible pubs with a rateable value below £51,000 have received a one-third discount on their business rates bills. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) rightly pointed out in his excellent speech, they will receive even greater support from 1 April as we increase the discount from one third to 50% and introduce a new £1,000-worth of relief for pubs with a rateable value below £100,000. Eligible pubs will be able to claim both reliefs.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I am pleased about the support the Government are putting into pubs. As hon. Members have mentioned, they are the centre of our communities. I want to highlight a pub in my constituency, The Pride of the Peaks in New Mills, which this Christmas gave 50 hampers and Christmas meals to elderly people to help combat loneliness. Does the Minister agree that pubs are the absolute heart of our communities?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend’s intervention draws attention to precisely the social value that pubs add. His constituency is a rural one in Derbyshire, and many small pubs currently benefit from 100% rural rate relief, as well as small business rate relief. Those are the kinds of reliefs that we want to encourage in order to ensure that we support businesses in all areas of the country, not just in our big towns and cities.
All pubs will continue to benefit from wider reforms to business rates, most notably the switch from RPI indexation to CPI indexation, which took place in April 2018. That change alone is saving business rate payers over £6 billion over the next five years. More widely, the Government are committed to carrying out a fundamental review of the business rates system, and further details will be announced in due course.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East mentioned the impact of pub closures on the high street, which is something the Government take into account. We have initiated the future high streets fund, which is designed to mitigate the pressures on the high street due to changing retail patterns.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
One of the main burdens on pubs in my area is the disgraceful expulsion of Bury football club from the Football League. Anything that can be done to assist pubs in my area and the rebirth of Bury football club would be an eminently good thing.
Mr Clarke
I was genuinely saddened by the expulsion of Bury. I am a football fan myself, and Middlesbrough came very close to expulsion from the Football League in 1986. I know the damage that it does to a community and the fear that it strikes. We will do everything we can to support pubs in Bury and elsewhere in the March Budget.
As hon. Members will know, recent data from the Official for National Statistics are more encouraging, showing that the number of pubs in the country has increased for the first time in a decade. The number of pubs employing fewer than 10 people also grew, showing that the revival extends beyond the big chains. I appreciate that it is early days, and we are certainly not claiming that we have reversed all the challenges facing the pub trade, but it is good to see data showing that the cumulative impact of the changes we are making is positive. In fact, pub revenue is at its highest level since 2010, and employment is at a high not reached since 2001. Those are fantastic results for the sector and show that the pub remains a vital part of modern Britain.
I now turn to future possibilities. The Conservative manifesto committed the Government to review the structures of our alcohol duties now that we are free to determine our own priorities outside the European Union, and the Chancellor will make announcements about this in due course. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) referred to our review of small brewers relief, which is obviously really important—indeed, the hangover has persisted for too long.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
A few years ago, I owned and ran a microbrewery, so I know some of the difficulties facing breweries, including the fledgling Magic Dragon brewery in Wrexham. I urge the Minister to support the cut in beer duty and increase small brewers relief.
Mr Clarke
We absolutely want the Welsh dragon to be roaring, so I take my hon. Friend’s point. As a serial entrepreneur, she has a lot of experience in this area. We want to ensure that the operation of small brewers relief helps to drive innovation and growth, and we will shortly make further announcements about that through the Budget process. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) that the review is not about whether to abolish small brewers relief; it is about its operation and ensuring that it is working effectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) referred to the 85 pubs in his constituency, which I look forward to going round when I come down to Cornwall in due course. He referred to the burden of taxation. Obviously, when we are doing these things as part of the Budget process, a cut to alcohol duties represents a significant loss in revenue for the Exchequer. The effect of inflation means that, in real terms, beer duty has been cut every time that we have frozen it over the past several years. Even in nominal terms, beer duty is now lower than it was in 2012, but we will continue to review all taxes.
Grahame Morris
Can the Minister clarify his thoughts about the cliff edge after the production of 5,000 hectolitres, to which several hon. Members have referred? Will there be a taper?
Mr Clarke
I am a big fan of the Castle Eden brewery. As a fellow north-easterner, I used to pass it regularly. Treasury policy is to avoid precipitate cliff edges that distort behaviour. Clearly, I cannot pre-announce any of the findings of the review. There are a range of factors and representations that need to be borne in mind, but we will issue clarity to the sector in the next few weeks.
Dave Doogan
I appreciate what the Minister says about prior notice, but will he take a look at the disproportionate effect of tax on on-sales compared with off-sales? It is unsustainable, notwithstanding the issues of public health, public nuisance and community support.
Mr Clarke
I take the hon. Member’s point. Clearly, we want to support drinking in social settings such as the pub. It has clear societal benefits as well as business benefits, and the Treasury takes that into account.
The Treasury keeps all taxes under review and is deeply sensitive to the range of challenges facing the pub sector and brewery sector, which we are keen to support. The support of all hon. Members present is powerful, and it speaks to the fact that this is a decision we need to get right. I know that all hon. Members will keep us under close scrutiny about the decisions we make.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South for securing the debate. What has happened today is a great tribute to his leadership on these issues, and he deserves our thanks.
Mike Wood
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. We have had many contributions from six different political parties representing all four nations of the United Kingdom. They have displayed a rather rare unity of opinion, purpose and passion: beer and pubs are a force for good, and they should be supported through our taxation system.
I thank CAMRA, the Society of Independent Brewers, the British Beer and Pub Association, Long Live the Local and the quarter of a million people who have signed up to the Long Live the Local campaign for highlighting the importance of this issue. We have the opportunity of two Budgets this year, and I hope we will have support on beer duty in March. At the end of the year, we can have the announcements on a new system of beer duty for a post-Brexit Britain.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered taxation on beer and pubs.
Rail Services: Maidenhead, Twyford and Branch Lines
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rail services for Maidenhead, Twyford and linking branch lines.
I am pleased to have obtained this debate, because the train services in my constituency—for the mainline stations of Maidenhead and Twyford, and the branch line stations of Wargrave, Furze Platt and Cookham—are absolutely critical for my constituents and local businesses. Many of my constituents use the train services to access employment, particularly in London, which they also visit for leisure—visiting theatres and galleries and going shopping—and for other purposes. Local businesses also rely on the train services to bring potential customers, employees and other visitors. They all want fast train services on those lines.
I have campaigned on this issue throughout my time as a Member of Parliament. The good news is that, over that time, Thames Trains and its successor, Great Western Railway, under its various names, have generally been responsive to the concerns that have been raised about services in the constituency. When there have been problems with the timetable, they have done their best to respond.
The bad news, I am afraid, is that I cannot set out that rosy picture today, because the service has deteriorated. Nick Brace, a constituent of mine, said that the most frustrating thing is that
“for much of 2019 GWR had this all sorted—the right number of trains, in the right format mostly running to time. And it has all gone down the pan with the new timetable.”
The key issue is not the timetable, but the reason behind it: the introduction of Crossrail.
Before I address that, I will set out clearly for the Minister the nature of the problems that my constituents currently face: fewer fast trains, less reliability and significant overcrowding. Great Western fast trains have been cut from the timetable during the morning and evening peak hours to provide more long-distance services, which has had a significant impact on my constituents.
I will share some examples of the complaints I have received from constituents. One said:
“Morning and evening rush hour fast trains to/from Paddington have been massively reduced. For example we have gone from fast trains at 8.02, 8.06, 8.16 and 8.32 to only two—8.02 and 8.32. The intervening trains have now become 35 minute trains, which means London commuters don’t use them.”
Another said:
“Under the original timetable between the times of 07.40 and 08.30, there are three trains…that take 30 minutes or less to Paddington. From December 15th, there will be just one fast train within this time period—the 08.02. The fast train before that will be 27 minutes earlier, leading to a huge bottleneck of commuters.”
On the evening services, a constituent said:
“Most crucially is the cancellation of the two peak evening fast trains to London Paddington. These two peak trains—the first a 4.42pm and the second at 5.48pm—take approximately 21 minutes and represent a significant difference from the 39 to 47 minutes being introduced as part of the new timetable.”
Great Western Railway has looked at reinstating the two peak-hour morning services that were removed, but sadly it has told me that
“there is no readily available space for additional stops”
but that it has
“looked at a number of options including sourcing extra rolling stock and stopping high speed services that have originated in the west, such as from Bristol or Plymouth. Disappointingly, it has not been possible to find a timetable path that will work without causing congestion and significant performance delays in the key peak period.”
On the evening services, GWR told me on 30 January that it was
“in discussion with Network Rail about the possibility of introducing some additional evening services from Maidenhead to London Paddington, which we might be able to operate from May, or sooner if we can gain approval.”
At that stage, it continued:
“It is fair to say that NR are apprehensive about the performance ramifications of these trains”.
I can now tell the Minister that this week Network Rail refused the application for those additional services.
I have been here before. Network Rail has previously refused additional services and changes to the timetable but then relented. Great Western Railway will appeal against that rejection, and I will appeal, but I urge Network Rail to reconsider and to reinstate those two trains. That matters not just for my constituents, but for our local economy, the wider Thames valley economy and the economy of the nation as a whole.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is making some excellent points on behalf of her constituents. The railway links benefit not only Maidenhead but my Slough constituents. The western rail link to Heathrow, a four-mile link between Slough and Heathrow, would benefit our two sets of constituents and people in the south-west and west. The Welsh Government are also in favour of it, because of the huge boost to our economy and the decarbonising of our transport. Does she agree that it is about time that we delivered on this, given that the Government committed to it in 2012? We hope that the Minister will give us some good news about sufficient and solid performance progress on this matter.
Mrs May
The western rail link to Heathrow has been an issue throughout most of my time in Parliament. It has long been talked about, plans have been drawn up and people have looked at it. It has overwhelming support from business, different constituents and different political parties locally. It is something that global Britain would definitely benefit from having. I certainly support the hon. Gentleman’s proposal about the importance of that rail link.
I want Network Rail to reconsider Great Western’s application for two additional evening services and to reinstate evening peak-hour services to London Paddington. I also want it to work with Great Western on the possibility of bringing back services in the morning peak hours.
Not only has the reduction in the number of fast services had an impact on my constituents, but the service has sadly deteriorated. Again, I quote a constituent:
“The services that have been impacted the most are the 7.02 and 7.07 direct services which are now the only direct fast trains to Paddington during the 6.40-7.30am ‘super-peak’”,
and the reliability of those services
“plummeted from 96% and 93% respectively in the month leading up to the timetable change to just 74% and 37% post the timetable change”.
That included a significant number of cancellations. This is simply not good enough.
Lack of services and cancellations have led to the other problem that my constituents suffer from: significant overcrowding on the trains, including safety issues on the platform. Constituents report that they often cannot get on the 8.02 train from Maidenhead because there is simply no room. That service used to start from Twyford and a good number of seats used to be available; it now comes from Didcot Parkway, and when it gets to Maidenhead it is just not possible to get on the train, even to stand. That causes significant problems on the platform, and Great Western has had to employ security guards on the platform because of problems with overcrowding. That is a further issue that my constituents suffer from.
Sadly, I understand from Great Western that some problems with cancellations and carriage reductions were caused by a number of fatalities on the line. Those fatalities are tragedies, and our hearts go out to the families and friends of all those concerned, but those cannot account for all the problems in the service that my constituents suffer.
I have talked about Maidenhead and Twyford in particular, but constituents from Wargrave, Furze Platt and Cookham on the branch lines also want to connect with the fast services into London. Indeed, I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) is present, and his constituency is at the end of one of those branch lines. They, too, are impacted by the problems on the mainline services. The service problems need to be fixed. Network Rail needs to allow the extra evening services. It needs to work with Great Western see if the morning peak services can be reinstated.
Another possibility that would help my constituents is an expansion of the fleet, to increase capacity. I ask the Department for Transport to work with Great Western on the possibilities for increasing the rolling stock, such that extra carriages could be put on the services. That would allow greater space for my constituents to use. Other improvements to help my constituents would include better access to the platforms at Maidenhead, to help with the congestion in the subways and at the entrances and exits. That needs funding.
I noted in Prime Minister’s questions today that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, answering a question from another of our hon. Friends on railway infrastructure, indicated that there was a significant amount of money that the Government could spend on railway infrastructure. I am afraid that I commented to my neighbour on the Benches that that meant, I hope, that the Minister will be able to agree to the millions of pounds necessary for the infrastructure changes at Maidenhead, and indeed for more car parking, which is paramount at Twyford. On a Saturday in Twyford 10 days ago, when I was doing my street surgery, that was the single issue that came up time and again on the doorsteps. Again, it needs support from the Department. I will write to the Minister with details of those two issues, and I hope that he will be able to instruct officials to look at the proposals seriously and favourably.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the problem at Twyford. Part of that originates with people from Henley driving to Twyford to get the trains through. Will she accept my enthusiasm for joining her in getting the car parking?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is as important that we ensure services on the branch line, and that those of his constituents who wish to come to Twyford to use its services directly are able to park. That would also be in the interests of my constituents who live in the Twyford streets that those individuals would otherwise be parking in.
Those are issues with the current service, but I will now come on to the fundamental problem underlying the timetable change and the reduction in the number of fast services from Maidenhead and Twyford: the introduction of Crossrail. When it is fully running, it will benefit those of my constituents who want to get on a train at Twyford or Maidenhead and to sit on it as it carries on through London, perhaps even to Canary Wharf. That might be a benefit. However, for those who do not want that—for those who want a fast service to Paddington, for example—Crossrail is not the answer. My constituents are being asked to forgo a service that takes 20, 21 or 22 minutes to Paddington, on a train where they might get a seat, depending on the time of the train, and that has toilets. Instead they will get on a train that takes 45 minutes to get to Paddington, with fewer seats and no toilets.
Let me give a bit of context. Maidenhead and Twyford are two of the top 10 busiest stations in the Thames valley and Berkshire region—Maidenhead is the fourth busiest and Twyford is the 10th. Both are part of a dynamic economic area that hosts thriving businesses, including the headquarters of international businesses. They are not the backwater at the end of a metro service.
I was deeply concerned when I read the letter from Great Western, which stated that it had always been the intention of the industry that the “main” provider of services from Maidenhead and Twyford—well, for all the stations between Reading and London—would be Crossrail. That was never made clear, but it absolutely confirms the fears that I always had when the Crossrail project first started, which was that at some stage the Government might turn around to my constituents and say, “We want to remove the mainline services. You can just be part of a London metro service.” My concern was exacerbated when my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), when Mayor of London, suggested that the stations in my constituency should come under the complete remit of Transport for London, as part of the London metro services. I rejected the idea then, and I reject it now.
The industry should not be planning for Crossrail to be the main service provider for my constituents. The demand of my constituents—their choice of service—should determine the service providers for their stations. The attitude that the industry will decide what sort of trains people can get just confirms the view that I have had for too long—I had it when British Rail was in place and, sadly, I think there are those in the railway industry today who think like it—which is that some people in the rail industry enjoy playing trains and do not want to think about passengers. But passengers are the key. Yes, in future some of my constituents may choose to use Crossrail, but that must be a choice. Those who choose to use fast services must have those fast services available.
I urge the Minister to ensure that the Great Western franchise continues to provide fast services for Maidenhead and Twyford on the main line, and not just the principle of fast services; there has to be a sufficient number of services at the right times, with enough seats so that people can actually get on the train. We want services to be restored at least, and enhanced at best. Some might say that it is natural for me, as a local Member of Parliament, to stand up and say that for my constituents, but it matters beyond my constituency. Actually, some people using the services in Twyford and Maidenhead are not from my constituency, as we just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell); there will also be some from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), and others who come to those stations to use those fast services.
Some of my constituents have already started to drive to London instead of using the trains, because of the reduced service. How does that help our 2050 climate change target? We want more people to use the trains, but we will not achieve that if we reduce the services. We want the country’s economy to thrive. It is right to level up across the UK—that is what the modern industrial strategy, which was introduced when I was Prime Minister, is about. But levelling up does not mean reducing the vibrancy of a key part of our current economic powerhouse. Train services to Maidenhead and Twyford and the linking branch lines matter to my constituents, our environment and our economy.
I urge everybody involved—Great Western, Network Rail and the Department for Transport—to do everything to ensure that my constituents continue to have the train services that they need. We must continue to see people using those trains, to bring people from Maidenhead and Twyford to businesses in London, and from London to work in businesses in Maidenhead and Twyford, to continue to maintain our thriving economy.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir David. I promise to be very, very good and stick to time. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for securing this debate on rail services for Maidenhead and Twyford and linking branch lines. It has been an informative debate, and I will address as many of the issues that she raised as I can, as well as those raised by other hon. Members.
Forgive me for being slightly nervous answering my former Prime Minister in a debate in this fashion. A lot of the things I will talk about—the positive nature of our investment plans for our railways; the focus on passengers that we are demanding from our railways—stem from initiatives brought forward from a former regime. I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I tell her things she already knows, but they are useful for the public record. She is right to mention her constituents’ issues with fast trains since the timetable change. I was not aware of the process that she outlined behind the scenes directly with Network Rail and the refused application—I will come back to that.
To give an overall picture, let me reassure my right hon. Friend that the Government are investing in record levels of rail funding to deliver the biggest rail modernisation programme for over a century—something that she set off. She mentioned that we are spending £48 billion between 2019 and 2024 to improve rail services for passengers and freight customers, while maintaining very high levels of safety and improving reliability. We are investing over £5 billion in the Great Western route, including £2.8 billion on electrification to deliver better services, new trains and thousands more seats. That programme has provided 4,900 extra seats into London in the peak, and a 40% increase into Paddington in the morning peak. The modernisation of the Great Western main line is improving over 100 million rail journeys each year, stimulating economic activity and growth, as she rightly outlined, from London through her constituency and further on into the Thames valley, the Cotswolds, the west country and south Wales. I am aware of the importance of her words.
A few words on Great Western Railway’s general performance and improvements are probably needed here. We are seeing the benefits of investment. GWR’s punctuality over the last year has been much better than in previous years. Since it had the recent issues, it has put a comprehensive performance improvement plan in place, and performance has improved substantially over recent months. The measure of punctuality as a moving annual average was 89.4% in period 10, which ended on 4 January 2020, compared with 83.1% in the previous year’s period. Most four-weekly periods since December 2018 have improved. That performance has been achieved with a timetable change on the Great Western route in December 2019, which was the biggest since the 1970s. The enhanced timetable introduced in December last year reduced most journey times on intercity routes and added additional local services in the south-west. We have improved passenger compensation; GWR introduced delay repay arrangements on 1 April last year.
My right hon. Friend is right to outline a number of issues. Some of the delays that she highlighted were caused by fatalities on the railway. When I inherited this job I did not quite comprehend that across the network, one person dies every 31 hours. We are working ever so hard across Government and the industry itself: we have trained more than 20,000 people, with the help of Samaritans, to try to intervene at an earlier stage. Hundreds of lives have been saved by people who have had that training at stations. It is a shocking statistic, and it causes unbelievable problems for grieving families, drivers who have been affected and the whole system. We are truly working on that. She is right to say that nowhere near all the delays are caused by that, but it is a significant issue.
Passenger satisfaction with GWR in the spring 2019 rail passenger survey was 87%—the highest ever for the franchise. The national score was 83%. There are a few improvements going on at Maidenhead station, as my right hon. Friend knows, most of which are due to be completed by the middle of 2021. They are being carried out by Network Rail and are due to be completed by the time the Elizabeth line opens. They include improvements to the ticket hall, a new lift to platform one, extended platforms for longer trains, new platform canopies to accommodate overhead line equipment, new signs, help points and customer information screens and CCTV. There is a comprehensive improvement plan for the station. Her constituents may well have items on their shopping list of station improvements that I have not mentioned. In the Department’s rail network enhancement pipeline we are only at the beginning of control period 6, as it is called in the industry, so further enhancements can come from that.
We are making improvements to the Maidenhead to Marlow branch line. GWR is undertaking a study, with local enterprise partnership support, of options for rail infrastructure at Bourne End. A key aim is to enable a half-hourly through service between Marlow and Maidenhead, in line with the frequency of other Thames valley branches. If initial studies show that scheme to be potentially successful, it will need to be progressed through our pipeline process. That is the usual process for enhancements that will end up with Government investment.
My right hon. Friend rightly highlighted concerns about the balance between Great Western Railway and TfL Rail services at Maidenhead and Twyford. The current balance was developed with Crossrail in mind. With the delay to the tunnel, it has been necessary to accommodate the services in an increasingly busy Paddington station, which has caused some issues. In managing the overall timetable, compromises have been necessary to achieve a balance between acceptable performance and what passengers at each station would like to see.
In December 2019, TfL Rail took over the running of stopping services between Paddington and Reading. That is another crucial step forward in the delivery of the Elizabeth line, which will transform rail transport across and into central London. When the Elizabeth line fully opens in 2022, it will increase rail capacity in London by a massive 10% and carry up to 200 million passengers a year, with passengers at Maidenhead—I know my right hon. Friend was not sure how keen her constituents would be about this—able to get a train directly to Canary Wharf in 55 minutes and to Tottenham Court Road in 40 minutes.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I give way first to my right hon. Friend.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the point I made about the balance between Crossrail and Great Western, but the point is that there needs to be a choice for constituents at Maidenhead so those who want a fast service can still get a decent fast service—and a good number of them. The danger is that it sounds as if the industry—I hope the Department is not thinking this—is pushing my constituents towards Crossrail services, and Crossrail services alone. I want to ensure that they have a choice and that there are still fast services. I also want semi-fast services on Crossrail.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I completely hear what my right hon. Friend says, and I hope that I will get to address that point properly in a moment.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Time is quite tight. I would like to address in more detail what my right hon. Friend has said, but may I just say that if I do not cover all the issues she raised, I will write to her with a much fuller answer?
In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I am told—he kindly told me beforehand that he would raise that issue, so I was able to check with my officials—that Network Rail’s application for a development consent order is expected in summer 2020. That will be the next major milestone for that project, which we are keen to progress.
I have just a minute left, so let me conclude by saying that I will write to my right hon. Friend with more detail about some of the issues she raised. The Government are investing billions of pounds in the rail industry. As I mentioned, when the Elizabeth line fully opens in 2022, it will significantly increase rail capacity in London and probably increase demand from Maidenhead too, with the changes in service it brings. However, I will happily go back to my Department and contact Network Rail about GWR’s application for the reinstatement of fast trains, which I did not know about. As always, my right hon. Friend represents her constituents with passion and vigour, and I promise not to drop this ball on her behalf.
Question put and agreed to.
Release Under Investigation
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of release under investigation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am grateful to all Members who have come along to this debate about a dangerous situation that has arisen in our justice system—a situation that poses a threat to both victims of crime and those who stand accused of committing them. I speak, of course, about the use of release under investigation.
It is ironic that a lot of attention has been paid recently to the dangers of early release; release under investigation poses at least as many questions, if not more, but it has received far less attention from the Government and the media. Unintended consequences and austerity have combined to create a dire situation. Rather than helping serve justice, RUI hinders justice and puts victims of crime in danger. It is creating a situation in which justice delayed is becoming justice denied. However, there are some straightforward solutions, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response and reaction to them. I will start by explaining the current use of release under investigation and outlining the problems surrounding it for victims and suspects. I will then outline suggestions by the Law Society and the Bar Council for improvements in the system.
The first important point to make is that being released under investigation is different from being released on police bail. When a person is released on bail, they are subject to certain conditions. For instance, they may be required to live at a particular address, not to contact certain people, to give in their passport so they cannot leave the UK, or to report to a police station at an agreed time—perhaps once a week. With release under investigation, the situation is dramatically different. The accused is released with no time limit—it could be for weeks, months or years—and is not subject to any conditions at all. That means the accused is free to contact anyone, including their alleged victim, and to go anywhere, including leaving the UK. It also means that those who are falsely accused can be left in a state of limbo for years, not knowing whether they will stand trial.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. In the Thames valley, the number of people on police bail dropped to 379 in 2018, while the number on RUI increased to more than 11,000. Police bail just is not being followed. Does he share my concerns about that?
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will come to that point later. The use of police bail has dropped dramatically, and the use of RUI has increased exponentially. That is partly because police bail is out of date, but I will come to that.
As I said, justice delayed becomes justice denied. Before we consider all the implications of those stark facts, let me draw attention to the huge increase in the use of release under investigation. All evidence suggests that the use of RUI has expanded massively since changes to bail introduced by the Policing and Crime Act 2017. In London, for instance, 67,838 people were released on bail in 2016-17. In 2017-18, that number fell to 9,881, yet the number of people released under investigation in the same period was 46,674. That indicates that RUI is being used to replace bail. The checks and balances of the bail system are being swept away by a system that has neither.
The picture is incomplete, because only 20 of the 44 police forces in England and Wales have released data on RUI. However, despite the patchy data, a clear pattern emerges. For instance, in Nottinghamshire, the Thames valley and Cheshire, as in London, the number of people on bail has plummeted, while the number released under investigation has skyrocketed. Worryingly, the Bar Council estimates that the number of offenders suspected of violence against people or of sex offences who are released under investigation has risen from 1,300 in 2016 to 27,000.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Is not the real rub that because of the exchange in effect of bail for RUI, two safeguards are lost? The first is the protection of the accused in relation to the review process and time limits that go with bail and the ability to argue a case, and the second is the protection for the victim, who cannot have, for example, non-contact or address conditions attached? There is also, in terms of general public protection, the risk of reoffending. Is that not what Assistant Commissioner Ephgrave meant when talking about the unintended consequences?
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. It is the loss of those safeguards after the Policing and Crime Act introduced RUI, in effect to replace bail, that I am highlighting in my speech. It is easy to understand why this has happened: huge reductions in police and Crown Prosecution Service resources under austerity make it extremely difficult for evidence to be collected within the timeframes imposed by bail conditions.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I am a former criminal legal aid defence solicitor, and in preparing for the debate I spoke to a number of colleagues still involved in the area. They say that people can be in the RUI process for more than 12 months, but from the start, when a statement is taken by the police, to the end, 12 months later, the statement and evidence are the same—nothing happens between the two dates. Therefore, a charging decision could have been made right at the start rather than after a prolonged wait. I would welcome the hon. Member’s comments on that.
Bambos Charalambous
I agree with the hon. Member, who is entirely right about the taking of the statement, which provides the potential for charging early on. However, there is an issue with collecting digital data held on phones and other devices, which may need investigation. I will come to that.
Decreasing police resources make it increasingly difficult to complete investigations within a 28-day period as required under bail. When introducing RUI at Second Reading of the Policing and Crime Bill, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said:
“In the case of pre-charge bail, it is apparent that a significant number of individuals have spent an inordinate amount of time on bail only to end up not being charged or, if charged, found not guilty. Of course, the police and prosecution need time to assemble and test the evidence, particularly in complex cases, before coming to a charging decision, but we need to recognise the stress caused when people are under investigation for prolonged periods, and the disruption to their lives where they are subject to onerous bail conditions.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 45.]
However, the added time flexibility in the justice system given by release under investigation is coming at a dangerous cost. The available data indicates that tens of thousands of dangerous individuals are being investigated for a crime under no conditions and with no time limit. Victims can be targeted again by a perpetrator, and some case studies demonstrate that that is happening.
The super-complaint from the Centre for Women’s Justice detailed case studies of victims of domestic violence and rape. A woman in Yorkshire reported her ex-husband for repeatedly raping her during their 13-year marriage. He was released by the police after interview with no conditions. He forced his way into her house at 2 am, held her hostage for five hours, cut her with a broken glass and tied her to a table.
The Law Society has also uncovered examples. A solicitor’s client, who had been arrested for rape and bailed, was accused of a further sexual offence against the same complainant. They were placed under RUI for the original rape accusation due to bail not being extended. Let us consider that for a moment: an alleged rapist is left entirely free to contact, intimidate and even attack their victim again. That is an utter failure of the system. Here is another example: an individual in the west midlands was arrested for murder and then placed on bail, but after the bail expired they were placed under RUI. Again, a potentially extremely dangerous individual is left entirely free to commit a crime or intimidate witnesses.
How can that be acceptable? I argue that it is not. The bail system is not perfect by a long stretch, but allowing possibly tens of thousands of dangerous criminals to be entirely free to reoffend before a trial is dangerous—especially for the victims of domestic violence. It is a sad but known fact that virtually all domestic abuse-related crimes are of a repeat nature. It is therefore essential that bail conditions are used to safeguard victims while an investigation is ongoing, yet the big reduction in the use of bail and the huge increase in RUI means that highly dangerous offenders are released while investigations are ongoing. As Women’s Aid points out, there is absolutely nothing to stop highly dangerous domestic abusers contacting their victims or going to their homes.
Again, it is clear that part of the problem relates to a severe lack of resources and cuts. Because the initial bail period is only 28 days, an extension must be approved by a superintendent. That procedure imposes a big administrative burden on police forces, who, it seems, therefore avoid using bail altogether and instead release suspects under investigation. Unless the police are given sufficient resources to investigate crimes, the use of RUI will continue to spiral.
It is clear that RUI is creating a situation where vulnerable victims may be made more vulnerable and their lives placed in danger, but, looked at from the other side, its use is also grossly unfair to those accused of committing a crime and yet to be found guilty. They are essentially left in limbo for long periods—sometimes more than a year—with no updates or no indication from the police about if or when the case will progress.
I recently spoke to a barrister in my constituency who said she has a client who stands accused of serious sexual violence along with others. The allegation was made within 24 hours of the incident in 2017. All the suspects were arrested and interviewed within a matter of weeks, and they were all released on RUI. The investigation continued, but the defendants were not charged until the beginning of 2019. The trial has been fixed for a date in 2020, almost three years after the allegation was made. There can be little doubt that both the complainant and the defendants will be affected by that significant and serious delay.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing our attention to this matter. He is eloquently showing why RUI is almost totally failing to achieve anything. Has he worked out what it is intended to achieve? From what he has said so far, it appears simply to be a way to take pressure off the police as a consequence of their not having the resources to investigate crimes.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I think that was the intention. At the time, there were significant cases where bail was constantly extended, so it was designed to allow the police to investigate further, but it has had an adverse effect and needs to be reformed.
