House of Commons
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 years, 1 month 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, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
We have introduced measures to tackle barriers faced by SMEs in the procurement process. In the last financial year, we spent almost £2 billion more with SMEs than we did in the preceding year.
Dr Wallis
In my constituency of Bridgend in south Wales, the SME market will be absolutely key to making a success of Brexit. Will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the devolved Administrations, so that all parts of the UK will see progress when it comes to SMEs accessing Government contracts?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he has been doing to open up opportunities for his constituents, and particularly SMEs and entrepreneurs. I can commit to, and have already had, conversations with the devolved nations. The contract finder that the Department has set up, offering greater transparency about those opportunities, is just one way that we are assisting, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss other ways that we can support his efforts to ensure that all his constituents have maximum opportunity.
Angela Richardson
I thank my right hon. Friend for her previous answer and it is great to see her on the Front Bench. Ninety-nine per cent. of businesses registered in Guildford are SMEs. What steps is the Minister taking to simplify the bureaucracy involved and minimise the cost to SMEs of quoting for Government business?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she is doing for all the businesses in Guildford. We have committed to removing barriers to small businesses in our commercial arrangements, and have already removed the complex pre-qualification questionnaires that people used to have to fill out for even low-value contracts. We will continue to look at other ways that we can ensure that SMEs have maximum opportunity to bid for work.
Saqib Bhatti
I welcome the Minister’s comments. Does she recognise the role that business support organisations play—such as the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and local enterprise partnerships, which lead on the growth hubs—in helping to bridge the knowledge gap for SMEs that have to deal with such difficult processes?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to pay tribute to those business organisations, and it is great to see him in this place, with all his expertise in this area. Those organisations play a critical role, and we must listen to what they are saying and look at ways to increase the opportunities for all their members. We want to improve our communications and relationships with those organisations.
Greg Smith
Small businesses often tell me that late payments are a significant concern when bidding for not just Government contracts, but all contracts with large companies. What steps can my right hon. Friend outline to ensure that there is a level playing field for small businesses applying for Government contracts?
Penny Mordaunt
We want SMEs to have confidence that they can bid for work. The prompt payment measure, which was introduced last September, has been a key part of the Government’s work to focus on breaking down those barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises. Suppliers that do not comply with that will be struck off, and we have done that. There is more that we are looking at; my hon. Friend will know that there is debate about channelling some of the fines for those with poor practice into compensation for small enterprises.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
All the friendly questions from the Whips Office do not hide the reality, which is that the Government have had 10 years to get this right. More small businesses than ever have given up trying to win Government contracts, and I am afraid that the figures do not stack up; they are worse now than when the Government came in. When will they stop giving the lion’s share of lucrative Government contracts to the Carillions of this world and start treating our excellent small businesses fairly?
Penny Mordaunt
I notice that there were no facts in that question. If the hon. Member looks at the facts, he will see that a greater and growing number of small and medium-sized enterprises are registering to become suppliers. He will see that 12 Departments in particular are massively increasing the amount of work that they are doing with small enterprises. Rather than criticising my Government colleagues, he might like to start standing up for small businesses in his constituency.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I think there is unanimity across the House about the need to improve access to Government contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises, but I would prefer it if they were British small and medium-sized enterprises. What action will the Secretary of State take to amend Government procurement regulations so that Departments can start to prioritise British firms, British products and employment of British workers?
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He knows this Administration are focused on increasing opportunities across every part of this country. Now that we have left the EU, we will have new opportunities as we design the future procurement rules. I hope that both sides of the House can come together behind that work, so that we have maximum opportunity for every part of the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can the Minister confirm that post Brexit, contracts’ scoring metrics will be able to add weight for local builders, so that we can keep the money in the local economy?
Penny Mordaunt
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are considering what reforms we can bring in. We have set out clearly the principle that this is not just about the immediate return on investment; it is about the long-term opportunities that procurement would open up for every part of the UK.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
The Government are committed to introducing voter ID, as well as extra postal and proxy voting measures, to reduce the potential for electoral fraud in order to give the public greater confidence that our elections are secure. Evaluation by the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office of the pilots we ran shows that they were a success, and that public confidence in the electoral system was higher in the areas involved.
Mr Davis
The Minister will be unsurprised to hear that I am unimpressed by this illiberal idea. The Electoral Commission says that fraud relating to proxy voting, postal voting, bribery, undue influence or tampering with ballot papers, on which voter ID will have no effect, accounts for three quarters of electoral fraud, so what are we doing about that?
Chloe Smith
As I mentioned, we are looking at a range of measures, including ways to improve the security of postal and proxy voting. It is important to recognise that electoral fraud in any form is a crime, which is why we should stand by measures to deal with it. We should be on the side of the victims of that crime, whose voices are taken away—indeed, stolen—by such fraud. That is a good reason why this was in our manifesto, on which, I gently remind my right hon. Friend, we both stood.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Of course those citizens whose voices are taken away because they do not have photographic ID are also victims. As the Minister is concerned about fraudulent votes, can she tell the House how many fraudulent votes were prevented in each of the pilot areas?
Chloe Smith
As I have already said, evaluations of the pilots set out a range of data. The hon. Gentleman’s question is not the sort that can easily be answered, as I hope the more cerebral Members of the House will understand. That is because it is hard to put a figure on crime that is deterred. The question Labour Front Benchers really have to answer is: in the dying days of this Labour Front-Bench team, whose side is Labour on, given that the Leader of the Opposition employed a convicted electoral fraudster in his office?
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to see such a well stocked Treasury Bench for Cabinet Office questions, and how much I am looking forward to working with these Ministers? I am sure the feeling is mutual. In the excellent Conservative manifesto, the Government said they would set up a constitution, democracy and rights commission to address these matters. Will my hon. Friend expand on the scope, remit and timing of that commission?
Chloe Smith
I welcome my hon. Friend to his post as the new Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs. I look forward to working with him, as do all the members of the team here this morning. The commission will examine broader aspects of the constitution in more depth and make proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates. Full details will be announced in due course. Careful consideration is required, and I am confident that there will be high-quality discussion of the proposals with the Select Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Now that we have honoured the wishes of the British people and got Brexit done, we will publish later today detailed aspects of our future relationship with the European Union, and I shall be making a statement after these questions. Formal negotiations will begin next week.
Matthew Pennycook
When it comes to the negotiations that will begin next week, no one knows what the Government’s bottom line is, and we will not find out until later this year, but will the Minister explain to the House today why on earth the Government believe that the reputational damage that will be inflicted, not just in EU capitals but around the world, by our casual reneging on a number of commitments set out in the political declaration, which was signed in good faith with the EU after the recent general election, is a price worth paying?
Michael Gove
I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that his question is wholly misconceived. We have absolutely no intention of doing anything other than honouring the withdrawal agreement, honouring the protocol that we have signed, and making sure that we achieve the political declaration’s aim of ensuring that we have a comprehensive free trade agreement with no tariffs, no quotas and no quantitative restrictions.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend think the EU has spotted that we have actually left and no longer need to negotiate our terms of release?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend has made a very good point. There are a range of views—a spectrum of opinions—in European capitals, but I think that the pennies, the pfennigs and the centimes are dropping as a result of the Prime Minister’s speeches and the lecture given recently by the Prime Minister’s sherpa David Frost.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
Veterans offer a vast range of skills and talent to employers, and we want to see more of them working throughout the economy. We are making it easier for them to join the civil service, introducing a national insurance break for their employers, and investing £5 million in Jobcentre Plus armed forces champions.
Chris Elmore
It is concerning that 18% of UK businesses surveyed said that they would be unlikely to take on former armed forces personnel because of negative perceptions of those who had served in the forces. Both the Minister and I know that the armed forces actually provide skills for life that can be brought into different sectors. I warmly welcome the decision by the Cabinet Office to guarantee interviews to former armed forces personnel if they meet essential criteria, which is already being done in my Bridgend County Borough Council area. What more can the Minister do—including making representations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—to ensure that the scheme is implemented across Government?
Johnny Mercer
The whole concept of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is about making experience of being a veteran equal across the country. We are introducing the scheme that the hon. Member mentions later in the year, and we are also introducing legislation to ensure that the armed forces covenant is implemented correctly throughout the country, so that no veteran suffers disadvantage because of his or her service. The Prime Minister has shifted the dial in respect of what it means to be an armed forces veteran in this country, and I am determined to make this the best place on earth in which to be one.
Darren Henry
Does my hon. Friend agree that the ex-service personnel already working in the civil service bring invaluable skills and experience learned from the armed forces, and that guaranteeing veterans interviews for civil service jobs will boost the employment prospects of residents of Broxtowe and improve the civil service?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and thank him for his question. It is clear that in this country we are moving away from the idea that we should give veterans a job just to keep them busy, and are recognising the incredible skills and attributes that they bring to any job in society following 10 or 15 years of what has been pretty hard combat over the last few years. I pay tribute to those in the civil service, and to those who lead the way so that others can come through behind them.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Let me begin by saying that, with permission, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and I will be leaving this Question Time early to take part in an armed forces parliamentary scheme visit. I am sure the House will understand that no discourtesy is intended.
The Forces in Mind Trust reports that veterans experience a postcode lottery when looking for work, and fewer than half of those in the north say that it was easy to find employment. Is the Minister assured that support for veterans is being sent to where it is needed most in order to tackle that regional inequality?
Johnny Mercer
Regional inequality is a key factor in what the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is trying to do. Today we have the latest figures from the career transition partnership, and we have more people going into work and education than ever before. In fact, people are now more likely to be in employment if they are a veteran, but we are not complacent about that in any way. There is no reason why anybody coming out of the military cannot go into a job, which is the single biggest transformative factor in improving their life chances.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Amanda Milling)
The Government are committed to levelling up across the UK, and relocating roles to the regions and nations of the UK. The Places for Growth programme in the Cabinet Office is driving the necessary planning within Departments and public bodies, and a commitment to relocating 3,000 roles within public bodies has already been secured.
Peter Gibson
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer, and I welcome her to her place. Darlington remains a transport hub for our entire region, thanks to the hard work of our excellent combined authority Mayor, Ben Houchen. Teesside airport has reopened Tees Valley to the rest of the country and to international interest. Given the area’s international links and its excellent rail, road and air connections, will my right hon. Friend consider Darlington and Tees Valley as a location for public bodies?
Amanda Milling
I would like to start by paying tribute to Ben Houchen and all his excellent work as the Tees Valley Mayor, and also to my hon. Friend for highlighting the strengths of Darlington. There are already approximately 800 civil servants in Darlington, and 29,000 across the north-east. Given this strength, the north-east region will certainly benefit from the relocation of civil service roles under the Places for Growth programme.
Steve Double
I welcome the Minister to her place. Cornwall has 650 miles of the most beautiful coastline in the country and a fishing industry desperately keen to make the most of the opportunities of Brexit. Does my right hon. Friend share my view that Cornwall would be a great location in which to base the Marine Management Organisation?
Amanda Milling
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making sure that Cornwall’s voice is well and truly heard. Our focus is on relocating civil service roles in public bodies across the UK, and as part of this we are ensuring that any functions that are repatriated following EU exit are established in the regions and nations of the UK. My hon. Friend will be reassured to hear that the Marine Management Organisation already has several offices in the south-west, including one in Cornwall.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The Office for Veterans’ Affairs is staffed by civil servants, two of whom, including the director, are veterans. I myself am a veteran, and I have seen at first hand the need to support our veterans. The OVA is also setting up a veterans’ advisory board, which includes veterans and representatives from academia, business and the charity sector.
Mr Hollobone
My hon. and gallant Friend the Minister will recognise that veterans represent the very best of selfless service to our country, and no one understands veterans’ needs better than veterans themselves, so what plans does he have to increase the number of veterans, including disabled veterans, in his Department?
Johnny Mercer
People come and work in the Office for Veterans’ Affairs based purely on what they can add to the organisation. A number of veterans are working there at the moment. We are still conducting a recruitment process for certain roles, but it is an embryonic organisation that is finding its way through Government, and I look forward to giving my hon. Friend an update in writing later in the year.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Johnny Mercer
The Government are providing the best mental health support for veterans, spending £10.2 million a year on veterans’ mental health services through the transition intervention and liaison service and the complex treatment service.
James Sunderland
I thank the Minister for his answer. May I ask him how the Government are helping veterans to transition back into civilian life? Will he also tell the House about any new initiatives in the pipeline?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and pay tribute to his service. Veterans’ mental health care in this country is changing fundamentally, and the nation is finally realising its inherent responsibility to those who have served. We are rolling out a comprehensive NHS treatment programme through the complex treatment service and the transition, intervention and liaison service, which is the high-intensity service. Beyond that, there will be space for every brilliant third sector organisation to contribute. I am determined that this country will have the world’s best mental health care for veterans, and I look forward to updating my hon. Friend in due course.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am sure that the Minister will recognise that veterans’ mental health also carries on into retirement. Does he agree that it is time to exempt the war disablement pension for veterans who access it in order to improve their income, opportunities and mental health in the long term?
Johnny Mercer
Pensions are a complex area that we are constantly examining. Several schemes over the years have advantaged certain groups and disadvantaged others. I am having continual conversations to ensure that the armed forces covenant means something in this country, that those who have served have a special place in this nation’s heart, and that we look after people in the way that they deserve.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), I have an excellent idea that should be in the pipeline. The single biggest barrier to some veterans improving their mental health is getting and keeping a place to live because, disgracefully, we have some veterans who are homeless. Will my hon. Friend and the Cabinet Office, together with the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Work and Pensions and, indeed, the Ministry of Justice, consider supporting a pilot project to turbocharge the excellent work already being done by the Community Self Build Agency in this area?
Johnny Mercer
It will be of no surprise that I am a huge fan of the CSBA, which does incredible work in my Plymouth constituency. We must be careful about this idea of homeless veterans. In my experience of extensive studies, the situation is not quite as it is represented in the media, but one is one too many. Along with the rough sleeping initiative that is being announced today, I am determined to zero in on the issue. No veterans should be sleeping rough on this country’s streets, and we are determined to get there.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I am aware that suicide is normally lower among veterans than among their civilian cohorts. However, I have noticed that that has changed in the past six months, as the Minister will be aware, with my old platoon commander and several other people I served with having committed suicide. What is the Minister doing to support veterans in this area?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for his service. Suicide is an immensely complex area, and I work on it every single day. He is right that, traditionally, someone is less likely to take their life if they have served in the military, but we are experiencing a cluster of events, and we are working every day to understand why they are happening. I meet with the families of those who have been through this journey, and we are determined to ensure that we have done everything possible in every situation. Each one is a tragedy not only for the family and the individual, but for the military as an institution. I assure my hon. Friend that we are spending every waking moment trying to deal with this current series of events.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
No, we do not intend to grant that right. The Representation of the People Act 1918 sets out which non-UK nationals resident in the UK can vote in our parliamentary elections. The right is restricted to citizens from Commonwealth countries, including Malta and Cyprus, and to those from the Republic of Ireland who meet UK residency requirements.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
We currently give Commonwealth citizens, who may have been here only one month, but there are no reciprocal rights for British citizens to vote in Commonwealth countries. Why do we not give the right to vote to EU citizens, who may have lived here for 20 years, paying tax throughout that time? Do the Government not believe in representation and taxation?
Chloe Smith
First, it is right to pay tribute to the contribution to this country that EU citizens make, have made and will continue to make in the future. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other Ministers have set out, we welcome that contribution to the life of our nation, and we are making the settled status scheme available in order to further it. However, as far as we are aware, no other EU member state currently allows non-nationals to vote in national elections—besides Ireland, which has a long-standing bilateral agreement with the UK—so we think our approach is reasonable.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister acknowledges the contribution that EU citizens have made here in Britain. Of course, during the transition, EU citizens currently have the right to vote and stand for election at local level. Many EU nationals are currently serving as local councillors up and down the country for all political parties. What commitment can she make that EU nationals who currently serve in local government as locally elected councillors will be able to complete their term of office? Can she give them any guidance on whether they will be able to seek re-election and whether the communities they serve will be able to re-elect them?
Chloe Smith
I am absolutely confident that the hon. Lady is a close reader of all parliamentary questions that are answered in this House, and she will know that we have already answered that question on the record. Those who are elected to office will be able to serve their full term, including those elected before 2020. As I say, I am repeating my answer to an earlier parliamentary questions so the House is clear that EU citizens will be able to vote and stand in the May elections.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
The code of conduct for special advisers clearly outlines the standards of behaviour and conduct required of special advisers throughout their appointment. Where it may be suspected that an individual has failed to meet those standards, agreed disciplinary processes are carried out in line with the terms of the model contract for special advisers.
Owen Thompson
The code of conduct says that special advisers must not involve themselves with controversy. After calling for weirdos, misfits and “PJ Masks”, Dominic Cummings hired someone who has promoted eugenics. How is that acceptable?
Chloe Smith
There is little to add to what the Prime Minister said on this matter yesterday, which is that those views of Mr Sabisky have no place in this Government. Mr Sabisky has left the employment of the Government, and I do not think there is more to be said on the matter other than that they are not my views either.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Talking of Mr Sabisky, the Minister no doubt agrees with the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), that his views are offensive and racist. How come such a man was employed to work in Downing Street?
Chloe Smith
I do not think there is anything to be gained by going into individual instances of employment. I assure the House once again that those views are not shared by anybody on the Treasury Bench, and I am sure we would all agree on that.
Jon Trickett
That is all waffle, isn’t it? The truth is that a right-wing extremist sat in official meetings with the Prime Minister and with defence staff—that is a fact. When the political operation in No. 10 is out of control, it is a problem for politicians and the Government Front Bench. But when the vetting system breaks down or is sidestepped, is it not a problem for national security?
Chloe Smith
Does the Labour party honestly expect me to say from this Dispatch Box that the vetting system does not work? That would be a breach of national security, and I am not going to do any such thing. The hon. Gentleman ought to ask better questions.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Is not one way to solve the problem this question raises to have pre-appointment scrutiny of special advisers—or at least of senior special advisers, who, in some cases, are more powerful than Cabinet Ministers—by making candidates appear before a Select Committee before their appointment, as we do with other appointments?
Chloe Smith
As I have already said in my opening answer, the code of conduct is very clear about what is required, and the model contract likewise. The appointment procedure for special advisers is found in those documents, and the fact is that Ministers take decisions. The Prime Minister takes decisions about who is to be appointed to his team, which is as it should be—Ministers decide and advisers advise. Although I welcome my hon. Friend’s considered point on the processes that could be added, I think the current processes are adequate. Again, this was answered by the Prime Minister yesterday.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has just been clear that Ministers and the Prime Minister decide. She will be familiar with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the code for Ministers and the code for special advisers, which states clearly in section 9 that
“all appointments of special advisers require the prior written approval of the Prime Minister”.
So did the Prime Minister give prior written approval for the appointment of Andrew Sabisky—yes or no?
Chloe Smith
That is not the right question, because Mr Sabisky was a contractor.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
The Government are committed to delivering value for money, including from the additional £100 billion of investment in infrastructure that we have recently announced. That means that spending will not just be narrowly focused on where it brings the highest immediate economic return; it will also be focused on where it may unlock productive potential in the future.
Felicity Buchan
In London, under the stewardship of Transport for London and the Mayor of London, Crossrail is £2.5 billion over budget and two and a half years behind schedule. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that those mistakes are not made elsewhere in the country?
Penny Mordaunt
I know that this is a frustration for my hon. Friend’s constituents. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority has worked with the Department for Transport and across Government to identify and implement the key lessons to be learned from such major projects, and the IPA provides challenge that is fair and accurate, through an independent assurance review of major Government projects.
Chris Loder
Will my right hon. Friend assure me of the Government’s commitment to vital rail infrastructure funding for Dorset and the surrounding counties, given that we have a three-hourly rail frequency in our county and it takes us almost three hours to get to London?
Penny Mordaunt
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his election and, as the whole House is aware, for going above and beyond the call of duty in ensuring that his constituents could use train services during the recent strikes. As I say, we are investing an additional £100 billion in infrastructure, and we are seeking to ensure that we prioritise the right projects, taking a whole-network and whole-life-value approach. His representations have been well made, and they are being listened to.
Rob Butler
Now that HS2 has been approved, how will my right hon. Friend ensure, if necessary working with Ministers from other Departments, that costs are firmly controlled, so that all taxpayers nationwide, including in my constituency, through which this line unfortunately runs, can be confident that they have received value for money?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. Obviously, the DFT is leading on the delivery of HS2. The IPA will continue to work with the DFT to support the delivery of this initiative, through expert advice and challenge in independent assurance reviews. The recent review of and recommendations on HS2 are very focused on ensuring that costs are controlled and that there will be no further delays.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
I have regular meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade covering a number of issues, not the least of which is our border arrangements. Import controls are necessary to keep our borders safe and secure, and to ensure that we treat all partners equally, especially when it involves collecting the right customs, VAT and other excise duties.
Martyn Day
I am grateful to the Minister for answering this question. During the referendum, he said that we would be part of a
“free trade zone…from Iceland to the Russian border”,
with
“full access to the European market”.
However, this month he has been clear that we will lose frictionless trade, and that will introduce red tape and vast impacts on our businesses. How can businesses trust his future pronouncements? Will he clarify when he abandoned the idea of frictionless trade?
Michael Gove
The whole point of our negotiations with the European Union, now that we have left, is to ensure that we do have a comprehensive free trade agreement that will ensure there are no tariffs, quotas or quantitative restrictions. That is entirely consistent with the broader approach towards free trade, which does indeed exist from Iceland to the Russian border.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Beth Winter
As the Minister will be aware, my country of Wales has, along with Scotland, already passed legislation to give young people aged 16 the vote. It is a positive move and the right thing to do; it will enable young people to engage in the political process and influence decisions that affect their lives. Surely it is time that the Minister followed our excellent lead and listened to what young people want; it is their future, after all.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, but I am afraid it is a no.
Mike Amesbury
If it is good enough for the Welsh and the Scottish, why on earth are 16 and 17-year-olds in England and, indeed, Northern Ireland not entitled to the vote? It is a question of equality. If someone can go to war for their country and pay their taxes for the country, we should extend the franchise to them. From Peterloo to the extension of the franchise to women through the women’s suffrage movement, the north-west has a proud history of extending the franchise. Come on: do the right thing for the English, Minister, and give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote and, indeed, those in Northern Ireland as well.
Michael Gove
That was a brilliant question in the style of orator Henry Hunt at Peterloo, but I am afraid we have to accept that in the United Kingdom the devolved Administrations quite rightly make decisions within their competence but the UK Government have no intention of altering the franchise in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We are getting on with the people’s priorities: investing in our NHS and fighting crime, improving education and levelling up the economy. Those things are more important than constitutional changes.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
The Government have a commitment to pay 90% of valid and undisputed invoices from small and medium-sized enterprises within five days. Departments also have a non-executive director responsible for prompt payment, and suppliers now risk being excluded from winning large Government contracts if they cannot demonstrate prompt payment in their supply chain.
Rob Roberts
I thank the Paymaster General for that answer. Following on from her responses to my hon. Friends’ questions earlier regarding small and medium-sized businesses, the cash flow of those businesses is the most important factor in their survival, so what assurances can my right hon. Friend give that the timely payment commitment will always extend further down the chain so that small and medium-sized businesses in my Delyn constituency are able to plan ahead with confidence?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend those assurances: we do take those things into account. As far as the Cabinet Office is concerned—of course, it is similar for many other Departments across Government —we are meeting the five-day payment target, and in 99% of cases all invoices are paid within 30 days.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Next week, we will start negotiations with the EU on our future relationship, and I will shortly make a statement to the House on our approach. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, the transition period will end at the end of this year. We are working closely with businesses and border groups on preparations for the end of the transition period, and I will be meeting representatives from our ports, freight and haulage sectors later today.
I take this opportunity to welcome to the Front Bench my strengthened and hugely talented ministerial team. I look forward to working with them to deliver on our priorities in the months ahead: overseeing the transition period, strengthening the integrity of our precious Union, ensuring that our constitution is fit for the 21st century, and reforming our civil service and public sector in line with the people’s priorities.
Owen Thompson
The SNP Scottish Government’s groundbreaking legislation ensures that everyone who chooses to make their home in Scotland, including refugees and EU citizens, can vote. That follows up on the enabling of votes at 16, which the Government here continue to oppose. Will the Minister now look to follow the lead of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament towards a more inclusive democracy, or have this Government given up entirely on democracy?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for outlining the approach to the franchise that the Scottish Government take, but one of the most important lessons that democracy teaches us is that we must respect votes. Of course, Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom in the referendum in 2014, and I am afraid his party still refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of that referendum.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Michael Gove
I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question. The truth is that our United Kingdom is proof positive that a union of nations is stronger together, and it is important that we ensure that the benefits of our Union are spread equally. That means making sure that public sector jobs are deployed effectively in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It also means that the strength of our Exchequer is the foundation that our economy provides for human flourishing across these islands. All these things are reflective of the strength of our Union, the single most successful political union and enterprise that anyone has seen on this earth, and that is why it is so important that we fight for it from Fermanagh to Forfar and to every part of England and Wales as well.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Why is the Secretary of State scared of 16 and 17-year-olds?
Michael Gove
As the father of a 16 and a 17-year-old, I can assure the hon. Lady that I am not in the least scared of them.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent question. She will be aware that leaving the EU is a golden opportunity to reform our procurement rules. We must cut red tape. We must drive innovation and make it easier for small businesses to win those public sector contracts. We will achieve that by creating a bespoke system for British businesses that also complies with our international obligations.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
May I ask the Secretary of State, and explicitly him on this question, what role does Dominic Cummings have in the Cabinet Office, and will he outline his professional and personal relationship with him?
Michael Gove
The gentleman concerned is a special adviser who works for the Prime Minister. All special advisers work for the Prime Minister. I have the highest regard for the special advisers who do such a wonderful job, supporting the Government in the delivery of the people’s priorities.
Pete Wishart
Yesterday, the former Chancellor said that he had resigned because of the interference of Dominic Cummings and the working arrangements of what is the second office of state. Never before has such a senior member of the Government resigned because of the dictates of an unelected official. Is it now Mr Cummings and his weirdos and misfits who are running this Government? How many other Sabiskys are lurking around in Departments, and how does the right hon. Gentleman now fit in to the operation and mechanics of government?