In another case study, my constituent said that she has a youth client who has been subject to RUI for more than 15 separate investigations. It has not been possible to find out the details of each RUI or the status of the investigations. Accordingly, her client could end up being charged after he turns 18 in relation to allegations that date back to when he was 16. If that happens and he pleads or is found guilty, the court will not be able to impose any youth sentences such as referral orders or youth rehabilitation orders. Under the law, we have an important principle of innocent until proven guilty. It is not reasonable for suspects or victims to have to put up with such delays. Again I repeat: justice delayed becomes justice denied.
Data from police forces that have provided it shows that the average time people are subject to RUI is shockingly long, ranging from 114 to 228 days. There are cases where RUI has gone on for years. Let us pause for a minute and consider the impact of that on suspects—let us remember, they remain innocent until proven guilty. They are left unaware of what is happening with their case, whether they remain a suspect or whether the police are even investigating their case. Such uncertainty creates enormous stress, which can impact on personal and family lives as well as employment.
The Law Society has unearthed case studies that illustrate that. In one case, an elderly man was interviewed about allegations of sexual abuse in a care home in 2015-16 and released under investigation. He received no updates on the case despite five letters from his solicitor to the CPS. The man, now aged 82, was finally told at the start of June 2019 that he would not be prosecuted. Unsurprisingly, the length of the process placed extreme strain on the man and his wife, who is seriously ill.
As I said at beginning of the debate, some straightforward changes to the system could be implemented. I am glad that the Government are embarking on a review, and I was heartened to hear that they today agreed to commence their consultation on pre-charge bail. It is pleasing to see that, in the consultation document, they recognise the impact of longer investigations, the need for better resourcing and the need for regular updates to victims and the accused on RUI. I would be interested to know more about their proposed new framework following the consultation, and I hope that my speech today is considered part of that consultation.
James Daly
Does the hon. Gentleman feel there is any merit in going back to the system that I well remember—of giving the custody sergeant the right to charge for certain offences? The question, which the hon. Gentleman is eloquently putting across, is about the delay in investigations. In my experience, an investigation can be done in the first 24 hours in the vast majority of cases, as very little changes. X says Y has done it, and Y says, “I haven’t done it,” and that is it for the majority of cases. The idea that most cases are extremely complex and need weeks, or even months, to be reviewed is not correct. In my view, we should go back to the old system, where the custody sergeant was able to assess the evidence there and then. From my experience over many years, that did not do justice any harm whatever.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We need to review the process that takes place before charging, but we now live in an age where more information has to be collected from phones and digitally, which takes up a fair amount of resources.
It is vital that the following issues are taken into account by the Government. First, it is essential that RUI incorporates time limits. It is understandable that the bail system needed reform. Time limits attached to bail have often been unrealistic in terms of dealing with huge amounts of digital and social media evidence, which is now often relevant to cases. It has been suggested to me by a senior police figure that a longer and staggered time period, with different levels of approval, might make bail work better. However, it is still essential that time limits of some kind are brought into the RUI system so that victims and suspects are no longer left in limbo. For these time limits to work, it is also vital that the police, the CPS and criminal lawyers are properly resourced.
Secondly, while the promised increase in police numbers by the Government is welcome, there must also be proper resourcing for the collection and sorting of evidence, especially where it is stored digitally or where forensic analysis is required. The Government must ensure that procedures and funding fit for the 21st century are in place.
Thirdly, it is imperative that certain categories of crime are excluded from the RUI system. It is entirely inappropriate for suspects accused of domestic violence, violent crime or sexual violence to be placed under RUI.
Sir Robert Neill
The hon. Gentleman is making an impressive speech. Could his last point be dealt with by reforms to the codes of practice set out by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to say that the use of RUI must be proportionate? If an offence were of the nature that it would attract unconditional bail, RUI might be a convenient way forward, but it is almost inconceivable that people charged with violent or sexual offences would be released on unconditional bail. In such cases, there would normally be a non-contact condition or a condition of residence—something of that kind. It would be simple to take those offences straight out of the system and go back to bail, to the benefit of everybody.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent suggestion. I hope the Minister takes note of that and that it is fed into the consultation.
Finally, it is vital that where RUI is used, some conditions can be imposed. There should be a mechanism for knowing where suspects are and for preventing them from being in contact with alleged victims and witnesses. All parties should kept updated at regular intervals.
To conclude, we must uphold the two vital principles of our justice system: justice delayed must not become justice denied, and everyone has a right to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
The Minister will already have got the feeling from the debate that there is unanimity on both sides of the House on this issue. I will not diverge from that. I understand that the Government are undertaking a review of this area. We want the Minister to take up the issues we are raising today as part of that and to make sure that we are heard.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said, we need a system that is proportionate. Just from the figures for the Thames Valley, it is clear that the use of RUI is not proportionate. The number of people released on bail between 2016 and 2017 was 13,768. However, in 2017-18 that fell to 379 people, and the number released under investigation was 11,053. What is happening within the police service is completely disproportionate.
In case the Minister has the impression that we are alone in raising this issue, we are not. It has been put forward strongly by the Bar Council and the Law Society, and by the Association of Chief Police Officers in its guidelines on how RUI should be brought into operation. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) has gone into great detail about it, so I will not do that.
While there is clearly an issue of justice denied, the major issue seems to be the victims being deprived of their rights. As we have heard, there is no ability to impose orders to keep people away from the houses of those they are accused of performing some disadvantage to. The imposition of those orders, alongside general conditions, is a major feature of the bail system that does not exist in RUI. There is no ability to place conditions on a suspect who has been released under investigation; it simply does not occur. That has an enormous impact on the lives of the victims. It is not just the people who have committed the crime who are left languishing for ages, wondering what on earth is going to happen. Victims are left not knowing what is going to happen with the person who has been accused of doing them harm. We need to make sure that proper conditions are imposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned the need to make RUI proportionate, and that, above all, seems to me to be something that can help.
I finish with a quotation about the use of RUI:
“in reality, it has made the situation far worse”.
It goes on:
“Not only are people released under investigation for longer than they were kept on police bail, but the absence of proper scrutiny means police do not keep suspects updated as to the progress of an investigation.”
Everyone in the criminal justice system is a loser from that—from police officers to victims and the people alleged to have committed the crime. Defence lawyers are also victims of it, and my conclusion is that RUI has been a dismal failure.
Sir Robert Neill
There is another problem with the notification procedure. The single letter, which is sent under the current system, makes it difficult to keep tabs on people. Frequently a person has moved, making it difficult for their lawyers to keep in touch. That will then involve an application to the court for an arrest warrant, and there may be subsequent hearings and a bail application, if there is an explanation for why these things have happened. Any cost saving made by not having bail administered in the first instance is, perhaps, wiped out by the cost of extra court time for the issuing of the warrant and any proceedings thereafter. There must be a better way of dealing with that.
John Howell
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and there is another point to that: since we cannot take away people’s passports, they can go wherever they like and not be traceable. That makes a mockery of the system.
I understand why the police like RUI, since it allows them more time to gather evidence following the expiration of the timetable that they are under for pre-charge bail, but that is not a justification for continuing with a system that is now hopelessly discredited by all of us, the Law Society, the Bar Society and others. I urge the Minister to look thoroughly and carefully at this issue.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) on securing a debate on this very important subject. As he has set out very clearly the concerns on RUI, which I think are shared on both sides of the House, I will limit myself to asking the Minister three questions, if I may.
First, what is the purpose of RUI as far as the Government are concerned? My contention is that it is a pressure valve to allow the police to cope with the lack of resources that they have, but I am sure that is not the Government’s view, so I wonder what is. That is not a flippant point. RUI is relatively recent, having come in under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, I think, and therefore having taken effect less than three years ago. I was not on that Public Bill Committee, but I understand that RUI was not debated at any time during its considerations. Therefore, we cannot go to Hansard to look for any clues about what its clear purpose was. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that.
Secondly, was it the Government’s intention that RUI should grow so quickly and replace police bail in the way that it has? We have heard some figures quoted already, but the figures that I have been given are that, across England and Wales, the number released on police bail went from 216,178 cases in 2016-17 to 43,923 in 2017-18. That is a dramatic fall, but it is compensated by 193,073 releases on RUI in that same year, of which 93,000 were for people suspected of violent or sexual offences. Was it really the Government’s intention that this should be such a dramatic change in the way that people under investigation are dealt with?
Thirdly, what about legal aid? At the moment, legal aid will be paid for police station time and for trial, but for nothing in between. That means nothing for those important pre-charge stages—or at least, it will only be paid much later in the day. They are important stages of investigation, and the defence has a role here as well in querying whether evidence is being gathered, for example.
If there is to be a period of years, as we have heard in serious cases, where no progress is made in the case as far as the defendant is concerned, there is a risk of procedures perhaps not being followed as diligently as they might be. There is also a risk that defence solicitors, who are already under a lot of financial pressure, will not be able to take cases where they are acting speculatively and have no prospect of being paid, perhaps for several years. Effectively, they are subsidising the criminal justice process. Perhaps the Minister will respond by undertaking to look at that and, if RUI is to continue, at whether the payment for defence solicitors in relation to legal aid needs to be reconsidered.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I have the dubious extra background in this area of being one of the only people here, I imagine, who has been on RUI in recent years. I was on it for quite a significant period of time. I fully support the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and pay tribute to him for bringing forward this important topic, which for too long has been ignored. As he made clear in his speech, it was not the intention of the Home Secretary at the time to have a situation in which these cases drag on and on.
I have two main points to make about RUI: it has no conditions and no limit. No conditions is harmful to victims, by allowing the guilty to prey on them consistently, and no limit is harmful to the innocent, by keeping them stuck in a process without end. The only people who benefit from the system as it stands are the guilty, because they are free to continue to offend, and those who make malicious complaints, as it allows the destruction that they have caused for the innocent to continue with no end in sight.
I will pick up on a couple of points that hon. Members have made. First of all, a very fair point was made on electronic evidence. That is something that has come in over the past few years, and police have to wade through very substantial amounts of it, so there is some truth in the suggestion that they might need more time for that. I welcome the review that the Government are undertaking to look at that. Secondly, I think there is an element of Parkinson’s law in this failure—maybe a bastardised version—in that, because there is a lack of urgency due to a lack of bail conditions, police can string out investigations, so that justice for victims and the innocent is also delayed.
I will also pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) about legal aid. Having to find the money in advance if the person has a household income of more than £37,000 a year—basically, every household with two people working full-time on the minimum wage or more—and having to wait potentially years to get that money back if they are found innocent in court, is a huge financial pressure. People do not have tens of thousands of pounds of savings lying around, waiting for the justice system to slowly creak into action, so anything that can speed up the process is also important. That was a point very well made. I look forward to the Government’s review, which I will be contributing to. I will happily work cross party on this matter with any other interested hon. Members in future.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I apologise if my speech sounds rather like a ramble through my years as a criminal defence solicitor. It probably will be that, but I hope that I can bring a little bit of experience on a practical level about how I have experienced the criminal justice system as a legal aid lawyer. I left just before the RUI process came into being. I had the dubious pleasure of dealing with police bail, which essentially was the same situation, but with bail conditions and people being arrested on a regular basis for breaching them. The delays were there with police bail, as they are with RUI, so that situation has not changed massively, as far as I can see.
My research for this debate was to speak to colleagues who are still practising in large practices. A friend I spoke to over the past couple of days told me that 75% of the people his firm represents who are interviewed in police stations are released on the RUI procedure. How can that possibly be? The vast majority of those case are straightforward offences. That was the point I was trying to make in my earlier intervention.
Another colleague of mine said that the situation has got to the point where, if my friend came to me and punched me on the nose—although that would clearly never happen—and I made a complaint to the police and said, “I have seen my friend, Fred Bloggs, punch me in the nose, and there is no doubt about it as I have known him for 10 years,” he would be released on this procedure. He would not be charged. He would go through this process for the best part of a year, and in the end he would almost certainly be released without charge, either because people had forgotten what they had said or the circumstances of the case, or because something else had happened.
It is a very unsatisfactory process. I would like the Government to consider going back to the custody sergeant ways. I know it is probably very old-fashioned, but I saw justice being done when I was a young lawyer. What is important here is how quickly we, as Members of Parliament, should expect the police to carry out their investigation. If the vast majority of cases are straightforward and involve two or three statements, how can that take more than 24 or 48 hours? Obviously people might be on holiday or away, but the vast majority of times, in my experience, the process literally involves a police officer going out and taking the statements, and that is it.
It has been confirmed to me by colleagues over the past couple of days that if that process happens—in most cases over a 24 or 48-hour period—and somebody is then released under investigation, when they come back to the police station in a year’s time it will almost certainly be the same evidence. Nothing will have happened, so the decision made 12 months down the line could have been made within 24 hours.
Sir Robert Neill
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I know that he has real coalface experience of this. What might change a year down the track is that memories have faded, so the evidence will be less potent, which may result in a miscarriage of justice either way. We have talked about delays between charge and hearing dates in Crown and magistrates courts. If a delay is added before charge because of this system, the delay will be doubled up, which leads to that risk.
James Daly
For cases involving fraud or some technical matters, a process such as this should quite clearly be brought into play, because the technical examination of computers or whatever takes weeks or months. My comments are not in respect of those cases.
To follow on from a point that my colleague made, I have been told in the last 24 hours of rape and manslaughter cases following this process, which is quite incredible. It is suggested that one of those cases has direct evidence of involvement, but this process is happening. A suspect in a most horrendous rape case, similar to the one outlined, was released under this process for more than 12 months. I do not know how that can be.
We should look at the process within the police station. When a suspect goes into a police station, they will almost certainly be interviewed by an officer who does not take responsibility for the case later in proceedings. The officer who interviews does not have ownership of the case and gives it to the investigating officer, who is perhaps somewhere else in the police station or is not on shift at that moment in time, and the case gets lost within the system. My colleagues report back to me that, when this process happens, it is months down the line before the first conversation with the victim, or even the person who has been complained about. This system encourages delay and delayed justice, and that simply cannot be right.
When I first practised in court, I used to represent shoplifters or people who had committed the most straightforward offences. The court would be full of people committing that type of offence, but they are no longer within the court system; they have been taken out. We have a limited number of cases for which we have created a system in which we do not investigate these matters within an appropriate period of time. I believe that, sadly—I know that this was not the intention behind the process—this encourages tardiness and officers not prioritising these matters.
The only way of addressing this is to bring back a system in which charging has to be made within a set period of time, one way or the other, unless there is a good, proportionate and reasonable reason, or else we will continue to have these problems. We cannot have a system in which people accused of rape or manslaughter are in the community for more than 12 months, able to speak to their victim, to leave the country and to do other things. That is not the intention of the Government, the police or anybody involved in the process, but that is where we are.
I am interested to hear the Government’s view and to contribute to the review, but I say to the Minister that this comes down to who has the case initially and to carrying out the investigation at the earliest opportunity. It may be that we do not need a CPS lawyer to review all the evidence. There may be an experienced police officer who can do that, such as the custody sergeant, or there may be another way of dealing with matters that protects potential victims and the interests of those who have been involved in this process for a long time and that means that justice can be done.
At the start of my career, I believed that justice was done, but the custody sergeant did not always get it right, and there were lots of cases in which no further action happened as a result, so there is a strong argument against what I am saying. However, I can tell hon. Members, on behalf of my legal aid colleagues—I am proud to stand here as one of them, trying to represent some of the things that they believe in very passionately—that justice was done, the public were protected and the public interest was protected. I will obviously do anything I can to assist the Minister in the review.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to respond to the debate from the shadow Front Bench. This has been an excellent debate, with Members with vested experience in these issues, which makes it even more profound that there has been so much agreement on the challenges that these reforms to police bail have presented to the criminal justice system over the past three years.
I am delighted to see the Government acknowledge those challenges in the consultation announced today, which was clearly in direct response to the calling of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), making this one of the most successful Westminster Hall debates I have ever taken part in. Some important points have been made. My hon. Friend made the point that there has been a lot of focus recently on automatic early release, particularly relating to terrorism. It might shock hon. Members to know that, according to the latest RUI figures, between 2018 and 2019 there was a 540% increase in suspects of terrorism offences released under investigation or bailed without condition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate made particular reference to domestic abuse victims, and there has been significant scrutiny of that precisely because of the vulnerability of the victims involved and the fact that the suspects in their cases are free to contact them without condition. Major concerns about investigative capacity were also raised. We can change RUI and we can put conditions on it all we like, but that will not address the real root causes of the issues at the heart of our criminal justice system—the crisis in detective numbers, the enormous boom in digital and forensic requirements attached to investigation, and the total lack of capacity in the police force and the Crown Prosecution Service alike.
The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), neatly summarised the loss of the three safeguards for the suspect, the victim and the public. All have been removed under the current system because of the explosion in RUI and the complete drop in police bail. He also made the sensible suggestion that RUI should apply only in cases where unconditional police bail would otherwise have been applied. The problem, as the Law Society points out, is that risk assessments are simply not being carried out across police forces and are certainly not applied consistently.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) made similar points about the proportionality of the system, describing it as a dismal failure. I think it was well intentioned, but it has indeed been a dismal failure. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) made important points about legal aid and the intention of the reforms, which I hope the Minister will respond to. I welcome the hon. Members for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and for Bury North (James Daly) to their places. Both spoke passionately from their opposite experiences of the issue, but with similar passion and on the similar challenges around particular types of offences. It is inconceivable that RUI should be applied to rape and violent offences, and there can be little justification for it.
The Government’s announcement of changes is welcome and requires careful consideration. We know of cases in which individuals arrested for serious crimes have been investigated for many months—if not years in some circumstances—with no conditions and no timeframe attached to those investigations. To my knowledge, this is the first time the reforms have been debated in this Chamber since they were introduced in 2017. It has been something of a silent crisis, but its cause is obvious: abandoning the time limits, monitoring and conditions that underpinned police bail inevitably led to a severely underfunded police force taking the much less cumbersome option of releasing under investigation.
That has been demonstrated in the figures. Not only have we seen a huge increase in the hard numbers, but the average length of time spent under investigation under this system has in some cases quadrupled in some forces, so a reform designed to reduce the amount of time individuals languish under police investigation has ended up extending it considerably.
This was both foreseeable and foreseen. The Government’s consultation on the reforms said:
“respondents expressed concern that enabling release under investigation would not solve the underlying issue of an extended period of uncertainty for suspects… Indeed, some respondents were concerned that, without even the minimal level of scrutiny brought by the current process of granting and extending bail, there would be the potential for non-bail cases to take even longer to resolve with priority given to cases where bail would need to be justified to the courts.”
The hon. Member for Bury North highlighted that this has not only led to but encouraged or incentivised delay.
James Daly
What does the hon. Lady think about pre-charge advice? It is one of the reasons—it may be a good reason—for delays in the system. Does she feel that pre-charge advice plays a positive or negative role in this process?
Louise Haigh
It contributes to the delays in the system. Clearly it has had a role, alongside these reforms and issues around capacity and resources across the whole system.
It is shocking that 93,000 suspects of violence and sexual assault were released under investigation since 2017. The Secret Barrister tweeted this week:
“The primary driver behind the drop in prosecutions for sexual offences…is that lack of police resources means suspects are being released under investigation (RUI’d) for *years*.”
The Government’s reforms did nothing to address the reason people were languishing on police bail; they simply gave the old problem a new label, while investigations became more complex and time consuming due to digital explosion. We are now seeing cases in the Crown court for offences dating as far back as 2017. While suspects are left under the cloud of suspicion for years, victims of serious offences are denied closure and live in fear of being confronted by their accused.
I do not think the answers to this problem are complicated—some have been clearly expressed by hon. Members today—nor does it require an endless Home Office review. There is a place for release under investigation, but it must be used proportionately. The open-ended overuse of RUI has made a mockery of justice. Clearly, time limits must be introduced to prevent the perverse situation where victims and suspects are waiting too long.
The Government’s proposed mechanism to do this via codes of practice with no judicial oversight requires careful thought. The risk is that unless the codes of practice are strictly applied by officers, timescales will slip again. The police must be encouraged to use police bail where necessary to protect victims, particularly in cases of violent of sexual offences.
We look forward to engaging fully with the consultation in the coming weeks and months, but the elephant in the room is the crisis in the criminal justice system, and this consultation alone will not fix that. The problem is rooted in the utter mess the governing party has made of criminal justice, from the explosion in violent crime due to the reduction in police numbers, to the crisis in the probation system and our prisons, meaning that offenders are leaving prison even more likely to reoffend. All of that has meant detectives and investigators are dealing with an impossible caseload while facing a crisis in numbers.
The Minister knows that the recruitment pledge will only help marginally, because there is no commitment to replace the 16,000 police staff and investigators who have been lost. The party of law and order has veered so wildly on criminal justice that it is hard to believe that Ministers can maintain a straight face when they claim to be tough on crime. The cut of 20,000 police officers is now being reversed. Probation was privatised, but now it is nationalised. Bail reforms were introduced, but now they are reversed. On the central task of any Government—to keep the public safe—this Government have been shambolic. The silent crisis in bail reforms requires swift action, which we will support, as we will always support any proposals that help to correct some of the enormous damage that has been committed over the past 10 years.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service (Kit Malthouse)
It is a great pleasure to appear before you once again, Sir David. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate. This is an important issue.
I recognise the unanimity for change, as there was unanimity for the introduction of the reforms, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said, nary three years ago. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, the reforms pretty much sailed through the House and were welcomed by all Front Benchers. I think our friends the Liberal Democrats, who are not here, included the reforms in their manifesto in 2015. Nevertheless, we recognise the need for change. The Government are committed to ensuring that the police have the powers that they need to protect the public and that our criminal justice system has at its heart the welfare and best interests of victims.
The police often deal with complex and high-harm cases, with more digital evidence than ever before. As part of their investigations, the power to use pre-charge bail is an important tool. It allows the police to maintain contact with individuals under investigation and can support the timely progression of investigations; and conditions can be set to protect victims and witnesses. I should point out that a breach of bail conditions is not in itself a criminal offence. Although it means that people can be re-arrested at the time, they are then more than likely to be re-released on police bail. That might be one of the issues that we have to consider for the future. Whether incidents occur while people are on police bail or under investigation, offences are often committed, such as intimidation of witnesses, in some cases, or harassment. I would urge the police to pursue those as offences in themselves, never mind whether they breach conditions.
As my hon. Friends will be aware, in 2017 the Government reformed the rules on pre-charge bail to address legitimate concerns that suspects were spending too long under restrictive conditions with no oversight or redress. That included the ability to release individuals without bail conditions, or release under investigation, while inquiries continued. Reforms also introduced time limits, judicial oversight, and a presumption against the use of pre-charge bail. Importantly, those reforms maintained the police’s ability to use pre-charge bail when necessary and proportionate. It is important to stress that the police can still use pre-charge bail, and they should have our full support in doing so.
Since the reforms came into force, we have seen the use of pre-charge bail fall significantly, mirroring an increase in the number of individuals on RUI. Through conversations with partners across the criminal justice system, we have become aware of concerns that bail is not always being used when appropriate, including to prevent individuals from committing an offence while on bail or interfering with witnesses. There have also been concerns that individuals released under investigation are now under investigation for longer, with the negative impacts on victims, witnesses and those subject to police inquiries that many hon. Members have outlined.
We have listened to those concerns and decided to act. On 5 November, as a number of hon. Members mentioned, we announced a review of pre-charge bail to ensure that we have a system that prioritises victims and supports the police, while also respecting the rights of suspects. As part of that review, we have today launched a consultation, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a written ministerial statement with four proposals.
First, we would remove the presumption against the use of pre-charge bail. Secondly, we would ensure that bail was used when necessary and proportionate, including cases where there are risks to victims, witnesses and the public, as well as where the offences in question had significant real or intended impacts. Thirdly, we would extend the timescales for initial use of bail from 28 days to either 60 or 90 days, to more accurately reflect the timescales for complex cases. Fourthly, we would apply review periods to cases where individuals are not subject to bail, such as RUI, or where they are not arrested.
We believe those proposals will strengthen and encourage the proper use of pre-charge bail, help to prioritise the safeguarding of victims and witnesses, and support the police. Importantly, we hope that they will also support more effective investigations, regardless of whether bail is used. Our consultation will close on 29 April, and we will prioritise talking to victims and victims’ groups about their experiences, as well as hearing from those who may have been RUI. I will be happy to place the record of this debate as the first contribution to that consultation, to which hon. Members are welcome to make submissions on our website.
However, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley said, addressing concerns about RUI and bail is only one part of the solution. We in Government have a duty to cut crime, bear down on the worst criminals and have a system that works for the law-abiding majority, which is why we have pledged to recruit 20,000 additional police officers and to increase funding for the Crown Prosecution Service.
The upcoming royal commission on criminal justice will undertake a comprehensive review of the system and deliver practical recommendations that can make a genuine impact. The domestic abuse Bill will return to Parliament before Easter and is set to transform the lives of survivors, and the ongoing rape review is looking at the criminal justice response to rape—from the police report to the outcome in court—to identify issues where they exist, so that we can improve our response.
I am very grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. I hope that they will make longer and more considered contributions to the consultation, because we are determined to get this right. Everybody who was in the House when the Policing and Crime Act 2017 was passed—the hon. Lady and I were new Members then—may now admit that, sadly, it has had unintended consequences. We are duty-bound to try to correct that, and we hope and believe that, following the consultation, we will be able to do so in the upcoming police powers and protections Bill, which we hope to introduce later this year.
Bambos Charalambous
It is pleasing to hear the comments from the Minister. Following the consultation, many of the issues will hopefully be addressed. He will have seen the cross-party consensus on the concerns about RUI. We will wait and see what comes forward from the consultation.
I still have some concerns, because some of the delays are not necessarily down to police resources, but resources elsewhere. For instance, the collection of data and forensic data may be handled elsewhere, so it could be that additional staff who are not necessarily frontline police officers need to deal with that. That issue needs to be looked at. The Minister mentioned the possible extension of timescales from 60 to 90 days. There is a police resourcing issue there in terms of whether that should be dealt with by a superintendent or by somebody at inspector level. That needs to be teased out as well. We need to put suspects and victims at the heart of this, as well as the general public. That needs to be front and centre of any reforms, but I welcome his comments, and I hope we see reform following the consultation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the use of release under investigation.
Written Statements
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
TV Licences
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Sport, Media and Creative Industries (Nigel Adams)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Baroness Morgan of Cotes, has made the following statement.
On 5 February the Government launched a consultation on decriminalising TV licence evasion. The consultation invites views from both members of the public and organisations on whether the Government should proceed with the decriminalisation of TV licence evasion by replacing the criminal sanction with an alternative civil enforcement scheme.
Decriminalisation of TV licence evasion was previously looked at by David Perry QC, and he concluded that the criminal penalty remained appropriate under the current licence fee model. However, it has now been five years since the Perry review. The broadcasting landscape has changed significantly, not least because five years ago a TV licence was not required to watch or download content on BBC iPlayer. As well as this, the BBC’s decision on the future of the over 75 licence fee concession means those aged over 75 and not in receipt of pension credit may become liable to face TV licensing enforcement procedures.
Given such changes, the Government believe that it is right to look again at decriminalising TV licence evasion in order to ensure a proportionate and fair approach to licence fee penalties and payments is in place, which protects the most vulnerable in our society.
Against this background, the consultation will seek responses on whether to decriminalise evasion and give consideration to how this could happen. The determining factors that the Government will consider include:
Would an alternative, non-criminal enforcement scheme be fairer and more proportionate?
What the cost is and how difficult it would be to implement any alternative scheme?
What is the potential impact on licence fee payers, particularly the most vulnerable and those with protected characteristics?
And what is the overall impact on licence fee collection?
The consultation will remain open for a period of eight weeks, after which the Government will carefully consider the responses. A consultation response will be expected to be published by summer 2020. Any changes will not enter into effect until April 2022.
The closing date and time for responses is 5 pm on 1 April 2020. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS93]
Police Powers: Pre-charge Bail
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
This Government are committed to ensuring the police have the powers they need to protect the public, and that our criminal justice system has at its heart the welfare and best interests of victims.
That is why on 5 November we launched a review of pre-charge bail to ensure we have a system which prioritises safeguarding and supports effective investigations, while also respecting the rights of suspects.
We have listened to people’s concerns, including important issues raised by those who provide frontline support to victims of crime and survivors, the police and parliamentarians.
Today I am therefore pleased to announce the launch of our consultation on proposed changes to pre-charge bail. Specifically, the consultation seeks views on the following proposals:
Removing the presumption against pre-charge bail;
Placing a duty on officers to use pre-charge bail where necessary and proportionate, which would apply in cases where there were safeguarding risks to victims, witnesses and the public; where necessary to prevent further offending; or where the offence in question has significant real or intended impacts;
Lowering the rank of officer needed to authorise and extend pre-charge bail, while also extending the initial period pre-charge bail can be applied from 28 to either 60 or 90 days and delaying the point at which magistrates’ approval for the extension of bail is required from 3 months to 6, 9 or 12 months; and
Introducing review points in codes of practice for investigations where pre-charge bail is not used, including where individuals are interviewed voluntarily or released under investigation. Importantly, this consultation will also look to gather views from victims of crime and those individuals who have been released under investigation about how the current system can be improved, as well seeking views on the current effectiveness of bail conditions
This is a Government that both listens and acts, and I look forward to hearing views on this important issue.
The consultation will be available at: https://www.gov.uk/ government/consultations/police-powers-pre-charge-bail
A copy of the consultation will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS94]
House of Lords
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oaths and Affirmations
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Trade Deals: Animal Welfare
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trees
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will safeguard animal welfare and environmental standards in negotiating trade deals with respect to livestock products.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Department for International Development (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, as set out in our manifesto, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards in our trade negotiations. The Government’s Agriculture Bill sets out our plans to reward farmers for enhancing our natural environment and for safeguarding the nation’s high welfare standards. We will stand firm in trade negotiations to ensure that any future trade deals uphold the standards that farmers and consumers across the UK expect.
Lord Trees (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer and I welcome him to the Front Bench. I do not doubt the sincerity of Her Majesty’s Government’s assurances, but there is widespread—and, I would suggest, justifiable—concern that our own livestock industry could be out-competed by imports of cheap livestock products from animals reared to poorer welfare and environmental standards. This might mean cheaper food, but it would be at a global cost to animal welfare and the environment and at some risk to our own indigenous livestock enterprise. Will the Government enshrine in UK law their manifesto commitment to require that imports of livestock products meet our high animal welfare and environmental standards?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
The UK, as the noble Lord points out, has world-leading environmental and animal welfare standards, and that will not change. They are backed up in legislation and, even more importantly, are backed by both producers and consumers right across the land. There is no value to anyone in imposing high standards here on our own producers if we then allow low-standard imports of those same products. We would merely be undermining our farmers while exporting cruelty elsewhere.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in animal welfare matters as set out in the register. I take the view that it is an abomination that live animals should be transported very long distances, particularly to the continent but even here within the UK. Can my noble friend assure me that this will not be allowed to continue when we have new rules upon this subject?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
I thank my noble friend for her question. I very much share her concern about and views on the live export of animals for fattening and slaughter. The manifesto commitment on which this Government were elected could not have been clearer on this issue. We are committed, through that manifesto, to taking steps to end the live export of animals for fattening and slaughter. We will consult on the issue shortly; all noble Lords will be able to take part in that consultation and I encourage them to do so.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, how does the Minister reconcile the future for exports of our agricultural goods—whether animals or other agricultural products—and sustainability when we are probably closing our opportunities to export to our near neighbours and will be looking much further away? How do you handle both sustainability and animal welfare in those circumstances?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I have committed my life to the issue of sustainability and am proud of what we have achieved over the last 10 years. I am excited about what we will achieve in the coming years—partially as a consequence of our leaving the European Union, the issue that the noble Baroness raises. We will be able to do things now that we have left the European Union that we could not do as a member. For example, we can scrap the common agricultural policy, as we are intending to do, and replace it with a new system whereby those payments are directly conditional on the delivery of public goods such as environmental sustainability and animal welfare standards.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, as the Government are negotiating trade deals with the USA, in particular, for meat, dairy products and eggs, which are generally produced to much lower animal welfare standards than those produced here, we must insist on the inclusion of a clause permitting the UK to require imports to meet our animal welfare standards. If this is not possible, would the Minister consider imposing tariffs on imports that do not conform to UK welfare standards and which are sufficiently high to safeguard our farmers?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I agree with her premise: we certainly do not want to find ourselves importing egg products which fall below the standards we impose on our own producers. This Government have made that commitment and there are a number of different ways in which it can be achieved. She mentioned a ban and tariffs. I am afraid it will not be for me in my portfolio to determine which of those options we choose, but our commitment is absolute. We will not allow our producers to be penalised by high standards in the UK, only to be undercut by imports that do not meet those standards. That would be neither right nor fair.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer as set out in the register. Could the Minister explain the recent remarks by the Prime Minister at the UK-Africa Investment Summit welcoming Ugandan beef into this country without attaching any conditions relating to standards of production, traceability and welfare at slaughter, despite all the verbal and manifesto pledges given by Ministers?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Prime Minister was not saying anything new: Ugandan beef already has tariff-free access to our market. As a less-developed country, Uganda has duty-free and quota-free access for all products, with the exception of arms and ammunition. However, there are currently no imports of Ugandan beef because it does not meet the standards applied on imports into the European Union or the standards that will be required now that we have left the European Union. The situation therefore remains exactly the same.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his Front-Bench duties and declare my interests in a farming enterprise as recorded in the register. Regarding fair competition for farmers and consumer confidence for the public, equivalence of standards will be a difficult area in trade Bills. During the recent Trade Bill in the last Parliament, amendments ensured the maintenance of UK levels of statutory protection of welfare and environmental standards. Can the Minister confirm that this is now a way forward for government policy and that such necessary provisions will be contained in the various Bills and regulations that will need to be re-enacted?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I will make two points. First, the Government are committed to introducing a new sentience clause—a much debated issue in the last Parliament. That is not simply a case of translating an EU principle into UK law; when translated it will go much further. It will not have the exemptions, and it will not only apply to a few narrow sectors but will cross the entire decision-making process of government. Secondly, our Environment Bill, which was introduced in the other place just a few days ago, is in and of itself, because of what it contains, a non-regression Bill—a non- regression commitment that will require the Government legally to build on the standards we are proud of, but which we would all like to see improved.
Crime: Support for Children and Young People
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve access to services and support for children and young people who have been traumatised by crime.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s and an ambassador of Embrace Child Victims of Crime.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s Victims Strategy, published in September 2018, outlined their commitment to support children and young people traumatised by crime. We are focused on the most vulnerable young victims of crime, ring-fencing funding for supporting victims of child sexual abuse, and revising the victims’ code with updated guidance for children, young people and their families, to help them better understand their rights, including how to access the services and the support that they need to cope and to recover.
Baroness Benjamin
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Embrace Child Victims of Crime supports more than 3,000 children each year, and that figure is rising. More and more children and young people are witnessing crime, especially knife crime and domestic abuse, or know of someone involved in some sort of violent abuse. This affects their mental health and will do for the rest of their life, leading to untold damage and a cost to the public purse. It is vital that they get early support, and trauma-focused behavioural therapy is proven to make a difference. So will the Government support charities such as Embrace and Barnardo’s to help these vulnerable children, and will they consider them in the upcoming domestic abuse Bill?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we fully understand the need to support young people and children who are not only the victims of crime but are traumatised by witnessing it. The noble Baroness made particular reference to cases of domestic abuse. Further to the Victims Strategy, we have increased funding to support children who are witnesses of domestic abuse, and we are taking further steps in the context of our Victims Strategy to address these issues. Over and above that, we have the Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance, which applies to all schools and colleges.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister recognise the importance of a priority for children who have been victims of human trafficking, including children who are victims of county lines?
Lord Keen of Elie
Clearly, we are conscious of the increasing prevalence of cases where children have been the subject of trafficking. They have particular and special needs, and we are conscious of the need to address those.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we all recognise that there is an incredible number of good practices across our country where organisations support children who have been traumatised by crime. However, does the Minister accept that there is still a great number of shortcomings, especially in professions such as social work and policing, where it has been reported that children have often not been believed in time? Would the Minister therefore assure the House that resources are being provided for the training of professionals in these particular incidents?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, children and young people under the age of 18 are automatically considered as vulnerable victims and therefore become eligible for enhanced entitlements under the victims’ code. That includes being offered referral to specialist support services in order that that can be addressed.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Is it the case that schools are required to have a designated member of staff responsible for ensuring that children in these circumstances get the specialist advice and help that they require?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance provides that every school and college should have a designated safeguarding lead, who should be a senior member of staff.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the recent briefing on the Queen’s Speech reported that only 18% of victims were aware of the victims’ code at all. What steps are the Government taking to improve education among young people and children in particular about the existence of the victims’ code and their rights under it?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we will shortly be consulting on changes to the code, and we have committed to developing targeted, less complex and more accessible guidance aimed particularly at children, young people and their families.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that one of the biggest issues for young people is the fear of crime, whether that is online crime or knife crime, for example. This was recognised in the Children’s Commissioner’s report as well. Has he read the report from Barnardo’s on the kinds of issues that could make a difference to young people, because they are having a severe impact on their mental health, for which, as we all know, the services required are not available. When did Ministers last meet with Barnardo’s to discuss that issue, and does he have any plans to do so in future?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I have not read the Barnardo’s report—I have read the more recent report from the Department for Education—but I note what the noble Baroness said in that regard and I will address that matter.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, the noble and learned Lord referred to the rights of victims to access certain kinds of support. If I may respectfully say so, he did not say how that access will be delivered. I think the noble Baroness was asking about capacity in the system and the training and adequacy of the people delivering the help. Can he assure us that there is capacity and that it is of a sufficiently high standard?
Lord Keen of Elie
Certainly, I have no reason to doubt that the specialist support services to which I referred are fully available for those who require them.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to publish their policies to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 ahead of the United Nations Climate Change conference to be held in Glasgow in November.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, 2020 will be a vital year for climate action and we will set out our ambitious plans in the run-up to COP 26 through a number of sectoral strategies, including the transport decarbonisation plan, the energy White Paper and the building strategy.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I have Claire O’Neill’s letter here and, quite honestly, it is such a rich source of information on the process so far that I do not really know where to start. I just say that so far I have seen nothing from this Government in terms of vision or strength of purpose that will actually deliver what they are promising by November. I wonder where they are going to get those ideas and vision from.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
We have the vision. This year, significant steps will have to be declared. There will be an energy White Paper in a matter of weeks. Following thereafter will be a transportation decarbonisation plan, a heat policy road map, an English tree strategy, an aviation consultation, a net-zero consultation and a building strategy, as well as a fuel poverty strategy. These will fit into the timeline taking us toward COP 26 in Glasgow. The important thing for the noble Baroness and all here is the opportunity to discuss this further. I commit my department to meet regularly to discuss the emerging policies on the road to COP 26.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Is it not important that the Government set out a clear plan? For example, in the motor industry, people need a long lead time for production. To suddenly discover that hybrids will not be allowed and that the date has been brought forward makes things extremely difficult. Surely the Government have to work with manufacturers and give clarity, because these things cannot be achieved overnight.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My noble friend is of course absolutely right. There will be clarity and, needfully, ambition. We need to be more ambitious than we have been to date to hit the targets of net zero by 2050.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there have been some reports that the Government are considering moving the conference away from Glasgow. Can the Minister confirm that that is not the case?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Never will it be moved away, not that I will never confirm.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, COP 15 back in 2009 was organised by the Danish Government in Copenhagen. It was chaotic and Denmark suffered humiliation globally—I must put it as strongly as that. We do not know who is leading for our country, there are question marks about the location and we are supposed to be chairing the conference partly with Italy, so there are many unknowns. My question is simple: do the Government understand that if they do not get this right and the conference is chaotic, this country will be humiliated on the global stage?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The stakes could not be higher. The question of who is to lead on this issue is simple: the Prime Minister will set the direction and the pace. The question of who delivers that has yet to be put in place, but the important thing to recognise is that there are fewer than 7,000 hours until we reach that point. The strategy we put in place will deliver, but equally we must ensure that other nations are able to step up to the plate and deliver alongside us. Even if we reach net zero tomorrow, the problem will remain. We must do more to bring others alongside.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I have a straightforward question. We have made good progress on decarbonising our electricity, but 50% is still generated using methods that produce carbon dioxide. While we are doing that, everything using electricity, including of course electric cars, will still emit carbon dioxide. When do the Government plan to completely decarbonise electricity generation, what combination of nuclear and renewables will be used, and can they give us a guarantee that the lights will not go out when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I come from Scotland; the sun does not shine very often but the wind does indeed blow. It is important to stress that we have powered past coal and it is no longer a vital part of our electricity generation. As we begin to decarbonise domestic heating and our transport fleet, the real challenge is that the demand for electricity will grow so we will need to find innovations. We are already a world leader in offshore wind, but we will need to look at nuclear and decarbonising hydrocarbons through carbon capture, utilisation and storage. However, the lights will not go off.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, as we move from heating by gas to heating by electricity, will my noble friend bear something in mind? As you move north, it gets colder, heating bills are higher and incomes are lower, so those bills make up a higher proportion of people’s incomes. Heating by electricity costs four times as much per thermal unit as heating by gas. Does he think that people in the red wall voted to quadruple their heating bills?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My noble friend is right to remind us that the challenge we face as we move to decarbonise our domestic heating is real. The question of whether we move towards full electrification or whether we move towards hydrogen or a hybrid option is yet to be determined. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that we cannot increase fuel poverty as a consequence of the choices we make. This Government are not about making people poorer in order to reduce carbon dioxide levels.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, given that millions of homes, schools, hospitals and factories in this country are heated by gas and discharge carbon dioxide, what timescale have the Government set for the necessary changes to be made, and who is going to foot the bill?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
There are three elements to that. The first is that we need to decarbonise domestic heating, which is a real challenge. Most people still heat their homes by gas; I include myself. We need to make a choice between electricity or a potential hydrogen hybrid. The second element is that we must try to be more efficient in the way that we use our electricity. Finally, on the question of who will ultimately pay for this, I am afraid that there is no easy answer. Ultimately, it will be the people of Great Britain. We need to recognise that, to ensure that those affected by fuel poverty do not bear the brunt of the costs.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that the devolved Administrations will be officially represented at the conference in Glasgow? Can he also give us some idea of when a chairman will be designated? My noble friend would be an admirable candidate, as would my noble friend Lord Goldsmith.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
We await the call. Who knows? My noble friend is right to ask when there will be a new COP chairman. I suspect that the Prime Minister will look at that as part of the wider re-examination of Government. Our relationships with the devolved Administrations are absolutely vital, as is our relationship with the great city of Glasgow itself. It is a great city in which to conduct this climate change conference.
Health: Tinnitus
(4 years, 2 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 impact of tinnitus on the mental health of those affected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the debilitating impact that tinnitus can have on people’s lives and that for some the condition can lead to mental ill-health, including suicidal thoughts. That is why we have commissioned NICE to develop clinical guidance on the assessment and management of tinnitus. This is expected to be published in March and will help raise much-needed understanding about the condition.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that this condition causes enormous misery and is, we are told, incurable, and given that research has shown recently what a detrimental effect it can have on the mental health of sufferers, I have two questions for the Minister. I am very happy if she needs to write to me with the answers. First, how much is the NHS spending on research into the causes and cures of tinnitus? Secondly, if there are cures—if you google tinnitus, you will see that many products out there on social media claim to cure it—have any of these been approved? Are they in the system for approval? If so, when will they be available on prescription?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I am happy to pay tribute to the British Tinnitus Association, which has raised the issues this week—it is Tinnitus Week—for its research. I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I will be happy to write to her on the specifics of the tinnitus treatments. Of course, tinnitus is often linked with acoustic neuroma, hearing loss and a number of other conditions, including mental ill-health. There are some treatable causes, which GPs look for, but there can be others related to mental ill-health. The cause of tinnitus is unknown; it cannot be treated. Talking therapy will be prescribed, and a lot of those treatments are already available on the NHS and on prescription. I am happy to send that information to the noble Baroness in writing.
There is obviously research available via the NIHR. We spend more than £90 million on NIHR research, and £15 million of this is spent via biomedical research centres at Manchester, UCL and Nottingham. Nottingham undertakes specific research into deafness and hearing problems, including tinnitus and hyperacusis. If the noble Baroness would like further detail, I am happy to write.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister endorse the views of many researchers, some of whom she has just mentioned, in their warning that listening to loud music—for example, in amplification, in front of speakers at rock concerts or in ear buds—could be an explosion waiting to happen in future generations? Secondly—this may apply to some noble Lords not yet afflicted—any slight loss of hearing should be dealt with sooner rather than later, because that research has also discovered that if you do not do something about it, it can possibly lead to dementia.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord is absolutely right that contact should be made with a GP regarding hearing loss as soon as possible, that links between hearing loss and dementia have been found and that it is extremely important that we increase research in this area. That is exactly why I have asked officials to get together a round table regarding hearing loss and dementia to drive up research in this area as soon as possible.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, one in 30 children suffers from tinnitus. That is one child in every average-sized class, so there are a number of such children in every school. These children often say that their tinnitus sounds like a rushing train. They find it difficult to concentrate in school and often end up with problems. Some of these children will require mental health support. Can the Minister say what the current waiting time is for a CAMHS appointment for a child or young person suffering from life-changing tinnitus? It is a chronic condition. There is already a problem with the waiting list for children and young people with acute and life-threatening conditions, but what is the waiting time for these children to get in front of a doctor?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
We are working hard to bring down waiting times across mental health, and the noble Baroness will know that we are bringing in waiting time standards. On mental health provision for those with tinnitus, she will know that we are working to bring in improved access to psychological therapies. Ninety-five per cent of those accessing such treatments and therapies are doing so within the time available. The most important issue is making sure that those therapies are available in an accessible way. Local commissioners have to pay due regard to equality legislation and make sure they provide those services either through BSL-trained therapists or interpreters locally, if necessary.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, having suffered from tinnitus for some 30 years, I do not share the Minister’s enthusiasm for reminding people that they have it. The most effective survival technique is learning to ignore it. Mine is a mild case. If fellow sufferers turn their mind away from it regularly and as hard as they can at the beginning, it tends to become less of a curse. As to whether it affects one’s mental abilities, I leave your Lordships to form your own conclusions.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My noble friend has put it rather accurately. As he said, a lot of the talking therapies available for tinnitus, which has no known cause, are ways of coping with it, some of which have proven effective. On research, we need a better understanding of causes so that we can provide better treatments for a condition that, for some, can be pervasive, pernicious and hard to ignore.
BBC: TV Licence Evasion
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the cost to the taxpayer of decriminalising TV licence evasion and, should decriminalisation take place, how they propose to continue to fund the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have launched this morning an eight-week consultation on the potential to decriminalise TV licence evasion. The Government are asking for evidence of the impact on taxpayers and the BBC. We will explore in further detail and consult on options around how to do this and assess the cost to the taxpayer if required. The BBC is responsible for funding the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring, as set out in the charter. The Government currently provide some grant in aid funding for additional World Service languages as part of the World 2020 programme through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply, as it stands. She is no doubt amazed that I am not mentioning frigates and our nation’s shortage of them. However, I am going to talk about the World Service, which is a crucial part of our soft power and something we really need to support. I am afraid the way that we are moving with the TV licence does not seem to take into account how we will ensure that it is properly costed. It is about not just money, but the perception around the world, which must be that our Government do not see the World Service and the BBC to be as important as they used to. The timing of this is extraordinary, just after the election campaign, Brexit and everything. Even if it is not true, the perception will be that this is having a go at it. The fact that Ministers do not go to key current affairs programmes on the BBC again will lead to the perception that the Government do not care. Do the Government see the BBC as a national treasure, which I believe it is, or something that, in time, they wish to dismantle?
Baroness Barran
I shall quote my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in describing the BBC as a cherished national institution, which I guess is not far from a national treasure. The World Service is obviously an absolutely key part of that. The royal charter states that the BBC must spend at least £254 million a year on the World Service up to 2022. In the last year for which we have accounts it spent £289 million, but I absolutely agree with the noble Lord’s sentiment that that reach of over 400 million people a week is invaluable to us as a nation.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that an eight-week consultation is about to take place. In 2015, David Perry QC undertook detailed, evidence-based research. It took as long as it needed to consult 190,000 people, 75% of whom said that they supported the licence fee as fair, proportionate and good value for money. Things may have changed, and we may need to reach different conclusions, but is she honestly telling the House that an eight-week consultation period will achieve the same quality of material upon which to make decisions?
A headline in this afternoon’s Evening Standard reads:
“It’s time to stop jailing BBC licence fee evaders”.
That is going to be the tone of much of the debate in the next eight weeks. Is it going to be a fair and dispassionate discussion, with headlines like that? In a pressurised period, such situations may deny the public any opinion of the Conservative Party conserving very much.
Baroness Barran
As the noble Lord, knows, very few people have been jailed—only five. We are consulting because we think that it is right to look again at whether the criminal sanction is appropriate. There are ongoing concerns that it could be seen as unfair and disproportionate, but at the risk of stating the obvious, the point of a consultation—and this is an open consultation without a recommended approach —is to get to the truth. There is enormous interest. Over 2,000 responses have been received already, and the consultation only opened at 11 am. There is a lot of public interest in this.
The noble Lord rightly probed whether this will be sufficient time. The Government may need to consult further on the detail of any potential changes before taking a decision, but not before we have found out what the public think.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, I heard recently of a case in which an unmarried mother with four children who had not paid her TV licence was sent to prison for a month. Her children had to go into care, with a cost to the public purse of many tens of thousands.
Baroness Barran
I am very sorry to hear of that case. As we know, women and people from black and minority ethnic communities are overly represented among those who are sanctioned for evasion. One of the things that we want to explore though this consultation is the impact of a changed approach on those groups.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in her speech earlier today, the Secretary of State said that many people thought it wrong that you can be imprisoned for not paying the TV licence, and its enforcement punishes the vulnerable. In view of that, can the Minister confirm that you can still be imprisoned for the non-payment of a civil fine; that the civil courts cannot take the personal circumstances of the vulnerable into account in the same flexible way that magistrates can when setting fines; and that since the scope and mission of the BBC has been fixed until 2027, no change which reduces BBC income can be introduced until then?
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord makes fair points regarding enforcement. That is clearly part of the process of consultation. One of the principles set out in the consultation document is about the cost and difficulty of implementing alternative schemes and whether alternative schemes are fairer and more proportionate. He will also be aware that colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are currently reviewing the enforcement industry with a view to introducing improvements there. I can confirm, as my noble friend the Secretary of State said the other day, that this is a process with various steps. The licence fee model stands as it is in the charter until 2027.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, the switch from free licences for pensioners to the BBC having to pay for a proportion of those licences for the over-75s has put huge pressure on the finances of the BBC. This feels like another attempt to impoverish and weaken the BBC. I remind the Minister and the Government that the BBC is the cornerstone of the creative industries in this country, which is one of the fastest growing sectors of the UK economy. It has huge success in promoting the brand of Great Britain around the world and is a fantastic engine for social mobility. Weakening and impoverishing the BBC is so damaging to this country and should be abandoned immediately.
Baroness Barran
The last thing that this Government want to do is weaken or abandon an asset as strong and important as the BBC. My noble friend the Secretary of State set out the process earlier today and it might be helpful to repeat that. She said, “What we are talking about today is the consultation on decriminalisation. The licence fee for the 2022 to 2027 period will be the next stage in terms of setting that and then there is the mid-charter review confirming that the obligations in the charter have been met”. The full charter review needs to be thought through and everything will be included within that, including the funding model, making sure that the BBC remains the asset that we all cherish, but in a very changed world.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Will the Minister tell the House whether, under the cover of this consultation, the Government intend to renege on their promise to continue free TV licences for those over 75?
Baroness Barran
The Government remain disappointed with the BBC’s decision to restrict the over-75 licence fee concession to those in receipt of pension credit.
Provision of Personal Care Bill [HL]
Wednesday 5th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Goods Mortgages Bill [HL]
Wednesday 5th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Policing Resources Bill [HL]
Wednesday 5th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Genocide Determination Bill [HL]
Wednesday 5th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
School Admissions for Children Adopted from Overseas Bill [HL]
Wednesday 5th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]
Wednesday 5th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, this is a Bill for every family going through the upheaval of divorce. No one marries or forms a civil partnership expecting it to break down. No one wants a marriage or civil partnership to fail, but the unfortunate reality is that some marriages and civil partnerships do fail. The irreparable damage will have been done long before an application to the court to bring a legal end to the relationship. The Government believe that the law should deal with that reality in a way that not only protects society’s interests in marriage but avoids making the legal process of divorce or civil partnership dissolution unnecessarily antagonistic. The end of a marriage will always be difficult for the couple and children involved. It cannot be right that the law adds to that by incentivising the attribution of fault. Marriages fail for many reasons, and the responsibility may be shared. The simplistic allocation of blame cannot reflect reality and does not protect marriages.
In developing the proposals before the House today, Ministers have reflected on views that emerged during the Government’s consultation last year and on what legal practitioners and couples themselves have said. The Bill has a clear purpose in seeking to reduce the conflict that can arise from the current requirements for obtaining a divorce. That is all the Bill does. It will not make divorce painless or an easy choice. It will not take away the difficult decisions couples have to make about their future lives, but it will pluck out the legal sting whose effects can be felt long into the future. This is a matter on which there is wide support for change from the public as well as from legal practitioners. Removing unnecessary conflict from the legal process of divorce will, we believe, create a more amicable environment in which a couple can agree their future arrangements. There is a strong evidence base and consensus underlying the proposals in this Bill. It intentionally does not seek to change other aspects of divorce law where the evidence in support of reform has yet to be gathered and for which a consensus on the nature of the reform needed has yet to emerge. Those are quite separate issues on which we are open to be led by evidence.
Although it is 50 years since the Divorce Reform Act 1969 gave rise to the law we now have, the existing law is often misunderstood by couples when they come to use it. Couples are often surprised to discover that the law requires either a period of separation of at least two years or one party to allege fault against the other. A couple who want to divorce amicably can find the law pulling them in a different direction.
The Government’s reform allows divorce and civil partnership dissolution only on the ground that the marriage or civil partnership has broken down irretrievably, a ground we will retain. Under the existing law, however, the person who seeks a divorce must currently satisfy the court of at least one of five facts, as the statute calls them, before the court can hold that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and grant the divorce. In the dissolution of a civil partnership, the material difference is that the adultery fact is not available. It will be convenient to speak in terms of marriage and divorce, but the principles and effects apply equally to civil partnerships and their dissolution.
About two out of five divorces take a separation route. If both spouses agree to the divorce, they must have been separated for at least two years before an application to the court can be made. If the other spouse does not agree to the divorce, five years is the only separation fact available. It seems to us very unlikely that a marriage can be patched up when the people in it have been living separate lives for years. The marriage is likely to have been over by the time they separated, but a separation fact is the only route available if someone is unwilling to make allegations about the other spouse’s conduct. For victims of domestic abuse, including controlling or coercive behaviour, doing so may well be difficult and, indeed, unsafe. Having to live apart for so long will for many people only delay the inevitable legal ending of the marriage. It can also be difficult, not least because the court can make final orders on the financial position of the parties only on divorce.
Some people will say that the Government are introducing divorce without blame, but the truth is that we have had for half a century a route that allows couples to divorce without blame and by mutual consent. That route, however, requires them to be in the limbo of separation for at least two years: living separate lives, but still legally married and unable to make arrangements for the future. The Government do not believe that this requirement serves a useful purpose. Furthermore, the complex rules around what counts as a continuous period of separation can deter people from trying to move back together lest they have to start the separation period anew.
About three out of five divorces proceed on the basis of the conduct facts: the person seeking the divorce must evidence behaviour, adultery or, in rare cases, desertion on the part of the other spouse. With no prior period of separation needed, the law incentivises making allegations about conduct for those who do not want to wait. Sometimes, one spouse has behaved despicably. As I have said, that does not always mean it is safe for the other to put the details to the court, knowing their spouse will see them. Sometimes neither spouse has done anything particularly wrong and a series of trivial incidents might be presented so that they pass muster. The court itself has no practical means by which to investigate allegations made about a failed marriage and must take these at face value. A mere handful of cases proceed to trial, even among the 2% of cases in which respondents indicate their initial intention to contest the divorce. Only some of those dispute the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage; for most, it is the choice of fact and the supporting detail of the allegations. It is plainly absurd that the law facilitates conflict over the detail when the couple agree that the marriage is over.
Nothing in this legal drama gets to the real reasons why the marriage failed or helps people to move on. Worse, allegations can grind away at the majority of respondents who do not contest the divorce. No one wants to face a catalogue of real or perceived failings in their most intimate relationship—allegations that can sour attempts to make arrangements about the future. Conflict can have a particularly damaging and, indeed, lasting impact on children and their view of each parent. It can undermine good co-parenting; in fact, research shows that it is conflict between parents that is linked to greater social and behavioural problems among children rather than the separation and divorce itself. The law is also completely out of step with the constructive conciliatory approach that family law takes in other areas and that practitioners take every day.
This Government believe it is time to change this damaging situation. The Bill creates the conditions for a better prospect of moving forward more amicably and constructively, which is also the approach taken by members of Resolution. Indeed, Resolution’s chair, Margaret Heathcote, has said that
“because of our outdated divorce laws”
practitioners have effectively been working
“with one arm tied behind their backs.”
This Bill will change that. It is also a Bill with children’s best interests at heart.
With all this in mind, I turn briefly to the main provisions in the Bill, to explain the revision of the current process within the framework of the existing law. It is not a new process, merely an adjustment of what already takes place. The Bill therefore keeps the two-stage process that will be familiar to your Lordships as the decree nisi and decree absolute. In a modernisation of language to help couples, these will be called “conditional orders” and “final orders”, in line with civil partnership law. However, we are introducing for the first time the option for an application for divorce to be made jointly by both parties where the decision to divorce is a mutual one. The need to confirm to the court that it may make the conditional order as well as to apply to the court for the final order means that a divorce or dissolution is never automatic but remains intentional at each stage and within the control of the party, or the parties where an application is made jointly.
This is what the reform will do. It will retain irretrievable breakdown as the sole legal ground for divorce and dissolution. It will replace the current requirement to evidence irretrievable breakdown through a conduct or separation fact with a statement of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage or civil partnership. Couples will for the first time have the option to make this a joint statement, reflecting for some couples their mutual decision to divorce.
It will remove the possibility of contesting the decision to end the legal relationship. A statement of irretrievable breakdown will be conclusive evidence to the court that the marriage or civil partnership has irretrievably broken down. It will introduce a new minimum period of 20 weeks from the start of proceedings to when the applicant or the joint applicants can confirm to the court that a conditional order may be made. There is currently no minimum period, meaning that decrees nisi are reached as quickly as couples and the court process allow.