Michael Gove
Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. [Interruption.] Forgive me. It is only a matter of time, I suspect. The broader point is that the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and No. 10 work seamlessly together to ensure that the wishes of the British people, as expressed in the last general election, to strengthen our United Kingdom, to level up our economy and to make sure that people have the opportunity to excel in every sphere are carried out with harmony, unity and energy.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a characteristically acute point. It is the case that the European Union exports more in goods to the UK than we export to the EU. Were some voices—I stress that it is a minority of voices in the European Union—to prevail and were they not to progress these negotiations in the way that, I am sure, we would all want to see, there would be damage to the EU’s economy, and that is the last thing that I want to see.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
We were clear in our manifesto that we are committed to equal and updated boundaries, and we will bring forward proposals in due course on how to meet that commitment.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
In February 2019, the deputy national statistician said that, for the census to go ahead as planned in March 2021, the legislation needs to be passed this April. Does my hon. Friend agree that delays to the laying of the census order now means that it is impossible for that legislation to be passed before April, and what is being done to ensure that the census will take place in March next year?
Chloe Smith
My hon. Friend has clearly already got himself into the detail of the Department in the most admirable way, which is what we would expect from the new Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He is right that this legislation is pressing and that behind it sits a very large programme being delivered by the UK Statistics Authority, with which I work closely. We will bring forward the order shortly to Parliament, and I look forward to its scrutiny in this place so that we can have a successful census in 2021.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Michael Gove
Mr Sabisky was dismissed before the review embarked on its work.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster not think it odd that the very people who want votes at the age of 16 changed the law so that 16-year-olds cannot buy cigarettes or go into a tanning salon, and does that not reveal just how empty their aspirations are?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend, in typically pithy fashion, draws attention to the fact that when we consider the whole question of when people reach the age of maturity, the landscape is complicated. The previous Labour Government—this was led by Ed Balls—raised the participation age in education to ensure that 17 and 18-year-olds had to be in employment, education or training. That was a welcome recognition of the need to support young people to be everything they can be at the appropriate moment. This Government are committed to ensuring that young people have the right opportunities, but it is important to acknowledge that, for example, even though young people can apply to join the armed forces at 16, they cannot be deployed in a battlefield situation until they are at least 18. It is important, when discussing 16, 17 and 18-year-olds, to appreciate the complexity of the situation and to show sensitivity.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Michael Gove
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, pointed out earlier, there is a difference between special advisers, who are appointed by and work for the Prime Minister, and contractors, who exist in all Departments.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Why does my right hon. Friend not prevent enterprises from bidding for Government contracts unless they can demonstrate a record of having paid their suppliers on time?
Penny Mordaunt
Companies do have to demonstrate that, and if existing suppliers do not comply with the targets we have set, they will be booted off the supplier list.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Chloe Smith
The hon. Gentleman raises a thoughtful point. He will be aware that Her Majesty’s Treasury has led a review of those rules. I think that we all agree that we want to see employees treated accurately and fairly, whichever category they fall into, and of course that the public purse is protected by taxes being brought in and made available for public services. I am happy to look at the matter in slightly more detail if he thinks there is something beyond that.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend tell me what he is doing at the moment about the current Combat Stress situation?
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I pay tribute to Combat Stress for the immense work it has done over many years for those who suffer with mental health challenges when they return from operations. The situation is difficult. There is no doubt that the model of healthcare for our veterans is fundamentally changing, to a realisation of the responsibility that the NHS has towards those who serve. Within that model of care, there is a role for everybody. As we undergo that transition, services are available and their uptake is being monitoring every single day.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question. Civil servants must of course abide by the civil service code, and we deprecate the leaking of any Government information. I will reflect hard on the point behind her question.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I declare an interest as a vice-president of Combat Stress. May I point out that Combat Stress is facing a crisis because the Government are withdrawing funding for the 1,200 or so veterans who use its services every year? There is now an instance of a veteran taking their own life because they were refused treatment by Combat Stress and referred back to their GP. This is a very serious situation. Will my hon. Friend please ensure that Combat Stress gets the funding it needs to deliver the care to the veterans it looks after?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his work with Combat Stress. The reality is that Combat Stress is facing challenges at this time, and not exclusively because of issues with Government contracts. These challenges are reflected across the third sector because mental health care is changing. We must always be driven by the evidence about what works when it comes to accessing and treating more and more people, as the awareness of mental health goes up. I have met Combat Stress a number of times, and I have met my hon. Friend to discuss this issue. I am happy to continue meeting to find a solution to this very difficult problem, the answer to which is not always throwing money at it and hoping that it gets better.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
In response to my earlier question, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, said that no other European country grants non-citizens voting rights. I think that might have been slightly erroneous. Portugal grants Brazilians who meet a certain threshold voting rights at the national level, and there is a similar arrangement in Scandinavian countries through the Nordic Passport Union. Will the Minister think again about our out-of-place system, whereby people who may have lived here for 20-odd years, people who pay tax here and even people who may have been born here, are not able to vote here? At least, let us open the conversation.
Chloe Smith
To be clear, I said that that was the case as far as I was aware, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adding two further examples to the debate. He is right that we should be aware of such examples and have that conversation, but the Government’s stance is as I set out earlier—that it is reasonable and right to focus on the voters who are currently enfranchised by the Representation of the People Acts. I think that citizenship restrictions are commonplace for participation in national elections across not only the EU but most democracies, and the weight of evidence is with the Government’s position.
We intend to take forward policy to ensure that British citizens around the world—who may have travelled far from Britain but are none the less still British citizens—can vote in elections. That is how our democracy should be run. I look forward to speaking further with the hon. Gentleman. I understand from this morning’s Order Paper that he has joined the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, so I look forward to further such discussions in time.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Some Welsh companies wishing to bid for public contracts in Wales frequently find themselves unable to do so because of EU procurement requirements. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that procurement regulations will be changed post the implementation period to enable Welsh companies to bid for contracts in Wales?
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are some big opportunities for us to change those procurement rules. I have already had conversations with the devolved nations, and I will visit them shortly to take forward and listen to the ideas of businesses so that we can ensure that the new rules and regimes reflect their needs.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster might want to be very careful with the answers he gives to the House about Mr Sabisky in relation to the defence and security review—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) a moment ago—because he well knows that teams of civil servants have been working on that review for some time; it did not just start yesterday, when the Prime Minister announced it. Can he answer this question: did Mr Sabisky meet any of the officials working on the defence and security review—yes or no?
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I welcome the veterans interview guarantee, but I have spoken to veterans in Stoke-on-Trent Central, where we have quite a number, and sometimes the issue relates to pre-employment in that they need help to prepare for being ready for an interview. Will the Minister give some idea of whether we can support them on that?
Johnny Mercer
Preparing those who have served for civilian life is a huge part of what we do. We put a lot of money into the Career Transition Partnership. Its statistics out today show that veterans have an 86% employment rate, and that continues to rise year on year. They have a higher employment rate than the civilian cohort. We are not resting on our laurels. We will continue to do all we can in the “pre” phase before individuals leave service to make sure that they have the best possible opportunity to make the most of their skills when they rejoin civilian life.
European Union: Future Relationship
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s approach to our future relationship with the European Union.
Now that Britain has left the EU, we are entering a new chapter in the history of these islands. This Government have honoured the clearly expressed wish of the British people. Their instruction to us, their servants, to secure our departure from the EU has been followed. The votes of 17.4 million people—more than have ever voted for any democratic proposition in our history—were implemented on 31 January and we are now on a new journey. As a sovereign, self-governing, independent nation, we will have the freedom to frame our own laws, control our own borders, lower all our taxes, set our own tariffs, determine our own trade relationships, and ensure that we follow the people’s priorities on security, the economy, and democratic accountability. Over the next nine months, we will negotiate a new relationship with our friends and partners in the EU based on free trade and friendly co-operation. We have today published the approach for these negotiations, and copies of the document, “The Future Relationship with the EU”, were made available to Members in the Vote Office from 9.30 am.
Talks with the EU on our future relationship begin next week. It is our aim to secure a comprehensive free trade agreement as well as agreement on questions such as fisheries, internal security and aviation. We are confident that those negotiations will lead to outcomes that work for both the UK and the EU, but this House, our European partners, and, above all, the British people should be in no doubt: at the end of the transition period on 31 December, the United Kingdom will fully recover its economic and political independence. We want the best possible trading relationship with the EU, but in pursuit of a deal, we will not trade away our sovereignty.
The Government’s vision for the UK’s future relationship with the EU was outlined with crystal clarity by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign, and the election result comprehensively confirmed public support for our direction of travel. In his speech in the Painted Hall in Greenwich on 3 February, the Prime Minister laid out in detail how we will reach our destination. The first principle of our approach is that we wish to secure a relationship based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals. We respect the EU’s sovereignty, autonomy and distinctive legal order, and we expect it to respect ours. We will not accept or agree to any obligations where our laws are aligned with the EU or the EU’s institutions, including the Court of Justice. Instead, each party will respect the other’s independence and the right to manage its own borders, immigration policy and taxes.
The second and allied principle of our approach is that we will seek to emulate and build on the types of relationship that the EU already has with other independent sovereign states. We will use precedents already well established and well understood to ensure that both sides’ sovereignty is respected. By using already existing precedents, we should be able to expedite agreement. We will seek functional arrangements that the EU will recognise from its many other relationships. Our proposal draws on existing EU agreements such as the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada, the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement and the EU-South Korea free trade agreement. That approach should enable us to move swiftly towards the goal envisaged in the political declaration agreed last October, in which both sides set the aim of concluding a zero-tariff, zero-quota free trade agreement.
As well as concluding a full FTA, we will require a wholly separate agreement on fisheries. We will take back control of our waters as an independent coastal state, and we will not link access to our waters to access to EU markets. Our fishing waters are our sovereign resource, and we will determine other countries’ access to our resources on our terms. We also hope to conclude an agreement on law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, so that we can work with the EU to protect their citizens and ours from shared threats, but we will not allow our own legal order to be compromised. By taking back full control of our borders, we can implement measures to make the British people even safer, and we can tackle terrorism and organised crime even more effectively. We also wish to conclude a number of technical agreements covering aviation and civil nuclear co-operation, which will help to ensure continuity for the UK on its new footing as an independent sovereign nation.
Securing agreement on all those questions should not, in principle, be difficult. We are, after all, only seeking relationships with the EU that it has with other nations—relationships that respect the interests and the sovereignty of both partners. It is in that light that we should view discussions about what has been termed the “level playing field”. It has been argued that EU demands in this area will make full agreement difficult, yet there is no intrinsic reason why requirements that both parties uphold desirable standards should prejudice any deal.
The United Kingdom has a proud record when it comes to environmental enhancement, workers’ rights and social protection. In a number of key areas, we either exceed EU standards or have led the way to improve standards. On workers’ rights, for example, the UK offers a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert it to parental leave, so that both parents can share care. The EU minimum is just 14 weeks. On environmental standards, we were the first country in the world to introduce legally binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets through the Climate Change Act 2008. We were also the first major global economy to set a legally binding target to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across the economy by 2050.
We will not dilute any existing protections. Indeed, as the Environment Bill debated yesterday demonstrates, we wish to go further and faster than the EU in improving the natural environment. We do not need the EU’s permission to be a liberal nation leading the world in the fight against climate change and for social progress. That is why the UK Government seek an FTA with robust protections for the environment and labour standards, but we do not see why the test of suitability in those areas should be adherence to EU law and submission to EU models of governance. The EU does not apply those principles to free trade agreements with other sovereign nations, and they should not apply to a sovereign United Kingdom.
Some argue that we must accept EU procedures as the benchmark because of the scale of UK trade with the EU, but the volume of UK trade with the EU is no greater than the volume of US trade with the EU, and the EU was more than willing to offer zero-tariff access to the US without the application of EU procedures to US standard setting. The EU has also argued that the UK is a unique case, owing to its geographical location, but proximity is not a determining factor in any other FTA between neighbouring states with large economies. It is not a reason for us to accept EU rules and regulations. We need only look at the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement for an example of a trade agreement that does not require regulatory alignment to one side’s rules or demand a role for one side’s court. Geography is no reason to undermine democracy.
To be clear, we will not be seeking to align dynamically with EU rules on EU terms governed by EU laws and EU institutions. The British people voted to take back control, to bring power home and to have the rules governing this country made by those who are directly accountable to the people of this country, and that is what we are delivering.
The negotiations are due to begin next week, led by the Prime Minister’s sherpa, David Frost, and I would like to end by looking ahead optimistically to the coming months. There is ample time during the transition period to strike the right deal for the UK. We hope to reach a broad agreement ahead of the EU Council’s high-level summit in June, whereupon we will take stock.
We know that our proposals are measured and our approach is fair. We know what we want to achieve. We are ready to go, and this Government are committed to establishing a future relationship in ways that benefit the whole UK and strengthen the Union. We are committed to working with the devolved Administrations to deliver a future relationship with the EU that works for the whole UK, and I take this opportunity to reassure colleagues that our negotiation that will be undertaken without prejudice and with full respect to the Northern Ireland protocol.
This Government will act in these negotiations on behalf of all of the territories for whose international relations the UK is responsible. In negotiating the future relationship between these territories and the EU, the UK Government will seek outcomes that support the territories’ security and economic interests, and reflect their unique characteristics. As the Prime Minister committed to do on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, we will keep Parliament fully informed about the negotiations, and colleagues will be able to scrutinise our progress.
This Government are delivering on our manifesto commitments with energy and determination. This Government got Brexit done, and we will use our recovered sovereignty to be a force for good in the world and a fairer nation at home. We want and we will always seek the best possible relationship with our friends and allies in Europe, but we will always put the welfare of the British people first. That means ensuring the British people exercise the democratic control over our destiny for which they voted so decisively. That compact with the people is the most important deal of all, and in that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the Cabinet Office for prior sight of his statement. He talks about having got Brexit done, but he knows that is not the case. We have taken the first step in leaving the European Union, but Brexit, as he knows, is far from done. The Government’s ambition for our new relationship with our most important trading partner is, frankly, underwhelming. They started with a commitment to securing the exact same benefits; then scaled it back to frictionless trade to protect our vital supply chains; then it was Canada-plus-plus-plus; and now it is Canada so long as that does not get in the way of ending our alignment with the standards that we have previously enjoyed.
The Minister talked about the Government’s mandate in the general election, which was based on a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration that says the free trade agreement will be
“underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field”.
They now apparently reject that. The Minister spoke of higher UK standards than are required within the EU, and he is right—there are some examples; there are also contrary examples—but EU standards are a floor, not a ceiling. May I ask the Minister: if the Government have no intention of falling below those standards, why are they unwilling to make that commitment?
I spent Monday evening with manufacturing companies from across the north of England, and they are not worried by alignment; indeed, they want it. They are concerned about the barriers to trade undermining their position in the crucial European market. I know that the Prime Minister has made his contempt for the views of business well known, but will the Government not think again at this crucial moment, because they are taking serious risks with our economy, people’s jobs and their livelihoods?
The Treasury analysis from November 2018 predicted that a Canada-style FTA would shrink the economy by up to 6.4%. I know the Government have rubbished their own analysis already, but what new analysis have they done? May I ask the Minister: will the Government publish a full economic impact assessment of the deal that they are seeking? Will they also publish the assessment of the other trade deals that he mentioned? A recent freedom of information request revealed that the Department for International Trade has commissioned and received, but not yet published, assessments of the impact on the UK economy of the FTA with the US, of that with Japan and of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Will he commit to publishing those impact assessments immediately?
The Prime Minister has told us time and again that his Brexit deal
“represents stability and certainty for business.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 594.]
But in ruling out extending the transition period, the Government are taking business from one set of uncertainties to a new set. They are expecting to complete enormously complex negotiations in just 10 months, with a cavalier disregard for the consequences of failing to do so. The Minister’s warning to business that customs checks are “inevitable” and that “almost everybody” will face extra barriers at the border is deeply concerning. Indeed, the one place where the Government claim that there will not be checks—for GB trade with Northern Ireland—is the only place where they have actually so far committed to having them: down the Irish sea. In light of the conflicting statements from so many of his colleagues, will the Minister clarify the extent of checks along the border that the Government have created down the Irish sea?
Labour wants the best deal for Britain in trade, security and all the other areas mentioned by the Minister. That means maintaining the closest possible relationship with our most important trading partner, and it is on that that we will hold the Government to account.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and for the constructive way in which he approaches these matters. This Government are wholly committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement, to respecting and enacting the Northern Ireland protocol, and to giving effect to the political declaration and its aim of securing a comprehensive free trade agreement without tariffs, quotas or quantitative restrictions. He asked specifically about the maintenance of standards, and the requirement that we follow EU law and ECJ judgments in order to secure workers’ rights and environmental protections. We do not believe that is necessary, and the EU does not require submission to its legal order from any other sovereign independent state. Ultimately, the best guarantor of environmental protections and workers’ rights is a sovereign UK Parliament that is determined to lead in the world, just as this Government are doing in those areas.
It is vital to ensure that our manufacturing sector, like all sectors of our economy, is equipped to take advantage of new economic opportunities. That is what the Government are doing, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say more about how we can supercharge every part of our economy when he delivers the Budget statement on 11 March. The free trade agreement that we seek should ensure tariff-free access to markets, and provisions on rules of origin that will allow the manufacturing sector to flourish in the future.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the need to ensure that negotiations are concluded by the end of the transition period on 31 December necessarily means that they will have to proceed at pace. They will, but as I pointed out, and as he acknowledges, because we are seeking relationships for which there is already a precedent between the EU and other countries—precedents such as those between the EU and Canada, Japan, South Korea and others—it should be possible to make rapid progress. I note that my good friend, Dr Martin Selmayr—he is now the EU’s permanent representative to Austria, and he previously worked for the President of the Commission—has said that it would be entirely possible to conclude those negotiations in a timely fashion, and not for the last time, Dr Selmayr and I are in complete agreement on that.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about customs checks and a border down the Irish sea. There will be no border down the Irish sea, and we will ensure that there is unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the United Kingdom.
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s sincere beliefs and his commitment to appropriate scrutiny, but the problem for the Labour party more broadly is that its approach to Europe would mean that we would have no control over our fishing borders, no effective control over our borders, and no way of charting our own independent economic destiny. Looking at that proposal, I am afraid all I can say, as someone once said, is, “No, no, no.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his clear statement, and on his view that since the standards we set are higher than those in the EU, he will therefore not be demanding that the EU aligns with our standards as we go forward. That is refreshing. The settlement on Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement included provision on state aid, and since then, the EU has interpreted that as bringing the whole UK under state aid provisions. Will he confirm that in any future agreement with the EU, we will not accept that the UK leaves itself under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice when it comes to state aid provision?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we must respect the integrity of that protocol, but it is not the case that the CJEU should be governing the application of state aid in the way that some have envisaged, which would be quite wrong.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
What a load of bunkum, baloney and codswallop! This is nothing other than a route map to the cherished no deal, which is the real ambition of the Brexit zealots on the Conservative Benches. They are, even now, prepared to break international law to achieve that outcome.
Let us dispense with the unicornism and see if we can start to make sense of the real world and what we are actually dealing with. The EU expects nothing other than the political declaration to be implemented in full. It expects that level playing field to be realised and it will not accept anything else. How many times do the Government need to be told that the UK will not leave with a better deal and arrangement than that which is currently enjoyed? It does not matter if it is Canada-plus. It does not matter if it is Australia. It does not even matter if it is outer space-minus-minus-minus. The Government will have an inferior product at the end of the day when we finally get an agreement with the EU. Look at who we are up against: it is the clown-shoe UK up against the efficient, effective EU, with its negotiating experience—[Laughter.] Conservative Members are laughing, sitting there with their proposals which mean absolutely nothing. They will be trounced by the EU in the negotiating process. Their hard Brexit will do nothing but hurt my nation. Even with one of these free trade agreements, our GDP will be hit by 6.1%. If they get their cherished no deal, the consequences will be absolutely catastrophic for my nation of Scotland.
Scotland wanted nothing whatever to do with this ruinous Brexit and we will not accept it. I am sure the hon. Gentlemen who have been laughing and scoffing have seen the opinion polls in Scotland. There is now sustained majority support for independence for Scotland. One of the things driving that is all of them saying no to Scotland and pursuing their hard Brexit. Scotland is not going to be a part of this, Secretary of State. We will not accept it. When will you allow us to have a referendum, so we can get out of this mad Brexit?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. First, may I use this opportunity to place on the record my thanks to Mike Russell MSP from the Scottish Government for the work he has done, along with leaders from other devolved Administrations, in helping to shape our approach?
Of course, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government will in some areas take a different view from the UK Government, but it is undoubtedly the case that our negotiating position is enhanced as a result of the conversations we have with our colleagues in the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government. Indeed, a number of changes have been made to our approach and to this document, following conversations I have had with the Scottish Government over the course of the past week.
It is also the case, however, that Scotland, like every part of the United Kingdom, will benefit hugely not just from our departure from the European Union but from the new trading relationships we will develop with other countries. It is the case, for example, that when we conclude a new free trade agreement with the United States, Scotland will be one of the sectors that benefits most from the new trading opportunities. It will also be the case, as the Scottish Government have themselves pointed out, that tens of thousands of new jobs will be created in north-east Scotland in the fishing sector as a direct result of our departure from the European Union—jobs that would not be created if we followed the SNP approach of staying in the common fisheries policy.
Ultimately, the greatest threat to the prosperity and security of the people of Scotland is the reckless approach the Scottish Government take towards the 2014 referendum and their determination to overturn the settled will of the Scottish people to stay in the United Kingdom. Their approach, I am afraid, would mean that we would have border posts at Berwick and they would not be able to use the pound sterling in Stirling. We must give that madness a miss.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that those who continue to peddle the line that we somehow need to tether ourselves to the EU’s rules and standards are in fact making a case to hold Britain back?
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that 60% of international exports from Wales go to the European Union? The Welsh Government have said that there must be a level playing field and frictionless trade with the EU in the interests of the Welsh economy. Is he aware of that?
Michael Gove
I am very well aware of the views of the Welsh Assembly Government, thanks to the excellent work done by Jeremy Miles AM, the Brexit Minister and Counsel General. I enjoy the conversations I have with Jeremy, Mark Drakeford and others to ensure we can work together.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I appreciate that negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU is a priority, but will the Minister confirm that we will also look to reach free trade agreements with other countries, that such negotiations are either under way or will be shortly, and that we have the civil service capacity to reach them?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Yes, we do—the Department for International Trade has a team of trade negotiators, lawyers and other policy experts. There have already been a number of informal and formal contacts with the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other participants in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we will proceed at pace with negotiations with partners across the globe to forge free trade agreements in the interests of every part of the United Kingdom.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Brexit is clearly far from done. It had cost us £130 billion by January and the average UK household is £900 worse off. Will the Minister tell us what he estimates the price tag will be at the end of this year, and, given the gendered impact of trade, where is the equality impact assessment that the Government have a statutory duty to provide?
Michael Gove
Looking at most of the indices of economic performance, such as the measures of increased investment and increased capital expenditure recently, it is the case that the United Kingdom economy, following the Conservative victory in the general election on 12 December, is powering ahead—indeed, powering ahead by comparison with EU nations. I would like to make sure that we get a comprehensive free trade agreement so that other EU nations can benefit from the dynamism of the UK economy and that men and women across Europe can benefit from the right economic relationship.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Financial services are critical to this country’s economy, contributing 11% of our total tax take. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents who work in financial services that their interests will be protected during free trade negotiations?
Michael Gove
Absolutely—financial services matter not just in the City of London, but in Edinburgh, Perth, Leeds and across the United Kingdom. It is a dynamic and growing sector and it is important that we make sure we have the right arrangements for them. We hope that the EU will report by June on the prospects for equivalency in financial services. That commitment was made in the political declaration. It did not subsequently appear in the EU’s negotiating mandate, but I am confident that by June the EU will have completed those equivalency assessments.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
In our future relationship, it is important that musicians, performers and so on can move freely and continue to go to Europe, and that European performers can come here on a reciprocal basis. What is the Minister’s understanding of the Government’s position on that?
Michael Gove
The hon. Member makes an important point. He will see that in this document there are details on how we can ensure that those who provide professional services, including artists and musicians, can continue to do so at the end of the transition period. It is critically important that the cultural excellence that so many UK musicians are responsible for continues to be available to European nations. Whether it is the Bayreuth festival or pop concerts in Belgium, we need to make sure that British talent has a chance to shine.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that an agreement on a future relationship by the end of the year is perfectly feasible, and that the EU and its negotiators need to recognise the reality of a sovereign, independent United Kingdom with a strong, dynamic economy?
Michael Gove
Yes, that is absolutely right. As I mentioned, a number of EU leaders have said that a deal is doable because we are operating on the basis of precedent, and it should then be possible to conclude all the necessary agreements. Having concluded these agreements by the end of this year, we can then move on to deepening the many bilateral and multilateral relationships that we have with our friends and partners in Europe to the benefit of all.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman referred to other deals that he is hoping to emulate. He will be aware that the EU’s deal with South Korea took eight years from the start of negotiations to implementation and that the Canada deal took seven. Given that the Government are seeking a much more comprehensive arrangement than either of those, his optimism that it can be done and ratified in 10 months remains to be proven, but will he confirm that if it is not possible to conclude a deal, we will exit the transition period on 31 December with no agreement whatsoever?
Michael Gove
We already have an agreement—a withdrawal agreement that safeguards the rights of UK and EU citizens, settles our financial obligations and makes provision through the protocol for Northern Ireland’s position. As for the free trade agreements to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, it is more difficult to begin when one is designing a prototype; now that the prototypes exist and have become precedents, it is much easier to replicate their provisions.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Further to the previous question, some two years ago I attended a presentation, complete with slides, given by Mr Michel Barnier, at which he indicated that, as things then stood, the only post-Brexit trading arrangements available to the UK were those enjoyed by South Korea and Canada, which is precisely the arrangement that the Government are seeking. Since then, the EU seems to have resiled from that position. Does my right hon. Friend know why the EU is apparently showing such bad faith?
Michael Gove
As my right hon. Friend knows, having served with distinction in government, there is a range of views across the European Union, but the EU mandate has now been concluded, with unanimity, and we are confident that we can negotiate using our approach and that mandate to reach an appropriate deal, similar to the one that he has outlined.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I have often referred in this place to the concerns of the highland tourism industry, in particular hotels, about the continuing employment of EU nationals, many of whom are heading homeward, and the concerns of fish processors about getting their fresh produce to European markets in good time. Will the Secretary of State, who is a good Scot, consider coming to the highlands to meet representatives of those industries? He would be most welcome.
Michael Gove
I would be delighted so to do. Any opportunity to visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is a welcome one. He is absolutely right that the hospitality industry is integral to the success of the highlands economy. We want to make sure that in the future those who provide such a high standard of hospitality have access to the skilled labour they need.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and his clear message on fisheries. He will know that memories run deep in our fishing communities, and that great concern continues to be felt because of the way the fishing industry was treated previously. Will he make it absolutely to clear to fishermen in Cornwall and around the country that access to our fishing waters will not be used as a bargaining chip to be traded off against other priorities?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: memories of what happened in the 1970s certainly do run deep, and for very good reason. That is why I sought to stress that we, as an independent sovereign state, regard control of our own resources as something we cannot barter away. Of course we want to co-operate in the management of stocks with our neighbours, but the approach we take will be similar to that of other sovereign states or regimes such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. As an independent coastal state, we will regulate access to our own waters on our terms.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment to trying to secure a comprehensive free trade agreement, but does he accept that many of my constituents who work in the automotive industry are seriously worried about the impact of a potential 10% tariff on motor vehicles? Will he give a firm commitment to making sure that their interests are as protected as possible?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Throughout his time in the House, he has been a strong, consistent and powerful voice for the rights of workers. He is absolutely right that those who work in our automotive sector deserve the best possible future, and it is for that reason that we will seek to avoid any tariffs on cars or automotive products.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
British farmers are proud to produce food to the highest standards, and the British consumer benefits from that. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the farmers and consumers of my constituency that those high standards will be maintained in any free trade agreement?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. The Agriculture Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) during her outstanding tenure as Environment Secretary and which is being carried forward by her successor, will ensure that farmers have a firm foundation on which to plan for the future. In all our trading relationships, we will make sure that there are appropriate protections for the environment and for animal welfare, to ensure that the peerless standards set by our farmers are used as a badge of excellence to enable them to do even better in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that fishing fleets and fish processors in Portavogie in my constituency, Ardglass, Kilkeel and elsewhere will have the same rights as their fellow fleets and processors in Scotland, Wales and England, and that Northern Ireland will not be disadvantaged by the border down the Irish sea?
Michael Gove
There will be no border down the Irish sea, and the fishing fleets of Northern Ireland will enjoy all the rights that they deserve, similar—indeed, identical—to those of other fishermen, and fishers, throughout the United Kingdom.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Striking a deal is far easier and far more likely from a position of strength. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in contrast to what happened in 2017, going into these negotiations with clarity and unity, backed up by a strong electoral mandate, should give us all reasons for optimism, not pessimism?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, given a 52-48 referendum result and 650 different views in the House, not everyone will be satisfied with every aspect of our negotiating approach; but with a united Government, a clear approach and a general election mandate, and given that this document is underpinned by clear work by lawyers, trade negotiators and others, I believe that we can secure a deal, and I am sure Members throughout the House recognise that we should not make our own personal perfect the enemy of the common good.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Minister’s statement and the document published today show that the Government have made a fundamental choice, which is to prioritise sovereignty over any economic argument or consequence for either goods or services. Is there not a danger, however, that having made that choice, the Government will impose long-term economic consequences on the country in pursuit of the prize of a sovereignty that they will end up not using very much, because at the end of the day good standards in the environmental, labour market and consumer sectors actually make sense?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman always makes thoughtful contributions to our debates, and I take his point. It will be for this Parliament and future Parliaments to decide how our sovereignty is exercised in accordance with the wish of the British people, but the experience of history tells us that the countries with the maximum amount of control over their own destinies are the best equipped to succeed economically and, indeed, to secure a greater degree of equity for all their citizens.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recognise the distinction between EU regulations and European technical standards? The latter are set outside the EU, and without a loss of sovereignty, by expert bodies of which the British Standards Institution is one of the most respected and admired in the world. Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that British standards expertise will continue to be able to influence European and international standards?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend has made an excellent point, which reflects the brilliant work that he did as Business Secretary. It is absolutely the case that there are common technical standards in which British experts play a distinguished part. We will want to ensure—and I know that others will want to ensure—that those common standards can help to underpin successful commerce and trade.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister began by saying that the Government were not asking for anything that was not already in an existing agreement between the EU and another country, but then gave an answer on financial services which the document backs up, saying that the Government were seeking an enhanced, comprehensive equivalence regime for our major sector. I must respectfully say to him that those statements cannot both be true. There is no single equivalence regime—it is a patchwork of regulations—and there are major bits of legislation that contain no equivalence provisions at all, such as cross-border payments regulation, the motor insurance distribution directive and the single euro payments area. So, with respect, we are asking for something additional, and one of the answers that the Minister has given is not really correct.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful intervention, but all that we are seeking is straightforward equivalence in financial services. The European Union has said that it will review that, and we will know the conclusions of its review by June.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
What an excellent statement the Minister made, outlining our principles, but can he assure me that the principles will not change when the EU says no to something? Over the last few years I have listened to excellent speeches from that Dispatch Box, only to find that our principles change when the EU says no.
Michael Gove
I am a restless seeker after consensus wherever it can be found, but, more important than that, I am a democrat. The British people made it clear in the referendum and again in the general election that they wanted us to leave the European Union, and the Prime Minister made it clear in the general election, as he did during the referendum campaign, that that meant leaving the single market, leaving the customs union and leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We will not move from those principles.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Regrettably, the British Government, through this statement, have decided to take a belligerent approach to the second phase of Brexit negotiations. Their opening move is to try to reopen the agreement reached after the first phase of Brexit, and to set further arbitrary deadlines for the infinitely more complicated second phase of Brexit dealing with trade. Rather than playing Russian roulette with people’s jobs and economic wellbeing, would it not be better for the Government to take a grown-up approach to these negotiations and remove any arbitrary deadlines for the conclusions of the negotiations?
Michael Gove
There are no arbitrary deadlines. The deadline of 31 December for agreement is in the political declaration. If we were to take that out, we would be altering the political declaration. However, we are honouring the political declaration, and far from being belligerent, all we are doing is simply setting a deadline. When I was an editor in the world of newspapers, setting a deadline for correspondents was not an exercise in belligerence; it was a way of making sure that we could serve the people.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have higher standards than the EU in a number of areas, particularly in maternity, and that it might be useful for the EU to recognise that in some of its discourse?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely bang on. Across the nations and countries of the continent of Europe, there are different approaches to some of these questions. There are also countries outside the European Union, such as Norway, that have exemplary standards in environmental protection, as well as in maternity and social rights. The UK, like Norway, is a progressive, liberal, modern country, and that is something that we should celebrate across the House. Outside the European Union, we can aim even higher.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows that Canada, South Korea and Japan are not in the single market or the customs union, so we are starting from a different position. Will he therefore accept that if we diverge from EU environmental standards and workers’ rights, there will inevitably be restrictions? Is it not really his plan to lose British jobs and simply blame the EU? Would it not be better to keep up the standards and keep up the trade, because people did not vote to lose their jobs when they voted to leave the EU?
Michael Gove
I completely understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but we have had a referendum and a general election, and in both it was very clear that we were going to leave the single market and the customs union and take back control in the interests of the British people.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement, and the document to which my right hon. Friend refers. I particularly welcome the clarification and increased detail on the subject of fisheries, and not least the point that, as he said in his statement, “we will require a wholly separate agreement on fisheries. We will take back control of our waters as an independent coastal state, and we will not link access to our waters to access to EU markets.” Will he confirm to the House and to the constituents of Banff and Buchan, particularly those in the seafood sector—the catchers and those on the processing side—that we will retain sovereignty and get the best deal for our fishermen across the United Kingdom, despite the assertions from the EU and the seemingly wishful thinking of Scottish National party Members?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For folk in Banff and Buchan, Moray and across the United Kingdom, a sea of opportunity beckons when we leave the European Union, and it is a great pity that the SNP and the Scottish Government, despite the many talented Members that they enjoy, still want us to remain in the EU and the common fisheries policy. This is one of a number of ways in which they would sell Scotland short, and it breaks my heart.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
This Government have today ignored the voice of Scotland in the referendum and ignored the compromise proposals from the Scottish Government. They are showing that they are willing to ride roughshod over a Sewel convention. Now the right hon. Gentleman has reneged on his offer as chair of Vote Leave for Scotland to have its own immigration policy. Which one of these aspects will strengthen his so-called precious Union?
Michael Gove
We are respecting the referendum result. In 2014, the people of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom. This is a settled decision that, sadly, the Scottish Government seek to unpick to the detriment of all. After Scotland voted to be in the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom, whole and entire, voted to leave the European Union, and we are working to ensure that that democratic decision works in the interests of all.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The UK’s economy is primarily service based, and while I hear that taking back our borders means a separate treaty for fishing, which many people in coastal communities will welcome, many of my constituents are in financial services and probably represent more people than are employed by fishing in the entire UK. We have talked about taking back control of our money, so why not have a separate treaty for financial services? If not—I have heard his comments on equivalence—will he set out the Government’s position on equivalence when it comes to the derivation period?
Michael Gove
As my hon. Friend makes clear, financial services matter not just in Wimbledon, but across the United Kingdom, which is why, as stated in the document published today, we wish to conclude an agreement that will make provision for financial stability, market integrity and investor and consumer protection for financial services. We also want to secure mutual recognition of professional qualifications to ensure that everyone in our service sector can continue to have access to opportunities in every market in which they currently work.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
May I ask the Minister for further information to the chapter on digital in the report, which refers to an
“open, secure and trustworthy online environment”
and encouraging regulatory co-operation? With the Government moving to tackle online harms on various platforms, will he set out in more detail what he means by ensuring that there is co-operation on regulation in any future trading agreement?
Michael Gove
Yes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are compliant with the general data protection regulation that the EU introduced, and we want to ensure that we get an equivalency judgment from the EU on data adequacy, so that we can continue to ensure that data flows, which are so integral to business and others, can continue in an appropriate way.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement for its clarity and optimism, which people of Montgomeryshire and, indeed, the majority of people in Wales will welcome. To tackle some of the scaremongering, will he meet with the Welsh farming unions to outline again that we will not seek to lower food standards? Indeed, if my hon. Friend wants a Welsh farmhouse breakfast, we can certainly do that in Montgomeryshire.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Whether it is from the Farmers’ Union of Wales, NFU Cymru or my hon. Friend, farmers in Wales have brilliant representation. There is nothing nicer than a Welsh farmhouse breakfast, apart from possibly an Ulster fry, or a bacon sandwich in Peterhead harbour.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Minister states that the negotiation will take place without prejudice to the Northern Irish protocol. However, there is confusion in Northern Ireland. We hear from the EU that there will be no derogation from the rules, but reports over the weekend suggested that the Government seek to find ways around the protocol, yet the Minister and his colleagues say that there will still be unfettered access and no border in the Irish sea. Will the Minister please describe in detail, with the crystal clarity he referred to, how those irreconcilable aims will be married up, and how people in Northern Ireland will finally get certainty after three and a half years of bluster and stalled investment? Will he also clarify what form the negotiation with the devolved Administration will take?
Michael Gove
Far from there being confusion, I hope that there is clarity that we will implement the withdrawal agreement, respect the Northern Ireland protocol, and then conclude a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union that will work in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and people across the United Kingdom. I have had profitable conversations with both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the preparation of our approach today. We will not always agree with every party in Northern Ireland, but all parties in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Lady’s, have an important role to play in ensuring that we deliver for all the people of the United Kingdom.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reassurances to our fisheries. Those reassurances are particularly relevant to the fisheries in my beautiful constituency. Does he agree that the point of leaving the EU is to enable us to make our own laws in our own way through politicians whom we elect, and who are accountable to the British people?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter. Democratic accountability, as outlined brilliantly and eloquently by the father of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in this House and elsewhere, is something that all of us should celebrate, and that leaving the European Union allows us to enhance.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The document rightly acknowledges the importance of the second-generation Schengen information system—SIS II —database, which holds millions of pieces of data on wanted or missing persons, including vulnerable children. The document also says that if by June insufficient progress has been made on ensuring the basis of an agreement by September, the Government will begin to make their own preparations for domestic priorities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain how he will protect this country properly if we have to sacrifice our access to millions of pieces of vital data and rely on an Interpol database that contains only a few hundred thousand records?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point. We would like to continue having access not just to the Schengen information system II database, but to Prüm, ECRIS and a number of other law enforcement and criminal justice tools. Of course, we will have to see what approach the European Union takes. I am hopeful it will take a pragmatic approach, because it benefits just as much as we do, if not more, from our participation in these databases. Leaving the European Union allows us, through our controlling our own borders and laws, to improve homeland security in a number of ways, and we will always act in the interests of the British people.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK and the EU will trade together under an Australian-style agreement if an agreement cannot be reached by the end of the year?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to have a comprehensive free trade agreement on the model I outlined in my statement, but if we do not, there are other great countries, including Australia, New Zealand and, of course, the United States, that have a huge volume of trade with the EU without having an agreement of that kind.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
We cannot level up by damaging the foundations, but that is exactly what would happen to the economy if we walked away in June, as the Government have this morning been briefing that we will. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, it would also do damage to our security. The document clearly says there should be no
“role for the CJEU in resolving UK-EU disputes”.
Does that mean that the Government are happy potentially to lose access to not only databases that are crucial to our security, but the European arrest warrant?
Michael Gove
That is ultimately a question for the EU. We are clear that we want a relationship of sovereign equals. If the EU attaches to that relationship a requirement that we follow the jurisdiction of its courts, it is not a relationship of sovereign equals. The security of the EU would be impinged as well, and I am sure that no European politician would want to sacrifice the security of their people by taking anything other than a constructive approach.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Before I came to this place I had a job, in the wake of the Brexit referendum, representing the banking industry in negotiations with the EU, the European Parliament, the Commission and the European Council, and in discussions with the Bank of England and the Treasury on what sort of relationship we want with the EU after Brexit. We came to realise quite quickly, as did the Bank of England—Mark Carney has spoken on this point—that, as a global financial centre, being a rule taker and having no say on our financial regulation would be a threat to the UK’s financial stability. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to be very careful, as becoming a rule taker would be a real threat to our financial services?
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Yesterday, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I heard from Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute that
“the risks to the UK’s essential alliance relationships are greater now than they have been for many decades.”
Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster advise the House on why the statement on our future relationship with the European Union says absolutely nothing about maintaining and improving defence?
Michael Gove
When it comes to maintaining and improving defence, we have a network of relationships, including, of course, our membership of NATO—the strongest and most durable alliance for freedom the world has ever known. When it comes to defending this country, one of most perilous things we could do would be to follow the Scottish Government’s approach of breaking up the United Kingdom and of unilateral nuclear disarmament. I am afraid that the SNP’s position on defence, like its position on so many other issues, would mean the Scottish people were less safe. That is the direct result of its ideological attachment to separation.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
In the light of the Minister’s remarks on a level playing field, can I ask him about competition policy and governance arrangements? Would the Government accept commitments on workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer and social standards being subject to any dispute resolution mechanism agreed to as part of the wider agreement?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman has given a list, and I will come back to each of them in correspondence. Some will be covered by dispute resolution mechanisms, and others may not.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Scotland cast its biggest ever vote on a proposition when it voted by 62% to remain in the EU. More people in Scotland voted to remain in the EU than voted to remain in the United Kingdom—and that was using the UK Government’s franchise; had the Government trusted 16 and 17-year-olds in the way we trust them in Scotland, a bigger proportion of voters would have voted to remain in the EU. Does the right hon. Gentleman truly believe that withholding the sovereign right of the Scottish people is a sustainable position? While protecting the sovereignty of the UK, is he prepared to deny the sovereignty of Scotland?
Michael Gove
It is the case that the Scottish nationalist party—[Hon. Members: “National!”] I am sorry, but as Robert Burns said,
“facts are chiels that winna ding”.
I am afraid that the representatives on that Bench are nationalists. They put separation—the smashing up of the United Kingdom—ahead of anything else. Some of them are decent and kind people, but they are nationalists. The reason they object so much is that when the mask comes off and we recognise the ideological heart of the SNP, they dinnae like it up ’em.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is estimated that if agreement is reached, there will be a need for about 50,000 new customs officers. Is it feasible to recruit and train that many people in less than six months, and who is going to foot the bill for it?
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Does the Minister recognise that even the most far-reaching and comprehensive free trade agreement will sadly still mean regulatory and rules of origin checks down the Irish sea. As such, beyond simply giving a rhetorical commitment on the implementation of the protocol, will he assure not just the House, but his negotiating partners in the EU, that the Government are preparing to implement that protocol?
Michael Gove
We will ensure that the protocol is appropriately implemented, and we will also ensure unfettered access for businesses in Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK market.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Brexit will be extremely damaging for Scotland in a range of ways. The difference between me and the Minister is that he is a British nationalist, whereas I am a Scottish nationalist. Does he think that Brexit imposed on Scotland will increase or decrease constitutional tensions across the UK?
Michael Gove
Britain leaving the EU will mean that there is a greater degree of harmony between every part of the United Kingdom. I recognise that that will be a disappointment to the SNP in its restless search for grievance, dissension and division, but one thing I cannot help saying is that even though I profoundly disagree with the SNP, it is so lovely to have so many SNP Members here in the Westminster Parliament. I know that for many, many years to come, there will be representation for Scotland here in Westminster, and that is a lovely thing.
Business of the House
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 2 March will include:
Monday 2 March—Second Reading of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, followed by a procedural motion relating to the High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill, after which the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Tuesday 3 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, followed by the Committee and remaining stages of the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 and the draft Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020.
Wednesday 4 March—Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on flooding, followed by a debate on health inequalities. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
Thursday 5 March—General debate on International Women’s Day.
Friday 6 March—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 March will include:
Monday 9 March—Second Reading of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 10 March—Remaining stages of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill.
Wednesday 11 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 12 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 13 March—Private Members’ Bills.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I am pleased to see that the Committee of Selection has now met and that the Select Committees are on the Order Paper. Just to clarify, the situation had nothing to do with the Labour party; it was in fact the Government who were delaying it. I hope that there will be motions on the Order Paper on Monday for the House to approve.
Will the Leader of the House provide the list of ministerial responsibilities? There have been a lot of new appointments.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that any of the new recruits who come into No. 10—particularly in the light of the statement by the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) and the replacement of his staff—who have not been security vetted will not be given security briefings? I understand that someone who was recently removed from No. 10 had not been security vetted. These staff need to go through the proper Cabinet Office procedures.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware, but this morning the Court of Appeal gave its judgment on Heathrow airport. Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement on Heathrow expansion? If he does not, there will probably be an urgent question, so he might as well arrange for a statement to be made.
As Cabinet Office briefing room A, Cabinet Office briefing room B and the Prime Minister’s wellingtons lie unused, the climate emergency is taking its toll on our citizens. They are watching their furniture go down the river. We had a record 632 flood alerts on one day alone. The statement on Monday by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said nothing about repairing flood defences. The Labour Government increased funding by 10% a year, but under the Tories that was cut to 1.2%. The Labour Government in Wales are looking after the distressed folk by giving the affected households £500, and up to £1,000 if they do not have insurance. That is practical help. Will the Leader of the House perhaps ask the Secretary of State for Wales, who is coming to the Chamber later, about the one-off £10 million infrastructure payment that the Government of Wales require? I am sure the Leader of the House will want to provide time for an updated statement after the Prime Minister visits Shrewsbury this weekend.
No debate on the Marmot report is scheduled in Government time. Professor Marmot said that the past decade has seen those in disadvantaged areas face declining health, with life expectancy falling, especially for women. He called the damage to the nation’s health “shocking” and said:
“If health has stopped improving, that means society has stopped improving.”
The Leader of House cannot dismiss Professor Marmot because the Prime Minister himself said yesterday that he worked with him.
Professor Marmot also said that good employment is important. While the Government boast about more employment, there has been a massive increase in people on zero-hours contracts, with 1 million people—and 9% of those under 25—now on these contracts. Other countries have banned zero-hours contracts; when will the Government have a debate on the perniciousness of zero-hours contracts? For people on these contracts, it is like walking a tightrope without a safety net. That that is not fair or right. People having to resort to volunteer food banks is not a safety net.
Why have we not had a debate on the £7 million contract for private US firms so that they can screen what they are calling our most expensive patients? Will the Leader of the House rule out people being denied treatment—or are we getting into questions of the deserving and undeserving? The next step is going to be screening people out; what is the Government’s obsession with screening people out? May we have a debate on that? I hope the Select Committees will be up and running; perhaps they will be able to report to the House.
We have the absurd situation in which the Deputy Health Minister in Iran has covid-19 and British citizens are lying in jail having done nothing. Nazanin, Anousheh and Kylie need to come home. They need proper treatment. An Iranian MP has said that they should be released on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. Perhaps this is a job for the United Nations or the World Health Organisation, or perhaps even for the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who did a fantastic job on Northern Ireland. Perhaps he can do some negotiating as the Government do not want to do that on behalf of their British citizens.
Will the Leader of the House please clarify a point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford)? She asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about those who self-isolate, and urged the Government to make clear that those who do so should not be penalised in terms of their employment rights. The Secretary of State said that only those who self-isolate on medical advice will be protected. We have many people on zero-hours contracts, and they will not be protected. They are self-isolating to protect our citizens. May we have clarification that everyone, whether they get medical advice or not, will be protected and have their employment rights protected? There was a helpful email from the House authorities on covid-19 and on what Members can do. Will the Leader of House please ensure that up-to-date hand gel is available for public areas, such as the Public Gallery, and for those staff who are interfacing with the public, so that they are also safe?
The Speaker’s Chaplain held a service for Ash Wednesday in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft with Canon Pat Browne. We are pleased to welcome Canon Patricia Hillas, who will be inaugurated next week. Finally, I wish everybody—Welsh or not—a happy St David’s Day on Sunday.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I notice that when the shadow Leader of the House gets up to stand, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) whoops in delight, which he does not do when I get up to stand, so clearly the right hon. Lady is doing something right.
I am glad to report that the Select Committees will be set up. It has taken longer than anticipated. Inevitably, a reshuffle in the midst of it meant that there were some changes as to who would be on the Committees, but that is now going ahead and the Government are very keen to get that scrutiny up and running.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for asking for the list of ministerial responsibilities, because it helps me to extract it from the place where it is kept, and that is a useful service to the House, so I appreciate that.
As regards the vetting of new recruits, I am glad to say that those are security matters on which the Government do not go into detail. They never have done whatever their colour—whether they have been red or blue, or, in the dim and distant past, even yellow. Therefore, we would not break from that precedent and tradition.
As for Heathrow Airport, the right hon. Lady is right to ask for the Government position to be made clear on this, and there will be a written ministerial statement imminently. It may even come out while I am still speaking. I cannot promise that, but it will certainly come out today.
Then there is this fascination—a sort of obsession—with committee rooms in the Cabinet Office and which ones are being used for which particular purpose. There are many rooms—it reminds me of the line in the Gospel about there being many houses. Leaving that to one side, there are many rooms that are used.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be visiting Shrewsbury today. The Government are not just one person; they are a whole team of people. We are governed by Cabinet government in this country, and the work is being done by the people whose responsibility it is. The Government have done a great deal to protect more than 200,000 properties from flooding. That is a very important safeguard, because, for the people affected by floods, it is a terrible experience. Therefore, to have protected 200,000 homes is an achievement. Some £4 billion will be spent in this area. The Environment Agency has in its bank account, I believe, £2.7 billion of taxpayers’ funds to disburse, so work is going on and things are being done to help those affected. That includes £5,000 per household to put in flood defences, and £500 to help people immediately.
With regard to the Marmot report, the Prime Minister, who spoke about this yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, said that the discrepancy in life expectancy in this country is a disgrace. It is an effort of this Government to level up, and that includes levelling up life expectancy. It is worth noting that the Marmot report also welcomes the record level of employment that we have achieved, because the best way out of poverty is always through employment, and that is something to which the Government are committed and on which they have an incredibly good track record.
As for zero-hours contracts, they are a small portion of the total employment in this country. They provide a flexibility that is welcome to many employees and employers. None the less, it is important to bear in mind that most of the new jobs created since 2010 have been full-time jobs.
The right hon. Lady knows that I share her concern about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It is a particular concern that the coronavirus has been rumoured—I emphasise rumoured and not confirmed—to be in the prison in Evin where Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe is being held. The UK ambassador to Iran has raised the matter with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and we are in contact with our international partners on this issue. The Iranian authorities have denied this at the moment, but I must confess that I, for one, would not always take as authoritative denials issued by the Iranian Government. I thank the right hon. Lady for raising this matter again. The Government are trying to do what they can in this very serious situation.
With regard to the preparedness of the House of Commons and the provision of sanitising hand gel for people meeting the public, that is a matter for the House of Commons Commission, on which both the right hon. Lady and I serve, so at our next meeting, which I think is Monday week, we will no doubt have a report on quite what the state of affairs is.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Given my right hon. Friend’s encyclopaedic and diligent understanding of the particular concerns of Members, he will know that I am patron of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. Those veterans are the young men and women who were sent to the south Pacific in the 1950s to witness the first nuclear tests, at great risk to them and with severe consequences subsequently. When my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) was Secretary of State for Defence, I took a delegation to see him and he agreed to look into having a medal for those veterans. May we therefore have a statement on whether such a medal will be issued? Surely it is time to be generous to those who gave so much.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Of course we should be generous to those who have served the country. Medals do not fall within my immediate area of responsibility, but I will raise the matter directly with the Secretary of State for Defence on behalf of my right hon. Friend.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The schedule that the Leader of the House has presented today takes us to a date that is precisely three months since the general election, but I have to say that I am still finding the pace of the agenda he puts before us rather sedate. I am left wondering when this Government will get into gear, and whether their proposals for radical reform are not nearly as expansive as their public relations department would have us believe.
This week both the Scottish Government and the UK Government are hosting major events on the drugs crisis afflicting every part of this Union. There is a growing awareness in this Chamber that the law needs to change in order to allow more effective interventions that can save lives. Will the Government therefore bring forward a debate on the drugs crisis in the United Kingdom so that we can look at changes to both secondary and primary legislation?
I also want to talk about the procedures for English votes for English laws and for the estimates. The Leader of the House may remember that when EVEL was introduced my party made the argument that many of the matters that are reserved to England and Wales have consequences through the Barnett formula for the funding of services in Scotland. We were told at the time that because Barnett was essentially about money rather than policy, the proper time to debate it would be when the House considers the estimates.