Our proposal will allow time to consider the implications of the divorce. Between 2011 and 2018, around two-thirds of cases reached conditional order in less than our proposed 20-week minimum period. About one in 10 cases did so within eight weeks, and four in 10 cases between nine and 16 weeks. Our reform is in no measure introducing so-called quickie divorce; for around 80% of couples the divorce will actually take longer than it does currently. In addition to the new minimum period of 20 weeks, the six-week minimum period between conditional and final orders will remain. As is the case now, the divorce will not be able to proceed to conditional order unless the court is satisfied in relation to service on the respondent.
It is time to end what has been termed the blame game. It is time to minimise the harm to children that can arise from the legal process and not give it a chance to worsen where conflict already exists. The reforms that we have set out today will deliver a revised process of divorce that protects all our interests in marriage, reduces the potential for conflict and its impact on children, and is fit for the 21st century. I commend the Bill to the House, and I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister based his speech on what he termed realism, and he gave a number of figures to that effect. I think he was less sure-footed on the points of principle and where dangers or problems might possibly arise from the trend that he now accepts—although I say from the start that I broadly accept the case for the Bill. Your Lordships will be aware of the ecclesiastical law basis of much of our family law—“wives, wills and wrecks”. In the past it was linked with the concern of marriage as a sacrament—“Let no man put asunder that which God has ordained”—and I try, albeit very imperfectly, to look at issues through Christian spectacles.
The worthy aim in the past was permanence, however unrealistic in actual situations. Today we are moving in a different direction, with its own dangers. I saw one—perhaps absurd—example of such dangers in yesterday’s Daily Mail relating to a case in the US. The “Baywatch” star Pamela Anderson, who is a serial monogamist and perhaps an eternal optimist, was married on 20 January in what we are told was for both parties the fifth time. The marriage, we are told, lasted for about 12 days. That is perhaps the ultimate cheapening of the institution of marriage.
My experience is limited, but divorce was the bread and butter of young barristers when they started on their career. I was called to the Bar in 1969, between the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which established irretrievable breakdown, and the consolidation Act, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. It was of course the time of the remarkable Lord Denning, who, in spite of the legislation, pushed beyond the frontiers the case for vulnerable people, particularly women. He was extraordinarily progressive in his field, but extraordinarily reactionary in other fields—in what he might have called the “law of master and servant”, which I think we now call industrial relations law.
The procedure for a new barrister was very simple at the time. I had my precedents from Rayden ready and to hand in chambers. Solicitors would send me a brief to settle the divorce petition, with perhaps a dozen examples of conduct during, say, a 10-year marriage, with none of the 10 cases being particularly strong in itself but in aggregate making a case that appeared at first sight to be possibly formidable. Yet surely it is only in heaven that there is a marriage without such incidents over such a period—I speak as someone who has been married happily for 56 years.
As a young barrister, I began to doubt whether what I was doing corresponded with the realities of married life, with the 100% to 0% position on fault. In particular, I doubted whether this adversarial method was justified in the public interest, because of its effect on children and on the ultimate financial settlement. I regretted that there was no provision for mediation. Perhaps in closing the Minister might indicate the Government’s position on mediation—of trying to find, in very difficult personal situations and if possible, some means of reconciliation. It figures in no way in the Bill.
Further, in my early experience, I was asked to advise on whether legal aid should be granted to a petitioner on the facts and often said no in the public interest, because the grounds appeared to me to be so flimsy. I remember one case in which the potential petitioner said, “I am a doggy person; he is not a doggy person” and thought that this was simple grounds. Clearly, the state has an interest in not continuing an empty shell of a relationship, particularly if children are involved, but equally in not encouraging easy divorce. One is led to ask, what are the next steps? Is this the end of a process? Where ultimately will this trend lead? Therefore, although I broadly support the main thrust of the Bill, I have certain hesitations.
There is the question of time, for example, which was considered during the passage of the Family Law Act 1996, which was never brought into force. The then Government had proposed a minimum period of one year. Parliament disagreed, considering that not long enough, and amended the period to 18 months. Under this proposed system of unilateral divorce on demand, the period would be reduced to six months. That is 20 weeks between the start of proceedings and a further six weeks from the conditional to the final order. Further, the Bill gives the Government power to promise to change the period by SI. Could the Minister indicate whether he agrees with my analysis? It appears that the court may indeed reduce the period even further. What guidance do the Government propose to give to judges on the principles on which they should consider reducing the period further? Could the Minister confirm that my reading of Clause 1 in terms of timing is correct?
Yes, the Bill is broadly acceptable, but if the trend continues further along this road, I hope that the Government accept that there are real dangers.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, enabling as it does no-fault divorce to be introduced to potentially take some of the tension and emotional strain out of leaving a marriage. It also enables joint petitions to take the sting out of what is already a difficult time. Having fault as a ground for divorce can lead to recriminations—something children traumatised enough at the break-up of their parents do not need to witness.
Another aspect is that one partner can petition and the other will no longer have the power to contest, even when it is apparent to all that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Contested divorces are relatively uncommon, with only about 2% contesting the petition for divorce and only a handful of those going on to contest at the final hearing, but these are sad cases indeed and much unnecessary suffering can be caused.
If I may pray for the Minister’s patience, I will ask about the relevance of the spousal veto for trans people. As I understand it, when the Bill becomes law, if the spouse who has not transitioned refuses to grant permission for gender recognition, the transitioning spouse can petition for divorce; their spouse who has refused to sign cannot stop the divorce, or subsequently stop their spouse from formal recognition of the transition. It just seems wrong to me that, in some cases, recognition cannot take place unless the transitioning spouse gets divorced. I understand that the Government are adamant that the spousal veto is without the scope of the Bill, but I am sure the Minister is aware of the strength of feeling and sense of injustice felt by trans people—indeed, by anyone who supports their rights—not to be discriminated against in this way.
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, is in her place today. I welcome her to this place and thank her for all the brilliant campaigning work that she has done for the LGBT+ community. I see that her name is on the speakers’ list to make her maiden speech in this debate; I know she will make a great contribution towards furthering the cause of equalities in this place.
I would like to raise a few other concerns for people who may conceivably be disadvantaged by these changes, and I would appreciate the assurances of the Minister on these points. First, I will address the 26-week overall period. There is currently no minimum time in which a divorce can be granted. The introduction of a minimum overall timeframe of 26 weeks seems helpful in ensuring that couples wishing to divorce do not act in haste and repent, as the saying goes, at leisure. We know that both partners need to have been married for at least a year, in most circumstances, but there is no period of reflection built into the divorce process, as recommended by the Law Society and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
A couple could have a row, then if one partner completes the petition application—maybe online—the whole legal process would commence. Most marriages have their rocky patches but, in my view, a period of reflection would facilitate sober consideration of the enormity of the step to be taken, enabling them to think about it and discuss it with a marriage counsellor. If they still feel the same at the end of the period of reflection—the Law Society recommends that the first three months be litigation-free—then nothing is lost. The Law Society also recommends wider support, information and signposting to marriage and relationship support services, and to non-court-based dispute resolution services.
Secondly, I know that financial settlements are deemed outside the scope of the Bill, but the Law Society briefing is clear:
“We also strongly recommend that there is very clear signposting within the online divorce and dissolution process to the need to properly resolve financial matters before final decree.”
If the final decree is awarded before a financial order is made, there must be clear evidence that there will be no meaningful financial prejudice. I do not know how we build this into the Bill, but I think it is exceptionally important, given the tortuous lengths to which some people will go to advantage themselves financially in the divorce settlement.
Thirdly, there is the question of when the six months starts. In my view, that has to be when the petition is served, not when it is filed. Professor David Hodgson, of the International Family Law Group, says:
“There is no duty to serve at the start of the 20 weeks. It can be any time before the start of the first decree.”
He makes the point that one party could conceivably have only six weeks to respond. However, if the six months starts on the date of service, what would happen in the case of abandonment, where the other party cannot be traced, or where they are away for weeks at a time? In such exceptional circumstances, I think there would need to be a phrase saying that every reasonable effort must have been made to serve the petition before the 20-week first-stage clock starts ticking.
Those are the main issues that I wanted to raise. However, the Law Society has also raised a number of smaller issues. One is the cost of applying for a divorce. To my mind—and that of the Law Society—at £550 the application fee is too much and is discriminatory to couples without that sort of money available. It would be pretty counterproductive if a couple had to stay together, with all the misery and distress that entails, because they could not afford to get divorced.
The Law Society also thinks that simpler language would help people, particularly where English is not their first language. I appreciate that some simplification has already been made to the terms, such as replacing “decree nisi” and “decree absolute” with “conditional order” and “final order” and replacing “petitioner” with “applicant”. In a society where, for some, English is not their first language, simple and straightforward language throughout would be particularly helpful. Let us have language that anybody—even totally non-legal people like me—can understand. And the issue is not just language but the complexity of the application process. It needs to be as simple and straightforward as possible to be fully inclusive to all.
I will leave Professor Liz Trinder of the Nuffield Foundation with the final word:
“Divorce will always be an extremely difficult time for couples, but these reforms will help make sure that the law does not make it worse”.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, I am greatly looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, and I welcome her to this House, which I am sure will benefit greatly from her expertise, campaigning zeal and commitment to debates on justice and equality.
Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the motivation behind the Government’s Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill. As we have already heard, they want to make divorce less complicated, less acrimonious and less harmful. Who could possibly argue with that? I like the revised terminology that the Bill suggests, and I agree that, at first sight, this looks like a sensible response to shortcomings in a process that is currently unsatisfactory and often seems to lack transparency or fairness.
However, this deceptively simple piece of legislation actually creates more difficulties than it resolves. One has to do with the nature of marriage itself and our commitment to it as a society—I shall confine my comments to marriage rather than civil partnership.
Marriage, as we all know, is not just a social arrangement between two adults or even a contract that can be ended at will. It involves solemn binding vows and has for centuries been a significant building block for social cohesion. Its benefits are generally recognised, not least for the upbringing of any children resulting from the marriage. While in certain circumstances divorce may well be the least-worst option for some couples, the Bill promotes individual choice over and at the expense of the sort of commitment, self-giving and sacrifice that lie at the heart of the marriage covenant.
Reducing divorce to a statement made by one party that the marriage has broken down undermines the seriousness with which marriage and divorce are regarded and has the unfortunate effect of shifting any power in the process away from the respondent to the person initiating the divorce. What is more, studies suggest that making divorce quicker and easier will significantly increase the already high divorce rate, with all the implications that has both for human misery and financial cost. The Relationships Foundation estimates that family breakdown costs the UK as much as £51 billion every year.
The people experiencing that human misery most acutely will be precisely those who are most vulnerable, in particular children, but also those partners who wish to contest a divorce but would now no longer be able to do so. It may well be that only 2% of divorces are currently contested, but that still amounts to more than 2,500 cases each year. It hardly seems just that someone who wants to challenge irretrievable breakdown should no longer be able to do so. If the Bill simply proposed that divorce could happen when both parties agreed, which is one option, that would be one thing, but to suggest, as it does, that the divorce can go ahead when only one party wants it seems perverse. As for the children, it will further threaten the stability that marriage is meant to provide and contribute still further to the growing incidence of mental health issues among our young people. Divorce is far more than just a temporary crisis; it has long-term effects, as I know well from experience in my own family. I am quite sure that, in this respect, I will not be alone in your Lordships’ House.
A further issue concerns what the Family Law Act 1996 called taking
“take all practicable steps … to save the marriage”,
not least since the respondent may not even hear about the divorce until as little as seven weeks before a court issues the final decree. Little time or consideration is given to any attempt at mediation, reconciliation or the restoration of what has been lost, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out.
It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that the outcome of the Government’s consultation on the Bill, mentioned by the Minister, was a majority not agreeing with the replacement of the so-called five facts with a notification process. People realise that when there is no longer any need to demonstrate irretrievable breakdown, and when there is no longer any possibility of contesting the alleged breakdown, we will in effect be introducing unilateral, no-reason divorce.
We need to reduce the divorce rate in this country, not increase it. I cannot therefore support the Bill as it stands.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, in view of my having introduced the Family Law Act in its previous form, it will not surprise your Lordships that I entirely support this Bill.
I think that I understand the nature of marriage and in my long-ago youthful days I took part in quite a number of defended divorce cases. The idea that these were conducive to saving marriage, elevating its status or anything of that kind is absolute nonsense. I was involved in one divorce case that attracted a great deal of notoriety at the time: the Duke of Argyll against the Duchess. Those of your Lordships who are old enough will remember that it was anything but helpful to the cause of marriage.
It is important to realise, as is obvious, that marriage involves two people and that their continued working together is essential for the continuation of the marriage. The idea that a marriage can continue when one party has lost interest in it is a complete fallacy. The marriage stops, in effect, if one of the parties acts in such a way that they no longer perform the marital obligations. As I have said, the idea that anything can come out of a defended divorce seems extraordinary; I shall be very interested to hear if anybody taking part in this debate is able to say that they have been involved in a defended divorce which, in the result, had good effects for the parties to the marriage and for any children.
It is essential that some detail of this Bill should be looked at in Committee; it is not my purpose today to do that, because this is Second Reading, which deals with the principles of the Bill. I could not be otherwise than in favour of removing the idea that divorce is based upon fault—it is a completely superfluous idea, really, in the present situation. There have been very few, if any, judicial adjudications on that subject in recent years. One was a very unproductive case that I think has in some ways stimulated the need for this Bill. There should be time for both parties to know what is going on. The question of when the case starts is therefore quite important. There is no full definition in the Bill and, as has been pointed out, that service could be quite late is a somewhat dangerous aspect, which can easily be changed in Committee.
Another general point, which is also a subject for Committee, is that marriage in our generation—I am talking about those who are younger as well as the generation to which I belong—is subject to severe stresses, or very severe stresses in some cases. One of the most common is finance, though there are others also: interest in other people and all that kind of thing. These things can bring about problems in marriage. I think that very few people who have been long in marriage can say that there has never been any problem of any sort whatever. It is important, therefore, that the state provides help in that situation. The Bill that I put forward in the past, which became an Act of Parliament, provided for state help. Most of the provisions are still in place and can therefore be utilised.
Something that I think may be dealt with later in more detail is that, although at the very last minute it can look pretty hopeless—my experience has been that if it gets to almost the last minute, it is very difficult to save the situation—the statistics show that about 10% of the cases in which a petition has been lodged never go forward to completion. That suggests that about 10% of these are settled in some way. It is important to use every possible opportunity to try to save a marriage, and therefore it would be very useful, for example, to look to introduce knowledge and information about that at the very last stage and of course before. They should not give up until the last minute.
That is really all I want to say. I should mention that the Christian Institute sent me a kind letter explaining its attitude to this Bill and that it was sending it to me knowing that I did not agree with what it was saying. I expect we will hear some of that later, but the real point is that scripture, with which I am reasonably familiar, requires a code of conduct for those who observe it but also provides for civil law which may deal with another situation. Moses was dealing with a particular situation, our Lord said, in relation to the problems of divorce in his day. We have a duty to do that, whatever our view may be of the sanctity of marriage, which I strongly believe in. I also strongly believe that it is best for all of us if we can observe it and keep it. I have the great blessing, due to the long-suffering nature of my spouse, of having been married happily for 62 years.
It is also my privilege not to stand any longer in the way of the maiden speech to which we are all looking forward.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to address your Lordships’ House for the first time. My introduction was followed swiftly by a general election and the EU withdrawal Act. Neither presented ideal opportunities for a non-controversial maiden, and I beg your Lordships’ forgiveness that I have waited until now to speak.
I thank your Lordships for such a universally warm welcome. In my previous roles at Stonewall, particularly as CEO, I was able to witness the work of this House. I have seen the Lords work together across the Benches and make the world a better place for those who are so often left behind by society. It is the way your Lordships’ House works, with courtesy, consideration and determination to do the right thing, that led me to accept the invitation to serve here. I am grateful to the right honourable Theresa May for giving me this opportunity. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, who was introduced at the same time as me, would agree that who we are matters as much as what we do. I know from the letters and emails I have received, particularly from young women, that my being here matters to them. Seeing somebody like them on these Benches makes them curious about what we do here. That is important for all of us.
In the spirit of celebrating relationships, I take this opportunity to thank my partner Caroline. Caroline has always stood by my side. Sometimes I stand behind her, and sometimes she stands behind me, but mainly we stand next to each other. I know that I would not be here without her support and love. I am also very grateful to my supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. If I am able to make half the contribution that they make to this House, I will be satisfied. My thanks also to the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, for her guidance and of course to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and his exceptional staff, who have answered all my questions, from the mundane to the profound, with patience and warmth.
We are here to talk about divorce, and I will refrain from talking about my own youthful experiences. Nor will I reflect on how a no-fault divorce would have been helpful to me. What I will say is that, as a young gay woman, neither civil partnership nor marriage was an option for me. When it therefore became an option, I—and many others, I suspect—thought I should give it a go. Just because a person can enter a civil partnership or marriage does not mean they necessarily should.
I welcome an opportunity to simplify our institutions and how we use them. Making it easier to divorce when a relationship has broken down is vital. Your Lordships will be aware that in this country we now have four partnership models: marriage for opposite-sex couples, marriage for same-sex couples, civil partnership for opposite-sex couples and civil partnership for same-sex couples. This House heard the compelling arguments to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, and I agree with them. I also know how important civil partnerships are to same-sex couples. But do we need four separate models?
I take this opportunity to declare an active interest in God, and, as a practising Christian, I understand how important it is to some people that marriage for same-sex couples is different from marriage for opposite-sex couples. I am not sure whether it remains necessary, however, to make the legal distinction between the two; the so-called “quad lock” that prevents the Church of England marrying same-sex couples could remain in place without the need to maintain two separate legal institutions. I am also aware that, as the Minister referenced, some specific issues apply to opposite-sex marriages but not to same-sex marriages. This is my maiden so I will, in keeping with the title, refrain from giving a precise explanation as to why only opposite-sex couples can commit adultery. Like the quad lock, adultery for opposite-sex couples could be retained—your Lordships are most welcome to it—but I still think that we could simplify our institutions.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has already outlined, there is an unintended consequence of retaining these multiple models. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 pre-dates the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. When a couple is married and one person in that marriage transitions—that is, changes sex—and wishes to receive a gender recognition certificate, their partner must consent to change their marriage from an opposite-sex one to a same-sex one, or vice versa. If the partner refuses, their spouse cannot receive a gender recognition certificate. So if Laura is married to Michael—they have an opposite-sex marriage—and Laura changes and becomes Simon, Michael has to agree that their opposite-sex marriage can become a same-sex marriage. If Michael refuses, Simon cannot receive a gender recognition certificate.
Of course, Simon and Michael may not want to stay married. It currently takes two years to receive a gender recognition certificate, and the introduction of no-fault divorce will make it easier for them to separate before Simon applies for his new certificate. If Michael does not want a divorce, however, he currently has the power to stop his spouse transitioning. This does not seem fair or right, and his right of veto exists because marriage for same-sex couples is a different institution from marriage for opposite-sex couples.
Making divorce easier is common sense. It helps couples navigate more easily what is often a distressing time. However, I would ask government that we explore opportunities to simplify things further. Marriage is marriage in the eyes of the law, and as a nation we are proud that we extended it to same-sex couples. Anything we can do to help trans people, and their families, navigate the changes that are happening in their lives seems sensible too.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it is a very real privilege for me to follow the noble Baroness and to be the first to congratulate her on an excellent and indeed compelling maiden speech. As we gathered from what she said, she served for 14 years with Stonewall, for much of it as its chief executive. The name Stonewall calls to mind a fixed, immovable object. But under her leadership—we have heard about her campaigning skills—that was very far from the case.
“I grew up, learnt, fought, cried, cajoled, persuaded and sometimes we triumphed. All with the most amazing group of people you can imagine”,
she has said of her time with that organisation. It is no exaggeration to say that during her time and under her leadership, far from standing still, the organisation transformed the way that LGBT rights are respected and understood across the country, to a degree that only a few years earlier seemed almost unattainable.
The organisation gave support to the development of the law by, among other things, helping to promote what became the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 for England and Wales, and the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014. Partnerships were developed with many organisations across the public and private sectors too, and she has spoken in favour of bridging the gap that, sadly, still remains between faith leaders and LGBT communities. Given that unique background, and the insight into the subject which she demonstrated to us in her maiden speech, she has much to contribute to the work of the House, and we look forward very much to hearing from her many times in the future.
At first sight, to one who was brought up in the tradition of fault-based divorce, the reform introduced by the Bill is startling, but it does not require much thought and reflection to appreciate the benefits that will flow from it, so I support the Bill and hope that it will proceed on its way with the minimum of delay.
Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, my experience as a beginner in the profession was in the early days of fault-based divorce—the undefended divorce. I was not as fortunate as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who had defended divorces. My experience was always that they were undefended, but fault in one way or another still had to be proved. The concept of the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage had not yet been invented, nor had separation with consent. Adultery, desertion or cruelty were the grounds available.
The easiest way to divorce where both parties were reconciled to the fact that the marriage was at an end was to allege adultery. All you needed, if you were bringing proceedings, was for the other party to book a hotel room, arrange to be there with the paramour on a given date, provide a photograph to enable him—it was almost always him—to be identified and employ two private investigators to visit the room on the prearranged date. It was a bit of a charade, but it was in fact no laughing matter. The stigma of having committed adultery was unavoidable; so, too, if this was the ground relied on, was that of cruelty.
Happily, the grounds currently available in Scotland are based on irretrievable breakdown, matching those available in England and Wales, which the Bill seeks to replace. As far as I know, a similar reform has not yet been proposed for Scotland, but it might make sense for it to follow this example.
Why do I support the Bill? Its immediate effect is to remove the elements of blame and conflict from the process. Those practitioners who are much closer to the realities than I ever was will know far better than I do what this means. A chance conversation which I had the other day with a recently qualified lawyer who now handles divorces in London brought this point home to me. “Please, please, pass the Bill,” she said. “The culture of blame does so much damage. It makes sorting out all the other things that need to be sorted out so much more bitter and difficult.” The fact is that the process is hard enough without having to attribute and prove blame for the breakdown. The same can be said where a civil partnership breaks down irretrievably, so I support what the Bill seeks to do there, too.
I have, however, two concerns about possible effects of the Bill in Scotland. I am conscious that this is a Second Reading debate, not Committee, but I should like to make these points. The first relates to Clause 6, which extends to Scotland under Clause 7(2). Surprisingly wide delegated powers are to be conferred on the Lord Chancellor in relation to Scotland, including the power to amend, repeal or revoke an Act of the Scottish Parliament if that is consequential on any provision made by the Bill. These powers are surprising, given that the subject matter of the Bill has nothing to do with divorce, dissolution and separation in that jurisdiction. Why is this needed and what will it be used for? Have the Scottish Government been consulted and can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that their consent will be sought if the power is ever to be exercised?
I must stress that that is not an idle question. I take as an example paragraph 58 of the schedule, which amends the definition of exempt transactions in Schedule 1 to the Land and Buildings Transaction (Scotland) Act 2013. Under paragraph 4, a transaction is exempt if it is in connection with a divorce that is effected in pursuance of a court order or an agreement made in contemplation of the divorce. Paragraph 58 removes the words in paragraph 4(a), which describe the orders that are currently made in divorce cases in Scotland, and replaces them with words that do not. That seems to be designed to accommodate in Scots law the reformed system being introduced for England and Wales, but the way this is being done is surely a mistake. It creates a gap in the definition which may well deprive parties in Scotland of the benefit of the exemption. I should be grateful if the Minister would look again at this provision and consider carefully whether it should be amended, or perhaps removed. I cite that as an example of my concern about the scope of Clause 6.
My second point is on a jurisdiction issue. The availability of divorce on the basis of a unilateral, unchallengeable statement may seem an attractive way out of an unhappy marriage by people living in Scotland, but they should have access to it only if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts. The same can be said of Northern Ireland. The easier the system is, the more important it is to be sure that it is available only to those who are entitled to take advantage of it. We can recall the attraction of Scotland in earlier days when it was possible to obtain a divorce there on the ground of adultery alone, whereas in England there had in addition to be proof of cruelty or desertion for two years. From time to time, attempts by people from England to take advantage of that system were rejected by the Scottish courts because they were unable to show that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
Jurisdiction in England and Wales in those cases under what is now retained EU law is based on the partners’ residence or domicile. So persons who are resident in Scotland or Northern Ireland and domiciled there should not have access to this simplified system, even if they agree. So how is this to be controlled, if at all? How is the maximum period laid down in Clause 1(7) to accommodate the time needed to seek and obtain advice—possibly with the benefit of legal aid in Scotland—where the other party to the marriage wishes to challenge the proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction? I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister on these points.
Leaving them aside, however, I repeat that I welcome the Bill and wish it success as it passes through this House.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, on a lucid, thoughtful and challenging maiden speech. I also welcome her to this House.
I am, uncharacteristically, in almost complete disagreement with the Government on the main measure of the Bill: the introduction of no-fault divorce. It is fundamentally flawed because it not only ignores the urgent need to strengthen families but weakens them. It is an inconvenient truth that, as we seek to make the United Kingdom match-fit for a competitive global market, we are a world leader when it comes to family breakdown. We have high rates of single parenthood, divorce and separation, and large numbers of children entering local authority care. Across the OECD, the average proportion of children growing up with both their parents is 84%. We are fourth from bottom on this metric, with a little over two-thirds of our children living in intact families, compared with Finland, for instance, where that figure is over 95%.
British adults brought up by one biological parent are two and a half times more likely than those brought up by both to be in trouble with the police or in prison. Similarly, the Newcastle study tracking more than 1,000 babies born in 1947 showed that a boy’s likelihood of conviction before his early 30s was doubled if he had experienced divorce or separation before the age of five. Broken and dysfunctional family lives drive so many of the social problems that this Government are grappling with, particularly knife and gang crime; county lines; mental ill health in children, young people and adults; educational underachievement; early pregnancy; drug and alcohol addiction; and poor productivity.
Father absence is having a terrible impact. Recently, Croydon looked at 60 children in deep trouble to identify and learn from any patterns in their experiences. Most startling was the scale of father absence. In more than two-thirds of homes, fathers had walked out; this was often the turning point in a child’s behaviour.
The Government were elected on a manifesto that explicitly recognised that a strong society requires strong families. This will have resonated with the electorate. The Onward pamphlet, The Politics of Belonging, emphasises:
“While Westminster and Whitehall are still locked into a paradigm that places the extension of liberty above all other ends of public policy, the public mood has changed … If the price of greater freedom is rootlessness and disconnection, voters no longer seem to think it is worth the cost.”
They prioritise
“not rugged individualism but resilient communities.”
Given the scale of our family breakdown challenge, we should be pressing ahead with our manifesto commitment to strengthen families by championing family hubs and improving the Troubled Families programme. Stabilising families has to be high on the agenda. The Croydon report concluded that if targeted support and a holistic family plan had been provided earlier, these children might have achieved better outcomes.
What was not in our manifesto is no-fault divorce. Allegedly, there is a lot of support for this Bill. Lawyers and judges will of course be in favour of sanitising the messiness of divorce. Picking through people’s private lives must be harrowing. Yet when the general public were asked recently, “Should fault continue to be one of the possible grounds for divorce?” 71% thought that it should. A very different YouGov survey question found that 69% did not agree with the statement, “People should be able to seek a divorce without having to show their spouse is at fault.” Such a response is not at all surprising as I suspect that most people are aware that it is already possible to divorce without showing fault. Yet the Ministry of Justice relied on this survey result when dismissing the strength of feeling in response to its own consultation where 83% wanted to retain the right for an individual to contest a divorce. Only 15% stated that this right should be removed. Some 80% did not agree with the proposal to replace the five facts with a notification process, while a mere 17% were in favour.
The Government decided that certain, perhaps religiously motivated, interest groups had responded negatively in response to a campaign and should therefore be ignored, yet it was a campaign by lawyers and the Times that launched this Bill in the first place. The elites must be heard but not the “ordinary people”, who are deeply affected. Does that sound familiar? It is hardly meaningful consultation.
I understand that the fault cited may bear no resemblance to the reason the marriage faltered, but the removal of fault sends a very strong signal that marriage can be unilaterally exited with no available recourse for the party who has been left. Commitment within marriage will become illusory and unreliable. The Government’s plans create de jure unilateral divorce on the grounds that we already have it de facto. No-fault divorce is state-approved unilateral divorce.
Where does it leave the weaker party—often the primary carer, often the woman, and often the financially disadvantaged? University of Essex research found that women tend to experience a 12% drop in income after divorce compared with men who experience more than a 30% increase in income.
Where does it leave the institution of marriage? Some argue that it will strengthen marriage because the barrier to entry is lower if parties know they can exit cleanly. That suggests that in reality, people are making a much more contingent and shaky commitment, so why go to the bother of getting married at all? Research relied on by the Ministry of Justice found that marriage rates reduce following the introduction of no-fault divorce by about 3% to 4% and the likelihood of divorcees remarrying declines by around one third to one half. As Professor Justin Wolfers says,
“the benefits of marriage (tying your spouse to a contract) are reduced in a no-fault world”.
Less marriage will tend to mean more cohabitation, an inherently less stable relationship form. The whole of society is affected when the contract of marriage becomes devoid of meaning.
How will it impact divorce rates? Such reform does lead to an immediate spike in the divorce rate that “dissipates” over time. Let us be clear: that spike is made up of people—adults and children. If couples are struggling to persevere, the introduction of no-fault divorce undermines an important cultural underpinning of assumed permanence to marriage which could push such marginal couples into divorce. I am not of course arguing that couples should stay together if there is irresolvable violence, abuse or conflict. It is unsurprising if the numbers drop back, given that people are marrying less and the divorce rate is calculated as a percentage of married couples.