We have a bizarre situation coming up next week, when the House will be asked to approve hundreds of billions of pounds for public expenditure without any debate at all. I know that is because the Liaison Committee has not yet met, but that is hardly our responsibility. Will the Government therefore make arrangements to allow the House to debate the estimates, and to enable us to move amendments about the consequences they will have for public services in Scotland?
Finally, I gently say to the Leader of the House that the fact that he will not answer my question does not make it go away, so I will ask him again. When will the Government bring forward proposals to deal with the fact that they do not have a mandate north of the Scottish border? I say that in a week when another opinion poll has been published, this time asking people whether they wish to have a referendum on the question, and 55% of the Scottish public now want a referendum within the lifetime of this Parliament. When will the Government stop ignoring that and deal with it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s last point first. He makes a typical confusion. When an answer is given that is not the answer that is wanted, that does not mean that the question has not been answered; those are two separate concepts. I refer him to the answer I have given previously from the Dispatch Box.
With regard to the speed with which the Government have got off the starting blocks, we are the Lamborghini of Governments, or the Ferrari of Governments—I have never known nought to 60 to be achieved faster. If Members prefer, we are the Aston Martin of Governments. I was quite tempted to say that we are the Bentley of Governments, but my 1936 Bentley takes so long to get to 60 mph that that would not necessarily be the right comparison. Bear in mind that within a few weeks of the general election we had legislated to leave the European Union, and that was perhaps the most fundamental piece of legislation we could have passed.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of the drugs conference that is happening in Scotland today. We are concerned about the rate of drug deaths in Scotland, which is three times higher than the UK average, so it is quite right the conference is taking place in Scotland. There needs to be a balanced policy, involving a mix of enforcement—some dozens of people were arrested yesterday alone in a number of raids over the county lines problem—and treatment. Working out precisely where policy should go is the right thing to do, and I am sure that there will be statements and debates in this place once that is done.
As regards estimates and EVEL, I have sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There are deadlines by which the estimates have to be approved, but the Government are conscious that they owe the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee time to consider these issues. That will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and his party to debate the matters that they wish to bring forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I intend these proceedings to run until about 12.15 pm. I will try to get everybody in, but that depends on questions and answers being very short.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Government have rightly committed to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The plan includes phasing out petrol and diesel cars by 2035, which is going to mean a huge increase in demand for critical minerals such as lithium. The Leader of the House may be aware that Cornwall is rich in lithium and many other minerals used for the motor industry, so can we have a statement from the Government about their strategy on securing a supply of these critical minerals—and, where possible, a domestic supply—for the industry?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Cornwall is rich in many things, not least in its brilliant Members of Parliament. Our approach to ensuring that UK industrial consumers have continued access to the critical technology metals that they need is firmly based on free, fair and open international trade on a global level. This has served the UK well, and we have not received any signals from companies or the markets that our policy should change. We will monitor the situation closely and continue to engage with UK industry on this genuinely important matter.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), for mentioning the Marmot report, because Labour Members have all been concerned about the disparity in public health since the Black report and the Townsend report, and the Marmot report follows up on the issue. It now seems that health inequalities are getting worse in this country for the first time in decades, so can we have a full debate in Government time about what we can do to tackle those real and worsening health inequalities?
I also support my right hon. Friend’s point about sanitising hand gel. This House welcomes thousands of people every day from all over the country and beyond. I would hate to see it become a method for spreading a serious virus around the country. The House of Commons Commission might be meeting in 10 days’ time, but to me that lacks urgency. Sanitising hand gel should be available because people touch doors and door handles, and that is how the virus is being transmitted. That will happen much in this House if we do not provide hand gel very quickly.
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is a debate next week on health inequalities, brought forward in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Rees-Mogg
But that is the point of Opposition days—so that the Opposition can debate the issues that members of the Opposition wish to debate. That is why they exist. I therefore believe that that request is being met.
As regards responsibilities of the House authorities, they are thoroughly being met and hand gel is available, particularly for the security staff. It is worth reiterating the Government’s advice, which is that people should wash their hands regularly and use a Kleenex when they cough or blow their nose.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, for those furthest from the job market, good employment means good training and upskilling. Will he join me in congratulating North Staffordshire Engineering Group Training Association—which I visited recently—on its excellent academy, which places 98% of the people it trains from the most disadvantaged backgrounds into local engineering companies?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work she has been doing on this and absolutely congratulate North Staffordshire Engineering Group Training Association? It is so important to help people to get the skills they need. That is a main focus of Government policy, and it has long been championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Over the past few days, Delhi has been burning at the hands of Hindu extremism. Twenty-four people have been deemed dead so far and hundreds have been injured in this extreme violence. The Indian Government have enacted the citizenship law, which has also produced concentration camps to house people who have lived in India for years. There is communal violence against Muslims day in, day out. Summary beatings, torture and deaths are taking place on the streets, as well as the oppression of the Kashmiri people. Will the Leader of the House please find time to get the Government to make a statement or have a debate in Government time so as to have a serious discussion about human rights and civil liberties under the Indian Government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this pressing matter. We are deeply concerned at the severity and scale of violations of freedom of religious belief in many parts of the world. In December, the Foreign Secretary announced an independent review of Foreign and Commonwealth Office support for persecuted Christians overseas, and there was debate on the persecution of Christians on 6 February. However, this does not mean that we are not concerned about the persecution of other religions across the world. I urge the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter at next month’s Foreign Office questions, but the seriousness of what he has mentioned in the House today has not passed the Government by.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
May I congratulate the Government on the statement that has been made with regard to the future relationship with the EU? Would the Leader of the House note that the European Scrutiny Committee will be fully engaged in this? It is being set up now. The questions of sovereignty and of the vital national interests of the United Kingdom are matters within our remit, and we will be giving them our absolute and total attention in future.
May I ask a question about the procedural motion on high-speed rail? What is this for? Is it not simply to provide for a carry-over motion? Should not phase 2a be rolled into phase 2b?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We are back to 2b or not 2b, which seems to be my hon. Friend’s question. It is a procedural motion of a standard and routine kind that we need for the progression of business.
I am delighted that the European Scrutiny Committee will be bringing its eagle eye to look at the questions of sovereignty. My hon. Friend chairs that Committee with such brilliance. When I served on it for some years, it was one of the best Committees possible to be on. The diligence he applies to this is a model for us all.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
According to estimates by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, there are up to 90 reports a day of online harms—that is one every 16 minutes. Given that the 13 voluntary codes of social media regulation appear to have failed, may we have a statement or debate on online harms regulations, so that we can get commitments from Ministers about Ofcom’s proposed enforcement powers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The online harms White Paper sets out our plans for world-leading legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. Ahead of that legislation, the Government will publish interim codes of practice on tackling the use of the internet by terrorists and those engaged in child sexual abuse and exploitation. This will ensure that companies take action now to tackle content that threatens our national security and the physical safety of children. These matters will obviously be discussed in this House.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House set aside time for this House to debate the College of Policing’s hate crime operational guidance to remove the requirement that police forces have to record non-crime hate incidents? I believe that the current system is open to abuse by politically motivated individuals who seek to smear people they disagree with. Earlier this morning, I was with Harry Miller discussing this very case.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Harry Miller last night at an event in support of free speech. Free speech is fundamental to this nation. Of course the Government have heard the very powerful judgment of the High Court in his case. The Home Secretary made it extremely clear yesterday that she will hold the police in this country to account for reducing crime, because that is the job of our wonderful police.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
During National Apprenticeship Week, I visited a number of excellent local businesses in my constituency and met apprentices, who told me about the opportunities that their apprenticeship provides, but there are concerns from many, including the Education Secretary, that the apprenticeship levy is not working as it should, with too much focus on already highly skilled workers, not on those with no or low skills. May we have a debate in Government time on much-needed reforms to the apprenticeship levy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I seem to remember that the apprenticeship levy came out of a Budget. We will have the Budget debate fairly shortly, which would be a suitable time to raise that important issue.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
May we have a statement next week—preferably on Wednesday—on celebrating United Nations Public Service Day, so that we can show our support for the police, the NHS and everyone who works in the public service? Can the Leader of the House tell me how we will celebrate that day? Why not have a bank holiday closest to that date?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend’s desired bank holidays would mean that none of us would ever be working. As a general rule, the Government try to avoid too many statements on Opposition days, as a courtesy to the Opposition, so the day that he suggests may not be ideal, but I pay tribute to our hard-working civil servants, particularly those in the Lord President of the Council’s office.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
If we are not to have an oral statement on the Heathrow judgment, and given that the Government have decided not to appeal it, will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to confirm that the Government do not intend to keep the disastrous third runway scheme alive?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the written ministerial statement that will be laid before the House today. There are already four oral statements today, with an important debate on St David’s day to follow. We have to be courteous towards the House, and it is unusual for an oral statement to be announced after the start of business, though not unprecedented.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The port of Grimsby, part of which falls in my constituency, is the country’s major centre for service and maintenance in the offshore energy industry. In view of the Government’s desire to move civil servants out of London, will my right hon. Friend ask the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to look at relocating the policy team and some of the officials who deal with regulation of the offshore sector to the Grimsby-Cleethorpes area? Could he arrange for a statement on that?
Mr Rees-Mogg
By the time my hon. Friend has finished with his demands for rail, road and ports, Cleethorpes will be the new metropolis of the world, and everybody will be moving there. How fortunate the good people of Cleethorpes are to have my hon. Friend as their representative!
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My Scottish constituent is approaching her 16th birthday, but as her parents had French nationality when she was born—despite the fact that her mum now has UK citizenship—she will have to pay £1,000 to get UK citizenship, which is unaffordable at her age. The fees are a rip-off, given that the Home Office uses the income to pay for other funds. May we have a debate in Government time on fair fees and what can be done to help my constituent get UK citizenship, so that she can go to college?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I once again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way he brings forward his constituents’ cases in the Chamber. I think everyone will have sympathy with the case that he raises, and I will be more than happy to take that up with the Home Office on his behalf. Fees ought to be fair, reasonable and proportionate, and I hope the House will remember that the application for settled status for European nationals is free.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Tomorrow is the anniversary of the vote to set up the steering group to deal with complaints and grievances in Parliament. Will the Leader of the House update us on the latest developments on implementing Cox 3?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because that is open for consultation at the moment and may be of interest to many Members. The Cox 3 recommendation was about how we deal with complaints of bullying and harassment against Members of Parliament in an independent fashion. The proposal being consulted on is that it should be done by a wholly independent panel, but that if a sanction of suspension or expulsion from the House were to be recommended, that would have to be voted upon by the House. I strongly encourage all Members to make their views known while the consultation is live, rather than raising questions with me after it has happened, which is one of the risks of public life.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Following on from the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), may we have a statement on vetting processes for officials? I hear what the Leader of the House said about security issues. However, the notion that we had a man working at the heart of government who believes in eugenics and racial supremacy is deeply alarming and, I hope, unprecedented. May we have a statement?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier about vetting. However, I would say that my own view about eugenics—as far as I am aware, this is the Prime Minister’s view too, as he stated yesterday—is that it is the most dreadful belief and, to my mind, fundamentally ungodly.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
On 19 April, we will commemorate the 101st anniversary of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in the Punjab in India. Last year, I led a debate in Westminster Hall, as we approached the centenary, and asked the Government to apologise. May we now have a debate in Government time and an opportunity for the Government to apologise on behalf of the British people for the massacre in India?
Mr Rees-Mogg
From memory, Winston Churchill was himself very clear at the time about the appallingness of what happened 101 years ago. A debate was held last year, and the 100th anniversary was the right time to do it. I urge my hon. Friend to raise this matter in Foreign Office questions next month.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Last week, I met a Coventry business that is owed a significant amount of money by contractors who have poor payment practices and have gone into administration. This company may now be forced to lay off workers. Will the Leader of the House grant Government time to discuss how contractors drive local companies out of business, not based on their performance but because their payments have been withheld?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is an important issue, which is often raised in this House. I urge the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment debate on the specific issues affecting contractors in her constituency. However, the Government have codes of conduct, and as the Government ourselves, we try to ensure that we pay contractors promptly.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Given the current focus on the imminent strategic defence and security review, will the Leader of the House agree to a much-needed debate on defence?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Backbench Business Committee, when it was set up, was given four or possibly five days in its total allocation that were meant to be for defence, so that should be raised with the Backbench Business Committee in about a week’s time.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am currently waiting for a response to a public petition that I submitted on behalf of Falkirk’s Forgotten Villages campaign relating to high energy costs of as much as £150 per week. Will the Leader of the House assist in moving this issue forward by securing a debate in Government time on fuel poverty and energy price caps?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If any hon. Member has not received a response from a Department in a reasonable amount of time, I am more than happy to facilitate that, but I think that debate is probably one for the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I bring good news from Kettering, where last night Kettering Borough Council, of which I have the privilege to be a member, voted for the 10th year in a row—in the teeth of opposition from independent, Lib Dem and Labour councillors—to freeze its share of the council tax. It has done this at the same time as maintaining frontline public services, as well as maintaining financial support for the voluntary sector. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House seek information from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about whether any other district or borough council has managed such a fine record? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the inspirational leader of Kettering Borough Council, Councillor Russell Roberts, on this fine achievement?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think a statue should be erected to Councillor Russell Roberts for this achievement. It would come out of public subscription, and I would be more than happy to make a modest contribution. It is exactly how government should operate at all levels. I am full of admiration—unbounded—for Kettering Council and for my hon. Friend in ensuring that Kettering is kept in good order.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May we have a debate about the role of private sector train companies that manage train stations and provide substandard facilities for passengers? In Hull, TransPennine Express built new toilets and a waiting room in 2018, but by April they were seen to be botched. The toilets smell of urine and the waiting room is not suitable. I was told in December 2018 that they would be fixed by 2019, but we are now at the end of February 2020—and no action.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady, as always, raises an important point about her constituents. She has raised the matter publicly, and I hope that the operating company is duly shamed by the smell that is coming from the toilets in Hull. When money is spent it should be spent properly, and people should be held to account for the way they spend it.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
To follow the theme set by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), in Carlisle we have part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—namely the Rural Payments Agency. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the likelihood of further relocation of the activities of that Department, and would he support such a move to Carlisle?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend tempts me beyond my brief—one never knows: I might start advocating for all those agencies to move to North East Somerset rather than to the constituencies of my hon. Friends. The point has been made and heard, and I will ensure that it is passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
May I bring the House’s attention to early-day motion 220 on the harassment of trade unionists at London City airport?
[That this House reaffirms the right of workers to organise collectively into trade unions; stipulates that this right includes workers at London City Airport; notes that a Unite the Union activist, was suspended and had disciplinary proceedings brought against them less than two weeks after the airport received an official request for union recognition in August 2019; recalls that in 2012 an Employment Tribunal found in an interim relief test in London City Airport Ltd v Chacko that another trade union representative had been similarly suspended by City Airport three days after the announcement of a recognition ballot; states that such intimidation is unacceptable; and calls on City Airport to end harassment of trade unionists and enable its workers to decide upon how they wish to be represented.]
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate or statement about what has gone on at London City airport? Surely a Government who claim to be on the side of the workers will want to make time for that, so that Members can hear that such things will not be allowed to continue. One of my constituents has been sacked from their job, specifically for trade union activities.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Everybody should feel content in their place of work. The House of Commons has set up the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme to deal with complaints, and we urge other employers to have similar arrangements in place. I tend to think that such specific issues are well handled by Adjournment debates, which bring them to the right level of attention.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
My constituent was employed by a recruitment agency but had to leave her job for health reasons. Despite a promise that she would be put on garden leave to help her recuperate, and paid for her two-week notice period, she has still not received the money that she is due for the work carried out. May we have a debate in Government time on the exploitation of workers in the gig economy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
People who are contractually owed money must be paid, and the hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. A debate on such matters is not necessarily the right way to go about things, but it is right to raise that particular case. I hope that the company will be shamed into making payments, and I feel great sympathy for the hon. Lady’s constituent who ought to be paid if she has done the work.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
On 9 January the Leader of the House advised me to ask the Secretary of State for Education for a meeting about Lydiate Primary School, and to come back to him if such a meeting was not forthcoming. Seven weeks later, that meeting has not been offered by Ministers. Will the Leader of the House please intervene, not on my behalf, but on that of the children and staff of Lydiate Primary School, which is unsafe and unsuitable for education?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hard-working civil servants have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will make sure that that is followed up with the Department for Education immediately after this statement.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Bank of Scotland recently announced a series of branch closures around Scotland, including in Loanhead in my constituency. Midlothian is often referred to as one of the fastest growing communities in Scotland, yet it is now left without a branch of that bank, which was the final one. Despite meeting Bank of Scotland immediately after that announcement, I have had no further answers to my questions. May we have a debate in Government time on what we can do to consider the impact on a community when the final branch of a bank is closed?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This issue is raised regularly in these sessions, and I have arranged meetings with the relevant Minister. It is important to recognise that these are commercial decisions, and the Government cannot intervene in them individually. Banks must balance customer interests, market competition, and other commercial interests when taking their decisions. Since May 2017, high street banks have signed up to the Access to Banking Standard, which commits them to working with customers and communities to minimise the impact of branch closures. If that is not happening, the Government will have to look at that very carefully.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
In June last year, the Home Office consultation on tackling violence against shopworkers ended. I know the Leader of the House will agree that there is never any excuse for abuse towards shopworkers and will welcome the work being done by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers to protect shopworkers. Will he ask Home Office Ministers to come to the Floor of the House to make a statement, so we can start to tackle these abuses?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no excuse for abusing people who work in shops. It is quite improper behaviour. I cannot promise a statement, but I will raise his question with the Home Office to see what the response is to the report.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the shadow Leader of the House, I was pleased to notice the motions for the constitution of most Select Committees. However, they did not include motions in relation to the Committee on Standards and the Privileges Committee, both of which have a long legacy of work left over from the previous Parliament. Will the Leader advise me when he expects those motions to be tabled?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right to emphasise the importance of those Committees. Motions will be brought forward as soon as is reasonably practical.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
With further international discussions taking place in May in New York, will the Leader of the House make a statement explaining the UK Government’s hostility to the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons? Does he not appreciate that that hostility towards prohibition is inconsistent with the UK’s strategic objectives and its obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to make attempts in good faith to move towards the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons programmes?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think we have to be realistic and recognise that the world is the world that we live in and that nuclear weapons are around. It is in the UK’s national interest to maintain our nuclear deterrent.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I was confused by the answer the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who is no longer in his place, about the security and defence review. The Prime Minister put out a written statement yesterday, but he intimated that there would be an oral statement or a debate—and not one in Backbench Business time. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that will take place, and will the Intelligence and Security Committee have been reformed by then so we can consider the Russia report as a part of that?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As the Prime Minister has said, “Don’t get too excited about the Russian report.” While it is not released, the conspiracy theorists are having a whale of a time. When it comes out, I think they will be sadly disappointed. The point I was making is that the Backbench Business Committee was given responsibility, under its brief when it was set up, for defence debates. Of course, if the Government bring forward specific statements, questions will follow those statements.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On Tuesday, the Mayors of Salford, Manchester and London came together outside Parliament to hear from victims of the cladding scandal. They heard terrible stories from leaseholders trapped in properties about the financial ruin they face and the mental torment of going to sleep every night in a flat that they know could be a death trap. There is clearly a need for some time for a debate on the Floor of the House, and for clarity and leadership from the Government. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) is sat next to the Leader of the House on the Treasury Bench. Can he guarantee that we will get that time as a matter of urgency?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman’s question is very well timed, with my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary sitting next to me. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend takes this matter with the utmost seriousness. Some £600 million of taxpayers’ money is being committed to removing dangerous cladding. The Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend, are ensuring that the dangerous cladding is removed, and that houses and flats are being made safe for people. If I may say while he is sitting here, the number of times my right hon. Friend has raised this issue with other Ministers, and is pushing for it as hard as possible, can give the hon. Gentleman confidence.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board has announced a temporary suspension of evening and weekend GP out-of-hours services in Vale of Leven Hospital in my constituency, giving the reason that GPs are affected by UK changes to pensions. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners have highlighted the drastic problems posed to the NHS workforce by current pension tax policy. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is now time, before the Budget, for a statement on what action the Government are taking to tackle this issue, which has far-ranging consequences for the whole of the UK?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman very cleverly answers his own question when he says, “before the Budget”. These are matters for the Budget, but I think there is a lot of sympathy with what he is saying.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In India, attacks by Hindus on Christians and Muslims have increased and there is evidence that the police are turning a blind eye. Hundreds have been killed, thousands have been injured and chaos reigns, all because of the new citizenship law that disenfranchises Christians and Muslims. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on this urgent and very disturbing matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman may well have heard my earlier answer to a similar question. I do not want to repeat all of that, other than to reiterate the point that the Government take this matter extremely seriously. I urge the hon. Gentleman to raise it at next month’s Foreign Office questions. It is a very serious matter.
Rough Sleeping
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the latest rough sleeping annual statistics for 2019, published today, and the Government’s new approach.
I think we can all agree that it is a moral shame that we see so many people sleeping rough on our streets. We are determined to end the blight of rough sleeping and have placed this great social ill at the heart of the moral mission of the Government. Today’s figures are encouraging. They show that for a second year in a row the number of people sleeping rough has fallen. Across England, the numbers have fallen by 9%, building on last year’s reduction which was the first fall in eight years. Areas funded by the Government’s rough sleeping initiative saw a 12% decrease. Manchester is down 26%; Camden down 54%; Birmingham down 43%; and Enfield down 69%. Cornwall is down 55%; Hastings down 56%; the City of London is down 39%; Swale down 69%; Bedford down 41%; and Tameside is down by 86%. London saw a decrease of 11%. That is the first decrease in the number of rough sleepers in London for six years and the largest decrease since 2010. That, as colleagues who represent London constituencies will know, comes despite the very considerable and specific challenges faced in the capital, including, as the figures show, the fact that 42% of those sleeping rough in the city, and quite possibly more than that, are non-UK nationals.
Those figures confirm what I have seen since I became Housing Secretary in the summer: dedicated and targeted support, backed by significant levels of Government support, is getting vulnerable people off the streets and into safe accommodation where they can begin to turn their lives around. The Government’s strategy is working. I would like to pay tribute to the hard work of charities, service providers, local authorities and many, many volunteers backed by Government funding across the country, who are working tirelessly to give rough sleepers the support they need to help them off the streets, and to begin the long and complex process of turning their lives around. That does not mean our work ends here. We are perhaps coming up out of the valley, but we are very far from the mountain top.
This Conservative Government have made it an overriding priority to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. There is a great deal more to do and we must be honest with ourselves about the scale of the challenge and tackle it head-on with renewed vigour. That is why I am pleased that the Prime Minister and I are today announcing that Dame Louise Casey will lead a review of rough sleeping. This work will consider the links between 24-hour street activity and rough sleeping, particularly physical and mental health issues, and provide advice to me and to the Prime Minister on how we can best use the levers of central and local government to support this group and continue to reduce rough sleeping across the country. I know that Dame Louise’s vast experience, rigour and candour, and the fact that she has worked across party for many years, mean that she is the right person to look at what is needed and help to get the job done. I want to support Dame Louise to move at a pace commensurate with the seriousness and urgency of the action we must take now.
Meanwhile, we will continue to build on our successful rough sleeping strategy, guided by the best evidence, intervening rapidly where people are sleeping on the streets, and supporting people’s recovery to ensure that they never have to sleep rough again. Putting this ambition into practice, the Government have today announced £236 million of new money for move-on accommodation, safely supporting up to an additional 6,000 rough sleepers, and those at immediate risk of rough sleeping, off the streets into the safe and secure accommodation they deserve, with support wrapped around them. This is on top of the £437 million that the Government have provided to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping in the next financial year, including more than £112 million to fund services through the rough sleeping initiative. This funding will be used by councils to provide up to 6,000 beds and 2,500 support staff over the next year, so the number of beds will be increasing very rapidly.
We recognise that there are particular challenges in responding to the increase in European economic area national rough sleepers, and hon. Members may recall that as part of the cold weather fund, the Government took the unprecedented decision to extend limited powers to the most affected local authorities to support certain EEA nationals sleeping rough for a limited period. That approach has been successful, with over 400 EEA nationals accommodated in November and December last year, and many of them supported into work or to return home. The Government have today taken the decision to continue some of those services until 31 December 2020, when the transition period ends and the new immigration system will be in place. I will work closely with the Home Secretary on how we address those challenges at the end of the transition period.
While prevention, outreach and emergency support are of course vital, we need secure, sustainable accommodation to end rough sleeping for good, and increasing the provision of affordable housing is fundamental to making that happen. This Government have delivered nearly half a million new, affordable homes. We have also abolished the council borrowing cap, so that local authorities are able to build up to 10,000 more social homes a year, and many are doing that.
We cannot and will not let that momentum slip. That is why we have already committed to 250,000 new affordable homes by March 2022 through the affordable homes programme, backed by £9 billion. We are increasing the supply of social housing and we will ensure that rough sleepers, and those at risk of rough sleeping, are provided with homes that are available long term and are appropriate to their needs. We simply must build more homes as a country and I will be doing all I can to ensure that that happens.
However, boosting housing supply is just one of many long-term measures that we must take to properly and permanently address homelessness and rough sleeping. We have to redouble our efforts to tackle the underlying problems that have led many people to fall into a life on the streets. Last year, four in 10 of the rough sleeping population in London were suffering from a severe drug dependency and the same proportion were suffering from alcohol dependency. Half of all rough sleepers were assessed as having a mental health support need, and, shockingly, data from 2017 indicates that eight in 10 rough sleepers who have died in London suffered from severe mental health conditions. We cannot allow this injustice to continue. We are stepping up our work to provide specialist help and support for those suffering from mental ill health, and that is backed by £30 million of additional funding from NHS England.
On top of that, we are working to implement test models of community-based provision across six projects that are designed to enable access to health and support services for people who are sleeping rough with both mental ill health and substance dependency needs. Rough sleeping is as much a health challenge as a housing one and our work will reflect that. We also need a concerted effort to bring the different support services together—from outreach to housing, health, policing and immigration—so that we can effectively tackle the multiple issues that lead to individuals finding themselves homeless.
We are acutely aware of the scale of the challenge before us. Ending rough sleeping within this Parliament is one of the most ambitious targets set by any Government since the publication of the Beveridge report and the creation of the welfare state. We accept this challenge as a moral mission and obligation that we cannot pass up. Many of the underlying causes of rough sleeping that I have spoken about are deep-rooted, built up over successive generations and successive Governments. I hope that Members across the House will support us in this collective endeavour and help us, as a country, to achieve this simple but profoundly important objective: to bring rough sleeping to an end once and for all.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Rough sleeping is not inevitable in a country as decent and well off as ours. The cost of a decade of austerity has been over 700 deaths last year on our streets and huge numbers of children and families in bed-and-breakfast and temporary accommodation. It is the defining mark of this Conservative Government. Any improvement on that record is welcome, but today’s figures show that the number of people sleeping rough in shop doorways and on park benches is more than double what it was when Labour left government. That shames us all and it shames Conservative Ministers most of all. It must end.
Today’s figures come with a big health warning: everyone, from the Secretary of State to homelessness charities, knows that these statistics are an unreliable undercount of the true scale of the problem. The figures have been refused national statistics status—a mark of
“trustworthiness, quality and public value”
Yesterday, Labour’s shadow Housing Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), wrote to the UK Statistics Authority to ask it to investigate their accuracy.
That follows new data obtained by the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act, showing that Ministers have been dramatically under-reporting the scale of rough sleeping. The BBC revealed that 25,000 people are sleeping rough in England—five times the number recorded by the Government’s statistics. Even on today’s unreliable figures, the Government are set to break their pledge to end rough sleeping by the end of the Parliament. At the current rate of progress, they will not end rough sleeping until 2037, so while the Secretary of State’s ambitious words are welcome, how does he intend to reach his target without further investment?
The announcement today that the Government will go some way towards following Labour’s proposals and fund housing for rough sleepers following the Housing First model is welcome, but we remember that the Secretary of State’s party promised 200,000 starter homes and did not build a single one. When the Prime Minster was Mayor of London, he promised to end rough sleeping in the capital by 2012, but rough sleeping doubled. We are right to be sceptical and ask the Secretary of State to clarify: by what date will these homes will be made available? How will the locations be determined? And is the funding genuinely extra, as he claims, or has it been diverted from other programmes in the Department’s budget?
It is not just that the Government have turned a blind eye to the homelessness crisis for so long—which they have—but they have refused to face up to the fact that they actively created the crisis. They have cut £1 billion a year from local homelessness reduction budgets and there is no commitment to reverse that. They have cut investment in new homes for social rent to record levels, with no commitment to reverse that, and they have failed to deliver on their pledge to end unfair evictions—the leading cause of homelessness.
Much like other symptoms of the housing crisis, such as the spiralling housing benefit bill, the funding needed to tackle rough sleeping will continue to rise if we do not invest in addressing the root causes of the housing crisis. That means more than warm words about bringing health and housing together; it means facing up to the impact of deep cuts to welfare, mental health support and addiction services since 2010. However, the Government are in denial about the root causes of homelessness. Perhaps that is why the Housing Secretary chose to appoint someone as his Parliamentary Private Secretary, with specific responsibility for rough sleeping, who thinks that sleeping rough is a lifestyle choice and who claimed that
“many people choose to be on the street”—[Official Report, 29 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 858.]
He also claimed that it is more comfortable than going on exercise in the Army— [Interruption.]
Sarah Jones
That is particularly insulting to the hundreds of our armed forces veterans who are sleeping rough, who this Government have abandoned despite their years of service to our country.
As the first snow of the new decade falls on our streets outside, we must face up to the human cost of this Conservative Government: two people a day are dying on our streets; 127,000 children are homeless in temporary accommodation; and the rough sleeping figures are five times higher than the official statistics. Homelessness was tackled by the last Labour Government when we inherited a similar scale of crisis. We reduced rough sleeping by three quarters. The Secretary of State’s announcements today will not go far enough to deliver on his targets. To quote Louise Casey:
“We have gone from a beacon of success to an international example of failure”,
and we
“must not allow this issue to be ignored, we must feel its impact and act as the country we are proud to be.”
Robert Jenrick
I accept the hon. Lady’s comments and say with all sincerity and humility that we must do more as a country to tackle rough sleeping. That is exactly what this new Conservative Administration intend to do. The Prime Minister and I have put this at the heart of our agenda, and we intend to deliver on the promises we have made today.
The hon. Lady asks me about the statistics, but I think she is misinformed. The statistics published today are not the Government’s statistics. They are statistics produced by a rigorous count conducted by local authorities, with independent verification; they are then compiled independently by Homeless Link, which is the umbrella organisation for some of the most respected homelessness charities in this country, including Shelter, Crisis and St Mungo’s. The methodology, which has been used for 10 years, is broadly the same as that used in most developed countries, including Canada and Japan; it is highly respected and it is vastly superior to the methodology used under the last Labour Government, when the current shadow Secretary of State for Housing, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), was this country’s Housing Minister. That methodology was deeply flawed. It asked local authorities to count only if, in their opinion, there were more than 10 rough sleepers in their area. As a result, there was no count in vast parts of the country. The statistics published today are robust and a huge improvement on those that came before them.
The hon. Lady asks about the rough sleeping initiative and the funding we have put in. In fact, the increases are significant. RSI funding has gone up by 30% this year. We are spending £400 million in the next financial year, and the announcement made today is of an additional £236 million—and yes, it is new money.
The hon. Lady spoke about housing more generally. I have to say that last year we built more homes in this country than we have in any year of the last 30. On average, we are building more affordable homes every year than the last Labour Government built, and more council houses were built last year than in the 13 years of Labour Government. Where does Labour have control? In Wales. How many council houses were built in Wales last year? Fifty-seven. How many were built the year before? Eighty. How many in each of the three years before that? Zero, zero and zero. What is the No. 1 challenge facing the Government in achieving our housing targets? The failing Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.
The hon. Lady asks about our commitment to a fairer deal between tenants and landlords. In the Queen’s Speech, we said we would introduce a renter’s rights Bill, which will be a significant piece of legislation. We are in the process of drafting that Bill, which will absolutely bring an end to section 21.
Finally, the hon. Lady made some disparaging remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway). I point out politely that in the past few years, he has spent over five months sleeping rough on the streets of London, Birmingham and New York city. I may be mistaken, but I do not think the hon. Lady has done that. I do not think any other Member of this House has spent so much time with members of our homeless population. I know for a fact that he has members of staff in his office in this House whom he has mentored off the streets and into a better life. Sometimes, he asks unacceptable questions, as George Orwell would put it, but we have to ask unacceptable questions sometimes if we as politicians genuinely want to tackle the big questions of our age. To tackle rough sleeping, we have to tackle addiction.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on his commitment and the additional investment by the Government, which is starting to bear fruit, although there is still much to say. I welcome in particular his recognition that solving homelessness is not just about sustainable income; it is about dealing with the underlying problems of those who find themselves on the street. To that end, may I invite my hon. Friend to come to Worthing to see a really innovative scheme—a partnership between Turning Tides, a homeless charity, Worthing Borough Council and a developer, Roffey Homes? It has made available a nurses’ home, which will be developed after five years. There, rough sleepers are given not just accommodation, but support from mental health services and the benefits office, and help with sustainable living. Because of that, the number of overnight rough sleepers, which had been in the 30s, was down to seven at the last count. That is the sort of innovation and partnership we want. I hope my right hon. Friend will come to see the project and make sure the example is spread throughout the country.
Robert Jenrick
I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. At the heart of our new strategy is bringing together a co-ordinated approach in central Government. Dame Louise Casey and I will work to ensure that all of us—the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office—work together as a team to deliver our commitment. We already see that work in local communities by some brilliant charities. For example, St Mungo’s takes mobile hubs to rough sleeping hotspots to bring all the services together. That is the surest way to tackle the challenge.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I agree that it is a moral scandal that we have rough sleeping in this day and age, and I wish him every success with his strategy to tackle rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament.
I have a few points to make. First, in the four years to 2019, the Scottish Government delivered five times more social rented properties per head of population than the Westminster Government. Progress out of poverty is thereby made more likely. Poverty rates are lower in Scotland owing to the existence of affordable housing. Earlier this month, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported that
“for someone with the same life circumstances such as qualifications, wage and family type, progress out of poverty is more likely if they live in Scotland or Northern Ireland than the rest of the UK.”
The JRF also attributes lower poverty rates in Scotland than in England and Wales to
“lower rents in the social housing sector as well as Scotland having a higher proportion of social rented properties”.
I have a couple of questions. Will the Government’s review of their homelessness strategy look at what is being done in other countries, including Scotland? Will they follow the Scottish Government’s lead in building genuinely affordable housing?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful the hon. Gentleman for those comments. We will certainly and happily look at the experience in Scotland and other parts of the Union, as we do at international examples. One of the purposes of bringing in someone as respected as Dame Louise Casey, who not only has a great deal of experience within the UK but is an internationally respected figure, is to learn from other parts of the world. I believe we are already doing that. Our Housing First pilot is learning from what happens in Finland and the United States and we have seen tremendous progress—success rates up to 90% in some areas. First is the simple aim of getting people into accommodation; then there is provision of sophisticated, long-term, wrap-around support. We are keen to learn from best practice all over the world.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Will the independent review by Dame Louise Casey engage with the many excellent charities across the country, such as St Mungo’s and Crisis, as well as Guildford Action, which is a local centre of excellence in my constituency helping those who are homeless and sleeping rough?
Robert Jenrick
It certainly will. As I said, there are many fantastic organisations across the country. It has been my pleasure to visit many of them in my brief tenure as Housing Secretary. I went with the Prime Minister this morning to visit the Connection by St Martin in the Fields, where I met staff and clients involved with the work there. I pay tribute to them and to other organisations across the country. We want to learn from them and ensure that we build on their work.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I welcome the ambition the Secretary of State has set out. As he knows, a service at St Paul’s cathedral two weeks ago, in which my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State took part, celebrated the work of the church-based homelessness night shelters in London. There is now at least one in every London borough, each involving seven or sometimes 14 places of worship. They spare thousands from sleeping rough in London during the winter. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in commending the work of those many volunteers, but also agree with the preacher at that service, the Bishop of Edmonton, who said that volunteers should not really have to take this work on?
Robert Jenrick
I was sorry not to be able to join the right hon. Gentleman at that service. I intended to be there, but a commitment arose in the House. I absolutely pay tribute to volunteers across the country and the very important work done by churches and other faith organisations, which I think we all know about from our constituencies, but which is particularly prevalent in London. Of course there is a role for the state. I hope he can see from my commitment and that of the Prime Minister today that we intend to put in the resources, but this is also a moral issue for all of us as a country. I think we should see great organisations and volunteers, praise them, and encourage them to continue their good work.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the work that he is doing to end rough sleeping for good, but rough sleeping is clearly the tip of the iceberg—the visible sign of homelessness. It is estimated that more than 300,000 people in the country are homeless on any one day, and to achieve my right hon. Friend’s aim, we will need to build not 10,000 but 90,000 new social homes a year. What measures will he take to ensure that we build the homes that are needed, especially in London—I know that he has condemned the current Mayor of London—so that people are not forced to sleep rough? The human and financial cost of putting those people back on their feet is huge.
Robert Jenrick
Let me again praise the good work that my hon. Friend has done, not least in presenting the Bill that became the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which has played such a crucial role in driving some of the results that we are seeing today. He is absolutely right: we must not simply deal with the symptoms, but also tackle the cause. That may include some of the health issues that we have already discussed today, but the fundamental issue for me as Housing Secretary is that we must build more homes of all types in all parts of the country. Last year we built more homes than had been built in any of the last 30 years, but we have now set ourselves the objective of building a million new homes during the current Parliament, and we would like to see house building rise to 300,000 homes a year by the middle of the decade.
These are difficult and challenging targets which will require further Government investment in infrastructure and affordable housing, and we intend to make that investment. They will also require a great many councils to make difficult decisions. If councils really care about the acute housing need in their communities, they will have to use imagination and determination to ensure that the necessary homes are built, and we will be pushing them to do so.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a moral scandal that hundreds of homeless people are still dying every year on our streets, without the palliative care that they ought to receive during their last weeks and months? Will he look at the Homelessness (End of Life Care) Bill, which I introduced in the last Parliament? Will he also agree to meet me and the charities that helped me to write the Bill, including Pathway, St Mungo’s, Hospice UK and Shelter, and enable them to use some of the funds that he has announced today—in conjunction with the NHS—to end the scandal of terminally ill homeless people dying without proper care?
Robert Jenrick
The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of important points. It was for those humanitarian reasons, among others, that we chose to use the derogation enabling public money to be spent on compassionate services for non-UK nationals on our streets. We did not feel it was right that those individuals were suffering in silence and we were unable to support them. As I said in my statement, there are serious underlying issues. According to the latest figures that we have, from 2017, about 90% of the people who have died on our streets were suffering from serious mental health conditions, and we need to address those. I shall be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I welcome the additional funds, but will they be made available to the councils around the country that are working hard to end rough sleeping, including Wolverhampton? May I also invite my right hon. Friend to visit a charity that he knows well, the Good Shepherd Ministry in Wolverhampton, to see the new facilities that have just opened?
Robert Jenrick
I should be delighted to visit Wolverhampton. As I have said before, I volunteered at that charity as a teenager, and it is a fantastic organisation. We will be working to see how we can roll out the funds to provide those 6,000 move-on units across the country, which we will do in various ways: through new properties, through use of the private rented sector, and by refurbishing existing accommodation.
There are numerous good examples in the west midlands. Housing First is being piloted there, and just before Christmas I visited Walsall, not so far from my hon. Friend’s constituency, to see a lady who had moved into good-quality accommodation for the first time in many years after sleeping rough in Walsall. That is exactly the kind of intervention that we want to see throughout the country.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
The south-east has the highest rates of homelessness outside London. The Secretary of State has mentioned the provision of beds and the moving-on service, but does he recognise that this issue does not simply relate to those who are sleeping in doorways, although that is bad enough? Every day my team helps families whose members—sometimes pregnant—are often sleeping three or four to one bedroom. When will affordable, suitable accommodation come to Canterbury for them, so that my team no longer has to bid daily for the two or three properties that are currently available?
Robert Jenrick
We are investing more than ever before in affordable housing. Our affordable homes programme is a £9 billion commitment to provide 250,000 affordable homes. We have also made a manifesto commitment that when the programme ends we will replace it with another, which I hope will be bigger and more ambitious and help to make genuinely affordable homes available in more parts of the country, including Canterbury.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s positive statement. Will he join me in paying tribute to the only Conservative-led council in Greater Manchester, which is working to bring an end to rough sleeping in Bolton?
Robert Jenrick
I certainly will. I do not have the figures for Bolton at my fingertips, but Greater Manchester achieved a significant reduction in rough sleeping as a result of good work by councils and funding from the rough sleeping initiative, and we want that to continue. I believe I am going to visit Bolton shortly. I know that my hon. Friend and some of his councillors have been very involved in that initiative, and have been raising money for local charities by sleeping rough.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
An estimated two thirds of released prisoners who are homeless go on to reoffend. What steps is the Minister taking with the Ministry of Justice to tackle the problem of people who are released from prison without secure accommodation? Crisis has raised the issue of the criminalisation of homeless people who are rough sleepers. Does the Minister support the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824?
Robert Jenrick
We are reviewing the Vagrancy Act, taking into account the differing opinions on the way forward, and will deliver advice on that shortly. We are absolutely focused on the challenge of ensuring that ex-offenders can have safe and secure accommodation and begin to rebuild their life. We are investing in pilots that are being organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), the homelessness Minister, and we are working closely with the Lord Chancellor, as we did with his predecessors.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of additional funds and an urgent review. May I also pay tribute to our wonderful local charities and Stoke-on-Trent City Council, which have been doing such tireless work in this regard?
A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of seeing a production by a charity called Voices of Stoke, which presented the back stories of people who were sleeping rough and examined their complex needs. It was enormously powerful. I think that we all welcome a knowledge of the complexity of why people end up on the streets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that no solution that might help to end rough sleeping once and for all should be taken off the table?
Robert Jenrick
I certainly do. I hope that my hon. Friend, and other Members in all parts of the House, will recognise not only our determination to tackle the issue but the fact that we are taking a nuanced view of a complex and sophisticated challenge and bringing together all Departments, from health to housing, to address it.
I pay particular tribute to the volunteers, the organisations and the Conservative-led council in Stoke. The city has seen a reduction of more than 50% in the number of rough sleepers over the last year, which is a tremendous achievement, and I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on my thanks to all who have been involved in those efforts.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Rough sleeping has quadrupled in Hull over the last decade, which I think we can all agree is shameful, but does the Secretary of State agree with the statement by St Mungo’s that £1 billion less is being spent on supporting single homeless people than was being spent a decade ago?
Robert Jenrick
We have been taking action through the Homelessness Reduction Act, and there will be important work for us to do as we approach the comprehensive spending review to ensure that councils have the funds that will enable them to continue their own work. We have also ensured that the local housing allowance will no longer be frozen, but will rise in the next financial year in line with the consumer prices index. As I have said repeatedly, the central task for me as Housing Secretary is to build more homes of all types in all parts of the country, and I certainly hope we can work with the council in Hull to deliver that.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and thank him in particular for the £576,000 that has been awarded following a joint bid from Aylesbury Vale and Wycombe District Councils, which cover my constituency along with Chiltern and South Bucks. Does he agree that we need to encourage more councils to work together to tackle homelessness, not least so that they can build the strongest possible partnerships with charities and specialist service providers, which do not necessarily organise according to council boundaries?
Robert Jenrick
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There are some fantastic councils across the country, and today’s figures would not have been achieved without them. I pay tribute to them, and encourage them to continue to learn from each other and work with voluntary groups, with charities and, of course, with the Government. If there is anything further that we can do to assist my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Buckinghamshire, we will certainly do it.
Child Protection
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Her Majesty’s inspectorate of police, fire and rescue services’ thematic report on its national child protection inspection programme. This important report was published today and summarises the findings of 64 inspections and re-inspections of police forces’ approaches to child protection since the programme began in 2014.
Keeping our children safe is an absolute priority for this Government, and we welcome Her Majesty’s inspectorate’s work in this area. Protecting vulnerable people should be of utmost importance to the police, and we are committed to ensuring that police forces demonstrate continued improvement in this regard. The activity of our independent inspectorates is critical to our ability to monitor progress and drive change. In the five years since it began, the national child protection inspection programme has been a vital source of independent scrutiny and challenge, and it has been instrumental in driving improvements in the way the police work with vulnerable children. As we know too well, this is an area of police work in which we have seen some of the worst failures in the past.
The report notes that
“we have continued to see an unambiguous commitment from police leaders, officers and staff to the protection of children.”
The report recognises improvements—in some cases, significant improvements—in the service received by children at risk. In every case, when inspectors returned to a police force that had previously been inspected, they saw progress being made and better outcomes for children. They saw examples of good, innovative work, such as the programme in Wales to provide early support to children exposed to adverse childhood experiences. Officers are better at understanding the signs of vulnerability and recognising children who are at risk. We welcome the positive findings in today’s report.
The report is clear, however, that more needs to be done. Although the police have a better understanding of risk, their resources are too often focused on areas of acute risk. Not enough is being done to spot the earliest signs of risk and prevent those risks from escalating. There are concerning findings around the detention of vulnerable children. Children are too often being detained in custody when they should not be, and they are not being appropriately safeguarded in those situations. There are inconsistencies in how forces manage dangerous offenders, and the escalation in the prevalence of digital technology in offending is a significant challenge, meaning that it is taking too long to identify and safeguard children who have been the victims of sexual abuse online.
These are serious matters, and I want to set out the steps the Government are taking to address them. As the Home Secretary stated yesterday, we are an ambitious and dynamic new Government with law and order at our heart. Our mission is clear. It is to deliver on the people’s priorities: to cut crime and to protect the public. We have recognised the huge demands placed on our police forces, and we are addressing these pressures with the recruitment of an unprecedented 20,000 additional officers over three years. We are investing a further £1.1 billion in policing next year—taking the total up to £15.2 billion—with the help of police and crime commissioners using their precepts. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are driving a united Government response with a new cross-Whitehall crime and justice taskforce to ensure that we use every lever at our disposal to fight crime. However, as today’s report makes clear, the rise in high-harm crimes such as serious violence and child sexual abuse is having a particular impact on the most vulnerable, requiring more from our police officers. They need to be able to look beyond the obvious and to develop a deeper understanding of risk.
We have worked with the College of Policing and are providing £1.9 million of funding to develop a more comprehensive package of training for first responders, so that they are better able to identify signs of vulnerability and provide support to victims. We have also funded the police’s own vulnerability, knowledge and practice programme to develop policing best practice in response to vulnerability as a whole. The programme is recognised in today’s report for its work to evaluate best practice in early intervention. We have introduced stronger multi-agency child safeguarding arrangements with shared responsibility between local authorities, police and health partners for the local strategic response to safeguarding, including harms such as child sexual exploitation. Again, these reforms, which were implemented in every local area in England last September, are recognised in today’s report as a key opportunity to deliver the kind of systemic change we need to see.
In relation to the inappropriate detention of children, we will look carefully at the recommendation and do what we can to ensure that vulnerable children receive an appropriate service from the police. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the 2017 concordat on children in custody, which sets out the statutory duties of the police and local authorities and provides a protocol for how transfers should work in practice.
Today’s report also recognises that the nature of risk is changing, and investment in officers and changing police culture are only part of the solution. That is why we are investing in new capabilities to tackle the exploitation of vulnerable children through crimes such as child sexual exploitation, child criminal exploitation and county lines. Last year we announced a £30 million investment in funding for work to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation in 2020-21. The new funding will include investment in the child abuse image database—CAID—which the Home Office has developed in collaboration with UK law enforcement. CAID is a single database of indecent images of children which enables UK law enforcement to work collaboratively to safeguard children and bring people to justice. The new funding will allow us to deliver upgrades to CAID, including a fast, forensic tool to rapidly analyse seized devices and find images already known to law enforcement; an image categorisation algorithm to assist officers to identify and categorise the severity of illegal imagery; and a capability to detect images with matching scenes to help to identify children in indecent images in order to safeguard victims.
We have announced £25 million of targeted investment across 2019-20 and 2020-21 to strengthen the law enforcement response to county lines and increase the support available to the children, young people and families who are affected. This is in addition to establishing the national county lines co-ordination centre, with £3.6 million of Home Office funding, and providing a range of support for county lines victims. We also recognise that by the time children experience these forms of exploitation, the harm has been done. Police and other services need to spot the signs of risk and intervene earlier. Through our £13 million four-year trusted relationships programme, we are trialling 11 innovative projects in England working to protect vulnerable 10 to 17-year-olds who are at high risk of sexual exploitation and other forms of harm. We want to do more, however, which is why this year we will be publishing a first-of-its-kind national strategy to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation.
We welcome today’s report. The protection of vulnerable children from harm is of the highest priority to this Government, as it should be to our police forces, and the inspectorate’s work in this area is vital in shaping our work in the future. The Home Secretary intends to meet inspectors to discuss today’s report and understand what more we and the police can do to ensure that children receive the highest levels of protection in the future. I commend this statement to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
This report is utterly damning and should shame us. It finds that the current system of protecting the most vulnerable children in our country is unsustainable, that the approach of police forces is not proactive enough, and that vulnerable children are simply not being identified or protected, with resources and the failures and variability of partnership working being identified as key concerns. The report comes on the same day as a leaked Government report into the drug trade, which shows that vulnerable children are falling into the grip of gangs at an unprecedented rate. Those are two sides of the same crisis that is reaching into every town and community across the country.
The Children’s Commissioner has been sounding the alarm for several years now. She found that 2.3 million children are living with risk because of their vulnerable backgrounds, and as many as 1.6 million of those children have patchy or no statutory support whatsoever. After a decade in which the safety net that vulnerable children rely on—Sure Start, family support services, speech and language therapy, behavioural support, social services and probation—has been picked away, it is becoming far too easy for the most vulnerable to be preyed upon by serious organised criminals.
It is thoroughly unacceptable that the police are not recognising or evaluating risks to children well enough, as the report has found. Children living in care are not being properly protected. Schools are becoming too eager to expel and off roll. Pupil referral units are becoming recruiting grounds for vicious criminals. The total lack of both mental health and residential care beds has led to too many children being inappropriately detained or being ferried around the country in the backs of police cars. This is a whole-system failure, and the consequences for children and families are stark.
Over £880 million has already been lost from children’s and youth services since 2010. The flagship early intervention fund announced by the former Home Secretary last spring was supposed to make funding available for critical support to steer young people away from serious violence, but answers to parliamentary questions have revealed that more than 60% of bids from police and crime commissioners for these projects, including 24 in London alone and one to tackle the vicious exploitation known as county lines, have been rejected. The former Home Secretary had previously promised to do everything in his power to tackle county lines exploitation and the vulnerable children swept up in it, but he then quietly rejected a £1.3 million bid from West Mercia, Staffordshire and Warwickshire to fund a project designed to tackle exactly that. In total, the Government are funding only 29 diversion projects nationwide.
If this report is not the catalyst for the Government to get serious, nothing will be. We know from the Prime Minister’s short time in office that he goes missing when things get tough and there are difficult questions to be answered. When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable children, we simply cannot afford for him to do so again.
Turning specifically to the report’s findings, the Minister knows as well as I do that data sharing comes up repeatedly in serious case reviews and in response to child protection. Despite specific amendments to the Data Protection Act 2018 that allow the sharing of data for safeguarding purposes, it remains an issue. What more can we do to break down the organisational and cultural silos that are preventing data sharing and stopping organisations working together to protect children?
With police forces and services facing unsustainable demand, what resources will the Government put in place to tackle that need and properly fund local authority children’s services after £880 million was taken from their budgets? Given that the report praises the approach in Wales to adverse childhood experiences and the collaboration of the four forces there with local services to provide targeted early support, what plans do the Government have to replicate such an approach in England? We have consistently said that implementing a public health approach to meeting that crisis will require leadership from the Prime Minister down. That can be done, but it requires political will to bring together and co-ordinate the agencies, Departments and police forces that can make a difference in identifying and protecting children earlier. Clearly that is happening in some local authority and force areas, but it is far too inconsistent, so will the Prime Minister now convene a taskforce, led from central Government and chaired by him, to bring together the services and identify the support that will have a tangible effect and ensure that the national strategy on child abuse is led from the heart of No. 10?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Lady for her response and questions. She knows, I hope, about the early intervention work that we have been investing in. There is enormous agreement across the House and in all the agencies we work with—those that work on the frontline with young people who are at risk of serious violence or sexual exploitation or both, or other forms of risk—that early intervention is absolutely key to this, because we want to prevent harm in the first place.