Regardless, the Government should commit to tracking the trends that follow this legislation. It is not enough that the Office for National Statistics collects the data. The Government need to publish reports on family stability, as they committed to do when the Welfare Reform and Work Act was discussed in this House.
How will it affect children? I support this Government’s broad policy intent to reduce parental conflict, which can affect children’s well-being so profoundly when it is frequent, intense and unresolved. However, the idea that removing the need to cite fault drains an appreciable level of conflict out of a separating family seems naive in the extreme. Conflict heightens around financial and children issues, which of course are considered separately.
A spouse deserted by an unfaithful partner, whose path to a new life with his lover has been made smoother by the state, will hardly entertain warm and fuzzy feelings about him just because he did not conjure up allegations of fault against her to achieve that end—especially if she, as the respondent, has less than 20 weeks to adjust to her new position because the clock starts the minute he applies. This might be intentionally when she is on holiday, abroad or otherwise out of contact. Such an imbalance between applicant and respondent must be addressed. I know there is concern about coercive and controlling respondents who might trap the applicant by refusing to be served notice, but yet again we are warping family policy in response to domestic abuse, instead of seeking a more nuanced approach that would benefit society more broadly.
This issue lies at the root of previous Governments’ general agnosticism about family stability, despite evidence that parental separation—not just parental conflict—is an adverse childhood experience. Moreover, the ending of low-conflict rather than high-conflict marriages is more damaging to children. They blame themselves and internalise the sense that no relationships can be relied on, even those that seemed fine on the surface.
Another imbalance needs to be addressed, and we have heard of it today already: the Bill only assists couples to divorce, despite all the negative social ramifications this can entail. There is no support to help struggling couples stay together. This sends a terrible signal: we are on your side if you want easier divorce, but if you want help to face your marital difficulties you are on your own. If we have to have this Bill—I sincerely wish we do not—it has to come with an expansion of support for relationships.
We should listen to those who have been through the pain of divorce. Two-thirds of divorcees agree that family breakdown is a serious problem in Britain today and that more should be done to prevent families breaking up. The DWP has established an important bridgehead in this area with its Reducing Parental Conflict programme. This should be expanded in the spending review and delivered across the country in the promised family hubs.
Nearly two-thirds of British adults in their second or more marriage agree that it is too easy to get a divorce today—and that was before this unnecessary Bill. What good will it accomplish that comes even close to remedying the harm it will inflict by further emptying marriage vows of meaningful promise? The argument that it will benefit marriage by removing the need to cite fault to exit is shameless casuistry—which, according to a quote in the Oxford English Dictionary,
“destroys by Distinctions and Exceptions, all Morality, and effaces the essential Difference between Right and Wrong.”
I return to my opening remarks. This Bill blurs the distinction between right and wrong. The public did not vote for it or support it at consultation so, as is the function of this House, I urge the Government to think again.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I add my warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, and congratulations on her fine maiden speech. I hope that ordained speakers can bring a distinct perspective to the deliberations of your Lordships’ House today, since—unless I do noble Lords a grave disservice—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle and I from this Bench and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, are the contributors to our debate who conduct marriages. I have never lost the sense of immense privilege of being with two people at such a significant moment in their lives, and of the joyfulness of the occasion, their commitment to one another and the commitments they make so significantly together and before others. Such commitments are integral to the foundations of their lives together, but also to the lives of their friends, communities and society as a whole. If your Lordships will forgive my brief lapse into theological jargon, marriage represents not just a contract but a covenant between two people, and between them and society. It is about not contractual rights but covenantal generosity. It represents a good for them and for us all.
Moreover, my sense of privilege has also extended to helping couples get ready for their marriage and then for their journey beyond—sometimes, of course, with pain, separation and divorce. Perhaps I am saying nothing more than that marriage is a very solemn thing and a very big deal, that the vows couples make are serious and must be treated seriously. This means that, while I wholeheartedly endorse the overall aspiration of reducing conflict when marriages break down, which is a good one, I hope the Government will recognise that the Bill by itself will not succeed as claimed in removing—a very strong claim indeed—issues that create conflict.
Creating divorce by fiat and assertion might lead to conflict. I have been reminded of the important provision quoted in part already from the Family Law Act 1996 that
“parties to a marriage which may have broken down are to be encouraged to take all practicable steps, whether by marriage counselling or otherwise, to save the marriage”.
That seems a laudable approach and one ignored by the Bill. The possibility—even the probability—that a marriage has broken down is best explored by the couple together with the support and guidance of others before any definitive conclusion is reached. Reducing the process of divorce to a single simple statement by one party risks squeezing out such exploration. In seeking to minimise pain, the Bill also risks removing the opportunity for reflection and the chance of reconciliation.
I wonder too whether the Bill risks creating the sort of strain it seeks to avoid. As I understand it, it is entirely feasible that one party in a marriage might know that the other considers that the marriage has come to an end when they receive a statement via the court. That seems wholly undesirable and does not match the Government’s stated intention that the decision to divorce is a “considered one”.
Perhaps my biggest concern about the Bill is that it is partial reform. Yes, it seeks to reduce conflict and remove the requirement to allege fault when marriage breaks down, but a significant strain, often with acrimony and hardship, is arguments over the division of assets and the arrangements made for the children of a marriage. If we are truly to address the financial and emotional fallout, to reduce family conflict and to minimise the impact on children, which again are the Government’s laudable intentions, I suggest that fuller and wider reforms be considered. Divorce needs to be kinder to all involved, rather than easier.
Sometimes relationships no longer work, and marriages break down. It is right that some marriages come to an end with the least degree of animosity possible between the different parties. My concern is that the Bill before the House discourages reflection and hence the possibility of reconciliation, and will not have the effect which the Government desire. It represents a missed opportunity for wider and vital reforms.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, on the clarity and eloquence of her maiden speech, and I welcome her to the House.
In this debate, I wish to raise the issue of pensions in relation to divorce. There is a significant pensions gender gap. The average pension pot of a woman aged 65 is one-fifth that of a 65 year-old man’s, and over 20 years, women receive £29,000 less in state pension than men. This deficit is set to continue, with all else being equal, closing by only 3% by 2060. Women are often most acutely disadvantaged by divorce. Therefore, I believe that pension-sharing should routinely be considered in divorce cases.
The ABI points out that of 369 court files studied, 80% revealed at least one relevant pension, yet only 14% contained a pension-sharing order. Silver splitters—people divorcing in their 50s—is the largest increasing trend in divorcing couples. Women at this point are at particular risk, as they do not have many working years left to build up an independent savings pot or pension. They are also more likely to live with the children.
I suggest that the following issues need consideration under the Bill. The lack of awareness or understanding of pensions among divorcing couples is consistently an issue; this knowledge gap extends to family lawyers and judges and means that the lack of inclusion of pension assets is not being considered when the judge is granting a settlement. Pension schemes are not obliged to allow an ex-spouse to join in their own right, with their pension share on divorce. Furthermore, for defined benefit transfers, pension trustees are not obliged to obtain consent from the partner to a pension-sharing order before transferring a defined benefit pension. Therefore, wives are at risk if ex-husbands take the money out without informing them.
Costs of an expert valuation can be prohibitive and put people off including pensions in divorce proceedings, leaving ex-spouses exposed to making decisions regarding which route is best for them and what to do with their pension share without advice. There is no standard practice for calculating pension valuations, and historical wide variances between expert pension report valuations, depending on the basis used for the calculations, has led to mistrust in the system and the potential for ex-spouses to miss out.
Timing and delays in obtaining relevant information for the expert reports from trustees and pension providers cause significant issues for solicitors, leading many to abandon considering pensions as part of the settlement. Pensions are a joint asset, so pension sharing is a clean break for all parties, setting out how much the ex-spouses will receive, and giving each spouse their own pension pot to manage as they wish. Future pension payments are not affected by the death or remarriage of either spouse, and the awardee can take a pension from the age of 55, rather than waiting until their ex-spouse retires. Making pension sharing the default option on divorce will provide both parties with retirement savings and help to ease the pensions gender gap.
Consideration of pension rights is consistent with other measures in the Bill, such as the joint approach, the removal of blame and the seeking of fairness. I hope that these issues will be fully considered in the passage of the Bill, including measures to address the injustice of the pension gender gap, which affects such large numbers of women in later life.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome my noble friend Lady Hunt to this House and look forward very much to working with her. I congratulate her on her excellent speech. I welcome this limited but important Bill. It has always been obvious, to me anyway, that the requirement in divorce proceedings to show irretrievable breakdown of a marriage by declaring a so-called legal fact of fault—very often adultery—has been deeply hurtful to a respondent when the so-called fact may not be a fact at all.
I do not accept that the Bill will lead to an increase in the overall number of divorces over time. I refer to this having been through a divorce. There was no financial conflict or conflict over parental responsibilities, yet the divorce, for me and, I think, for my husband, was a deeply and profoundly painful experience. I believe that every divorce is. One could say that ours was as good as it could be but it was terrible, and I will never forget it.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said that the Bill should make the law kinder not easier. In my view, that is exactly what the Bill does. It makes the law kinder. It does not make it easier; it is purely kinder, and I very much support it for that reason.
I am grateful to Exeter University, which sent us the research evidence to support what most of us already know from our personal experience of the divorces of family and friends if not our own. A legal fact of fault is not a fact at all: it is simply an allegation. As one lawyer put it, “It’s a farce. You cobble up some words that will do the business.” I do not support law that is a farce, and I am very grateful that the Government are trying to deal with and eliminate that farce.
Nearly 60% of English and Welsh divorces are granted on a fault fact basis—usually adultery or behaviour—which, significantly, is 10 times more than the rate in neighbouring France and Scotland. Of course, these national differences do not reflect differences in marital morality between different countries: they simply reflect that our current law incentivises people to game the system to secure a divorce in a reasonable timeframe.
Of course, there are significant longer-term consequences of the current law on fault divorce for the couple and, most importantly, their children, as others have alluded to. Inevitably, divorce involving children will generally—not in my case—involve a financial settlement and arrangements for parenting the children, which are highly contentious issues for most. However, having heightened the feelings of animosity between the couple at the very start of the process by requiring allegations—only allegations—to be made, will result in that higher level of animosity carrying all the way through those divorce proceedings and their painful and difficult debates, probably prolonging those proceedings at vast cost, both financial and emotional.
Sadly, my noble friend Lady Deech is unable to be with us today. However, according to her planned speech, she would have expressed her scepticism about the likelihood of the Bill being of any real benefit in reducing the blame game. Of course, no fault is not a magic bullet. If a couple is in conflict about finance or parenting issues, that conflict will exist—the Bill will not eliminate it. However, any reform that reduces the strength of animosity driving the conflict is to be welcomed. I agree with my noble friend that the law will not save marriages, and she is of course right that our main concern should be the children of the divorcing couple.
I personally support the proposed six-month minimum period for a divorce, although I understand that the Government are considering introducing a degree of flexibility in exceptional circumstances. I hope the Minister can explain to the House what those exceptional circumstances might be. A degree of flexibility is probably necessary, but it would be important not to open up the possibility of unnecessary and unwanted delays. I am sure that the Government have borne in mind the research evidence that couples are more likely to settle once they have become accustomed to the notion of separation. The proposed quick process based on no fault might, others have argued, be counterproductive by shortening the period during which a couple might begin to come to terms with the divorce and to settle. Has the Minister considered this possibility? Does he have a response to that concern? I do not share it, but I know others are concerned.
Some apparently argue that the 26-week period is too short to allow parties to reconcile. I do not accept that argument. In my view, reconciliation at that stage is unrealistic. It is argued that up to 10% of petitioners each year abandon the divorce, perhaps due to reconciliation. Such a view fails to take account of the long period of thinking and wondering “should we, shouldn’t we?” before people start the process of seeking a divorce. Successful reconciliation is highly unlikely once proceedings have commenced. Relevant here is the nationally representative court file analysis of 300 cases where only one had ended in an attempted reconciliation. The other withdrawn cases had been due to death or probably a need to delay because of financial problems. I would not put any money on the attempted reconciliation having succeeded.
I understand the Government’s wish to keep this Bill simple. However, a seemingly superfluous requirement at present is that the applicant must reaffirm their intention to divorce on three separate occasions. Comparable jurisdictions apparently require the applicant to confirm their intention to proceed on only one occasion, or perhaps two. Can the Minister indicate whether the Government might look favourably on a little amendment to reduce that number from three to two, or perhaps even one? Perhaps the Government might introduce an amendment themselves.
Finally, there is the law surrounding the financial settlement in divorce cases. I understand that the Government are planning a consultation exercise on this issue. Can the Minister tell the House when the consultation will take place, for how long it will proceed and whether it will include consideration of prenups? I know there are reasonable concerns about prenups, but they deserve serious consideration as a means of reducing conflict over money at the time of a divorce. Also, are the Government committed to allowing parliamentary time to implement reform in that area in this Parliament?
In conclusion, I reaffirm my support for the Bill.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, this has been, to put it mildly, a fascinating debate. I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, making the case for removing fault from the divorce procedure. I listened equally attentively to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, arguing that fault should be maintained. On the one hand, I completely understand how removing fault will make divorces less acrimonious, which may be a good thing. On the other hand, I completely understand that if marriage is a lifelong commitment, with all its extensive public policy benefits, there must be constraints on the freedom to exit. It does not make sense that one should be able to walk out of a serious “till death us do part” commitment unless there has been a serious event, such as adultery, to justify doing so.
I very much believe that marriage is a mutual institution, and so I agree that if one party wants to leave, they cannot be compelled to remain. My concern is that if we change the law simply to give one party the power to end the marriage just because he or she wants to, it will have the effect of making divorce very much more accessible. The truth is that, while it would plainly be unwise and quite wrong for the state to try to hold people in marriages against their will, marriages have been saved and made strong again because divorce was not immediately accessible, and in that context it made complete sense for the couple to exhaust all other options before turning to the very difficult process of divorce.
My concern is that this Bill, in making divorce more accessible, is likely to elicit a greater readiness to turn to divorce and will thereby foster a lower dissatisfaction threshold within marriage when previously couples would have exhibited a greater willingness to stay and fight for their marriage.
I have no doubt at all that, from the narrow administrative perspective of the court, removing fault makes sense. My point, however, is that while we are considering a legal process in which the interests of the courts are very important, this process has potentially huge consequences for society at large. Studies certainly suggest that the provision of easier divorce is likely to give rise to a long-term increase in the divorce rate by up to 10% to 20%. Douglas Allen’s survey of no-fault divorce between 1995 and 2006 suggests an increase of up to 10%, while a study by González and Viitanen suggests an increase of up to 20%. This would constitute a social development that we could well do without.
In addition to this concern, I feel very uncomfortable about the impact of the Bill on the standing of the relevant parties. It seems—albeit unintentionally, I am sure—to create a vulnerable party, which I do not think will resonate with Workington’s sense of fair play. On the one hand, we have the person who wants to leave the marriage—the petitioner. Rather than the petitioner being constrained by the serious nature of the commitment he made on entering the marriage, the Bill enables him to call it a day simply because he is bored. The legislation will greatly enhance his autonomy, enabling him to do what he wants to do regardless of any commitment he may have made on his wedding day. For the petitioner, the Bill as currently framed will extend his personal freedom.
On the other hand, we have the person in the marriage who is not initiating divorce proceedings—the respondent. For them, the divorce could well come as a complete bolt from the blue, because there is now no need for it to be preceded by the conflict inherent in adultery and unreasonable behaviour. Their position is also weakened because the Bill proposes removing their right to contest the divorce—something that 83% of responses to the Government’s consultation preceding the Bill opposed.
If the petitioner wants to leave, he can leave, and within just 26 weeks. The salutary thing about this is the insecurity it would bring to marriages; on the passing of this Bill, anyone who is married would become a potential respondent and could be divorced in just 26 weeks simply because their spouse has changed their mind and no longer wants to be married. As if this were not enough, the Bill will also make the respondent vulnerable to being divorced in what is from their perspective a seven-week process, as Professor Hodson has pointed out. There is no mechanism to compel the petitioner to serve notice on the respondent until he wants the first decree of divorce at the end of the 20-week reflection period. Far from removing conflict, it seems to me that the Bill as currently drafted is likely to greatly exacerbate it.
I am also very concerned about the way in which the interests of the petitioner have been prioritised over those of the children. There has been an attempt to argue that this Bill will help children by liberating them more quickly from unhappy marriages, and without as much conflict as they would witness if fault remained. On both grounds I find this problematic. First, there is an extensive body of literature that shows that divorce does not free children from conflict; it makes conflict a permanent feature of their lives as they are split over two households. Secondly, rather than helping children, conflict-free divorces can be the most difficult to process because they come as a bolt from the blue for no apparent reason. As the social scientist Elizabeth Marquardt has observed:
“The children of low-conflict couples fare worse after divorce because the divorce marks their first exposure to a serious problem. One day, without much warning, their world just falls apart.”
Another thing that I find concerning is the way the Bill designs the divorce process to expedite divorce rather than save marriages. The initial consultation document on divorce reform said:
“The need to make allegations can lay the ground for confrontation with the other spouse right from the start of proceedings. It becomes ingrained as the practical need arises to evidence details of the other spouse’s conduct.”
Mindful of this, it seems unfortunate to me that the statement of irretrievable breakdown is made at the start of the 20-week reflection period, given that between 2003 and 2016 on average more than 12,000 more divorce processes were commenced each year than ever concluded. It is very clear that we should seek to promote reconciliation during the divorce process as well as before it. With this in mind, it would make far more sense to commence the divorce process with a 20-week reflection period that culminated in a declaration of irretrievable breakdown if reconciliation could not be secured, rather than beginning with this very stark statement. There is a similar point to be made about a statement of irretrievable breakdown at the start of the proceedings rather than after the 20-week period.
The problems raised in the Bill as currently drafted are of such a serious nature and so far-reaching that there is a good case for remitting it to a Select Committee for an inquiry.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, on her excellent maiden speech and welcome her to our Cross Benches.
I shall concentrate on two issues: first, the place of children within the divorce process anticipated by the Bill and the need to uphold their best interests throughout; and, secondly, the way in which the Bill proposes to change the rights of the respondent—that is, the spouse who has not initiated the divorce.
The social science evidence is clear that child development benefits enormously from the stability brought about by marriage. In this context, the state has two important responsibilities. First, it should create a public policy context that positively supports marriage through the provision of proper marriage support services and a fiscal environment that makes marriage an accessible option to all, including those on low to average income. Secondly, it should uphold marriage and divorce legislation in such a way that it facilitates divorce without needlessly aggravating conflict, on the one hand, and which does not thereby undermine the marriage commitment on the other.
I am aware that the justification for the Bill before us today is that it will help to reduce conflict. That may benefit the adults concerned but we should not overemphasise the benefits for children. In the first instance, there are some impressive studies suggesting that the long-term consequence of divorce is far more damaging for child development than the divorce process. That really needs to be understood if one is not to get the benefits of minimising conflict in the divorce process out of perspective. Beneath that, however, there is some important research suggesting that conflict is better than no conflict because divorce without conflict makes no sense to children who, in the absence of better explanations, are apt to blame themselves when things go wrong for no apparent reason. Social scientist Elizabeth Marquardt found that
“The children of low-conflict couples fare worse after divorce because the divorce marks their first exposure to a serious problem. One day, without much warning, their world just falls apart.”
Similarly, research by Alan Booth and Paul Amato found that the break-up of a low-conflict family is more harmful to a child than the break-up of a high-conflict family. If the Bill is to proceed, a lot more thought needs to be given to the role of children in this process and how they will be affected by the proposed change in the law.
I now turn to the way the Bill treats the respondent. It effectively introduces a shift in power towards the person wanting to initiate divorce proceedings, the petitioner, and away from the other party to the marriage, the respondent. In the past, the seriousness of the marriage commitment meant that marriage could not be exited at will but only if circumstances demonstrated that the commitment had been broken. There were consequently some external constraints. Under this Bill, however, marriages are released from these constraints, such that if either party wishes to exit the relationship, they can do so simply by starting divorce proceedings, stating that the relationship has irretrievably broken down. No evidence is required to back up this assertion, so while the statement may, on some occasions, mean that the relationship has indeed irretrievably broken down, on other occasions, it may be nothing more than a euphemism for “I do not like being married to you any more.”
Moreover, the Bill removes from the respondent the right to contest the divorce. This means that once the petitioner initiates proceedings he can be confident that, unless he changes his mind, he should be divorced in just 26 weeks. In creating an unconstrained right to divorce, alongside the removal of the respondent’s right to contest it, it seems to me that, as currently drafted, the Bill is vulnerable to being characterised as constituting a “petitioner’s charter” when in truth it should be a charter for all concerned, the petitioner, the respondent and their children.
I am, however, concerned that this shift in power to the petitioner is greatly exaggerated by the failure of the Bill to require the petitioner or the court to tell the respondent when the divorce process begins. Under the Bill, once the petitioner has initiated the divorce, the 20-week reflection and consideration period will begin. The Government have previously stated in their response to the 2018 consultation that this 20-week period is intended
“to ensure that the decision to divorce remains a considered one, providing opportunities for couples to change course.”
I am sure we all agree that that is a laudable aim. It is vital that both parties in a divorce have equal time to consider the decision, reflect upon their marriage and, if possible, see if there are ways that it can be saved.
Under the proposed arrangements in the Bill, however, the 20 weeks start running from when the divorce petition is first lodged, not when both parties are aware of it. This means that the spouse responding to the petition may not receive notice of the petition until a number of weeks later, for reasons such as issues in delivering notice, delays at the court or being overseas. In fact, if the petitioner does not want to tell the respondent, there is nothing—as Professor Hodson has pointed out—to require this until the end of the 20-week reflection period.
When the 20-week period is complete, the court must confirm that the petitioner has informed the respondent before issuing the first decree of divorce. If the petitioner says no, the court will tell him that it cannot issue the decree until he notifies the respondent. In this context, therefore, it is possible that the respondent will find out that they are being divorced only six or seven weeks before they are.
Professor Hodson has anticipated the damage this will bring about:
“Everyone can anticipate the trauma, distress and anger this will cause. The previous four months will be regarded by a respondent as a deceitful lie … It will badly affect opportunities to negotiate terms of any separation. It will set back the chance of resolving financial implications. It encourages the worst sort of marital behaviour.”
I anticipate that in response to this concern, the Minister may reply that moving to a system where the 20 weeks starts when the respondent receives notice could incentivise them to avoid being served notice, and thereby delay the divorce. This, however, is no defence for accepting the current arrangements in the Bill, especially as it already seeks disproportionately to empower the petitioner.
One solution to this problem would be to remove the ability of the petitioner to effect service and place it, instead, in the hands of the court. This would give the court control of the process and appropriate levers to incentivise response to service, including the warning of possible default judgments, if a response is not provided, and written warnings on court paper that the respondent may be liable to additional costs if they do not respond to service. There are also options of deeming service has been provided through proof of delivery at a registered address or a sworn affidavit of service by hand, filed by the server, either lay or professional.
In its analysis of other jurisdictions’ divorce laws, the Nuffield Foundation noted that there was a high level of consistency about when the notification period should commence. It said:
“Starting the clock only once the second party is aware of the application ensures that all parties have the same minimum period of notice. This is an important safeguard where the divorce is an unexpected and unwelcome event.”
The details of reforming the delivery of service in such cases must be sorted out by the Government. If this matter is not addressed, I am advised that the law would be vulnerable to an Article 8 human rights challenge because of the difference in treatment meted out on the respondent vis-à-vis the petitioner, and the difference in treatment experienced by those respondents who are notified by their petitioners at the start of the 20-week period and those who are not until the end.
I am concerned that the Bill is shifting power to the petitioner, leaving the respondent and, importantly, children in a very vulnerable position. As things stand, the Bill leaves a lot to be desired and it needs a lot of revision. I look forward to what I hope the Minister will say when he comes to reply: that this is indeed what is needed.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, it is pretty rare for me these days to feel like a newlywed, after nearly 11 years as Mrs Wyld, but I knew that your Lordships would cheer me up. I congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay; I have only 49 years to go before I catch up with him, and I will do my best to get there. I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, on such a thoughtful maiden speech and very much welcome her to the House.
I confess that I have gone back and forth in my view of this Bill. I am therefore grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for last week’s briefing session, to all who have provided clear and comprehensive briefings, and for the wealth of expertise that we draw on in this House. The breadth of support for the Bill would suggest that no further questions are needed but I confess that, on first sight of it, I was instinctively worried. I asked myself, as others do, whether by removing fault we send a message—to young people in particular—that marriage or a civil partnership is a relatively basic transaction, from which you can walk away without too much trouble.
I am not a lawyer and am fortunate never to have met a matrimonial lawyer for personal reasons, although I very much enjoy their company in your Lordships’ House. Some of my own policy interests are youth mental health, welfare reform and improving education outcomes; I refer to my interests in the register. I have consistently argued that we need to spend much more time thinking about the golden thread that shapes our relationships with others and our self-worth, and about what happens when that thread breaks.
The golden thread is family and home. Of course, many people raise happy and stable families outside of marriage, and marriage does not guarantee happiness or stability. Equally, we should not be afraid to celebrate the marriages at the heart of so many families or to acknowledge the statistical evidence that married couples are more likely to stay together. At the very least, no Government would be forgiven for doing anything, even inadvertently, to weaken this golden thread.
For that reason, I have not taken the Bill as given. I have listened carefully to the wealth of legal expertise that we are lucky enough to have in the House, and I have read thoroughly the arguments that were put forward in the other place during the last Parliament. Although their numbers may be fewer, we must listen carefully to those who question this Bill and those who express misgivings. I have reached the conclusion that I accept the need for this Bill but with the caveat that its passage must also shine a spotlight on the Government’s wider approach to family policy.
I would probably feel a bit more comfortable with the position that I have reached if I felt assured that, as policymakers and as a society, we spent more time thinking about how to support marriage and family stability. I believe that we made great strides in celebrating and reinforcing marriage through the same-sex marriage Act in 2013, recognising that when two people love each other and choose to make a lifelong commitment, this is for the benefit of all. As policymakers, we must ensure that we do not simply think in terms of weddings and divorce, missing the whole point of the reality of marriage.
We rightly acknowledge that divorce is complex, that every divorce is different, and that both couples and children need support. It feels to me that we spend far less time thinking and talking about the complexities of the journey that is marriage. It may seem as though I am conflating issues; after all, this Bill is about the technicalities of the legal process once the decision has already been taken to divorce. But we do not legislate in silos.
So let us look at this in two parts. First, I will briefly outline my take on the proposed changes to the legal framework, and then I will return to the bigger picture and try to offer a view on a constructive way forward.
On the content of the Bill, I have real sympathy with those who worry that the removal of fault will make divorce easier. But the flip side is that, as it stands, the law is clearly not working. Having given this extremely careful consideration, I accept the argument that, in practice, many couples feel that they have no choice but to engage in intellectual and emotional dishonesty in fault-based divorce. I have no doubt that we could all cite examples of this happening. It is impossible to see how this benefits anyone, least of all children. I cannot believe that the law as it stands allows couples to navigate the hardest process they will ever go through in a thoughtful or constructive way. On that basis, I am persuaded that reform is necessary.
On the details of the proceedings, I echo concerns expressed by others about the 20-week notification period. My personal view is that this is too short, and I would genuinely be interested to know how the Government arrived at the minimum time period. I have factored in the point that there is no current minimum and a significant number of divorces are concluded faster, but that does not in itself make the 20-week total sufficient. Is my noble and learned friend completely content to assure the House that this leaves enough time for reflection, cooling off and even potential reconciliation? There seems to be an acceptance that reconciliation cannot happen, but I have personal experience within my own family that it can—it may be rare, but we must not do anything to stop that happening. Many others have expressed concern about when the 20 weeks begins. I share those concerns, and I ask whether the Government will look at this again.
I would also be grateful to hear my noble and learned friend’s analysis of the likely impact on marriage and divorce rates. Opinion seems to be mixed. I ask myself to what extent couples make the decision to marry armed with an intricate knowledge of divorce law; but changes to legislation send broad-brush messages, whether we like that or not. We might not immediately be able to assess the impact. Therefore, we have to ensure that this Bill is part of a holistic approach to family policy.
Given that the Government are giving such urgent attention to the end of relationships, should this same urgency not be applied to the beginning and to the day-to-day experience of marriages and family life? Of course there is a debate to be had about the role of government in family policy—and some may feel that government should keep out of it—but we need to have that conversation. For instance, where couples automatically seek help from trusted advisers within public services, such as midwives, health visitors or early learning workers, they should also have the opportunity to seek relationship support. I welcome the Government’s manifesto commitment to champion family hubs. There is much evidence that bringing together targeted and universal services in a family hub can help to identify relationship problems earlier than may previously have been possible. I hope that the Government will ensure that policy decisions always take family stability into account, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Farmer’s work in this area.
Policymakers have been too timid about extolling the virtues of marriage; we do not take anything away from other life choices by saying that. Yes, let us deal in a considered way with divorce law, but let us also all be stronger in our support for one of the most precious tenets of our society.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, the Church of England has sometimes been too slow in recognising needed changes in the law. Occasionally, however, it has pioneered the way. The idea of irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce was first put forward in an official document produced by a commission set up by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, and chaired by the former Bishop of Exeter, Dr Robert Mortimer. The report, Putting Asunder, was published as long ago as 1966. That notion of irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce was then picked up and put forward by a Law Commission report published in the same year. At the request of the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, the Bishop of Exeter introduced both reports to this House on 23 November 1966. His substantial, lengthy speech is still worth reading, and as the Lord Chancellor said in his response, it would in future be regarded as a historic occasion. So it proved, and irretrievable breakdown was incorporated in the 1973 Act, which is still the basis of our divorce law. At the moment, however, and as we know, the existence of such breakdown has to be shown by the evidence of one or more of five facts, three based on conduct—adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion—and two relating to periods of separation: two years if both parties consent and five years without consent.