Over the past few years, we have invested £22 million in the early intervention youth fund, which is supporting 40 projects endorsed by police and crime commissioners across England and Wales. The projects include work with children and young people at risk of criminal involvement, and organisations safeguarding those at risk of gang exploitation and county lines, or those who have already offended to help divert them into positive life chances. At least 60,000 children and young people will be reached through the fund by the end of March.
The £200 million youth endowment fund is targeted at funding and developing early intervention projects over 10 years, and it undertook its first grant round last year. Twenty-three successful applicants were identified, and the interventions range from intensive family therapy to street-based and school mentoring programmes. The 23 projects are located across England and Wales and will share £17.1 million over two years, and of course the fund has a further eight years to go.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned the adverse childhood experiences work in Wales. The Home Office helped to fund that work, because we want to test and pilot to see what works, so that other agencies and local authorities can learn from best practice.
The hon. Lady rightly raised data sharing. All of us involved in the arena of preventing and trying to prevent child exploitation will agree with me when I say that if I had a pound for every time people talked to me about collaboration and data sharing, believe you me we would be able to spend even more money than we already are on intervention projects. She rightly and kindly referenced the fact that we included a specific section in the 2018 Act to give professionals the certainty that if they are sharing information for the purpose of safeguarding vulnerable people, they are perfectly entitled to do so and, indeed, should do so. We are beginning to see culture changes in some of the agencies we are working with, but she is right that far more needs to be done. Reports such as this one will hopefully drive that change.
The hon. Lady knows that we are helping to invest in violence reduction units in police forces across the country. That will also encourage the use of data sharing, and the forthcoming serious violence Bill will put in statute the duty of various agencies to work collaboratively to prevent serious violence. I have always been clear that that will have a trickle-down effect on other types of criminality, violence and sexual violence.
In conclusion, the report sets out some real challenges for policing, as we have said, but it also shows that there have been improvements. I am keen to emphasise that, so that we have a fair debate about the issues that have been raised.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome these inspections, but the results are alarming. According to the NSPCC, a child is abused in this country every seven minutes. The report includes comments such as
“The police do not recognise or evaluate risk to children well enough… the police often carry out more complex investigations badly… Too often, the focus is on the incident, missing the bigger picture.”
This is not about better police investigation; this is about a change of mindset. The situation is particularly disappointing given the first comprehensive child sexual exploitation action plan was launched back in 2011. What the Minister is proposing is not the first plan, and we also had the recent Operation Augusta review into the failings of Greater Manchester Police.
When the report refers to the
“opportunity to use new statutory local safeguarding arrangements”
as a successor to local safeguarding children’s boards, what opportunities does she think the police will take?
Finally, the primary recommendation of the report is that the Home Office should consider
“the development of a new national early help and prevention strategy”
but that was key a recommendation of the Munro review, which I commissioned in 2011. Why is that still just a recommendation?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions, and I know he has great expertise and interest in this area. With this early intervention we are not just setting strategies but implementing work across the country through the targeted funds we have set up, including the youth endowment fund, which is deliberately designed to take place over a 10-year period so that the investment rolls through various spending reviews. It has been protected so that we can invest to learn and discover which projects work and which do not. It is fair to say that there have previously been misunderstandings about what works, and we want to learn more so that local authorities and other commissioners invest wisely.
I take my hon. Friend’s point and thank him for his information about an earlier iteration of the child sexual abuse strategy. We are looking across all the typologies of child sexual abuse. There are many typologies, particularly nowadays, sadly, with the prevalence of online abuse and exploitation, which I am afraid can take place with just an ordinary mobile phone and can have devastating consequences for the child who is targeted, not just in the immediate circumstances of the photo or video being taken but, of course, for many years thereafter, as we are discovering through our work with WePROTECT.
I am very conscious of my hon. Friend’s observations, and I am happy to meet him to discuss them further, because we want to get this right.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister has referred to the stronger multi-agency child safeguarding arrangements that were introduced in September 2019. She says it is recognised that they are a key opportunity to deliver the kind of systemic change we need to see.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) has said that police forces are not active enough. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I am concerned about children’s services in Hull. Humberside police is responsible for ensuring the safeguarding of children in Hull, so what should I ask its chief officers to deliver to make sure children are kept safe?
Victoria Atkins
The police and crime commissioner obviously sets the priorities for the force, so I would go to them before going to the chief constable. Police and crime commissioners play a vital role in commissioning local services, and we have seen some excellent commissioning decisions in relation to exploitation more widely than simply sexual exploitation and, of course, in their work to hold the police to account on this issue.
The hon. Lady should ask the chief constable whether he or she has confidence that the force is working in accordance with the vulnerability knowledge and practice programme that we have funded to enable policing best practice to develop in response to vulnerability. Vulnerability is key to many of the crime types we see nowadays, and it should be at the front of every chief constable’s mind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We have a very well subscribed debate after this. I would like to finish this statement by 1.20 pm, so I ask for brief questions and replies, please.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that tackling child exploitation, whether it happened yesterday or 20 years ago and wherever the crime took place, is a vital aspect of our civil and decent society?
Victoria Atkins
Of course I agree, and my hon. Friend will know about the work of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse on historical allegations of institutional abuse and, indeed, about the work of police forces up and down the country to investigate not just current allegations but historical allegations, too.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement. One of the most challenging aspects of child sexual exploitation is that vulnerable victims find it very difficult to work with the police. All too often, the police attitude towards these vulnerable children is that they brought it on themselves or even that they consented to the crimes against them. What is she doing to challenge those attitudes and to ensure that, no matter how vulnerable the child or what their background, they are taken seriously and that these crimes are prosecuted?
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who does so much to represent the interests of her constituents in this regard. Some of the reports we have seen from, say, Operation Augusta—there are other examples—have been absolutely shocking in the allegations of what police officers may or may not have said to young people reporting very serious crimes. Let me be clear at the Dispatch Box that no child should be subjected to sexual exploitation or abuse. No child should be dismissed in the way they sadly have been historically. We should all see what we can do, not just as constituency MPs but as friends, neighbours and family members, to ensure every child feels safe to report incidents of abuse and that those reports are taken seriously and are listened to.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Along with other colleagues, I was with the Children’s Commissioner yesterday at the early years advisory board. What repeatedly came up was the importance of cohesion in our response during those early stages. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure the Home Office works with other Departments to have a joined-up response?
Victoria Atkins
The Home Office works with other Departments because these crimes draw on so many facets of public life. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are leading from the very top with their cross-Whitehall taskforce, and getting agencies across the country to work together will be critical to these considerations.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Will the Minister commit to a discussion with local authorities about their reflections on the implementation of the Wood review? She mentioned in her statement that the review is strengthening local accountability arrangements. In particular, will she have discussions with colleagues in the Department for Education about how schools, which are often a crucial part of effective safeguarding but are currently completely absent from these arrangements, can be brought into an element of rigorous local accountability?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about schools and accountability. As part of the taskforce led by the Prime Minister, we will be looking at greater departmental working across Whitehall. My expectation is that local government will play its role in all our work to tackle these abuses. With his expertise, I am, of course, very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can take this further.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I welcome the £30 million funding boost that the Home Secretary has delivered to protect children from abuse online and to track down offenders. Will my hon. Friend outline how this money will help to better protect children from these terrible crimes?
Victoria Atkins
This is an emerging crime type. The evilness of the people who conduct abuse online is truly shocking to behold. I recently visited the CAID operation centre, and I pay tribute to the officers who work extremely hard in, frankly, pretty harrowing circumstances —I saw some of the images they have to sort and classify. We have invested this extra money to help officers digitally and technologically, because there is so much that the development of artificial intelligence and other things can do in this space to help ensure that we get the perpetrators of these terrible crimes and also protect and safeguard victims.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) is helpful.
I was disturbed to learn from the Internet Watch Foundation a couple of weeks ago that online child sexual exploitation is increasing internationally, particularly in certain countries. Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline what the Government are doing with countries around the world to ensure we are tackling this globally?
Victoria Atkins
That is an area in which this country genuinely leads the world. Under Prime Minister David Cameron, we set up an organisation called the WePROTECT Global Alliance. It draws countries together so that we can act internationally, because perpetrators often film the images in one country and it is open to people throughout the world then to see whether they have access to that website, database or WhatsApp group. Through WePROTECT, we are working with countries, getting them to sign up to the principles—some of these countries perhaps do not have the same legislation that we have in place—and encouraging best practice, so that we can help protect children in not only this country, but across the world.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I welcome the investment in the county lines co-ordination centre, but I am concerned that looked-after children can be in facilities that are not registered and not regulated. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that our looked-after children are really looked after.
Victoria Atkins
I very much agree on that. My hon. Friend has identified a salient point about how these manipulative perpetrators target children precisely because of their vulnerability in their family or other circumstances. That is one reason why we have launched the trusted relationships fund, which I believe is now in its second year. It has been set up to help children who have been let down by almost every adult in their life. It helps these children to build a trusted relationship with an adult, be they a social worker, a youth worker or somebody different. It helps those children have an adult they can trust and confide in.
Point of Order
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Court of Appeal handed down an historic and fantastic ruling, judging that the Government’s Heathrow expansion decision was unlawful because it did not take account of the Government’s legally binding commitments on climate change. The Secretary of State for Transport has tweeted that the Government “won’t appeal” against the ruling, but the Government’s transport policy is now in confusion and chaos, along with their climate change policy. Could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, through the Chair, use your good offices to ask the Government to make a statement to this House as soon as possible on how they take this decision forward? We hope that the Government will confirm that the expansion of Heathrow has now been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which, as I am sure he realises, is not a point of order for the Chair. I can inform him that the Leader of the House was asked about this issue during the business statement earlier, and I believe I am right in saying that he said that a written ministerial statement was going to be issued. In the meantime, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s request for an oral statement and he will, no doubt, be pursuing this in the ways with which he is well acquainted.
Welsh Affairs
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Welsh affairs.
Let me welcome everybody to this St David’s Day debate, where we have some veterans and some first-timers. I have to apologise in advance, because I need to leave to entertain some visitors from Wales in No.10 during the course of this debate, so if I slip away, there is a good reason for my doing so. [Interruption.] I apologise to Opposition Members who have not received their invitation quite yet.
This is a fantastic opportunity to champion Wales at a national level, and to highlight the potential and resilience of our constituencies. I wanted to start by discussing resilience, because there has been no greater example of it than the response to the recent flooding events in Wales and further afield. I have visited communities in Carmarthen and Pontypridd, and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies,) has been around and about in the Monmouthshire area, where the Rivers Wye and Usk have caused such devastation. We have spoken to emergency services, agencies, MPs, AMs, local authorities and the Welsh Government on numerous occasions. It is encouraging to see that when things such as this really matter, there is a such a widespread degree of co-operation between those agencies.
Simon Hart
I am not going to take every intervention, but, in the spirit of collaboration, I will give way on this occasion.
Simon Hart
I am surprisingly grateful for that intervention, because it allows me to say that the Under-Secretary will wave a letter from the head of his local authority that asked us specifically not to interfere and get under the feet of emergency services by going to these areas before the moment was right. I have spoken to a number of local authorities and they echoed that view, so rather than make this a political stunt, we let the experts get on with what they wanted and needed to get on and do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Simon Hart
I will continue, if I may. The most important people we have spoken to during this incident have been the families and businesses affected. This has been horrendous for them and it remains so, because these weather patterns have not completely worked their way through.
Jonathan Edwards
The Secretary of State will know that Carmarthenshire has a history of flooding. There were big floods there about a year ago, and even now some of the families and businesses affected are still recovering. One big issue is that they cannot get insurance after having been flooded. There is a huge market failure in that insurance market and public intervention will be needed. Will he press his colleagues in the UK Government to come up with a UK Government insurance scheme to support families who cannot get insurance because of flooding?
Simon Hart
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this issue has come up a number of times in the decade in which we have been in this House. The answer to his question is yes, but it is never as simple as it seems. All sorts of contributory factors are involved, with planning being one, but I assure him that we will take that issue seriously and look into it.
I had wanted to mention financial assistance, because it was raised during yesterday’s Welsh questions and Prime Minister’s questions. It is an important moment to restate what the Prime Minister said yesterday about money being “passported through” in relation to this. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not here, but if he were, he would talk about this as being a Union issue, as he did yesterday. We agree that it is a Union issue, which is why we are working so closely with the Welsh Government to make sure that we know precisely what they need and when they need it, while not interfering with the devolution settlement.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Bearing in mind that the Rivers Severn and Wye have an impact on communities in England, if the Welsh Government were to approach the UK Government for additional support specifically to address that flooding, how would the Secretary of State respond?
Simon Hart
We will respond in the way we always do to Welsh Government requests for assistance, in whatever form it might be requested, by taking it extremely seriously and respecting the views that they express. However, in the two meetings I have had with the First Minister so far, it is clear—this is no criticism of him—that we are a long way off being able to measure precisely what that request might consist of. When it comes, we will take it seriously.
Simon Hart
Not at the moment, thank you. It is nothing personal, obviously.
At this time, I just want to mention the potential for landslides, which, obviously, has caused almost as much concern as some of the flooding risk. In the past few days, that issue has become particularly significant, and I wanted to update colleagues by saying that I have met the First Minister to discuss it. We have brought all the relevant stakeholders together, either by way of conference call or in person on Monday this week. Just so that those co-signatories know, I should say that we have also received a letter from the hon. Member for Rhondda which asks some of the questions that I hope to be able to answer now.
The First Minister and I have asked for an up-to-date database of the sites involved—it may surprise some to learn that no such thorough document exists—as we want to know precisely who owns them. We have asked for a risk assessment to be undertaken as a matter of urgency as to the integrity of these sites and what exactly the legal liabilities are and where they lie. We have also asked for an outline of a potential timescale and cost for addressing problems associated with these sites, bearing in mind that it is difficult to get on to them at the moment because of the weather conditions that caused the problems in the first place. I also assure colleagues in the House that we will update them just as soon as we have information that we think is viable and useful.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he knows that this issue is of huge concern to those of us who represent Rhondda Cynon Taf constituencies, as I do. May I press him a little? He spoke about the liabilities, but will he assure me and other Members that no matter where responsibility lies, the UK Government will provide funding to ensure that the coal slips are safe? He will agree that we do not want a repeat of what has happened in the past, when Governments have argued over maintenance, controls and safety, and we have had situations like Aberfan.
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My referencing liability was not to pre-warn him that we will somehow try to excuse ourselves from liability; it is just so that we understand exactly what the legal position is regarding ownership, because there may be things such as access issues, which we need to understand. These things are always frustratingly complicated.
I wish to use this opportunity to be positive about Wales, because there is much to be positive about. This discussion is about opportunities, jobs, growth, culture and identity—
Simon Hart
It will also be about an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to intervene—in a minute, but not yet. I have been waiting 10 years for the opportunity to be able to turn the hon. Gentleman down. I am not going to lose out on that.
In Wales, there are now 144,000 more people in work than there were in 2010 and 90,000 fewer workless households than there were in 2010. Before anybody sticks up their hand and says, “Ah, but they’re not real jobs,” or, “Ah, but they’re zero-hours contracts,” even if we take the most pessimistic view of those figures, it is still a remarkable testament, not necessarily to the Welsh Government or even the UK Government, but to the businesses and individuals in Wales and their resilience in being able to create and sustain that positive economic picture.
Since 2010, GDP per head in Wales has grown by more than the UK average, and in the past year alone 51 foreign investment projects have come our way, creating 1,700 jobs. We have institutions such as INEOS Automotive in Bridgend; Admiral and GoCompare; Airbus and Toyota in Deeside; Aston Martin in St Athan; Bluestone and Valero down in my part of the world, in west Wales; Tata, Celsa and Liberty Steel; numerous successful holiday and leisure small and medium-sized enterprises around the coast; agri-tech in Aberystwyth; a cyber-security hub in Newport; Zip World in north Wales; and a growing renewables hub in the Milford Haven waterway. I know that every single colleague present will have a fantastic example of people who have created interesting, diverse and profitable businesses.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State mentions many companies, including some in my constituency. It is crucial that through a great education system we equip the younger generation to prepare for the opportunities in those companies, so will he join me in congratulating the Welsh Labour Government on the investment that they have put into my constituency? We have new schools in the east of Cardiff and in Penarth, and a new further education college—Cardiff and Vale College—and we have seen the improvement of a whole series of educational facilities at every level.
Simon Hart
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I will always congratulate any Government of any colour if they do the right thing by jobs and growth.
On renewables, which I have touched on, Wales’s electricity is already 50% powered by clean energy, and I am committed, as I know colleagues are, to seeing that figure rise. This is of course the Prime Minister’s year of climate action, building up to COP26, and Wales has a role to play in that, just as it does in a low-carbon economy.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State is making an important point about Wales’s potential contribution towards meeting renewable energy targets. Does he agree that one of the big constraints we face in Wales is grid capacity? I know that he has not been long in the job, but has he had a chance to have any discussions with Western Power or National Grid, for example, about how we can enhance grid capacity so that more renewables projects can be taken forward?
Simon Hart
The answer is a partial yes. As my right hon. Friend knows, businesses in the Carmarthenshire element of my constituency in particular are constrained by grid capacity. In my capacity as an MP, my answer is yes; in my capacity as Secretary of State, my answer is that it is on the to-do list. It is an urgent issue that colleagues from Plaid Cymru raised with me towards the back end of last year.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has mentioned the importance of clean energy in Wales; would he be willing to meet me and other colleagues, together with the proposed developers of the Colwyn Bay tidal lagoon, and preferably with the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, to discuss the possibility of developing that very important contributor to clean energy in Wales?
Simon Hart
My right hon. Friend is right, and yes I would of course love to do that. There is a feeling in some quarters that perhaps we have turned our back on tidal lagoon energy; no, we have not. On anything like that project, which has good potential and offers value for money for taxpayers, I will of course meet my right hon. Friend and any other colleagues who may have similarly encouraging projects to promote.
This is not all about the traditional industries that I have already listed; it is also about innovative business: artificial intelligence, virtual reality, compound semiconductors, cyber-security, FinTech, InsureTech—lots of stuff with tech in the name—and many more cutting-edge new industries dotted around, not necessarily in the centres of Wales where people would expect to find them. These businesses offer long-term, well-paid, skilful, green jobs and keep home-grown talent in Wales.
Geraint Davies
The Secretary of State has mentioned the impact on Wales of climate change in terms of flooding, and he is now mentioning the opportunities; will he reconfirm that he is looking again with fresh eyes at the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, including at its financial structure and its cost relative to the price of future energy, which will go up? We cannot use all the coal and oil, because we will all burn up. It would be a pathfinder for new opportunities for export growth, not just in Wales but throughout the UK.
Simon Hart
In answering that, I want to avoid giving the hon. Gentleman the impression that we are just going to dust off the original tidal lagoon proposal, because that would possibly build up false hope. I can say that tidal lagoons as a concept were and remain something of significant potential for Wales and the rest of the UK, but any project obviously has to meet the right value-for-money criteria.
We have talked about the traditional industries; Wales also has a fantastically expanding creative industry offer. Who would have thought it? Not many people know—apart from those in this Chamber, obviously—about “Doctor Who”, “Hinterland”, “Keeping Faith”, “Casualty”, “Gavin & Stacey” and, of course “Sex Education”, which is filmed in my ministerial colleague’s—
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I pay tribute to that programme, but apart from the brief sight of a Welsh flag, one would not know that it is filmed in Wales. We need to look at Netflix and the new creative industries and think about reminding people that we have these great facilities.
Simon Hart
Absolutely. My hon. Friend should raise that question with the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, because it would seem to me to be the subject of an inquiry that that Committee might enjoy.
On the subject of culture, we have a fantastic, rich and vibrant heritage. The fact that we have more than 600 castles—more per square mile than any other part of the world—is a source of great pride. We have world-class museums, we have galleries, and even the slate landscape of north Wales has been nominated for UNESCO world heritage status.
In sport, we have won a grand slam since the previous St David’s Day debate. I will not make any further predictions on that score. In Tenby in west Wales we host Ironman Wales, the only competition in Wales that attracts more than 2,000 competitors from 35 countries. Last year, Loren Dykes of the Welsh national women’s football team was honoured with her MBE, and Wales has again qualified for the Euros.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming to the House a very good friend of mine, Lowri Morgan, a woman I used to play rugby with back in the day, who is renowned for her ultra-marathons and adventurism? She is here to join the Secretary of State in Downing Street this afternoon. I also welcome her father, Dr Morgan, who is also my constituent.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Lowri would love us to be there this afternoon. I had to explain the order of events; unfortunately we will not be able to join the Secretary of State. Sport is a massive industry in Wales—it is very important and very close to our hearts. It is important that we raise the profile and importance of sport for everyone, especially women.
Simon Hart
I very much look forward to meeting Lowri in No. 10. We will, of course, have a drink together and think of you all in here as we do.
Let me return briefly to our economic prospects. No St David’s Day debate, certainly in recent years, would be complete without mention of our departure from the EU, which was voted for in Wales by a margin of 5%. The result of the election towards the end of last year confirms the Union ambitions and Union values of our residents.
That leads me neatly to the shared prosperity fund, which is the subject of much discussion in this House and elsewhere—what it means, where it is going, what it will include, who will be responsible for it and so on. I have always said, and I said it on the day I was appointed, that this is a nice problem to have—large sums of money to be distributed by politicians elected in Wales by Wales for the first time in nearly 50 years. The shared prosperity fund for me, and I am sure this view is shared by the Welsh Government, too, is about jobs and growth. It is about priorities that benefit everybody across the country, not just specific parts of it. It is not about vanity projects and ideas that may sound good and even look good, but that do not deliver on those two core objectives.
One of the reasons why the EU referendum vote went the way it did, why there was such a heated debate about it, why there was such frustration sometimes about the knowledge that there were large sums of money that never quite reached the places that they were meant to go, is because there are examples—admittedly not many—such as the funicular, a £2.5 million EU-funded project in Ebbw Vale. It broke down more than 250 times between June 2015 and November 2017, and it cost Blaenau Gwent Council £52,000 a year. I have not been aware at any time in recent years of residents of Wales campaigning for more of that kind of thing. Techniums are another example. I have one in my constituency. The 10 innovation centres, costing £38 million of EU funds, failed to meet job targets, and six centres closed after nine years. They were even described by the Lib Dems as a white elephant.
Simon Hart
No, no, hold tight. I liked the idea of a £20,000 dragon statue in Ebbw Vale, but the test of these things must be how they have contributed positively to jobs and growth. My challenge to the Welsh Government is for the UK and Welsh Governments to work collaboratively on the shared prosperity fund to make sure that those objectives are met and are driven by local demand.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. It really is a travesty for him to attempt to depict European funding in this way. European funding has been a huge boost to the Welsh economy. We need only look at road infrastructure, the colleges, the voluntary sector that has benefited and the training that we have put in place. All those things are very positive, but what he has presented is a gross caricature of reality.
Simon Hart
It is in fact quite the opposite. I suspect that what I have done is cause a certain amount of embarrassment. We all know and understand that the funding does not always work in the way that it should. I made it absolutely clear that the examples I gave are the exceptions, not the rule. My point is very clear. There should be a collaborative approach by the Welsh and UK Governments to prioritise jobs and growth. If the Welsh Government or Welsh Labour cannot live with that, that is their problem, not mine.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being generous—but also uncharitable. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) made his point; I can point to examples in my constituency. In Butetown, EU funding went to the community centre, the youth pavilion, and regeneration in one of the most deprived areas in Wales. The Government have not given answers as to where funding will come from to ensure that the so-called levelling up agenda can be delivered. They need to answer those questions.
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Those questions will be answered. Whether they are answered now or at a future stage is a matter for him to judge. I am conscious that I have been super generous with interventions, and that I must now get on with my few remaining comments.
As the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, levelling up and strengthening the Union are our buzzwords. That means road, rail, air, and digital infrastructure improvements. It means mobile phone coverage in the most hard-to-reach places and cross-border connectivity. If we want an argument in this place, let us have one about the M4 relief road. Let us hear from Opposition colleagues about what pressure they are putting on the Welsh Government to remove that blockage and unleash economic potential throughout south and west Wales. Not a single business from the west coast of Pembrokeshire to the Severn Bridge does not believe that the project is a good idea. The blockage appears to come from the First Minister’s Office, so if colleagues share our ambition for the project, let us hear from them. I will take any intervention from the Opposition confirming their enthusiasm for that improvement. [Interruption.] Okay, perhaps not.
We also want a more reliable rail service and charging points for electric vehicles. For those who say, “What has HS2 ever done for us?”, I would say this—
Simon Hart
No, I will not give way, because I must get on. I was talking about the benefits of HS2. Whether it is by direct connection to a new form of rail infrastructure, the like of which has not been seen since Victorian times, or whether it is by being able to tap into the supply chain opportunities, HS2 benefits not just those on the route that it will follow, or in the cities that it will join. It will help link up the UK, which will be good for the economic prospects of Wales.
Simon Hart
No, I will not give way. My mood has changed. I am no longer co-operative and collaborative.
On defence, we have, in our ministerial team, two people who have worn a military uniform—that of the Royal Artillery in the case of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and that of the Royal Wessex Yeomanry in my case. We have an instinctive love, affection and respect for the defence industry, our soldiers, sailors and airmen, and we want to see more of them in Wales. We want to ensure that their veterans’ railcard is delivered in exactly the same way by the Welsh Government as it will be by the UK Government in November, and we want to preserve and enhance the Ministry of Defence footprint in Wales.
Let me turn to the question of steel, which is of huge significance to a number of constituencies, including mine. I reassure the House that the UK Government recognise not only the economic value of steel, but its social and cultural importance in Wales. We are working with steel companies to find out, and be absolutely clear in our minds about, what they see as a sustainable steel industry, and what UK and Welsh Government support they need to be able to develop that. I will be at Tata Steel Port Talbot tomorrow. I hope to meet the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) there to discuss these issues further.
I want to end on a cultural matter to do with the Welsh language. I am very proud of the fact that S4C moved its headquarters from Cardiff to Carmarthen. It is, of course, the only Welsh language broadcaster. As somebody who has, as the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) knows, a limited grasp of the Welsh language—she would argue that I had a limited grasp of any language—this is of real significance. It is about far more than viewing figures. I am anxious to make sure that the language is seen as approachable, fun, and significant. The moment it becomes politicised, it turns off people who might be taking their first steps with the language—whether they are already residents of Wales, or are moving to Wales, perhaps for work. The vibrancy of the language and its future are important.
The Welsh Government ambition, which I fully support, is to have 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050. That will be achieved only if that is seen as something that we can aspire to achieve without fear of political retribution if we somehow fall short. Inserting the odd word of Welsh into a speech or article does not do the trick. It is a lazy way of attempting to do our duty by the Welsh language. We have to go further than that, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say more about that later.
On that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is time for a gwin coch mawr over in No. 10. Those are the three words of Welsh that I have learned and have carried me through the most difficult situations over the past 10 years. This is a great occasion. It is a brilliant opportunity for us to speak about the positives of Wales. I look forward to hearing the rest of the contributions.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Government for bringing forward this debate on Welsh affairs. Of course, the calendar dictates that we are unable to hold the debate on St David’s Day, as 1 March falls on a Sunday this year. Nevertheless, the debate remains a firm fixture in our parliamentary business, providing a great opportunity to discuss the issues, challenges and priorities that matter to Wales.
I also thank the Government for granting the debate in Government time, which has not happened for many years; not, I think, since the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) became Secretary of State—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) would be able to correct me on that, were he here, as his knowledge of the House is far better than mine. Certainly, since I have been taking part in St David’s Day debates, they have been Backbench Business debates.
Yesterday I bumped into my good friend Albert Owen, the former Member for Ynys Môn. We were reminiscing about Welsh affairs debates, among other things. Seeing Albert reminded me just how much I miss him, Ian Lucas, David Hanson, Susan Elan Jones, Owen Smith, Madeleine Moon, Anne Clwyd and, last but not least, my former shadow ministerial colleague, Chris Ruane. Those dedicated Welsh MPs have given years of service to the people of Wales, and their work should be celebrated for all that is good about being a Welsh Labour MP. We have two great new Labour MPs, my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who are already making their presence felt and will be fantastic additions to our Labour Team Wales.
Not many hon. Members know this, but in my constituency of Neath we celebrate not only St David’s Day, when the children dress up in Welsh costumes to celebrate our Welsh culture, but St Patrick’s Day. Patrick was born in Banwen, at the top of the Dulais valley, but he was kidnapped as a child and taken to Ireland. Every year we hold a fantastic celebration at a stone we have erected to his memory in Banwen. Schoolchildren, residents and special guests come along to hear the great Roy Noble giving one of his memorable speeches about St Patrick. We are indebted to the famous local historian George Brinley Evans, now 93, who researched this phenomenon and was the leading protagonist in establishing the St Patrick stone and the annual event. Please join us. We have a leprechaun who comes all the way from Ireland to take part too. I look forward to seeing Members there on 17 March.
It is regrettable that I must begin my proper address in sombre tones, as we reflect on the impact that recent events have had on our great nation. Two storms and unprecedented flooding have taken their toll on communities across Wales, including, but not limited to, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Llanwrst, Monmouth and parts of my Neath constituency. From severe damage to bridges and iconic landmarks, such as the national lido of Wales, to the destruction of the entire contents of family homes, these floods will cost Wales dearly.
The First Minster, the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the Prince of Wales have visited households and communities right across the country, but alas the Prime Minster could not find the time to visit just one of the flood-damaged areas of the UK. He has said many times that he would not “die in a ditch”, but perhaps he was missing in action because he fell into the moat surrounding his holiday castle, or perhaps he could not find his wellies.
The community spirit and response in our devastated Welsh communities has shown the world the best of Wales: compassion, kindness, humour and solidarity have shone through the contribution of volunteers, emergency services, council workers, welfare halls, miners’ institutes, Royal British Legion branches, rugby clubs, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and so many more.
Craig Williams
The hon. Lady missed that the source of the Severn is in Montgomeryshire, in mid-Wales. Although I will not politicise this or make tribal political points about missing one of the biggest floods in Wales, will she reflect on the fact that we have to work together to ensure that people recover as soon as possible from this tragedy, and that does not include cheap political shots of the sort she has made thus far?
Christina Rees
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We always work together, but the Prime Minister is the leader, so he should have visited the areas affected.
Many local authorities are pulling together to support those who are most severely impacted by the floods, working in the most demanding of circumstances to get the quickest possible support to those in need. However, the UK Government must now step up and recognise the disproportionate and intense impact that the floods have had on Wales. We need additional funding for Wales. We need protection for emergency household payments. We need immediate help for those who do not have insurance. We need support for those who have lost their jobs and livelihoods.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend is probably aware that more severe weather conditions are expected over the coming seven to 10 days, so is she as concerned as I am about the saturation of coal tips and the like? We need an urgent assessment of whether there is an imminent risk to villages and hamlets in the valleys, which are susceptible to flash-flooding and slides, because of the topography of the valleys and the increased risk from climate change. We need urgent action, immediate help and long-term solutions; we cannot just wait for a report to come back.
Christina Rees
My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I have visited homes that have been flooded or affected by landslips over the past few weeks, it has broken my heart. People who do not have insurance have had their homes destroyed yet again. Yes, we need action, and we need it now, because the weather forecast is definitely not favourable for the next few weeks.
A quarter of all homes and businesses were flooded in Rhondda Cynon Taf alone, with a potential bill of £30 million—twice the council’s annual capital budget. I must commend the work of the Rhondda Cynon Taf MPs and AMs and the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf Council, Andrew Morgan, who is also leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, which has done some fantastic work.
There is so much to celebrate about our great nation, some of which I will discuss in a moment, but there are also a great many challenges and a level of uncertainty in our communities, against the backdrop of Brexit and the negative effects of austerity on so many Welsh communities and families.
These challenging times make it more important than ever to have a strong Welsh Labour team of MPs here in Westminster, working with the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, and the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff Bay. It remains a huge privilege to serve as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), our Welsh Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and our wonderful Welsh Labour MPs.
This Tory UK Government have continually failed Wales, and unfortunately the Wales Office continues to fail to stand up for the people of Wales. We were promised the electrification of the Great Western main line to Swansea, but the UK Government changed their mind. The Swansea bay tidal lagoon was recommended by this Government’s own inquiry, but they ignored it, and Wylfa Newydd has been paused. The people of Wales hear loud and clear the UK Government’s promises to our country, and the people will hold them to account for their failure to deliver. We demand more, and we demand better.
The UK Government must recognise the folly of continuing to frustrate efforts to launch a major new domestic market for Welsh steel. The pathfinder tidal lagoon in Swansea bay requires around 100,000 tonnes of steel, much of which could be sourced in Wales, against a very clear commitment from the investors and businesses involved to buy Welsh. The past 12 months have seen the loss of hundreds of jobs in the steel industry, in Tata’s Orb steelworks in Newport and in Liberty Steel in sites in south Yorkshire and south Wales. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for their tireless campaigning on behalf of our steelworkers.
Wales needs investment, as the UK as a whole needs investment, and the people of Wales will judge this Government harshly if they continue to fail to deliver it. Opposition Members will continue to speak up for Wales—for Welsh families, communities and businesses— and for the devolution settlement itself. It is not for any UK Government unilaterally to rewrite the rules of devolution by attempting to power-grab and centralise functions set out in law and agreed through the ballot box, using Brexit as a cover for those actions. Despite what the Secretary of State has said about the UK shared prosperity fund, it is still a mystery to me. We continue to wait and wait for the much anticipated consultation, and for any details whatever on how the fund will be implemented. It must respect devolution and be overseen by the Welsh Government, and we must not see a penny less or a power lost. I commend the report produced by the all-party parliamentary group for post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).
The people of Wales have a right to see a UK Government acting in their best interests, protecting their jobs and investing in the public services they rely on and the infrastructure we desperately need to secure Wales’s future. Despite a decade of austerity and a 7% real-terms cut to funding per head of the population, the Welsh Government have continued to lead the way in delivering landmark legislation and progressive policy making. The Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 and the Nurse Staffing Levels (Wales) Act 2016 are groundbreaking examples of a modern legislature creating laws that make a difference for the people of the nation.
The Welsh Government have also introduced policies such as free bus travel for the over-60s, free swimming for children and older people, free school breakfasts, free prescriptions and free hospital parking, as well as being the first nation of the UK to introduce the 5p carrier bag charge. They have banned smoking in cars carrying children, and Wales has the third highest recycling rate in the world. That is just a brief glimpse of what has been delivered during the past decade. The achievements of the Welsh Government are, quite honestly, nothing short of remarkable.
Craig Williams
I could not resist intervening at this particular moment—I rather thought it was 1 April, not St David’s Day. Will the hon. Member comment on the report of the Wales Audit Office that pointed out the several hundred million-pound overspend on the heads of the valleys road and other significant infrastructure projects over the decade that the hon. Member said was so successful?
Christina Rees
As the hon. Gentleman knows, European funding produced the heads of the valley road.
Christina Rees
No, of course —that road is going ahead. It is only the UK Government who have prevented it from going ahead faster. I do not know where I am now; the hon. Members have completely lost me. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We must not have heckling—well, not much—of the shadow Secretary of State.
Christina Rees
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to finish now, because I am sure that lots of other Members want to speak.
Jonathan Edwards
Will the hon. Member take a friendly intervention before she moves on?
Christina Rees
I was getting to the good bit, but I will give way to my constituency neighbour.
Jonathan Edwards
I am sure the hon. Member will also have some concern about the negotiating mandate set out today by the British Government in relation to the second phase of Brexit and the trade negotiations. Indeed, the Welsh Government have issued a stern statement indicating that they were not consulted at all about the mandate. I fear that the best we can hope for is a bare-bones free trade agreement. The Welsh economy will be more exposed because of our reliance on exports into the single market. What does the hon. Member think the Welsh Government should do now, since the British Government clearly are not taking any notice of Wales’s position?
Christina Rees
The hon. Member makes some very good points. It has been a concern of mine for a long time that the Welsh Government have not been involved in the negotiations. They have to be involved; this is the future of Wales that we are talking about. I am really disappointed that they have not been involved to the extent that they should have been.
Now I come to the good bit. The House will know how passionate I am about sport. Wales is a sporting nation. When Wales wins the people of Wales are very happy. When we lose it is the end of the world. I went to the Wales versus Italy match, which was a great result, as the House knows—I don’t think I want to talk about the other matches, so I will move swiftly on.
My constituency of Neath has a proud sporting history. The Welsh Rugby Union was created in the Castle Hotel in Neath. The best player in the world, Gareth Edwards, was born and bred in Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen. Dan Biggar’s family was born and bred in the Dulais valley, where I live, as was Dennis Gethin, who recently stood down as chair of the WRU. Of course, Neath RFC are also called the All Blacks—a great tribute.
In a former life I was a squash player and played for Wales over 100 times. It was a great honour to pull on the red jersey of Wales. I became national coach for Squash Wales, and one of my roles was to develop squash for all ages and all standards throughout Wales. We have a superb junior development structure, which has produced some great players. I am very proud to say that on St David’s Day we will have two senior players ranked in the top 10 in the world, and they have both come through the junior structure: Tesni Evans, based in Prestatyn, is two times British champion and bronze medallist at the last Commonwealth games; and Joel Makin from Aberdare, a member of the Welsh men’s team who came third in the last world championships. Wales is again showing that we are punching above our weight.
Rob Roberts
Not a squash player, but almost. On a sporting theme, would the hon. Member be kind enough to pay tribute to the wonderful Jade Jones from Flint in my constituency who has, since the last time this debate was held—since last St David’s Day, in fact—become 2019 world champion in taekwondo?
Christina Rees
Of course I will. Jade is fantastic advocate for women’s sport, and I am glad that the hon. Member intervened to mention her.
Coming back to squash, there is a great injustice. We have been campaigning for many years to get squash into the Olympics. It has never been included, despite having championships at every national and international level. I have been banging on about this for quite a few years, so I ask all Members to join me to ensuring that squash becomes an Olympic sport.
I am not the only Welsh Labour MP who has represented Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) is a Welsh rugby international. I must say that that game is far too tough for me; one good tackle and I think I would be done for, so I will stay off the rugby field.
That is enough from me. I look forward to all Members’ contributions and wish the whole House a happy St David’s Day for Sunday.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees). She is such a powerful voice for Welsh sport and for women’s sport across the United Kingdom.
I will begin by congratulating the new ministerial team at the Wales Office, who have made a really superb start, with energy and a sense of purpose; they are doing a really good job. I also thank all Members on both sides of the House who nominated or supported me to be the Chair-elect of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I am conscious that I have very big boots to fill, given that the previous Chair of that Committee over the last two Parliaments is the current Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). It has been made clear to me in no uncertain terms by different colleagues that they expect me to continue his collegiate and constructive style of leading the Committee. I will endeavour to do so while also relishing the prospect of scrutinising the work of the previous Chair and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
There has been something of a fresh mood in this place since the start of the year, on the back of the general election and other changes. That sentiment is not only felt on the Government Benches; I think that all Members, in different ways, have been feeling the fresh atmosphere around this place over the past couple of months. So my first thought is this: how do we—as 40 Welsh Members of Parliament from different locations and parties, and with different sets of interests and backgrounds—make sure that Wales shares that sense of a fresh start for this Parliament? The Government are absolutely clear that this is going to be a changed Parliament—a Parliament where things get done and get moving—so how do we work together to make sure that Wales can be part of that in a very positive way? There are some major opportunities ahead for Wales which, if we can work together, can be harnessed for the benefit of all of our constituents. There are also challenges ahead, and we should not be shy about discussing those.
Regardless of all our individual perspectives, one thing that I think we can agree on is that the general election that we all went through in November and December did not result in a vote for things to carry on as they had been. It was not a vote for more of the same, and it certainly was not a vote for more of the same in Wales. Those of us who were here in the previous Parliament, particularly in the past couple of years, will look back on the sheer sense of frustration that we were all feeling week by week, with nothing happening and nothing moving—the sense of everything being gummed up and stuck. When we went back to our constituents we would hear and feel the anger from constituents who had also sensed that feeling of frustration. We have now turned that corner, and it is incumbent on all of us to be able to demonstrate to our voters, who have put us all here, that we can get things done in this Parliament. I am not just talking about big issue of Brexit and all the practical issues that follow from the Brexit vote. I am talking about other issues as well—some of the themes that other Members have raised, such as infrastructure and other projects. Perhaps we in this Parliament can do a little better at working together in the years ahead.
I mentioned the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament. It did brilliant work, on a cross-party basis, to bring forward practical recommendations that even led to the very good decision of the previous Welsh Secretary to remove tolls on the Severn Bridge. Right on cue, the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has walked in. That proposal started off as a recommendation from the Welsh Affairs Committee. It was due in no small part to the efforts and lobbying of members of the Welsh Affairs Committee that that change got through. So working together, I believe that we can get things done for Wales.
Another thought I would like to share is how we, as Members of Parliament, address the issues in this place that affect our constituencies. Those of us who have been around for the bulk of the past 20 years, during the era of devolution, have rather got used to delineating in our heads between devolved issues and non-devolved issues, being careful not to speak about devolved issues and carefully treading with sensitivity on the right side of the devolution boundary. However, the truth—I saw this during the election campaign when talking to voters on the doorstep—is that voters do not care whether an issue is devolved or non-devolved, or whether it is a local authority issue. They just care about the issue and expect us, as someone standing to be a Member of Parliament, to care too, and to have something meaningful to say about it when, if we are fortunate enough to be elected, we come up to this place. We are not trying to blur the devolution boundary or be clever with it; we respect where the different responsibilities lie.
We should not be shy, as Welsh Members of Parliament, about talking about education and healthcare. I am really pleased to see the new hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) here today, because some of her predecessor’s most powerful contributions in recent years were on the state of the NHS in Wales. We remember that very keenly. I think that many of our voters do now understand very clearly the devolution split. When we explain to them the different responsibilities of Cardiff Ministers and Ministers here in Westminster, they nod their heads and show they understand, but they are still, as I say, looking to their Members of Parliament to demonstrate that we care, that we understand, and that we have a view.
Over the past 20 years, during the course of devolution, there has been something of a process of the diminishing importance of Westminster, or an attempt to diminish its importance in the eyes of Welsh voters, and an increasing emphasis on the importance of the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. One of the ways that I interpret the Brexit vote is that it was about voters saying that they value what goes on in Westminster. It is not about saying that the Welsh Assembly is less important, but Brexit is partly about restoring this place to its rightful prominence as the key arena of UK-wide debate and the contesting of different ideas.
As Welsh Members of Parliament, we stand as equals in that. I have made my views known about the—
Stephen Crabb
I know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say, so I will give way.
Mark Tami
I raised this issue in the Chamber the other day when we had the English-only votes and I was unable to express my view on funding for Countess of Chester Hospital. That hospital was built to serve Deeside and Chester and the area around it. An English Member of Parliament miles from that area is allowed to express a view on it, whereas I am not, even though many people in Alyn and Deeside go to it.
Stephen Crabb
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it was exactly the one I was anticipating. He intervened at exactly the right point in my speech where I was about to mention English votes for English laws. I have made my personal views about this known. I strongly believe that Welsh MPs are not second-class. Our role here is as important as everyone else’s and we have a really important job to do. Wales does have a face here. Wales has a voice here, and we are it. It is the particular role of the Secretary of State for Wales to be those things at the Cabinet table, but we have a job to help to strengthen his hand when he goes there to represent Wales. All of us, in the different Select Committees that we sit on, the different all-party parliamentary groups that we belong to and the Question Times that we take part in, are a face and a voice for Wales. There is nothing second-class about our role here, and we should get stuck in as much as possible. Yes, there is a role for party political debate and conflict at times, but there is also a strong role for co-operation and a Team Wales approach from all 40 of us.
I will finish by talking about a practical issue that has already been discussed in part—the shared prosperity fund. I very much hope that the new Welsh Affairs Committee will take an early decision to get its teeth into scrutinising the progress in Government on making decisions about the shared prosperity fund. In the eyes of many colleagues, this is fundamentally a constitutional question of who gets to make the decisions—where the balance of responsibility lies between Cardiff and Westminster over that pot of money. For me, it is primarily an economic issue of how we put that money to good use to benefit the economy. I tried to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this point. I do not think that he or anybody else questions the fact that previous rounds of EU funding have gone to useful causes and good projects—we see that in all our constituencies where this money has been received—but the fundamental point is that the primary objective of EU structural funds is to close an economic gap between poorer regions and areas and an EU average, and if that economic gap has not been closed, there are some hard questions to be asked about whether the money can be used to better effect to achieve stronger economic growth. That is the opportunity that I want the Welsh Government and the UK Government, working together, to take with regard to the shared prosperity fund. I very much hope that the new Welsh Affairs Committee will get its teeth into that.
Geraint Davies
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while it is imperative that we have control and use the money effectively, we must not lose the overall amount of money that we are allowed to spend? The shared prosperity fund must grant Wales the quantum of money that we got from convergence funding so that we can use it better but do not have less.
Stephen Crabb
I do agree. I am concerned about three things: first, the size of the pot; secondly, who gets to make the decisions about how the pot is used; and, thirdly—crucially—how the pot is used.
Craig Williams
It is forever about money, money, money, but the Government have made that clear. It is incredibly sad that we qualified for that third round and that nothing was done over that period to sort out the huge inequality that Wales has faced.
Stephen Crabb
I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been said before, but it is not an accolade for Wales to achieve this status, and all politicians in Wales should have a restless ambition that Wales should not qualify for that kind of funding in future.
Jonathan Edwards
The right hon. Gentleman is making some very relevant points, but will he add one more consideration to his list? One of the great benefits of the way the European system worked was the multi-annual financial framework, with a five, six or seven-year programme. That will be difficult in the UK context, because we will not be able to bind the next Government, so we will be looking at five years at best, but it must be for the maximum length of the Parliament, not determined every year in the Budget.
Stephen Crabb
That is an important point, but I do not share that sense of pessimism that we will not be able to achieve multi-year agreements for funding, regardless of changes in Government.
Before bringing my remarks to a close, I will make two quick points. One is a local point for the Secretary of State as he is discussing Budget issues with colleagues in government, regarding a small piece of rail infrastructure in Milford Haven, the largest town in my constituency. Its railway station is merely a slab of concrete with a portakabin. We can do better than that, surely. I would be grateful if he would take up that issue in discussions with colleagues. Finally, given that a tradition seems to have been established this afternoon of paying tribute to strong Welsh women in sport, I will pay tribute to Jasmine Joyce from my constituency, who this week was selected again for the Great Britain rugby sevens squad.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or diolch; it is a great pleasure to be called to speak in the debate and to have the opportunity to wish everyone, on behalf of my group in this place, a very happy St David’s Day when it comes. I also want to pass on my best wishes for the rugby on 14 March—not too many, although I do not think Wales will need much luck on that score.
My perspective in this debate is one of looking from afar, from the north-east of Scotland. If the House will permit me, I want to share some personal recollections. One of the first major political campaigns I got involved in was the devolution referendum of 1997, campaigning for a yes-yes vote in Scotland. I well remember the delight that my colleagues and I experienced that evening and the sense of the bright future that was beckoning, whatever it held. The following week, there was the vote in Wales. I remember a considerably more youthful looking Huw Edwards—I am sure he would not mind my saying that—anchoring the results programme. I went to bed that night quite despondent at the way the result appeared to be panning out, then woke up to find that the final result in Carmarthen had delivered a sufficient margin to ensure that it was a yes all round.
In Scotland, we had a significant task after that, because it was very difficult to live up to some of the unrealistic expectations that had built up around the institution. To those of us watching from Edinburgh, it seemed in those early years that Wales was doing devolution rather better than we were. Scotland’s First Minister at the time, Jack McConnell, had a much mocked ambition of trying to do less, better. It often seemed to us—in those early years, at least—that Wales was doing considerably better with less than we were.
If we fast-forward to the referendum on legislative powers in 2011, the contrast between the result then and the result in 1997 was striking. The vote to transfer legislative powers was supported the length and breadth of Wales by a margin of two to one. That seemed to be not only a vote to transfer legislative powers but a vote of confidence in that institution—here was an institution that was now firmly embedded in the democratic and political landscape of Welsh life.
I well recall the then Deputy First Minister, Ieuan Wyn Jones, describing the period to follow as
“the decade to deliver for Wales.”
Others in this place will have strong views, and they are perhaps better qualified than I am to decide whether that was in fact lived up to. Looking from afar, I remember the Government led by Carwyn Jones commendably being prepared to speak out on what he thought were the shortcomings of the UK Government—he certainly put many of his Scottish colleagues to shame in his willingness to do so—but the perspective is one of drift rather than delivery. Post Brexit, the UK Government are in their pomp at the moment—I hope they do not think me unkind for saying that—about getting Brexit done and the need to level up. We will measure over time how the rhetoric matches up with the reality, but there is no doubt for me that considerable levelling up is required in Wales.
HS2 has been mentioned by several Members. My constituency, in the north-east of Scotland, is forecast to lose out as a result of HS2 being constructed, as parts of England become more competitive at our expense. I have to ask: where is the equivalent benefit for Wales out of this, other than the crumbs that will come from the table? I understand the argument about being able to bid into the supply chain and that process, but where are the transformative projects to balance that out and do some of the levelling up? For example, why will electrification of the Great Western line stop at Cardiff, instead of going on to Swansea? What about the full electrification of the valleys lines? We all know we have a climate change crisis that we need to tackle, and this is just one of a number of transformative projects that could benefit everyone in Wales and help to level up.
In that vein, where is the investment in the A470? When we look at a map of Wales, it is clear that considerable priority has been placed on east-west links, but where is the corresponding investment in north-south links? Where is the investment in digital connectivity? Since the UK Government retain regulatory responsibility for that, where are the coverage guarantees for 5G, so that it does not just hit the main population centres, and the main lines of communication and, crucially, rural areas are able to enjoy the same level of connectivity as their urban counterparts? It is clear that there is a need for that sustained investment in physical and social infrastructure in order to deliver the sustainable growth that Wales needs and the productivity increases that will allow all parts of Wales and all the people of Wales to reach their fullest potential.
In hopefully drawing my remarks to a controlled and orderly stop, as I tap the dashboard I would like to make one further observation on politics in Wales. If we can measure the democratic health of a country by the state of its Opposition, Wales seems to be in a rather better condition at this point in time than Scotland. Several years and a few jobs ago, I had the great pleasure of working here as the head of research for the Scottish National party group, although it was a considerably smaller group then. During that time, I had the great pleasure of seeing the former Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Adam Price, at work. I have to say that I am also very impressed with the current Member for that seat.
I well remember the contributions that Mr Price made in this Chamber and the way he used to light it up with his ideas, his eloquence and his clear passion to make Wales a much better place. I am delighted that he has made it back into active politics and to see him in his place in the Senedd. The people of Wales are incredibly fortunate to be in a position where they can choose him to be their next First Minister; they would be incredibly well served if they did so.
Finally, a point often made is that for all that Wales now has the significant legislative powers that came in in 2011, it lacks some of the institutional architecture that might help to make sense of those laws and allow them to be used to their fullest extent, particularly when we compare Wales with some of the institutions and the institutional architecture in Scotland, which are able to implement and monitor different policy choices. I urge people not to be frightened of or to feel inhibited by that, but rather to press ahead because self-government, if it means anything, absolutely means not just having the opportunity but having the right and indeed the obligation to make the best choices they can for the communities that have elected them to sit in whichever democratic institution they are elected to.
Looking from afar, as I say, it seems very clear that Wales is on something of a journey, and that journey goes on in terms of resolving its relationship within the United Kingdom and looking outwards to the rest of the world. Whether or not the end point of that journey is full national status, it is pretty clear that the people of Wales should be constrained only by the limits of their own talents, the limits of their own resources, the limits of their own imagination—and by the limits of nobody else.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am delighted to call Dr Jamie Wallis to make his maiden speech.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this House during the general debate on Welsh affairs. For me, it is a great honour to be the first Conservative MP elected for Bridgend during my lifetime. This is especially so, given that for most of my life I have lived in Bridgend, the wider borough of Bridgend or within just a few miles of it. I grew up in the area, and while the constituency is called Bridgend, it is so much more than just Bridgend town—such as the beautiful seaside town of Porthcawl, where I went to school and lived for many years. Therefore, this moment feels like a special privilege and honour for me to be standing here as the newly elected Member for a place I care deeply about.