In 1996, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, brought his Family Law Bill before this House. It sought to do away with the establishment of one or more of the facts as evidence of the breakdown and sought to give the couple an opportunity to think again about their marriage through the use of relationship support services, and to see whether it might be saved and, if not, whether mediation might provide a better way forward. Information sessions in which these issues were to be discussed were a key feature of that Bill. It was a Bill that encountered great opposition both from those who wanted to retain the wrongly termed “fault clauses” and for other reasons. It was a Bill that I strongly supported.
When the Blair Government came to power, they piloted six models of these information sessions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, announced to the House that the preliminary results were disappointing. Then, following a final evaluation, he said on 16 January 2001 that they were unworkable and that he would invite the Government to repeal Part 2 of the Bill. With a different Administration, this was done, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, then Justice Minister, set out his reasons for not going ahead with these vital information sessions. Such meetings, he said, came too late to save the marriage, and the range of information provided about marriage counselling, mediation and lawyers, for example, was too general and not tailored to particular circumstances. Furthermore, only one of the partners tended to attend the meeting, and of course any counselling or conciliatory work depended on both parties being involved. That was on 23 October 2013.
I deeply regret that Part 2 of the Family Law Act was repealed, and that no similar or improved version of those information sessions is in the present Bill. Nevertheless, I have to accept that the then Government judged the results of those pilots to be disappointing and not achieving what they set out to do. Realistically, I have to accept that they will not be brought back in that form.
That said, I think that before people apply for a divorce, dissolution or separation, they should at least be made aware of the availability of relationship support and mediation services. I will be putting forward a modest amendment in Committee to the effect that, when someone first applies for an order, the court is under an obligation to send them information. This does not require a meeting or significant expense, just the obligation for the court to send them details of the availability of the registered organisation where they could obtain further help or advice should they need it. There may well be amendments coming from other parts of the House that relate to the timing, which might slot in with that.
Some will argue that, by that stage, people will already have done all they intend to do to save their relationship, but there are relationships, even if only a few, that break up too early. I will never forget Lord Phillips of Sudbury, sadly no longer a Member of this House, saying how, as a solicitor, he was rung up by someone who wanted to put in for a divorce. Lord Phillips asked him to say more about what the trouble was and, after listening for a while, he blurted out in his characteristic way “My God, you’ve only just started”, and invited the man to come in and see him. The story has a happy ending. He was invited to dinner every year with the man and his wife to celebrate that telephone call. I hope that we can find a way of getting people, even at that late hour, to reflect on whether there might be a better way forward, and making certain information available, as I say, not in physical meetings but in some other way.
One principle of Part 1 of the Family Law Act 1996 was supporting marriage, saving the saveable marriage and, where marriages have broken down, bringing them to an end with minimum distress. When I was Bishop of Oxford, I proposed an amendment to the Bill which became the basis of Section 22 of the Family Law Act 1996. This led to relationship support services receiving funding to fulfil the aim of Section 22. The Family Law Act 1996 therefore facilitated support for thousands of families, together with enhanced research and expert evaluation, that created decades of successful interventions to strengthen relationships. Section 22, I am glad to say, was not repealed and remains in force so that those organisations can receive public money. However, the department that gives such grants has changed over the years. Originally, it was the Ministry of Justice, now it is the Department for Work and Pensions. It is, I believe, time for a major review of this funding and how it is best granted. These organisations continue to do fundamental work which is essential to the stability of relationships and hence society as a whole, and I believe they need more support. Relationship support must be accessible, affordable and available when it is first needed and at any time when families are seeking to repair or manage difficult relationships.
A marriage welfare service was established for the first time in 1947 as “a service sponsored by the State but not a State institution”. Successive Governments have taken their responsibility seriously to ensure the availability of relationship support to everyone in society who needs it. More recently, the Relationships Alliance, which consists of the main providers of relationship support services in England and Wales—Marriage Care, OnePlusOne, Relate and Tavistock Relationships—has developed, and continues to develop, a wide range of relationship support services for individuals, couples, families and children. Support is available in a variety of ways, including face to face, by telephone and online, and by training professionals and practitioners who work with families. If the aims of this Bill are to be realised, funding for these services must be recognised as an essential component of the Government’s new approach to divorce, dissolution and separation, so that family breakdown is minimised and parental conflict reduced.
More widely, while totally agreeing with the aim of this Bill to take as much acrimony out of a break-up as possible, especially for the sake of the children, I have one particular concern. In his speech in 1966, the Bishop of Exeter, contrasted his proposal of irretrievable breakdown as the basis for divorce with divorce based simply on mutual consent. This, he said, would reduce marriage to a contract and would fail to do justice to the fact that a marriage involves not just the couple concerned but the children and wider society.
My worry about the present Bill is that relying simply on a statement by one or both of the parties might create the impression that marriage is only a contract. Contracts are an essential feature of many aspects of life, but they include conditions. An employment contract is based on the assumption that people will turn up to work and perform it to the required standard, for example. The point about marriage as it has traditionally been understood in this country and as it is reflected in law is that the couples commit themselves to one another unconditionally.
It has the same character as the oath most of your Lordships swear in this House. We do not pledge loyalty to Her Majesty provided she chooses a Government to our liking. The oath is unconditional. The couples do not say to each other that they will stay with each other provided certain conditions are fulfilled. They say that they will be with each other through thick and thin, through joys and through the sorrows of unemployment, poverty, depression and Alzheimer’s. It is an unconditional commitment which has an abiding claim on the couple. Mind you, I have heard of one retired wife who brought in a condition: she said to her husband when he retired “For better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in health and in sickness”—“Yes”; “Home for lunch every day”—“No.”
More seriously, it is an unconditional commitment—what the Bible calls a covenant, a solemn, binding, valid pledge which, once made, has a moral force in its own right. Sometimes, as we all recognise, we fail, and that moral claim has to be set aside as the lesser of two evils. But it is not simply a contract from which we can withdraw at will. Marriage is not something that has been invented by the Church. It is a natural human commitment of two people who have come to love each other. As the great Orkney poet Edwin Muir put it
“Where each asks from each
What each most wants to give
And each awakes in each
What else would never be.”
I would like an assurance from the Government, which need not be given now but perhaps in Committee, that marriage according to the law of the land, whether in church or by a registrar, is not simply a contract but an unconditional commitment. In the phrase of the linguistic philosophers, the words of commitment are performative; they actually bring about a new state of being, with its related obligations which are unconditional in character.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to add my welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, and congratulate her on her excellent maiden speech.
I believe that strong marriages and stable families are the bedrock of a healthy society. This is a view that I am sure many noble Lords across the House will agree with. It is imperative that in the work we do here in Parliament we carefully scrutinise the legislation that comes before us to ensure that it does not undermine that bedrock—marriage and the families that are formed through it.
Divorce law has a purpose not only in managing the end of a marriage but in setting out ideals about marriage. It recognises that marriage is an enduring commitment for life. As such, it is entirely logical that there must be serious and compelling reasons why what was hoped to be a lifelong union has come to an end. Under the current system, one spouse needs to allege adultery or unreasonable behaviour for the divorce to be considered immediately.
I do not believe that it is credible to propose a change in divorce law that maintains “irretrievable breakdown” as the sole ground for divorce when what is actually proposed is unilateral no-reason divorce. Under the proposed law there is no requirement to prove irretrievable breakdown. It can be a legal fiction asserted by one party who is simply bored of the marriage.
This empowering of the petitioner, the person initiating divorce proceedings, is further compounded by the fact that this Bill proposes removing the ability of the other party, the respondent, to contest the divorce. This leaves the respondent in a very vulnerable position. Because the importance of the marriage commitment is no longer expressed in the fact that it can be undone only in exacting circumstances, but rather whenever the petitioner wants to, the Bill creates the opportunity for divorce to come as a bolt from the blue. In the absence of any actual problems, one spouse could be blissfully unaware that her husband or wife is planning to divorce her because they feel that their relationship has lost some of its sparkle. The petitioner might appreciate this enhanced autonomy of freedom but the respondent has every reason to feel very insecure. Therein lies the rub. Anyone in a marriage is a potential respondent and thus, if the Bill becomes law, it will inevitably heighten the sense of insecurity in marriage.
We are told by the leading Conservative think tank Onward in its seminal publication The Politics of Belonging that the country has actually had enough of more and more autonomy, and that it now wants more security. The Bill, however, is no surprise, since that publication contends that the sympathies of Whitehall are indeed very much out of kilter with this new mood. In this context, I cannot help but wonder whether we are misjudging the mood of the country with the Bill.
Social science research has repeatedly found that marriage brings stability to the lives of children. One paper from 2015 found that families are most stable if parents are married before having children: 24% of couples who married before having children split up, compared to 56% of couples who married later and 69% of couples who never married at all. Regardless of socioeconomic status and education, cohabiting couples are between two and two and a half times more likely to break up than equivalent married couples. Furthermore, having married parents boosts self-esteem for teenagers. UK research from 2016 found that teenage boys living with continuously married parents have the highest self-esteem, while teenage girls living with continuously cohabiting parents have the lowest. Children from broken homes are nine times more likely to become young offenders, accounting for 70% of all young offenders.
I appreciate that the purpose of bringing forward the Bill is not to promote more divorce and thus more difficulty for children. However, I have two difficulties with its proposed approach. First, it is hard to see how making marriage a relationship that one can exit unilaterally, simply by saying that you want out, will not undermine the ability of marriage to bring stability to the lives of children. Secondly, of course I appreciate that part of the justification for changing the rules of exit is that it is supposed to help children by minimising conflict. That is certainly a laudable aim. However, I am concerned that that will not be achieved through the Bill. Conflict between parents will simply be shifted to arguments over finances and where the children will end up. No provision is made in the Bill, as was provided for in the 1996 reforms, for mediation or counselling for couples facing the possibility of divorce—other Members have mentioned that important fact this evening.
Central to our assessment of the Bill must be the question: to what extent will it facilitate divorce without increasing the rate of divorce and marriage breakdown? Obviously, the change in the law proposed by the Bill would lead to a spike in divorces as people waiting for divorces in the context of the current legislative framework are able to access divorce much more quickly. The important point is not whether there will be a short-term spike—that seems inevitable. The question is whether the new law would facilitate increased divorce rates beyond the first couple of years. The evidence on this from abroad is not encouraging. Leora Friedberg found in her research that unilateral divorce laws were responsible for about 17% of the increase in divorce rates in the US during the 1970s and 1980s. In a context where the annual cost of family breakdown is deemed to be more than £50 billion, it is hard to understand why one would embark on a policy that is likely to increase divorce.
Finally, given all the concerns I have set out, I am also concerned by the way in which the Government appear to have dealt with the consultation process that preceded the Bill. Consultations are intended to ensure that the Government have listened to the public and adjusted their proposals in the light of the concerns expressed. In the consultation on divorce reform, 80% of those who responded did not agree with the proposal to replace the five facts demonstrating that a marriage had irretrievably broken down with a notification process. A mere 17% were in favour of the proposed change.
Furthermore, 83% of those who responded disagreed with the Government’s proposal to remove the ability of a spouse who does not want divorce to contest the assertion that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, while only 15% supported the plans. Can the Minister please explain how much of the consultation was taken into consideration, because this appears to conflict with the process that the Government are taking forward? I have serious concerns that the Bill will have negative consequences for families.
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (CB)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill as the final step in the long and arduous process of getting away from the concept of the matrimonial offence, or, as the Minister put it, the blame game.
This problem has occupied law reformers and Parliament for well over a century and a half—to be precise, the 163 years since the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857. It would be a wearisome task indeed to go through every step of that history, but it is worth revisiting some of its high points, many of which were mentioned by my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth.
The 1857 Act, which first introduced divorce, properly so called, by a civil court, was opposed in this House by Bishop Samuel Wilberforce on the ground that he did not approve of divorce at all. It was opposed in another place by Mr Gladstone, then the leader of the Opposition, who very properly objected to its discriminating between husband and wife regarding grounds for divorce. A husband could petition on the ground of adultery by his wife. His wife could petition on the ground of his adultery only if it was of a particularly grave sort—involving either incest or bigamy—or if it had been accompanied by cruelty or desertion or both.
That particular injustice was not cured until 1910, but it continued to be the law that adultery was the only ground for seeking a divorce, notwithstanding the obvious attractions that that situation held as an encouragement to perjury and collusion. This was in the days when collusion, connivance, condonation and conduct conducing—fiercely overseen by the Queen’s or the King’s Proctor—were an absolute bar to divorce.
The fact that divorce could be sought on the ground of adultery and nothing else continued, astonishingly, until the late 1930s, despite its obvious drawbacks, given the amount of lying and deception that was involved. Two books published in 1934 had a great effect in moving public opinion. One was the novel A Handful of Dust by Evelyn Waugh and the other was Holy Deadlock by A P Herbert, which sold 90,000 copies and had the profound effect of bringing home to the public just what a sham divorce only on the ground of adultery had become. A P Herbert did not only write a book about it; he also stood and was elected as an independent Member of Parliament for the University of Oxford, which in those days had two seats allotted to it. In 1937 he drafted, fought for and ultimately won one of the most important ever victories for private legislation, which became the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937. That introduced the grounds of cruelty and desertion, which were enacted in 1937, consolidated in the 1973 Act, and remained until recent times.
It became apparent, however, especially after the war, that these grounds were insufficient. Many marriages were simply unhappy ones that ought to be brought to an end but were not covered by any of the grounds unless people started exaggerating their complaints of cruelty, building small troubles into large ones. As my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries has said, this led to the emergence—particularly during the archbishopric of Archbishop Ramsey—of a concordat between the Church and the law reformers that there should be a movement towards the irreversible breakdown of marriage as the sole ground for divorce. The Act passed in 1964 aimed to do that, but although it said that the only ground was to be the irreversible breakdown of marriage, it then set out, as before, what that was to consist of: adultery, cruelty and desertion, adding only separation for two years or five years, depending on whether the respondent agreed to two years being sufficient. That Act, in a way, was three steps forward and two steps back. It introduced irreversible breakdown of marriage in theory, but in practice it added very little to the existing law.
That was the target of the Family Law Act 1996, which was brought before Parliament by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to whom it has been a privilege to listen this evening. Part II, which was the essential part of the Act, had a curious history. It could not be brought into force at once because various trials of conciliation methods were being undertaken. The Government fell and a new Government came in. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, Mr Blair’s Lord Chancellor—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine—first postponed, then ultimately decided to abandon, the whole of Part II. It was said that it would be repealed; it eventually was, but only by a statute in 2014—nearly 20 years after it was passed—without ever having been in force.
The principal aim of this new Bill is to bring back irreversible breakdown of marriage as the sole ground. It does that by completely replacing Section 1 of the consolidating Act. Whatever its drawbacks—some have been mentioned by speakers this evening—in my view it would be a great step forward. The drawbacks of the present system that it would remove are much greater than the drawbacks—serious though they are—that it may possibly entail.
In 1956 Lord Hodson, a Law Lord, said to the then sitting royal commission on marriage and divorce:
“The history of divorce is one of conflict between those who believe that divorce is an evil thing, destructive of family life and accordingly of the life of the community”—
no doubt all that is true—
“and those who take the ‘humanitarian’ view that when a marriage has irretrievably broken down it should be dissolved.”
Lord Hodson put “humanitarian” in inverted commas —or at any rate, the transcriber of his address did—which suggests that he took the traditional side in the conflict. I urge your Lordships to take a more enlightened view and to welcome this Bill.
That is all I have to say for myself, but perhaps I could be permitted to say that last night, at a very late hour, I received an email from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, whose name has already been mentioned this evening, to say that she was in the United States. She very much regretted that she was not able to participate in this debate and sent me four pages of what she would have said if she were here. I have no intention of reading even one of those to your Lordships, but it is perhaps right to mention that she may well intervene at a later stage in the passage of the Bill to suggest that more should be done to bring the financial provision that can be made on divorce in line with the new change in the grounds for divorce. That would go some way to meeting the points raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the Liberal Democrat side. However, that is a matter for a later stage.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I very much congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, on her maiden speech; she is most welcome.
I suggest that one cannot alter the terms for undoing a marriage without engaging with how the law understands marriage and the norms associated with it. This is actually a very important matter for the Government, because the social science evidence is so clear that marriage has such far-reaching positive public policy consequences for both adult and child well-being, irrespective of income. The evidence is far too extensive to cite at any length now, but by way of merely providing a sample I draw attention to the following claims from recent research. The size of the health gain from marriage might be as large as the benefit from giving up smoking. Marital status is a predictor of survival in patients with lung cancer, leading researchers to suggest that if marriage were a drug it would be hailed as a miracle cure. Studies consistently indicate that marriage reduces heavy drinking and overall alcohol consumption. Those who are married have the lowest risk of suicide—a difference that has persisted for over the last 25 years.
For children, meanwhile, recent studies show, among other things, that strong relationships exist between their mother’s marital status at the time of birth and birth weight. The prevalence of mental health issues among children of cohabiting parents is over 75% higher than among those of married parents. Growing up with married parents is associated with better physical health in adulthood and increased longevity. Children from broken homes are nine times more likely to become young offenders, accounting for 70% of all young offenders.
I am aware of course that at this point someone might seek to argue that the stability and attendant benefits have nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with the income of the couple in question. However, this does not stand up to scrutiny. That marriage is an independent benefit is seen in the fact that the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples.
While we should always keep in mind the huge public policy benefits of marriage, it does not change the fact that, sadly, some marriages do not last. In this case, we need to ensure that the legislation in place governing the process by which marriage is ended works as smoothly as possible. The argument for the Bill is that the current law is needlessly conflictual. Under the current divorce law, the right to be released from the serious marriage commitment necessitates that something equally serious must have happened, be it adultery or unreasonable behaviour, both of which have to be acknowledged. The Bill removes that requirement and instead enables one person to initiate divorce proceedings simply because they want to leave the marriage, without any need to acknowledge or verify the serious development. If one person wants out, all they would need to do under the Bill is assert that the relationship has broken down, irrespective of whether it has, beyond the fact that he or she has asserted the statement and started divorce proceedings.
In this context, I will make two suggestions. The first relates to the length of the divorce process and the second to how the process is utilised. First, on the length of the divorce process, it seems that there are two elements in the current law that seek to reflect the serious nature of the marriage commitment. The first is the fact that this serious commitment cannot be swept away without an equally serious development that merits it, the raising of which necessitates the attribution of fault.
The second is that, having made this commitment, one cannot simply walk away. The serious nature of the commitment is reflected in the fact that terminating the marriage commitment takes time. The Bill, as currently construed, conflates these two things. Removal of fault is linked to a much faster divorce process, but it does not need to be. One option would be to remove fault but require significantly longer than the 26 weeks between initiating a divorce and potentially being divorced, as has been mentioned by others.
How will it seem if we propose that people have a general right to expect that they can exit a lifelong commitment in 26 weeks, when we are tied to our mobile phone contracts for 12 months? No doubt I could get out of my mobile phone contract if I paid, but we need to think very carefully about the message that we would be sending if we endorsed the Bill in its current form. If we can exit a lifelong commitment in less than a year, we are crossing a line and making what has been a lifelong commitment a much weaker, indefinite commitment.
I have no doubt that, in response, some will say, “But I know of a situation where it would just be better to terminate the relationship as quickly as possible.” I have no objection to allowing this in specific circumstances—if there are personal safety concerns—but we must not allow hard cases to define our norms. It is not possible to study the social science evidence on the benefits of a lifelong marriage commitment without feeling deeply concerned about the consequences of opening the door to its termination at such speed.
Secondly, how should we use the divorce process? The other benefit of having a longer divorce process is that it will provide more time to offer help to couples who have started the divorce process. In this regard I was rather troubled when, in another place on 25 June 2019, the Member of Parliament for Mid Dorset and North Poole, intervened on the then Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, and asked what the Government were doing to help prevent marriages breaking down.
Mr Gauke responded:
“Once the point of a divorce is reached, it is likely—the evidence suggests this—that it is too late.”
On that basis, he told the House that there was no basis for reaching out to help marriages once the divorce process had begun. Indeed, his response suggested that seeking to do anything on this once the divorce process had begun would be a mistake. To be precise, what he said was,
“but where someone is going through the divorce process, making that process more difficult and confrontational is counter- productive.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/19; col. 578.]
This is simply not supported by the facts. Ministry of Justice family court statistics show that between 2003 and 2016, an average of 9.5% of divorce petitions that were started did not reach decree absolute. That is an astonishing 12,709 couples each year who did not complete the divorce process. So the idea that once the divorce process has begun it is too late does not stand up to scrutiny; 12, 709 marriages per annum is a lot of marriages.
Our objective should be, through good public policy interventions, to increase that 12,709 figure, mindful of the benefit of doing so both for the adults concerned and their children. Moreover, we must be aware that, as an increasing number of divorce petitions are filed online, the number culminating in divorce seems to be decreasing. Provisional results from a freedom of information request by the International Family Law Group last year found that online divorces were less likely to proceed to a final decree than paper divorces. That makes the need for maximising counselling options during the process of a divorce that much more important. We must provide couples who have commenced the divorce process with the opportunity to reconcile where possible, not put them on a conveyor belt towards certain divorce.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, on her excellent maiden speech and I welcome her to your Lordships’ House. I listened very carefully to what everyone has said. I am a passionate believer in marriage. I am a patron of the Marriage Foundation. As noble Lords have probably realised, I am at the seedier end of this. I do not have the enjoyment that the right reverend Prelates have of marrying people, but rather am undoing that at the other end. It is a sad business for anyone who has to conduct it on a daily basis.
I am fortunate that in my 40-year career I have never had to do a defended divorce because I have been able to persuade my client or my opponent that that would lend itself to a pyrrhic victory. There is absolutely no point in resisting when one party has checked out of a marriage and insisting that you can continue it. You can control only your own behaviour, not that of your spouse.
Unfortunately, one of my partners did take a case where the result was a defended divorce and the decree was not given. As a consequence, the usual practice, which has gone on for years—and I have practised at the Hammersmith and Fulham Law Centre and at the top end of the game—was to collude with anodyne behaviour particulars that were ticked, which is what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to as a farce. The farce is now over because the law as handed down by the Supreme Court requires fault to be proven to such a high standard that you effectively have to trump up the behaviour to get your decree. In those circumstances, a stigma is attached which causes a lot of heartbreak and unnecessary grief at a time when many other things are to be sorted out, most importantly the children of any relationship, and the money.
Having listened to the contributions made, I fully support the Bill as beginning a review of the faults in our system of dissolving people’s failed relationships. No one has ever come to me saying that they are happy to be getting a divorce. Everybody regards divorce as a failure. When you are looking at the carcass of a broken marriage, it is better that people do not pick over it for ever. Because the law is so uncertain—and I am ashamed to say that I practise in it—there is an industry of contested ancillary relief. You cannot get a decree absolute and move on with your life without sorting out the children and the money. The Government urgently need to look at reform in relation to dealing with the consequences of finance. It is no good having a decree absolute while living in the same house as the person from whom you are trying to get divorced and separated. The court has too much discretion over the money, which means that more cases go to court than necessary.
I have another invitation for the Government. Over my 40-year career, at least 50% of people who I have advised have told me that they married the wrong person in the first place. Perhaps more thought should go into something other than counselling people when they realise that their marriages are on the rocks or done, although I do not discourage that at all. If it makes life easier, I welcome it, but prevention is better than cure. Could education spend a nanosecond on relationships, what you look into when you marry somebody and the fact that, like the proverbial dog being not just for Christmas, marriage is not just for the white dress? We educate children on sex, gender, alcohol and drugs, but half an hour in sixth form on permanent relationships when you are going to have children would be money very well spent.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, as the House has heard, the present law on the grounds for divorce dates from the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which was then reflected in Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Parliament legislated for no-fault divorce in the Family Law Act 1996, as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, have explained, but, partly because of its complexity, the change was never implemented, so the present law has persisted for 50 years.
From these Benches, and in concert with a substantial majority of family lawyers and judges—in that context, I welcome the important longer historical perspective of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker—we have consistently campaigned for no-fault divorce, and so, subject to one or two qualifications to which I will turn, we warmly welcome the Bill, which makes a change that is seriously overdue. The noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, spoke in the gap from all her experience of practising divorce law.
Before turning to the detail of the arguments on the Bill, I will just say how impressive I found the thoughtful and persuasive maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green. I greatly look forward to her future contributions to the work of this House on areas that are sadly not as well understood by us as they should be.
Under the present law, to end a failed marriage without waiting two years, one party has to claim that the other party is to blame for the breakdown so, unsurprisingly, most divorces—57% in England and Wales—are based on unreasonable behaviour or adultery, when human experience tells us that most marriage breakdowns result not just from the conduct of one spouse but from failures of both.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth that divorce should be an overall process of securing a collaborative resolution of the difficult issues facing the couple and their family—their children in particular—including financial issues and issues concerning children, but I part company with the right reverend Prelate in his view that the Bill stands in the way of kinder divorce, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the effect of the Bill. Under the present law, the divorce process is kicked off with a hostile and unproductive blame game, one in which the children are often caught in the middle, which sharply aggravates the strain and anxiety of coping with their parents’ divorce, a point well made by my noble friend Lady Burt of Solihull.
The approach of family lawyers in this jurisdiction to the management of securing a divorce decree has largely been conciliatory. Resolution, formerly the Solicitors Family Law Association, has developed a collaborative culture in which allegations of unreasonable behaviour in petitions are reduced in number and often limited to relatively trivial conduct—certainly that was true before the Owens case, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said. Then the allegations are, or were, agreed with the other side and the divorce proceeds on that basis. Resolution is to be commended for that approach, which is also pursued by the Family Law Bar Association, but it has gone nowhere near addressing the fundamental objections to a fault-based system, some of which were canvassed in today’s debate.
First, the present system is dishonest. It is based on the fiction that the conduct of one party alone is to blame for the breakdown, and the allegations set out in the petition are the true reason for the breakdown, when both propositions are generally false. To base divorce proceedings—legal proceedings in a court—on falsehood brings the law into disrepute and alienates the parties. As Sir James Munby, former President of the Family Division put it:
“The hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty which is so characteristic a feature of the current law and procedure differs only in magnitude from the hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty which characterised the ‘hotel divorce’ under the old law”—
a process mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
Secondly, in the Owens case, the courts at every level held that the behaviour proved against the husband was insufficiently serious to establish unreasonable behaviour. Mrs Owens was denied a divorce when her marriage had clearly long ago broken down. She had to sit out the balance of five years’ separation before she could secure a decree. That was clearly intolerable but, frankly, the judges were right in their application of the present law and their understandable reluctance to usurp our role as parliamentarians by changing it. It is now up to us to make the change required. It follows from what I have said that I cannot accept the view expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Morrow, and others, that one party to a marriage should be able to contest a divorce so as to tie the other into a marriage against his or her will. That point was ably made by the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton.
There is no persuasive evidence that the Bill would increase the divorce rate, except in the very short term by advancing the date of divorce in the case of parties who are already separated and waiting out the two or five-year periods under the present law; this is the spike acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. I stress that there is no credible evidence either that no-fault divorce undermines or weakens marriage or the respect in which it is held. I believe that the evidence supports the contrary view: making divorce honest and improving our support for marriage, family stability and relationship support are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, argued, the best ways of expressing society’s commitment to marriage.
I stress, however, that I share the Government’s view that the Bill should be kept within its present compass—making the securing of a divorce order more honest and kinder to the parties—and that improvements to arrangements for financial provision, children’s arrangements and relationship support should be the subject of a fresh consultation, to which I hope the Government will commit, and possible future legislation.
Thirdly, since the decision in the Owens case, we hear of district judges rejecting petitions where they find the allegations made too insubstantial or anodyne to sustain a finding of unreasonable behaviour; so, harsher and more contentious petitions now have to be—and regularly are—filed.
Fourthly, while blame may not matter to the lawyers, because conduct or fault is generally irrelevant to financial proceedings or any issues affecting children, it does matter to the parties. They do not want to be seen as responsible for the breakdown, by the law, the other party, their children, their friends or the world at large. Yet, in most divorces, the present law pins responsibility on the respondent, regardless of reality and truth, and even though many respondents deny the truth of the allegations against them. On the basis of the research carried out by Professor Trinder, only 29% of respondents believe that the facts alleged in the divorce petitions against them represent the real reason for divorce.
To avoid the allocation of blame, we get cross-petitions, even where a marriage is clearly over, whereby each party digs out incidents, often long-forgotten, to try to prove the other at fault. So, we have the absurd position where two adults who once chose to marry each other and now both seek the same remedy and outcome—divorce—but nevertheless poison the early stages of the process in a pointless battle over blame. This depletes their scarce financial resources, aggravates their emotional fragility and severely distresses their children, all for no practical purpose, until one of them is persuaded to give up or they run out of time and can proceed on the basis of two years’ separation and consent to divorce.
Fifthly, the need to make allegations of conduct against a violent or abusive spouse scares many victims of domestic violence or coercive behaviour out of proceeding with a divorce, trapping them in obviously failed marriages. Worse still, abusive spouses often insist that the price of a divorce will be that the victim of the violence allows the abuser to present the petition, while the victim must accept the blame. That is one reason why Women’s Aid and other women’s charities strongly support the Bill.
I move to one improvement to the Bill that we wish to see. With the Bill as it stands, under new Section 1(5)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, the court may make a conditional order after 20 weeks from the start of proceedings by the applicant. However, there is nothing to stop a court making a conditional order once the 20 weeks have passed, even though the applicant has not established that the respondent has been served with or knows of the proceedings, or that the court has sanctioned an order being made without proof of service. It is simply unfair that a respondent may be hit with a divorce when he or she has known nothing about the proceedings before the making of the conditional order or before the 20-week period has run, or nearly run, its course. This is a point that the Law Society, in its helpful briefing, and others, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, have made today.
We have discussed this point with the Minister, to whom I am very grateful for arranging an all-Peers’ drop-in meeting last week, and he has assured us that the Government will consider it. I would like to see a proviso that the court may not make a conditional order unless it is satisfied either that the respondent has been served at least 12 weeks before the making of the order or that deemed or substituted service has been approved by the court in an appropriate case and effected. I pick on 12 weeks because the 20-week period is intended to allow time for reflection and discussion prior to the making of an order, and it seems right that the respondent should have the benefit of the majority of that time to consider his or her position and for any discussions. I have suggested that 60% of that time is an appropriate proportion of the overall period, but of course we are not dogmatic about that.
There will be cases where a respondent evades service and generally will not co-operate with the applicant or the court. However, I suggest that such cases can be dealt with by making provision for deemed or substituted service and ensuring that the rules provide for an extension of the 26-week period to final order where necessary, where service has been effected late. That would require changes to proposed new Sections 1(5) to 1(8) and 17 of the Matrimonial Causes Act set out in Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill and corresponding changes to the proposed new provisions of the Civil Partnership Act.
We have considered the proposal by the Law Society that there should be a bar to litigation during the first three months of the 20-week period, during which time the parties would not be able to commence any applications for financial provision without agreement. We look forward to further discussion on this suggestion. As yet I am not yet persuaded that delaying proceedings for financial provision is always a good idea, though sometimes it may be.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Burt that the fee for obtaining a divorce, at £550, is far too high. A fee set at that level might generally require savings before proceedings can be commenced. That is unfair to less well-off applicants.
There is a great deal in the Bill that deserves discussion. We have had a very good debate today, and I look forward to meeting the Minister and others and discussing the Bill further during the rest of its passage.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an absolute privilege to sit through the three hours of this debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, for speaking in the gap and giving us the benefit of her pre-eminent expertise in these matters in this country. Once more, this is an example of the quality of contributions that can be made in a Chamber of this kind, for which we can all be incredibly grateful. I also join all noble Lords in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, and marvelling at such a spectacular maiden speech. I think she described your Lordships’ House at its best as demonstrating courtesy, consideration and a determination to do the right thing. All of this could be said of the noble Baroness, both in her former career and in what will no doubt be a wonderful career as a legislator in your Lordships’ House.
I also take great pleasure in welcoming this Bill, as the Opposition did when it was first introduced in the other place. I thank the Minister for returning with the Bill and the way in which he spoke about it, with great humility and reason. Both have been features of the debate in general. However, I have occasionally worried that some of your Lordships have thought of this Bill as a deliberate or perhaps accidental slight on marriage, or a measure which seeks to undermine or trivialise marriage, or facilitate divorce for those who do not take their obligations, promises, covenants and faith seriously. I think that is a misunderstanding of the legislation as it is and as it is intended.
It was WH Auden who famously and rather beautifully compared the law to love in the poem “Law Like Love”. It might be a beautiful poem, but none the less, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to legislate for love. What we attempt to do instead is legislate to protect people. I understand that law has a moral content and that we are concerned about sending signals to people through the law, but the primary, practical purpose of legislation is to protect people. That means protecting people when they get things wrong, screw up and break their covenants, or when the act of faith was in error or made in good faith but things went wrong. It seems to me that no-fault divorce is a no-brainer, for all the reasons eloquently set out in this debate. Unhappy, miserable and traumatic though it is—the great leveller of misery across society—divorce is neither a crime nor a civil wrong. It is a trauma and a very unhappy thing and we should not prolong the agony.
Divorce is neither a crime nor a civil wrong, yet within it, crimes and wrongs take place. We should act to protect people from those crimes and wrongs, particularly the vulnerable and victims of domestic abuse. I have noticed that in the many submissions that we have all received in relation to this Bill, the bulk of those working with vulnerable women and victims of domestic abuse, in particular, seem to support this legislation. That is to be taken seriously, and certainly as seriously as any poll based on percentages of the population as a whole. I am prepared to accept that many, or perhaps the majority of, people believe that there is fault in divorce, but that is because there was fault in their divorces. We can recognise fault without it being enshrined in law in a very unproductive way, prolonging the agony or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said, picking over the carcass of a marriage. I noticed that in some noble Lords’ remarks, there was a reference to broken homes. But homes are broken within marriages, as well as by divorce. Locking people into a legal relationship when they do not want to be there is not a practical or sensible legislative policy.
I was particularly charmed, as I often am, by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Listening to him, one can well imagine why he has had such a happy union for 62 years—yet there was no hubris, just humanity, compassion, reason and practicality about how to protect people, rather than promote a morality that does not always succeed in practice. There is a difference between the world as we want it to be and the world as it is; between humans as we want them to be and humans as they, sadly, too often are. For the most part the law should deal with the latter, particularly with that aim of protecting people.
I broadly and warmly support the Bill but in relation to some people’s concerns about the vulnerable, and whether it might undermine rather than protect them, I would predictably remind your Lordships of the cuts in the justice system and how those have affected family law, in particular. There is especially the fact that since 2013, legal aid has been removed from divorce cases. That is a terrible mistake if one is trying to protect abandoned people and children, and be equitable in relation to resources and so on. I really urge the Minister to reflect on that as much as he can, and speak to his colleagues about whether, in this new moment when people want to support the vulnerable and hold people to their obligations, it can be fair or right that those who cannot afford a lawyer will not get the protection of the law. That is whether it is in relation to pensions or access to their children, or to the other horrible things that people argue about at this traumatic time in their lives. We can craft the most perfect divorce legislation but it will be a dead letter—a sealed book—if people do not have access to early and consistent advice and representation, so that everyone can benefit from the kind of wisdom and expertise we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, this evening. That must be the right thing.
As I said, I have been particularly moved by the charities and NGOs which work with the vulnerable and support this legislation. They know what they are doing; they deal with these people at the sharp end. In addressing other concerns, can the Minister say something about what the Government plan by way of additional support, beyond this legislation, in public education, advice and so on for people going through these most difficult times? It should be not just legal support but counselling, too, and not just counselling in crisis but—as once more recommended by the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton—much earlier in life. There should be guidance and education about the inner self, and about what a relationship of such gravity looks like; what it means and what it takes. It may not be that divorce is too easy. It may be that marriage is taken by some too young, too lightly and with the wrong person. That might be a better target for action than trying to lock people into an already broken home.
There are so many other pressures on families in breakdown, as described once more by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, such as inadequate finance or social housing. All sorts of other social infrastructure are needed to back up the unit of the family. The family is a vital building-block in society but there is such a thing as society outside the family, and families need support.
On the concerns expressed by noble Lords who were less than supportive of the Bill, I think that many of these things can be looked at outside the legislation. I share some of the concerns expressed about online divorce procedure in particular. In responding to this debate, perhaps the Minister might comment on the Law Society’s recommendation in particular, given that there are risks associated with online divorce procedures as opposed to divorce of the more conventional kind. I am concerned about relying on online legal provision rather than advice, representation, judgment and so on.
Generally speaking, it is a great pleasure to be on the same side as the noble and learned Lord the Minister for once—perhaps for the first time, I do not know, but maybe and hopefully not for the last—and to have heard the general humanity, humility and often wisdom and experience that your Lordships have brought to this debate. I commend the Bill as a start, as a part of the kind of process that the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, welcomed and advised. I hope that we can, if necessary, improve the Bill but do so in a cross-party, non-party and constructive spirit.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate, and I express particular thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, for a cogent and perceptive maiden speech. I am encouraged by those, from all sides of the House, who have indicated their support for the Government’s proposals, which in turn reflect overwhelmingly the views of those in the other place. This Bill will bring long-overdue reform—a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker—that directly benefits divorcing couples and, importantly, any children that they may have.
Of course the Government share the belief that marriage and civil partnership are vitally important to the well-being of our society, but I am very aware that there are some differing views about divorce, and I recognise that some noble Lords have misgivings about the proposals in the Bill—or, indeed, about proposals that are not in the Bill. But I would like to reiterate what I said in my opening speech, which is that this Bill is intentionally narrow because it focuses on the evidence for reform of particular aspects of divorce law on which there is a broad consensus. That seems to me a sensible and proportionate approach for the Government to take at this stage, acknowledging that there may be further matters to be addressed.
Many points have been raised today. I will consider some of those further between now and Committee and I have no doubt that they will also be the subject of consideration in Committee. But perhaps I might comment on a number of points that were raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, began by referring to the apparent marital experiences of the actor Pamela Anderson. Some would consider that those experiences compare not unfavourably with those of the late Henry VIII, who was after all Defender of the Faith.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made the point that marriage is essentially a voluntary union. I understand the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, that marriage is not simply a contract, but requires the willingness of both parties to adhere, and that has to be borne in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, raised a further point about Clause 1(8), which allows the court in exceptional circumstances—the point was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—to alter the periods in question. That is part of the existing law, albeit on the matter of the gap between decree nisi and decree absolute. It is done only in exceptional circumstances. Perhaps the easiest example to give is where somebody is suffering from a terminal illness. The court may be prepared to step in to foreshorten the relevant period so that the divorce can be secured before a person is deceased. But it is employed only in such exceptional circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that.
The noble Lord and many others referred to the 20-week period, and in particular to its commencement. There are arguments about whether it should commence on application or at the point at which a respondent acknowledges service. The difficulty with the latter approach is that an unresponsive respondent, if I can put it in those terms, might well frustrate the entire process and delay it unconscionably. However, we are open to discussion on how we should approach the question of the 20-week period. I have no doubt that there will be an opportunity to do that between now and Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, raised the question of transgender people, or persons who wish to transition, which she acknowledged was outwith the scope of the Bill—which it certainly is. However, if and when we come to address that, I think that we would have carefully to approach her use of the unqualified term “veto” in respect of this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, very charmingly used a “Jack and Jill” kind of illustration of certain matters; perhaps I may seek to deploy a similar approach. Mary marries Paul; Paul decides that he will transition to become Pauline. To complete that process, he will either require the consent of Mary or he will have to secure a declarator of nullity of marriage—so there is no actual veto. The point of the present situation is this: Mary who married Paul should not find herself married to Pauline without her consent. There are counter-arguments and it is a delicate and difficult issue; it is not one for this Bill, but I respond to the noble Baroness’s suggestion that I should say something on the topic. I simply underline that it is a delicate subject that will have to be approached with care and without using such unqualified terms as “veto”.
Financial settlement was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. We are at present considering an appropriate form of consultation on how we might approach any reform of the law with regard to financial settlement, but we have no desire to derail the Bill by trying to draw in a rather more complex area—one underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, when she alluded to pensions. That will require wide-ranging consideration before we can bring forward any possible legislation. It is not something that we would seek to address in the context of the present Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, raised a number of points to which he said he would return in Committee. He referred first to the wide delegated powers in Clause 6, which would include powers in relation to Acts of the Scottish Parliament. I am confident that no such steps, which could be taken only where amendment consequential on this Bill was required, would be taken without consultation with the Scottish Government.
He also raised a point about paragraph 58 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. That is intended to apply existing legislation to the new form of order that will arise under this Bill. If there is a deficit of some kind in the wording of that proposed amendment, I would be happy to discuss it with the noble and learned Lord in advance of Committee, so that it can be properly addressed. It is not immediately apparent to me from my reading of paragraph 58 that there is a deficiency—but, as I say, I am perfectly content to discuss that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, raised a question about having to reaffirm your desire to end a marriage. The present Bill simply reflects existing law in that regard. We do not consider that this is a deficiency. There is no reason why, in our view, if someone has determined that a marriage has irretrievably broken down, they should not be able to reaffirm that when requested by our court procedures to do so. Indeed, there may be some merit in requiring them to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, alluded to mobile phone contracts and their length—but, of course, one is able to proceed with what is termed pay-and-go. We do not wish to introduce that in the context of marriage or divorce, but it just shows that such comparatives can sometimes be a little less than entirely convincing.
I am encouraged that many have welcomed the Bill. Many have suggested that there are points of detail that they will wish to raise in Committee, and I would welcome discussion with noble Lords in advance of Committee on any points of detail that we can address. Clearly, no law can make the breakdown of marriage painless. What a reform of the law can do is minimise the pain and difficulties that arise not from the breakdown of the marriage but from the legal process itself. The law should not compel people to continue in the empty shell of a marriage for longer than is absolutely necessary. The fact is that divorce and dissolution will continue to happen regardless of what legal process we put in place; the irretrievable breakdown of some marriages and civil partnerships is inevitable. The Bill deals with the reality that, with the minimum of acrimony, it should be possible for people to leave such arrangements in an orderly and hopefully sometimes constructive manner.
I certainly share the concern expressed by many of your Lordships that the legal process itself should not exacerbate the conflict that has driven divorcing couples to the point of seeking the termination of a marriage. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, that we should, in a sense, contemplate addressing not how you end a marriage but how you begin it, and educating people as to what they are entering into rather than what they are about to leave. There is a great deal of force in that.
We believe that this Bill will make a genuine difference to the lives of many, including children, who have to experience divorce either at first hand or as witnesses. It is for that reason that I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
NHS Funding Bill
Wednesday 5th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Legislative Grand Committee (England) Amendments as at 4 February 2020 - (4 Feb 2020)
Wales: European Structural Funds
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Wigley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what their proposals are for replacing the European Structural Funds currently administered by the Welsh Government.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in speaking to the Question I have on the Order Paper, I am grateful to be afforded this short debate at a most opportune time, coming as it does in the first week after Britain’s departure from the European Union. I thank other noble Lords who have put their names down to speak; I look forward to hearing from them. I am particularly delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, back on his Bench and ready to participate. I will not repeat the arguments we have had over the past four years concerning our membership of the European Union, other than to relate their significance for today’s debate. While I will focus on Wales, parallel issues clearly arise in other parts of these islands.
I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, as a Wales Office Minister, is answering this debate. She is personally aware of the economic difficulties facing Wales, particularly in the west of the country—an area which has benefited since 2000 from European structural funds at their highest possible levels. In my home area, projects such as the performing arts centre Galeri in Caernarfon and the Management Centre and Pontio project at Bangor University would not have been possible without European finance. My home county of Gwynedd has benefited from £169 million of EU structural funding since the original Objective 1 funding became available 20 years ago. The big question today is what should take over such important structural funding now that we are outside the EU. I invite the Minister to consider three aspects of the matter: funding principles, the level of funding and associated administrative issues.
The area designated West Wales and the Valleys has been in receipt of the highest level of EU structural funding because the average GDP per head of these 15 counties has been consistently under 75% of the EU average. It is one of the poorest areas in Europe, and it is a damning indictment of successive Governments at Westminster that the disparity between the richer and poorer areas here in Britain is starker than anywhere in Europe. Net disposable income per head of population in west London is four times the level in Anglesey or the Gwent valleys. That speaks volumes about the failure of Governments over four decades to address this issue. The eastern part of Wales also faces economic and social challenges, albeit not as stark as those of West Wales and the Valleys.
The purpose of the European Regional Development Fund is to redress the main regional imbalances within the union. A key element of the ERDF is additionality: such funding coming from the European Union must not displace existing public funding available to the qualifying region but be additional to it. This was a bitter point of dispute between the National Assembly and the UK Government in 1999-2000, the Assembly’s first year of existence. The then Labour Government in London initially refused to pass over the European structural funds for which Wales qualified; only after the intervention of Michel Barnier—Europe’s then regional commissioner—did Gordon Brown make a statement in July 2000 that the Treasury was passing £442 million over to Wales. Subsequently, successive Governments have been obliged to abide by the additionality principle.
The provision of this funding explains why Wales has been a net beneficiary of EU funding over two decades and why this element featured largely in the referendum debate on Britain’s membership of the EU. Understandably, during 2016 much attention was given to this feature of Welsh public finances; so much so that commitments were repeatedly made by those supporting Brexit that Wales would not lose a penny by virtue of the UK departing from the EU. I have little doubt that this pledge largely explained the vote in Wales—albeit a narrow one—to leave the EU. Voters were assured that we would not lose such vital funding and that the UK Treasury would bridge the gap. We have been required to abide by the outcome of the referendum vote, so it is not unreasonable that we also abide by the commitments that delivered that vote.
My party, Plaid Cymru, has long called for rebalancing the economy through the allocation of resources on the basis of need, rather than population—the system used in the Barnett formula much criticised by committees of this House. It is our belief that a regional development fund for Wales—as Wales’s needs-based share of the UK prosperity fund—should be administered on a separate basis from the Welsh Government’s core funding. It should be a multiannual funding programme to facilitate both long-term planning and funding security, and not be sullied by short-term electoral cycle considerations.
The current Welsh European Funding Office should have its guidelines reviewed so that they deliver the new funds as effectively as possible and have the maximum strategic impact; that has not always been apparent in the use of EU strategic funds by successive Welsh Governments over the period during which we have been their beneficiary. The programme funding in Wales should maintain the objectives of the European structural funds, including streams relating to employability and regional economic development, while maintaining a synergy with Welsh government policy.
May I therefore ask the Minister five questions about the funding principles? First, will the Government make it a statutory requirement that the fundamental aim of the shared prosperity fund is to redress the main regional imbalances within the UK? Secondly, will they commit to allocating funds on the basis of need, related to people’s living standards? Thirdly, will they ensure that the principle of additionality applies to the shared prosperity fund? Fourthly, what role will devolved Governments have in methodology and funding determination? Fifthly, will the fund prioritise employability and regional economic development?
I will now say a word about funding levels. The UK was allocated just over €10 billion in European structural and investment funds for the funding cycle 2014-2020. Wales was allocated about a quarter of this sum, just over £2 billion—equivalent to £140 per person. The withdrawal agreement provides for maintaining the current structural funding arrangements only until the end of the transition period—that is, until the end of this year. My party contends—I strongly support this—that Wales should not receive a penny less under these new arrangements than we would have received under the EU arrangements for 2014-2020, uprated for inflation. This would provide some £2.5 billion for the period 2021-2027. Will the Government give cast-iron guarantees that current funding levels will be maintained, and will she give a pledge that no region will be worse off than it is under the current programme?
On the administration of such funding, the current administration of the European structural and investment funds is undertaken jointly between the EU and the nominated managing authority of the member state. Jointly, they put together an operational programme laying out their strategy and priorities, which has to be agreed with the European Commission before funding is made available to the managing authority. For Wales, that authority is WEFO, which is responsible for the social fund and the regional development fund in both West Wales and the Valleys, and in east Wales. My party contends that, on similar principles, Wales’s portion of the shared prosperity fund should be managed in Wales, not at a UK level for Wales. That would be in line with the Government’s pledge not to centralise devolved competences. We do not want to see another power grab by Whitehall and Westminster. Furthermore, the funds made available as Wales’s element of the UK shared prosperity fund should be re-allocated to Wales, rather than using a competitive bidding process run from London.
I have two final questions for the Minister. Will the Government make a commitment that responsibility for the administration of the shared prosperity fund in Wales will be fully devolved to the Welsh Government? What forum will be used for the co-ordination, where necessary, of schemes in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, where some overlap may potentially occur? Will that be through Joint Ministerial Committees, as the Government propose for other functions?
Getting this right—and doing so now, well ahead of the end of the transition period—is necessary not only to fulfil the pledge given that Wales will not lose out on such funding as a result of Brexit, but to enable the co-ordination of public sector investment in Wales in a manner which delivers the maximum possible impact on the Welsh economy and on the living standards of our people.
A broad consensus on these matters exists in Wales, across party-political demarcations. I am sure that the Minister will concur with those objectives, so I now await to hear from her exactly how they will be achieved.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on this issue. I extend a great welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford; it is good to see him in his place. I also welcome my noble friend Lady Bloomfield to the first debate on Wales to which she is responding. I know how committed she is to ensuring that Wales gets a fair deal—as is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who understands these issues very clearly and has a personal interest, as a Member for west Wales, in ensuring that Wales gets a fair deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, recalled—quite rightly—our cross-party fight in the early years of the National Assembly to ensure that Wales got a fair deal. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, will no doubt recall that, as will her colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. They are not in their places at the moment but they were also key players in those early days in ensuring that we got a fair deal for Wales.
Working together then to ensure that the Objective 1 areas, as they were, got some of this spending, there were heady days when we thought that this funding would be transformational. It was transformational in the sense that it made a difference, but not as great a difference as we had hoped. All of us hoped that this would be a one-off application for European funding because this money was not a badge of honour; it was needed to bring these areas up to the level of the rest of Europe. Sadly, six or seven years later, there was a further round of funding, then another round of funding, which is now coming to a close. This is not something that we in Wales repeatedly want; we want the Welsh economy to benefit from this. I too have some of the concerns that were laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, but we need this to transform Wales. I am not sorry to leave behind some factors of the European programmes. There are factors that can be used to improve the performance of Wales, but we are probably best left without some of the stultifications and restrictions of the programme.
Let me echo some of the points that were made and set out the things I want to hear from the Minister. First, what is the timetable for when this will get moving and when we will consult on the shared prosperity fund? This is important because businesses, organisations and people in the areas of Wales that traditionally benefit from assistance will need to know when this help will be announced. Some indication of that would be welcome; I hope that we will get it today.
The Government have provided some reassuring guidelines, saying that they will respect the devolution settlement—that is welcome—and that we will not lose out after the removal of EU funding. Putting some flesh on the bones of that manifesto statement would also be welcome. We need to start on this programme. We need the consultation as soon as possible.
We also need to know what method will be used, in terms of Welsh assistance, to help with the funding. I suggest that we need something a bit more nuanced and sophisticated than the Barnett formula, which cannot really be used for these purposes. It is too much of a blunt instrument when we are looking at assistance for the most deprived areas of the United Kingdom. We are thinking in terms of the poorest parts of our union—not just of Wales, although that is the subject of this evening’s debate; indeed, this applies to Cornwall and other areas. It would be good to know the thinking on how this assistance will be assessed.
Further to that, there is broad agreement that there needs to be a partnership in carrying this forward. This cannot be decided solely from Westminster or the National Assembly in Cardiff Bay. How will that partnership work to make sure that the union is working effectively for the whole of the country? In parenthesis it is worth noting that, as time has gone on, with successive Governments that relationship is working better. I think that that is mostly down to what can loosely be called growing pains, since I do not think that it has anything to do with party politics. It is something to do with understanding how these things are best achieved. I would welcome some guidance from the Minister on how that will be achieved.
The next point I would like to make is how this could be used properly to advantage the United Kingdom and Wales and the parts that need assistance by using some flexibility that we did not have under the programme from Europe, which could be too restrictive. In particular, as someone who represented Powys, I mention that it was designated as a richer part of Wales. In some ways of course it was in relative terms, but that was not true of all of Powys. The southern parts of Powys such as Ystradgynlais and Abercraf, which many noble Lords will be familiar with, are former mining areas. They could not be designated as wealthier areas but they could not benefit from the funding for west Wales and the valleys because they were in east Wales. We can be more fleet of foot and innovative on things like that to ensure that we benefit. Looked at from that angle, I would also welcome some thoughts from the Minister on how we will carry that forward, because those boundaries could act as straitjackets. There are wealthier parts of west Wales and the valleys which were certainly wealthier than the former mining communities of south Powys, and that is something that needs to be brought into the equation. There are also poorer parts of north-east Wales, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Jones, will be familiar with. They ought to be taken into account as well.
These funds need to be used for projects to help with training for skills and entrepreneurship, to build in lasting prosperity for the areas that have been left behind for far too long. All of us who care about Wales will have a unity of purpose on how that can be achieved. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on leaving behind the Brexit debate and looking at how we can now move forward for Wales. That has to be what the game is and it is what people are going to be interested in. It is not about how we revisit the past; it is about how we go towards the future and ensure that we build something that is genuinely in the interests of all of Wales. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on these key points.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, as always, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, with all his experience as a Minister and as leader of the Conservative group in the Assembly for many years. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, whom we congratulate on raising here in the Chamber an extremely important issue.
Some £2 billion will be owed to Wales over the next number of years. It is by far the biggest percentage of the British amount of structural funding, and that is what we are due to receive. Some 25% of the whole of the European Union budget goes on structural funding through the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. It has been of enormous benefit to the people of Wales in our lifetime, as politicians representing Wales or in their places here will know. My own former constituency of Torfaen, a Gwent valley constituency, and many other valley constituencies have benefited enormously. It is something of an irony that if you look at the constituencies that voted to leave the European Union, they are those which received the most money from it. That was something of which I tried to persuade my former constituents, but they did not listen to me.
It is important for us to focus on what happens next, except for one thing. Both noble Lords have raised the point about additionality. Some 20 years ago I became the Secretary of State for Wales, and the first thing that I had to deal with was additionality. It was a great battle with the Treasury, helped by the National Assembly and by the European Union itself. For an unbiased account of what happened you can do no worse than look at page 113 of my autobiography, where you will see how it developed as a huge issue in Wales. But it was important to ensure that the money was truly additional to the Welsh budget and did not come out of the block grant.
The questions that we have to ask the Minister have been enumerated by both noble Lords, but I shall repeat them because they are so important. First, will the money in its entirety come to Wales? In other words, will what we were going to have from the European Union by way of structural funding come to us in the shape of the new prosperity fund? Apparently it is yet to be decided how the mechanics of it will work, but will it come to us? Will it be additional—not taken out of the block grant for Wales, or indeed for Scotland or Northern Ireland? What about the match funding? As everybody knows, structural funding is always matched by local government, other government departments or private funding. The match funding for it is therefore a hugely significant issue that the Government have to look into.
The other hugely important issue touched on is whether the Welsh Government will now be responsible for it. It was always the case that the European Regional Development Fund and the Social Fund would be for the devolved Administrations to administer. When I was the Northern Ireland Secretary, even after the Assembly and the Executive had fallen, it still came to the Northern Ireland Office to decide what to do with Objective 1 funding. As an aside, I hope the Government are looking at what to do with the peace funding from Europe with regard to the Northern Ireland situation. We are here today to talk about Wales, but the principles are the same. The Northern Ireland Executive, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government are the appropriate bodies to administer the successor to the European structural funding.
At the same time, there is an issue about not just the European funding but the new post-Brexit relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations. We now have three, after the restoration of the Assembly and Executive in Belfast. Now is the time to ensure that we set the parameters and establish confidence. Not all these Governments are of my political party. There is an SNP Government in Scotland, and in Northern Ireland there is of course a coalition between the parties; in Wales it is Labour. None, of course, is Conservative. The real test of what is likely to happen on the European funding—a test of the Joint Ministerial Committee—is how a Conservative Government of the United Kingdom, based here in London, deal with these three devolved Administrations.
Nearly 11 million people live under devolved Governments, and these Governments—particularly in Wales—administer the parts of our country where people are poorest. That is why we got the money in the first place. So it is vital that the Government get it right at this stage. It is about not just the funding but relationships between the devolved Administrations and the Government in Westminster.
People’s lives in Wales over the last 20-odd years have been transformed because of European funding. Sometimes the administration has been difficult—the bureaucracy can sometimes be a bit stifling—but it is a lot of money. It is well over £2 billion for a country of 3 million people; that is a great deal of money. It was always the idea, of course, that the money would not simply be there to build a bypass around a town or village but to transform how our economy worked in Wales. The Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund were there for the long-term future of our country. That is why there is unanimity here in this Chamber, right across the political divides, to ensure that what we get in Wales is our just deserts—what we deserve—because we have already made the case and Europe has given us the green light in the past. We do not want to lose the opportunities and challenges that the structural funding gives us.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this important debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for securing it at such an appropriate time. I also add to the voices who welcomed my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford back to his place on these Benches. It is good to have him back. It is also a pleasure to follow the vastly experienced voices of the three noble Lords who have already spoken.
I suppose I can say at the outset that I and the community in which I live have a vested interest in this debate. That is certainly true. Since 2001, Conwy County has qualified for European structural funding and benefited from the investment of £82.8 million over the ensuing years. This has funded 113 projects and resulted in job creation and improvements to the economy and the environment of both the rural and coastal areas of the county.
Throughout the county, capital projects have created new business units, regeneration projects linked to coastal defence work, and conservation, biodiversity and access projects in the rural area. We have also seen projects delivering improvements to the county’s tourism attractions and heritage-based projects, as well as a major events centre that has become a centre of excellence for sport. Conwy County has also initiated an EU-funded project designed to support young people in danger of disengaging with education, a project to support those identified as not in education, employment or training to overcome barriers and engage in skills and employment opportunities, and a project to increase take-up and attainment in STEM subjects among 11 to 19 year-olds in north-west Wales. Over the years, the county has been a partner in wider European projects with other countries: the Ireland Wales programme, the Youth in Action programme, Erasmus and the Leonardo programme.
Lists such as this are impressive: they show that EU funding has supported investment in infrastructure, research and innovation, and skills, and targeted those individuals furthest from the labour market. They are representative of work being carried out in councils throughout the west Wales and the valleys area. They reflect the commitment of the councils involved to improving their local economy, and the foresight of the European Union in targeting funds to help the Welsh economy and labour market recover from decades of industrial decline.
The success of European structural and investment funds in Wales can be measured by the fact that they have helped to more than halve the gap in economic inactivity rates between Wales and the UK since 2001. The investment we have seen through successive EU programmes has created some 51,000 new jobs and 14,000 new businesses in Wales since 2007, while also helping some 92,000 people into employment. EU funds in Wales have repeatedly demonstrated value for money. The Wales Audit Office’s report Managing the Impact of Brexit on EU Structural Funds also recognised that the Welsh European Funding Office is doing well in managing the risks and opportunities in light of the implications of Brexit.
But all this is in the present or the past. This debate encourages us to look to the future and consider the issue of replacing all these funds as the UK leaves the EU, presumably on 31 December this year. This, of course, is where the questions begin. The Commons Library has noted that many considerations are required for the shared prosperity fund, which is to replace EU funding, including priorities, objectives, amounts of money, allocation, method of model, length of planning and who administers the funds, none of which has yet been itemised.
For those of us who live in Wales, the last matter is probably the most important. European funding has been administered in Wales by the Welsh Government under the devolution settlement. One would assume that the status quo will continue, but the situation lacks clarity, with changes in emphasis in statements made by government Ministers. For the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth, the answer was “absolutely yes” to a question about whether the devolution settlement would still apply.
Contrast this with the view of the Prime Minister, who said:
“I think there may be some question about how exactly that money is dispensed or by whom. I would want to make sure that there was a strong Conservative influence on the expenditure.”
If we can have no certainty about the Government’s commitment to the devolution settlement, how much faith can we have in their promise that the fund’s budget must be no less in real terms than the EU and UK funding stream it replaces?
Politicians and those tasked with delivering projects have myriad questions. On their behalf, I would be grateful for the Minister’s guidance on the following points. First, will the shared prosperity fund’s moneys be allocated on a targeted, needs-based approach to regions and nations, or will competitive bidding be used? The Institute for Public Policy Research argues:
“Regional inequality is a persistent challenge for the UK and … a targeted and needs based approach will need to continue to invest into regions and nations to avoid this worsening.”
I hope that the Government will heed this advice.
Secondly, how will the shared prosperity fund work in practice to deliver desired outcomes across Wales? Thirdly, what roles will local and regional bodies play in the fund? Fourthly, how might administrative arrangements be simplified from those of existing EU funds? With 11 months to go before the end of the current schemes, these are all questions that those who work in the sector need clarity on, to enable them to plan ahead and prepare for new schemes. Finally, as has been mentioned, the Government have promised a consultation on the shared prosperity fund. When will this begin?
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome to the Front Bench the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, my noble friend, on his initiative. He is well aware that there is a danger of the Government replying that the debate is premature, that the details of the new fund will be announced later, and that in any event, finance will be part of the comprehensive spending review next month, so we should wait for that, and that they have sought all necessary assurances on quantum, consultation, liaison with the Welsh Government and so on. Equally, the Minister should be aware that there is a truthfulness problem—a question of trust. The recent past is littered with the abandoned promises of a Prime Minister who has so often proved himself to be a stranger to the truth. I am reminded of the adage about Lloyd George:
“Count not his broken promises as a crime. He meant them, oh he meant them at the time.”
This debate, which has been very consensual so far, surely is to raise legitimate concerns in Wales on a matter that is fundamentally important to our interests, partly because of the amount involved, a point well made by my noble friend Lord Murphy. In this current cycle of 2014-20, soon to end, we receive an allocation of £1.2 billion from the regional development fund and £800 million from the social fund. Therefore, we rely heavily on EU funds.
The second point is surely the context of our need. Wales is at the bottom of all the relevant indices of deprivation in the UK. On national income per head, Wales had a lower GDP per head in 2018 according to the Office for National Statistics than any other country or region in the UK. Three of the 10 UK areas with the lowest GDP per head are in Wales. Most recently, the ONS data suggested that Wales had the lowest growth rate of any UK region in the first quarter of 2019, at -0.5%, although they did caveat this. On tax bands, HM Revenue and Customs data showed that Wales had the joint lowest proportion of taxpayers in the UK on the additional and higher rates, and the joint highest proportion on the basic rate for countries and regions in the UK in the year 2019-20.
The ONS figures on household disposable income are clear that for countries and regions of the UK, on a per-head-of-population basis in 2017—the latest date available—again Wales was the poorest region. Households Below Average Income, a government publication, examined the percentage of individuals living in low-income households by region and county in 2015-16 to 2017-18. On one measure Wales has the joint highest proportion of such households and, only because of the higher costs of housing in London, the second highest after London on another. Whatever indices of deprivation we take, Wales is at the bottom of the table. That is the context about which we should be ashamed and which we should trumpet as representatives of Wales in this Chamber.
There is therefore deep concern in Wales about the effect of the move from structural funds to the proposed prosperity fund. I commend to the Government two recent publications on this issue. The first is the initial report from the APPG on Post-Brexit Funding for Regions, Nations and Local Areas on the UK shared prosperity fund and the Industrial Communities Alliance on the UK shared prosperity fund. The concerns raised have already been mentioned in a very consensual debate. On the assessment of the criteria, like the EU fund that was based on the additionality principle, which has already been raised by other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Murphy, the new fund needs to be outside the Barnett formula, which disadvantaged Wales. The annual budget of the fund should be no less in real terms than the EU and UK funding streams that it replaces and fundamentally should operate on the basis of multiannual allocations of the longest practical duration to give a degree of confidence in long-term planning.
Other questions are related to the management of the framework and partnership, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. The devolution settlement should be respected and the opportunity taken to change it within the spirit of the Government’s recent pronouncements on the importance of the regions and nations. The Government should transfer responsibility for the detailed design and delivery on the agreed guidelines to the Welsh Government, and local authorities should be engaged. It will be interesting to learn from the Minister how he sees the Welsh local authorities fitting into the structure.
My conclusion is clear: there is clearly now a fork in the road—either we proceed to greater centralisation of funds or greater devolution. This is surely a golden opportunity for the Government to show greater flexibility—certainly flexibility beyond the Barnett formula—greater initiative and a greater faith in the governance of Wales by the Welsh Government.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, who has a long and distinguished career as a politician. Indeed, as a teenager growing up in Gower, I followed him with great respect and interest. As a new Member of your Lordships’ House, it is a real privilege to follow such experienced voices from Wales. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on securing this important debate.
It is clear that some replacement must be created to fill the gap left in the Welsh infrastructure budget by the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union; indeed, it is essential. It is key to define what current structural funds are intended for when we think about what form their replacement will take. There are two strands of funding: the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund, which were designed to strengthen economic and social cohesion between the regions of the EU and to support workers across Europe. I see no reason why the principle of these funds should change. I therefore support the Government’s plans to move towards a shared prosperity fund, funded to similar levels by the money we would otherwise have sent to Europe. Wales still has important and unfinished infrastructure projects, so this funding is still vital to local communities there. However, instead of integration with the EU, the purpose of new funds should be to connect Wales more efficiently with the rest of the United Kingdom.
There has been some question—indeed, debate—over the method which will be used fairly to distribute the shared prosperity fund across the country. Wales will no doubt be following the outcome of those deliberations with great interest, as we currently receive the largest share of infrastructure funds. However, to my mind, speaking from my perspective as a humble citizen of Wales, it does not really matter if the Government use the Barnett formula or any other formula; all that simply matters is that levels of funding are maintained and that Wales receives its fair share of UK prosperity.
Turning to the real crux of the debate, the main question being posed here is about who will inherit the responsibility for administering this funding. Will it be a UK Government matter or will be up to the Welsh Government to prioritise? Currently, the allocation of funds is decided by the European Commission, while member states and their regions implement and manage the programmes. The Commission is then involved in overall programme monitoring, pays out approved expenditure and verifies the national control systems.
After Brexit, I see the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament fulfilling this role in relation to Welsh funds, with the Government replacing the Commission and the devolved Assemblies taking on the role of member state Governments in the current structural funding system. The Welsh Government would propose projects to receive shared prosperity funding and collaborate with the UK Government on the administrative details. The Welsh Government would then implement these projects in conjunction with the national Government.
Having been a Member of the Welsh Assembly for quite a few years, I know first hand its importance. It is entirely right that as a devolved institution, it should have the power to access and administer infrastructure funding. However, being in Welsh politics for some time now has given me real insight into the limitations of the current Government in Cardiff Bay. I cannot allow this debate to pass without mentioning that in recent years, funding rightfully allocated to Wales has in a number of cases been squandered through inefficient practices. Yes, there have been many successes, which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, spoke of, but I can think of many examples of EU structural funds being mismanaged, leading to delays, overspend and misery for residents. The A465 Heads of the Valleys road scheme proudly displays signage indicating that the project received funding from the European Union. Poor oversight has meant that the project is now facing embarrassing delays and an overspend of £51 million. I could mention many more things, but I do not think there is sufficient time this evening. I could talk about the £221 million spent on uncompetitive enterprise zones, the £50 million propping up Cardiff Airport and other issues associated with mismanagement. In all, Welsh Conservatives estimate that the Labour Welsh Government have wasted more than £900 million on various infrastructure project overspends over the past 10 years.
Despite all this, the Welsh Minister for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates, said only last week that his Government want more powers over rail infrastructure. This clearly shows that they have ambitions for greater autonomy over funding of the infrastructure projects, which would be bankrolled by a replacement for EU structural funds. I raise this simply to caution the Government on the manner in which they administer responsibility. I am keen to discover from the Minister how this can be safeguarded against. It is vital that structural funding carries on in some form post Brexit. It is also important that the Welsh Government have a say in where this funding is allocated. However, Westminster and Cardiff must work together in partnership to deliver projects that deliver for communities. After all, the most important thing is to deliver for needy communities in Wales, for whom this funding is crucial.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to follow the committed speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He knows Wales well; his voice will be strong. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for obtaining this timely debate, and support the general thrust of his remarks. I also welcome the Minister, with her Welsh root, and it is nice to see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his place.
Wise and caring words have been spoken in this debate. Some £2.6 billion of European money came to Wales in the six-year cycle from 2014 to 2020, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, intimated. Wales needed that money, and will need it in future years; one hopes it will come from the shared prosperity fund. The miners and steelworkers of Wales made huge contributions to the defeat of the Kaiser and Mr Hitler in the two world wars of the 20th century. Now, our coal industry has gone and, shrunken but still mighty, only Port Talbot remains of our steel production. In the 1980s, the bedrock manufacturing industry of Wales took one big beating. Over the years, structural funds have helped to reorder the Wales economy. The Welsh Assembly has, I think, deployed the funds well. In Kenneth Skates we have a good and careful Minister—a positive force—giving a strong lead on the economy and transport. Wales has helped herself with quite some pride.
In the age of austerity in Wales, European Union funds were often transferred to the depleted and declining core funding budget. What is the future of the Welsh small business? Will the tourist budget cope? Structural funds have helped the Welsh agricultural budget but now we need to ask: what is the future of the heroic hill farmer—those gritty shepherds, her and him, in the lovely landscape of Wales, who always battle climate and contour? Will Wales get a fair deal when she bids to Her Majesty’s Government? That is the crucial question. My worry is that Whitehall’s approach to the regions differs from the Welsh Assembly’s approach to its own regions. Will Her Majesty’s Government bypass the Government in Wales? One hopes not, and we make our claim to the Minister tonight.
Her Majesty’s Government need to acknowledge the Welsh way. It is a special case. I note that Manchester University’s National Graphene Institute received structural funds to the tune of £23 million. The north-east Wales aerospace plant at Broughton Airbus employs 6,000 skilled workers who use graphene in their wing production. There we have an instance, and there are many such instances in north-east Wales and Merseyside, of a cross-border economy. We need major funding for connectivity, for youth employment and attainment, for urban development and for energy efficiency, so we look to an equitable share of the shared prosperity fund. The Mersey/Dee Alliance is the local government voice for Britain’s unique cross-border economy. A better infrastructure is the objective of the Mersey/Dee Alliance. I refer to the register of interests as I am its president.
Surely we could ask the ubiquitous and conscientious Northern Powerhouse Minister, Mr Jake Berry, to be Wales’s ally in its rightful claim for this new money. I know that Mr Berry has often met the Welsh principals in these matters. Will Her Majesty’s Government help to push forward the north Wales growth bid? The prosperity fund might respond in that respect.
I am moving to my conclusion. I would say that London is the greatest city in the world; it is well governed, rich and powerful. But has it put the UK economy out of balance? Losing structural funding will add to that debilitating national imbalance. On our exit from the EU, will Wales get the fair deal that it has earned? The Welsh Assembly has a good track record since its vesting day. It has proved an Assembly of safe hands. The transfer of power from Whitehall to Cardiff was seamless and went well. The advent of austerity, post the 2008 crash, hit Wales very hard. My conclusion is that the end of structural funding should not lead to the impoverishment of Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it was a particular pleasure to read in the Sunday Times last weekend a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, which was much deserved. It is a real pleasure to follow him in this debate, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on obtaining it. I thank noble Lords for the good wishes that have been expressed towards me. I am sorry that I am still in a sedentary position but it will not be for long.
The “shared prosperity fund” has a comforting sound. It is a good choice of title; it assumes prosperity. However, as the devastating analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has made clear, it is not a familiar concept in west Wales and the valleys or in other parts of Wales. Perhaps it is better than, for example, “the pork barrel fund” or the “red wall repainting project”, which we might have expected. If there are objections to my capricious titles, I point out that the only thing that we really know about the shared prosperity fund, which in 11 months’ time is to take over the vital support that Wales receives from European structures, is its title. Its design and proposed functions remain cloaked in mystery.
On 30 January 2019 Mr Jake Berry told the Commons that
“The Government recognises the importance of … providing clarity on UKSPF. Therefore we intend to publish the public consultation shortly.”
“Clarity” is the word that my noble friend Lady Humphreys used a moment ago. The concept of the shared prosperity fund is squarely down to Mrs Theresa May; for once we cannot blame Dominic Cummings. She put it in her very personal 2017 manifesto:
“We will use the structural fund money that comes back to the UK following Brexit to create a United Kingdom Shared Prosperity Fund … We will consult widely on the design of the fund, including with the devolved administrations, local authorities, businesses and public bodies. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund will be cheap to administer, low in bureaucracy and targeted where it is needed most.”
Mrs May came to Gresford Memorial Hall, of all places, to launch the 2017 Welsh Conservative campaign, in the wake of her sharp change of direction on the dementia tax. There it was that she coined the famous phrase “Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed.” My wife—my noble friend Lady Walmsley—and I found ourselves under close scrutiny in an all-blue audience when we chanted “Oh yes it has” in reply. We had heard of the Prime Minister’s visit with only half an hour to go and muscled in past the young men in blue suits. Indeed, the local press termed the PM’s visit the “stealth visit”, since it had had no advance notice of her descent upon Gresford—although it was later reported that the police had warned our local Spar that very morning not to sell eggs or flour.
Curiously, all references to the shared prosperity fund have disappeared from Mr Johnson’s 2019 manifesto. Not surprisingly, the promise of wide consultation on the design of the fund has not been fulfilled. We have not seen the consultation document. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, commented that we need consultation soonest and I agree. The issues have been well aired in this debate. First, how much of British taxpayers’ money is involved?
The APPG on Post-Brexit Funding for Nations, Regions and Local Areas published a note of its calculations last June. It pointed out that EU funding will cease as from 1 January 2021, deal or no deal. Over 2021-27—a period of seven years equivalent to an EU funding period, and taking into account expected inflation over that period of 12.5%—it calculated that to replace European structural funds would require a shared prosperity fund of £1.79 billion. That figure includes £215 million for extra funding which would have come from the EU because of additional sub-regions in England being involved.
Once the Government have decided the size of the fund, the second question is: how will it be shared out? The Barnett formula, described very correctly by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, as a blunt instrument, has rightly been criticised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in its report prepared for Preparations for Replacing EU Funding for Wales, a report by the Finance Committee of the Welsh Assembly. It said that
“the formula has design flaws which mean its use in the allocation of funding to replace current EU schemes should be avoided. In particular it takes no account of differences in population growth, or differences in the initial levels of funding.”
For that reason, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, called for a separate system from the Barnett formula. I promise to read page 113 of the autobiography of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, to fully grasp the additionality principle about which he spoke.
The issue which rightly concerns the Welsh Government is that decisions in devolved matters as to how the shared prosperity fund is spread should be determined in Wales, a point made by my noble friend Lady Humphreys. It would not be acceptable that Whitehall should control the purse strings. As Mark Drakeford, the First Minister, put it:
“We explicitly and vigorously reject any notion of a UK centralisation of regional economic development policy. A UK Government ‘shared prosperity fund’ approach would be a direct attack on devolution and would risk depriving some of our most disadvantaged communities of the funds they need to develop economically. This would be contrary to the UK commitment that leaving the EU would not leave Wales worse off.”
I agree: European structural fund money has been allocated to Wales on the basis of a recognised needs-based allocation formula. Whitehall did not get involved, save perhaps to pass the money on. Applications for the funding of projects have been made accordingly to the Welsh Government, who have had the flexibility and organisation to define the type of project to be supported: in other words, to determine where the money can best be spent.
In the future, the UK Government should do no more than draw up very broad guidelines, with the consent of the Welsh Parliament, but they should avoid rules which would restrict the Welsh Government from carrying out their devolved responsibilities. On 15 January the Secretary of State, Mr Simon Hart, said that the SPF was
“a joint UK Government-Welsh Government initiative”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/20; col. 1007.]
and that they would be, as he put it, resetting the meter of their relationship. Will the Minister, who I too welcome to the Front Bench for this debate, kindly tell us what he means? I join my noble friend Lady Humphreys in also asking: when can we expect to see the consultation document promised over a year ago? We have less than 11 months left to sort it out and, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, it is a question of trust.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, let me open by offering a word of gratitude, along with others, to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for giving us this opportunity, and a word of delight at seeing the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in both his places. I also offer a word of genuine welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, who is in her place. I look forward to our perhaps seeing each other in this trysting way several times in the future.
Perhaps I may also express a word of disappointment that when it comes to discussing Welsh affairs, it is all of us boyos and girls together. We could all do it with a good Welsh accent. There are one or two lovely strangers, and they are very welcome, but it is a bit of a shame because devolved government means that we are discussing part of the United Kingdom in a special relationship with the rest, yet here we all are—oh, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is here as well.
The inglorious thing about speaking at this moment in a debate is that every single well thought-out and beautifully phrased point that I wanted to make has already been made. All the figures I wanted to quote have been quoted; all the trends to be discussed have already been traced. I am left with a choice. Either I give my speech, willy-nilly, or I just point to the headlines—noble Lords will have to guess when I have finished which choice I have taken.
The poverty of Wales has been well alluded to, and the decades of difficulty experienced in recent times have been well spoken of. So, too, has the social and regional development funding, and the need for us now to look to the future as to how those in government will handle the successor moment. The poverty of Wales, especially in the west and in the valleys, has led to our receiving levels of funding which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, we should not be shouting about from the rooftops; it is a shame that we have to qualify for it. At the same time, and with due recognition to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, not all of it has been handled well; some of it has been handled badly. From these Benches I recognise, too, that the notion of additionality had to be quarrelled about within our own party when we were in government. So nobody is here to boast. We are all here to see how best to handle what lies ahead of us.
We have heard about the £2 billion and what it ought to become in the 2021 to 2027 period. Undoubtedly, we look forward to hearing more about that.
Wales has benefited from all this funding, despite the difficulties referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. This is the first time that I have heard the noble Lord speak, and I must mention that because one can see Penclawdd, Port Eynon and Swansea from Burry Port—yes, we can keep you in view from where I live.
We must recognise the good that has been done, and we must therefore seek a really committed word from the Government that it will continue, as has been promised. Oh, how I wish we could have had one of those election campaign battle buses going around the valleys with a figure on the side saying “£2 billion” instead of what was said at a certain moment on a different battle bus, to which I merely allude.
We need to know about the value of the shared prosperity fund, because from 1 January we will be beyond European funding altogether. Business leaders cannot make decisions beyond 2020 until they have a bit more certainty, and indeed no planning of any significant kind can come to pass.
“Not a penny less, not a power lost”: that has been the Government’s pledge and the promise made by many leave campaigners in the run-up to the 2016 referendum who now hold integral roles in the Boris Johnson Government—although whether they will after tomorrow is anybody’s guess. We will just have to wait for that one.
It is vital that the Government should keep that pledge, and I hope that the noble Baroness will give us some indication that they have grasped this point. Promises have been made. As my dear mother of beloved memory taught me: “Promises,” she used to say, “are promises.” I would modernise her wise advice: “Promises are promises, even when they are made on the campaign trail.”
The spirit and the legal basis of the devolution settlement must be respected. Devolution is real, but to become an integral part of a United Kingdom-wide thriving, it has to be respected. In debate after debate, I have suspected that there has simply been less than proper regard for the devolution settlement. It is not taken nearly seriously enough. That worries me greatly, because it is like being palmed off and told to be polite and seen and not heard, and it is much too precious for that.
The new Secretary of State for Wales, Simon Hart, has said that
“a substantial sum of money is going to be distributed in Wales by Welsh politicians who are directly accountable to Welsh voters”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/20; col. 1006.]
Those were his words. Yet, when asked, he seemed unable to clarify how, or even whether, the Welsh Government will have a chance to do this. At the risk of boring noble Lords, I repeat that promises are promises, even when they are made by an incoming Secretary of State who has not yet learned his job.
We have a needs-based formula. It is on the basis of needs that the current funding is given. It must not be politicised. There must be no patronage. The blunt instruments must be sharpened. There must be additionality, as well as the matched funding that my noble friend referred to.
Here we stand at a cross-roads: Brussels is yesterday, and our relationship with Westminster becomes the substitute for it. We must seek this from the Government, and we must put the noble Baroness on the spot—even though this is her very first appearance here—and ask that she be a vehicle for the views expressed in this debate to be carried back to the Government, and that the passion with which these views are held be conveyed to them, too. They must be taken to the Welsh Office and through the Welsh Office to the Government.
We have much to fear, and I hope that those fears do not come to anything. Promises are promises—sorry to repeat it, but repeat it I must—and we all now look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Hoffwn i ddiolch i’r Arglwydd Wigley am ei ddadl heddiw. My Lords, let me begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for tabling and so ably introducing this debate, and all noble Lords for their contributions and their warm welcome. As with all debates to do with Wales, the contributions have been of the highest quality and the arguments beautifully crafted, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, observed. I believe we all agree that the question of future funding for Wales following our withdrawal from the European Union is critical to the people, businesses and institutions of Wales.
Last week, the UK left the European Union and in doing so the democratic decision of the British people was respected. It is important to remember that in Wales the 2016 referendum vote was clear. Our departure from the EU brings to an end far too many years of argument and division. We have the opportunity to concentrate on what the people want now that Brexit has been achieved. The UK shared prosperity fund is one such initiative that will benefit the whole United Kingdom, including Wales.
Earlier this week, the Prime Minister outlined how the Government want a relationship with the EU based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and centred on free trade. We will be making our own way in the world with the vast potential that that offers. Of course, Wales, as part of the greatest union in the world, the United Kingdom, will benefit.
Wales is a great place to do business, and our strengths will put us in a good place to benefit from the free trade deals that we will strike across the globe. The UK shared prosperity fund will help to build further on the natural strengths that Wales has economically—the noble Lord, Lord Jones, mentioned the excellence of Broughton. It gives us a great opportunity to design a fund that works for the whole UK and levels up the most deprived areas. Notwithstanding the potential strengths and opportunities of Wales, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was right to set things in context: Wales has the lowest GDP per head in the UK and the lowest growth rate, which is why it has always qualified for European support. Indeed, Wales has received more than £4 billion in European structural fund support since 2000, half of which has accrued in the current spending round. There is no part of Wales that does not currently receive financial support from these funds, and it is therefore imperative that a replacement for them becomes available once the support provided by EU structural funds has drawn to a close.
The Government recognise the vital role that European structural funds have played in Wales over the past two decades. Leaving the EU provides us with an opportunity, for the first time in more than 40 years, to determine how we invest our own money and tackle the inequalities that exist between our nations and regions. We shall now be able to target funding to where it is most needed and to the economies that are the furthest behind.
Since European funding was introduced, spending and delivery of current EU structural funds in Wales have been in the hands of the Welsh Government. The creation of the UK shared prosperity fund is an opportunity to level up the whole United Kingdom and tackle deprivation across our four nations. I know that a number of those present, including the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, are concerned either that the UK Government are looking to circumvent Welsh devolution or that the priorities of the shared prosperity fund will not accurately reflect the interests of the people of Wales. To those who share those concerns, I shall endeavour to provide some reassurance.
The Government are committed to the relationship between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, and fully respect devolution and the devolved institutions. The Secretary of State for Wales has expressed a sincere desire to collaborate closely with colleagues in the Welsh Government to ensure that the UK shared prosperity fund can deliver for the people of Wales. He has already had productive discussions with the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, and Welsh Government Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles, on how the UK and Welsh Governments can work together to make a success of the fund. He has also been clear that the Government have no intention of using the fund to, in his words, drive a coach and horses through the devolved settlements. Government officials also have regular discussions with counterparts in the devolved Administrations about how the prosperity fund should operate, and these discussions will continue.
I should also remind noble Lords that it was a Conservative Government who brought forward the Wales Act 2017 to expand and clarify the powers of the devolved institutions in Wales. These are not the actions of a Government seeking to wrest power back from the Welsh Government or to undermine Welsh devolution.
Collaboration has proved positive and productive: witness the city and growth deals. We have already seen the UK Government, devolved Administrations and local authorities working together over the years to agree such deals. These deals support growth across the United Kingdom and are an example of what we can achieve when we work together towards a common goal. This shows how the different Administrations in the UK can put aside political differences to power up local economies. It demonstrates the strength of collaborative working. I mention this here because the UK shared prosperity fund gives us a great opportunity to continue this type of co-operation and deliver for the people of Wales.
I can assure noble Lords that the needs and views of stakeholders in Wales will have a pivotal role in determining the priorities and objectives of the shared prosperity fund. Leaving the EU is our chance to ensure that the way we spend our money aligns with our priorities, our aims and our visions to level up all parts of the UK. Local people are at the heart of this vision, and the UK shared prosperity fund is a key instrument that we will use to achieve it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked when the consultation will begin. It is important to recognise that some engagement has already taken place with Welsh stakeholders including businesses, all local authorities, universities and the third sector; 25 engagement events have already taken place. These stakeholders are already playing a huge part in shaping the policy for the fund. The Government recognise, however, that many people are concerned that there has been a lack of engagement. I would simply say in response that this should not be misunderstood as the Government not being fully committed to the UK shared prosperity fund, because they are.
Turning to the allocation of funding in Wales, I emphasise the commitment that was made in the 2019 Conservative manifesto on the UK shared prosperity fund. It committed to, at a minimum, matching the size of European structural funds in each nation of the UK. The Government are determined that Wales will not be out of pocket now that we have left the EU. Indeed, during the 2016 referendum, the people of Wales were promised that they would not be one penny worse off as a result of leaving the EU; the UK shared prosperity fund will be instrumental in making good on that promise. The 2019 Conservative manifesto also committed to, at a minimum, matching the current allocation of structural funds in each of the four nations. It also committed to ensuring that £500 million of the UK shared prosperity fund is used to give disadvantaged people the skills they need to make a success of their lives.
The noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, all raised the question of the allocation of funds. The Government are very well aware of the need to reassure the people of Wales that the UK shared prosperity fund will be delivered on the basis of need, not simply on population metrics. The great advantage of replacing EU structural funds domestically is that we can not only cut down on bureaucracy, but decide how we want to spend our money and ensure that funding is delivered to the places where is stands to effect the greatest change and truly tackle deprivation in that area. It is perhaps important to remind the House that this is British taxpayer cash, top-sliced and recycled back to us with strings attached. There is no such thing as European Union money.
I have been made aware of arguments both within and beyond this House in relation to the various formulae that could be used to distribute the shared prosperity fund across the United Kingdom, including, most notably, the Barnett formula. I acknowledge the fears of many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The Government recognise the potential implications of distributing funds based purely on population but, given the manifesto commitment to protect the level of funding in the devolved nations, this should not be a worry for Wales—it will get the fair deal that the noble Lord, Lord Jones, rightly demands.
I cannot speculate publicly on future spending, but what I can say, in answer to the question on timing from my noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, is that final decisions on the overall quantum and allocation of the UK shared prosperity fund will be taken by the Treasury during a cross-government spending review, the timetable for which is due to be announced by the Chancellor in his Budget speech on 11 March.
The noble Lords, Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Lord Davies of Gower, my noble friend Lord Bourne and others voiced criticism of the restrictions on current EU funding. My noble friend Lord Bourne mentioned how Ystradgynlais could not benefit from the funds that west Wales and the valleys received. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the limitations of overspend and oversight on infrastructure projects.
It is worth asking why many of the places in Wales that have received a significant amount of European structural funding voted to leave the EU. I get the sense that the people of Wales may have started to lose faith. They know that they are receiving substantial sums of money but feel that funding has not always reached the places it should have done. With the UK shared prosperity fund we are not interested in financing pet projects or building dragons in town squares. We want to see real improvements that will truly help tackle deprivation. The shared prosperity fund will be designed to address exactly these issues.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for tabling it. As I stated at the beginning of my speech, the UK’s departure from the EU has provided us with a considerable opportunity to reconsider how we invest our money in a way that helps to reduce inequality across our four nations and strengthen the whole of the United Kingdom.
Through the UK shared prosperity fund, the Government look forward to seeing an economically prosperous Wales within an economically prosperous United Kingdom. It is this Government who are determined to preserve and strengthen our union. The UK shared prosperity fund is a key plank to this, as it provides a great opportunity to level up all corners of our country. For Wales, it will be through close and collaborative working between the UK and Welsh Governments that this commitment will become a reality and promises will be honoured. Diolch yn fawr.