I am sure my colleagues will agree, especially those who are newly elected, that when we arrive for the first time at the Palace of Westminster as an MP, it can be a particularly overwhelming experience. This was especially so in my case, as when I arrived in mid-December, it was my very first time here. I had not been here on a visit, a school trip or anything. Experiencing the aura and magnificence of Parliament for the first time as an MP made those first few days particularly special. I have to say that my general feeling of being overwhelmed and daunted was perhaps enhanced by all the Members on this side of the House who introduced themselves to me by telling me how much they liked and respected my predecessor.
Like those colleagues, I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Madeleine Moon, who was the Member for Bridgend for 14 and a half years, since May 2005. Madeleine Moon first caught the attention of the national press during the tragic spate of suicides in Bridgend during 2007 and 2008. She spoke up eloquently for the town in one of its darkest hours, and fought against the negative media narrative that was developing at the time. After these terrible events, she often spoke about mental health issues—and this is an area I hope to pick up and continue—campaigning for increased awareness of mental health and related issues, and additional support for all those who suffer such illnesses. As well as service as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Madeleine Moon was a member of the UK delegation to NATO since 2010, and she was elected as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in November 2018, for which colleagues on all sides of the House will commend her and pay tribute to her.
The armed forces are incredibly important to the people of Bridgend. While out campaigning during the last election, you could hardly get through a single street without meeting a military family or a veteran, and when you spoke to them about their experiences with the armed forces, it was clear early on just how emotive and important that part of their past is to them. These strong links with our armed forces go back many years. It was only in October of last year that we learned of the fate of HMS Urge, a world war two submarine that we now know was lost with all souls off the coast the Malta in April 1942. She was constructed in 1940, partly using funds raised by the people of Bridgend town and was later adopted by the town, and many of those serving on board had close ties to Bridgend or lived there. I am pleased that Bridgend Town Council is sending a delegation to Malta in late April to take part in a commemoration service, at which I hope to be present as well.
My constituents are a proud people, and proud of their communities. Every part of the constituency is touched by strong community spirit, which is seen so often in the hard work and dedication of so many community groups and volunteer-based organisations, some of which I have had the pleasure of meeting in my first weeks as an MP. As well as fantastic national organisations, such as the YMCA—it is, unfortunately, having to find new premises in Bridgend town now—and the Bridgend Dogs Trust, Bridgend is full of small local groups that give up their time to help make our communities even better.
I have had the pleasure of visiting the Badgers Brook allotments in Brackla, a site which was previously derelict, but the hard work of a small group of community-minded volunteers has been turned the area into a place for everyone nearby—from children to pensioners—to learn about growing their own food and taking pride in their community. Likewise, the Memory Lane Friendship Group in Pyle is an entirely volunteer-run group that meets weekly to give people suffering from dementia an opportunity to spend time and socialise with trained volunteers. These are just two examples of the huge number of such groups in Bridgend that typify the strength of community spirit in my constituency.
Such pride and spirit is perhaps why so many people speak out passionately about the state of Bridgend town centre. Those that live in the older parts of Bridgend such as Oldcastle, Newcastle, Litchard, Cefn Glas and the more established housing estates of Brackla and Wildmill often recall when the town centre was vibrant, active and full of life. With so many new developments in Bridgend, such as estates in Parc Derwen in Coity and Broadlands near Bryntirion, bringing new homes, new families and new residents to Bridgend, many are confused as to why the town seems to be suffering quite as it is. This once thriving market town has seen a decline that is more pronounced than many have observed elsewhere. While the centre is still home to wonderful small businesses and has an array of offerings for visitors, there can be no doubt about the level of concern at the number of empty premises, the decreasing footfall and the overall state of the streets, especially at night.
I recently met occupants of the indoor market who, true to the spirit of Bridgend, have given up their time to improve the market, and I enjoyed seeing all the wonderful progress they have made in recent times. However, it is clear that much more needs to be done. I congratulate the Government on getting straight to work on levelling up, with their £3.6 billion towns fund. Unfortunately, this fund applies only to towns in England, and I know that the people of Bridgend eagerly anticipate similar measures being taken for the towns of Wales by the Welsh Government.
While media reports that Bridgend is home to the highest levels of rodent infestation in the UK might perhaps explain why I feel so at home here in the Palace, they typify why the proud people of Bridgend are so passionate about seeing immediate and substantial improvements to the state of the area. However, I can assure the House that this is not the only wildlife in the constituency. Indeed, we are the proud home of the award-winning Kenfig nature reserve, one of the country’s top sand dune reserves, with an array of beautiful wild fen orchids, which birds and unique species of insects depend on for their survival. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the volunteers, who come not only from Kenfig and the surrounding communities of Pyle and Cornelly but from afar, to support and protect the reserve, especially those that endured a difficult recent campaign to clarify the reserve’s future, following the end of the lease held by the local council.
Close to the nature reserve are some of the most wonderful beaches in the country—in Porthcawl, which I mentioned earlier. People come from far and wide to surf at Rest bay, where I often go to enjoy a bit of peace and quiet away from Westminster, but that is not always possible, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) will agree. I often see him there, with surfboard in tow, and I am grateful for every encounter we have. Porthcawl offers even more than this, with the nearby Coney beach and its fairground being enjoyed by people from all over the country. Even being a tourist hotspot, however, one of the main attractions that brings people to Porthcawl is the annual Elvis festival, attended by up to 35,000 people. If Members would like to attend the next festival, there will be no risk of their being “lonesome tonight”.
As a newly elected Member for a constituency that has had Conservative representation after only one other election in its history, it is fitting that I close my maiden speech by acknowledging the need to repay the trust placed in me, particularly by those who voted for my party for the first time. This begins with listening. My first priorities have centred around engaging with as many people as possible, and I will continue to keep my promises to hold regular surgeries, to be present in the constituency, and to meet as many residents as possible. I look forward to engaging with our local schools, our excellent Princess of Wales Hospital and its fantastic hard-working staff, as well as with businesses and our community leaders, and I will ensure that I am fully equipped to represent their views in this House. As I said earlier, Bridgend is home to a proud people who do not expect the earth, but they do expect an MP who is on their side and fighting their corner, and that is exactly the kind of MP I hope to be.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure he will make many more worthwhile contributions in this House. As someone who comes from a small village near Bridgend, I wish him well, and I look forward to his future contributions to the Elvis festival in Porthcawl.
I wish to refer to the flooding that has afflicted a number of areas in my constituency over the past couple of weeks. In Bedwas, Machen, Llanbradach and Bargoed, homes and businesses—and in Bedwas a rugby club—have suffered flooding, in some cases quite severely. For many there is no insurance, and everyone who has suffered physical damage to their properties has also suffered emotional trauma. It is appalling when someone suffers the consequence of their home flooding with dirty water. Everywhere, the community has shown exemplary resilience and pulled together, with people helping each other. In Bedwas, where I live, volunteers have cleaned the local rugby club, and an amazing sum of money has been collected. On Sunday night, I will attend a sell-out concert in Bedwas workmen’s hall, to collect money for local people who have been affected by the floods. I pay tribute to the workers of Caerphilly County Borough Council, who have worked tirelessly to help people and deal with situations that are unprecedented in recent times.
Tomorrow I will meet parliamentary colleagues, Assembly Members, and the leader of Caerphilly County Borough Council, Councillor Philippa Marsden. We will review the situation, and I am sure we will agree to reinforce the representations already made for additional central Government funding for the areas hit by flooding. Those extra resources are required from London so that the Welsh Government, and our local authorities, can continue to respond effectively to this unprecedented situation.
I wish to raise a couple of other issues. We have heard about the proposal to build a third runway at Heathrow airport, and about the Court of Appeal ruling against those plans on the basis that the expansion would breach environmental legislation. Be that as it may, it does not alter the fact that Heathrow expansion, if correctly done with appropriate legislation, could bring enormous benefit to the British economy, and especially to the economy of south Wales. I hope that the Government will get their act together and come forward with appropriate legislation that protects the environment, so that the expansion can go ahead and bring economic benefits to the country, including in Wales.
The independent Airports Commission has concluded that an expanded Heathrow will mean an extra 8,400 jobs in Wales, and up to £8 billion more in economic growth. The economy of Wales is largely based on exports, 60% of which go to the European Union. With an expanded and enhanced western rail link to Heathrow, expansion of that airport will bring tremendous economic benefits to Wales. It will mean more visitors to Wales, more destinations that Welsh tourists can reach, and, crucially, more opportunity for Welsh businesses to get to those all-important new markets. That is why the Welsh Government are firmly in support of the new runway, and I desperately hope that the Government manage to get their act together.
I also wish to mention the growing importance of UK defence contracts to the Welsh economy. In the last financial year alone, the Ministry of Defence spent more than £1 billion with industry in Wales, directly supporting more than 7,500 jobs. That is welcome, but we need much more of that. Last autumn, I went to the Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition in London’s Docklands, which is the largest exhibition of its kind anywhere in the world. I was especially pleased to see an excellent stand from Wales, organised by the Welsh Government. These things give huge opportunities to small and medium-sized businesses from Wales, which are increasingly benefiting from defence contracts. Those contracts also have a huge knock-on effect on the supply chains in Wales.
I was especially pleased to see a company from my constituency represented on that stand in the defence exhibition. Drone Evolution from Caerphilly is a small company that recognises that there are opportunities in the defence sector, as well as in the civilian sector—it is important to recognise that these days, those two things go very much together. I am also pleased about the investment by Thales in Blaenau Gwent. In 2009 Thales—again, with the support of the extremely proactive Welsh Government—launched its National Digital Exploitation Centre. That is in the heads of the valleys, where it is especially welcome. As we know, the heads of the valleys in south Wales continue to suffer economic and social deprivation, and a lot more sustained work is needed to ensure that those communities are rehabilitated and given the dynamic future they deserve.
I was also pleased at the significant investment by General Dynamics in Merthyr Tydfil—an area not dissimilar from Blaenau Gwent; it is just along the heads of the valleys from it, and it has seen far better times. The decision by General Dynamics to assemble and test the Army’s new Ajax vehicles in Merthyr has been extremely successful, and a huge fillip to the Welsh economy. Before long, however, that contract will come to an end, and it is important for the community and the workforce that a significant new contract be secured.
The multi-role vehicle protected programme will be a significant addition to the Army and to the country’s very high readiness forces, and the troop-carrying vehicles and battlefield ambulances could well be built in Merthyr Tydfil. A procurement process is under way at the Ministry of Defence, but I urge the Government to make real the principles and arguments advanced so articulately by the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) in the Dunne report.
We must recognise that defence contracts are not simply a matter for the Ministry of Defence to consider in isolation. If we are serious about developing a sovereign capability, and I believe all of us should be, defence contracts must take into account the social and economic contribution they can make to the country as a whole and to hard-pressed regions like the south Wales valleys. That is the essential message of the Dunne report. I hope the Government will make it real, beginning by ensuring that General Dynamics secures that contract in Merthyr Tydfil.
These are not easy times in Wales, but it is very clear that Wales today is a nation with very special values. I end as I started: by saying that the response of people to the floods shows that the nation of Wales is essentially a community of people with strong co-operative and collective values. Long may that continue.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
It was the greatest honour of my life to be elected MP for Clwyd South. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Susan Elan Jones. Susan served Clwyd South with distinction for almost 10 years as our MP, and I have always much admired her strong sense of integrity, kindness and concern for others. It is fair to say that Susan and I can take comfort from the fact that we have at different times achieved a result in Clwyd South that eluded my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who famously said about his experiences in the 1997 general election:
“I fought Clwyd South and Clwyd South fought back.”
That said, there is no doubt in my mind that I would not be standing here but for the inspired leadership of the Prime Minister in the general election campaign.
The past two months have been eventful for me, to say the least—settling into Parliament, and attending events and holding surgeries in Clwyd South, combined with the unexpected death of my mother on 7 January. After a fall on new year’s day at her home in the north of Powys, where I grew up, my mother was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer and died six days later. She was fortunate in going quickly and with little pain at the fine age of 87, but it was nevertheless a shock for all of us in the family. Of course, this is an experience shared with many others in Clwyd South, and the days that I spent in hospital with her only increased my respect for the ability of the NHS to contend with sudden medical crises, and for the kindness of the staff who looked after her.
Over the past two months, Clwyd South has seen more than its fair share of exceptional events; there was the fire at the Kronospan factory in Chirk, and the effects of Storms Ciara and Dennis. I have tried to make myself available to the people affected by these events. For instance, after the fire, I held an eight-hour surgery in Chirk to listen to people’s concerns. On 14 February, in the company of local county councillors, I visited some of the areas worst hit by the storms, such as Bangor-on-Dee and the Ceiriog valley. There are lessons to be learned from these events, and over the coming weeks I will continue to work hard with key stakeholders, across political parties, to make sure that real and substantial improvements are made to lessen problems in the future.
There is so much to celebrate in the businesses, organisations, sports teams, volunteers and communities of Clwyd South. As an MP, my job is to listen to people’s problems and to do my best to resolve them, but it is also to support and promote people’s successes. I attended my first event in the constituency on the day I was elected, 13 December. I visited the Esclusham senior citizens Christmas party by kind invitation of local county councillor Mark Pritchard, who is also leader of Wrexham Council. Since then, I have enjoyed events across the constituency, including a visit to the Llangollen steam railway’s Corwen extension project and the Overton playcentre. In Parliament, I am now a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and I attend events relating to Clwyd South, such as the recent Macmillan Cancer Support event and the meeting yesterday with North Wales Tourism, which features the Llangollen canal, a UNESCO world heritage site, in its marketing material.
Clwyd South has a proud industrial and mining heritage, seen not only in the Llangollen canal and its magnificent aqueducts, but in projects such as the Brymbo heritage centre, which is raising funds to create a visitor attraction to celebrate the buildings, machinery, landscape, industry and people of the former Brymbo steelworks. This remarkable heritage lives on in the large number of businesses that thrive in Clwyd South today, from larger companies such as Ifor Williams Trailers in Corwen and the Village Bakery, based in Coedpoeth, to smaller companies in the Vauxhall industrial estate between Johnstown and Ruabon, where my constituency office is located. Wales, of course, was the powerhouse of the industrial revolution and is now a country with cutting-edge innovation, inventive entrepreneurs, and an increasingly successful record of selling itself and its products abroad.
Tourism is also a major industry in Clwyd South—an industry I grew up in. My father ran Lake Vyrnwy hotel, not far away in the very north of Powys. We boast a wide range of hotels and bed and breakfasts, from which visitors can explore our beautiful countryside and heritage, including two of the most visited National Trust properties in Wales, Chirk Castle and Erddig Hall. They can take part in the many cultural activities in the constituency, particularly those celebrating the Welsh language, which is widely spoken across Clwyd South and taught in our thriving schools. The Llangollen international musical eisteddfod, of which I used to be a trustee, draws many visitors, as do the concerts given by the Rhos, Fron and other local male voice choirs.
We need to provide strong support to our farmers, who care for the countryside, which people flock to visit, from the upland farms in the west to the lowland farms in the east, in the Maelor, on the border with Cheshire and Shropshire. As we know, farmers work long hours and have major problems such as bovine TB to contend with. We must ensure that they can make a decent livelihood if we are to protect our environment and wildlife and combat global warming.
But above all, Clwyd South is special for the warmth, good humour and kindness of its close-knit communities. A key part of health and wellbeing is the NHS, which could be run better in Wales, but that is the subject of another speech. Strong communities are also a vital part of ensuring that people are happy and feel supported. This has been a particular interest of mine through the charity, Concertina—Music for the Elderly, which I set up with my wife Maggie over 20 years ago to provide live music for older people in care homes and day centres across Wales and England. Music is often the only mode of communication that can penetrate deep dementia and Alzheimer’s, and these concerts bring people together and combat loneliness, which is one of the aspects of modern life that we must work much harder to alleviate.
St David’s Day is a time of celebration of all that is unique and inspiring about Wales. Clwyd South represents the very best of these qualities, and I look forward to serving my constituents to the very best of my ability in the coming years.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I extend my congratulations and condolences to the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes): I congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech but offer my condolences, and I am sure those of every Opposition Member, on the loss of his mother. I am sure that his mother would have been immensely proud of him not only for being elected to the House, but for the speech he has just made. He is just starting out on his parliamentary career—he is almost exactly the same age as I am; in other words, just about reaching his prime in life. I take this opportunity to declare that I think I am now officially the longest-serving Welsh MP from any party in this House. I think I signed in before my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) in 2001, and I am therefore claiming the title Tad y Tŷ— “Father of the House” in Welsh—at least for this gathering today.
I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the charity that he set up, Concertina, and I very much agree with what he said about the power of music and its impact on older people. Having volunteered for a charity in a care home to play music to older people, I look forward to talking to him more about the work that he has been undertaking. I also thank him for paying tribute, quite properly, to his predecessor, Susan Elan Jones, who really was the best of us as a Member of Parliament, from any party, and who was a great champion in this place for Wales and particularly for the Welsh language.
It is a great pleasure to speak in today’s debate from the Back Benches, having served almost continuously for 15 years on the Front Benches, both in government and in opposition. It is quite a relief to have the freedom to roam and talk about anything I want. Today, I want to talk about the future of public service broadcasting in Wales, in particular BBC Cymru Wales, ITV Wales and Sianel Pedwar Cymru—S4C—not least in the light of the publication this morning by Ofcom of its five-year review of public service broadcasting, “Small Screen: Big Debate”. The key finding in the report is that public service broadcasting remains extremely important and relevant to the UK as whole, but I think that is especially true for us in Wales.
On St David’s Day 1967, BBC Wales opened Broadcasting House in Llandaff in my constituency. After 53 years, it recently moved to a brand-new, high-tech, modern headquarters just over the River Taff in the city centre. It remains a major employer for my constituents and residents of many other constituencies across Wales. Of more than 1,000 employees, many live in Cardiff West. BBC Cymru Wales is a key community partner in my constituency for the new state-of-the-art Cardiff West Community High School, which the Labour council recently built with funding assistance from the Welsh Government. That partnership provides exciting opportunities for students from the communities of Ely and Caerau who badly need them. Indeed, Caerau boy and top BBC talent Jason Mohammad was at the opening of the school, which was built on the site of the school he attended, to promote its partnership with the BBC.
I say all that to remind the House that public service broadcasting in the form of BBC Cymru Wales, ITV Wales and S4C, and the many producers and other ancillary services it supports, plays a huge role in Welsh culture, Welsh society and the Welsh economy. That includes Welsh language television and radio programming, which plays a key part in promoting and building the language and will make a vital contribution to achieving the Welsh Government’s aspiration of having 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050. Part of the licence fee now funds the Welsh language channel S4C, so proposals to scrap or even, as I understand someone from No. 10 said, to “whack” the licence fee without properly examining the consequences threaten the culturally and socially vital programming that is so important to Wales as a nation. A purely profit-drive subscription system would destroy public service broadcasting, in particular S4C.
The Prime Minister likes to make a big point about his undying love for the Union, but it is strange how cavalier his Government are about Wales’s presence and influence within the Union. There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the importance of the licence fee, the BBC charter and public service broadcasting more generally to Wales’ place as one of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom. The BBC, ITV Wales and S4C are major Welsh employers, both indirectly and directly. They have brought many programmes we are all familiar with—“Doctor Who”, “Pobol y Cwm”, “Casualty”, “Torchwood”, “Life on Mars”, “Sherlock”, “Hinterland”, “Keeping Faith” and “Gavin and Stacey”—to UK-wide and indeed global audiences. Today, the Ofcom report shows that public service broadcasting production in Wales has risen threefold since 2010. It is still only 3% of the total, so there is room for further growth, but it is hugely important in our economy and a growing sector.
BBC Wales and S4C play huge roles in promoting Welsh music, employing musicians and composers not just through things like the BBC National Orchestra of Wales, but through Welsh language music on Radio Cymru and S4C. I say to some colleagues on the Government Benches, who seem to be playing with the concept, that they should resist the temptation to pull at the loose threads of a carefully woven shawl that has been bequeathed to us, just because it looks slightly frayed at the edges. They risk unravelling something precious that can never be recreated.
Quite rightly, there is a debate at Welsh and UK level about the role that public service broadcasting can play in a new world in which we consume our media from a variety of different sources. The founders of the BBC in the 1920s could not have imagined a world in which people could pick up a mobile phone and watch whatever content they cared to choose—as the old Martini ad used to say, “any time, any place, anywhere”. The underlying question for this new world, however, is “Does the concept of public service broadcasting still have relevance?”, and I would argue that, more than ever, it does. In this information free-for-all, the original founding values of the BBC resonate more loudly than ever. In an era of fake news, when conspiracy theorists thrive and journalistic integrity is routinely questioned and undermined by, I have to say, all sides in the political debate, the BBC’s mission to “inform, educate and entertain” has never been more important.
Some ask why public service broadcasters need to entertain when entertainment can be supplied by the market. There are times, I agree, when those broadcasters can be legitimately criticised for straying too far in the direction of content of questionable public value, but we have to realise that in a world of high-tech global corporations hoovering up data and monopolising gateways to content, our cultural sovereignty will suffer without the public service broadcasting framework. It would be ironic if, having supposedly voted to take back control, we handed over the remote control from Cardiff West or Westminster to the west wing of the White House and big tech’s west coast of America.
We therefore need new, flexible regulations to guarantee continuing prominence for public service content, even when the gateway to that content is through a set-top box, a smart TV or a smart speaker. In a world in which Amazon determines what is on the home page of a deliberately discounted loss-leader television monitor, there is a danger that public service content will be locked in a dark cupboard with no key easily available. S4C already suffers from that on the electronic programme guide, having been relegated to channel 166 on Virgin Media and multiple clicks away from the home page of a Sky+ box.
It should be obvious that we need to ensure that trusted, curated information is available to young people in particular, and that they can distinguish between fact and fake, between informed opinion and hateful prejudice. What future is there for democracy without an informed next generation in Wales and beyond with the skills to navigate the deluge of information in the digital era? Public service broadcasting and streaming, through content such as BBC Bitesize, “Newsround” and “My World”, can help to thwart the penetration of untrustworthy news sources to younger generations.
In fact, Ofcom is currently consulting on changes proposed by the BBC to reinvent the service that “Newsround” provides for young people by replacing its evening bulletin with more online content, which already has nearly 1 million users a week compared with the 35,000 six-to-12 year-olds who currently watch the televised 4 pm bulletin. The fact that younger people watch less linear television does not mean that they will not consume public service content, provided that it is made available to them in places where they look for their content.
I was going to say something about sports rights and, in particular, the need for the Six Nations to be put on the category A list, but I do not want to detain the House for too long, so I will just say a bit more about the licence fee. The Government have launched a public consultation on the so-called decriminalisation of non-payment. That proposal was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto. It has been launched within a few years of a previous review which provided clear evidence that decriminalisation would not help those in Wales struggling with their bills, would draw more people into the courts, and would undermine the funding of the BBC.
That review, the Perry review, clearly concluded that the current system was the fairest, and that any move towards decriminalisation of non-payment of the fee would undermine the BBC’s ability to enforce the licence and would not remove the risk of imprisonment. In any case, imprisonment is not an available punishment for non-payment of the licence fee; it is a penalty available to the courts for wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the offender to pay any court-ordered fines. Often, those who are caught for non-payment are fined the value of the fee itself and no criminal case is brought. When cases are brought, the only directly available penalty is a maximum fine of £1,000 and no criminal record, with actual fines served averaging £176.
Furthermore, the Perry review outlined that the current regime serves as an effective deterrent, maintaining the offending rate at a very low 5%. One has to question the Government’s motives in reopening this issue now, in the light of that very recent evidence. If they really want to ease the burden of the licence fee on any group of people, why do they not reinstate free television licences for those over 75 rather than passing the buck on to an already underfunded BBC with no means of sustaining it, and simultaneously undermining BBC finances through this bogus consultation?
This is all part of an agenda by some to undermine, to cut and eventually to privatise large swaths of the BBC, including BBC Cymru Wales. It is also a direct threat to employment in Wales, particularly in my constituency of Cardiff West. As this proposal is not a manifesto pledge, the House of Lords would have every right to reject it if, as expected, the Government decide to ram it through for ideological reasons using their Commons majority. If ever there was an instance in which the Salisbury convention would apply, this is it. The method of enforcing licence fee collection should not be changed before the next charter renewal in 2027. Labour and the Conservatives, and the other parties, can set out in their manifestos for the next election—probably in 2024—where they stand on this issue.
Public service broadcasting through BBC Cymru Wales, ITV Wales and S4C plays a huge part in the lives of our constituents. They are major employers and cultural leaders, and they produce trusted quality television, radio and online content. Back in 1964, Wales got its very own TV service. It was our service and our programming, reflective of our talent and our culture, with content made in Wales by Wales, for Wales and beyond and recognised worldwide. In fact, the Union is stronger for our role in providing some of the UK’s leading TV, film, radio and online exports.
Public service broadcasting might need to be renamed in the age of digital streaming, perhaps as “public service media”, but whatever we call it, we should value and nurture it. We should ensure that it is not locked away in that dark cupboard where it is difficult to find. We should ensure that it has a sustainable source of funding—either through advertising, in the case of some public service broadcasters, or through the licence fee for others—that allows it to remain independent of Government. We should acknowledge its relevance in a world of fake news, and for Wales we should fight to protect, preserve and enhance it so that it can continue to play a positive role in the language, culture, life and economy of our nation.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
May I say what a great pleasure it was to hear the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis)? It was also a particular pleasure to be here to listen to the maiden speech of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes). The place names that he reeled off when he paid tribute to his fine constituency were something of a gazetteer of my childhood. I am particularly delighted that he has put his constituency base in Ruabon. As an old boy of Ruabon Grammar School, I can tell him that there is no finer location for his constituency headquarters. Both of my hon. Friends are going to be great Members of Parliament and a great asset to this House.
May I also say how pleased I am that the Government have made time for this traditional St David’s Day debate? This is an important event, if only for giving me the opportunity to wear my favourite tie, which has an annual outing on this occasion. It is important, too, because it is essential that Welsh affairs should be debated in this Chamber, even in the post-devolution era. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is even more important now, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) said, it is frequently hard to differentiate areas of government in Wales which are devolved and those which are not. The people of Wales frequently have great difficulty in understanding who is responsible for which element of public policy.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In recent weeks, I have twice asked questions of the Government about non-devolved matters and have been told that they are in fact devolved, but the Government have been wrong. I would therefore welcome any education on devolution that we can give to Members on both sides of the House, as well as to the wider world.
Mr Jones
That is an excellent illustration of the problem. I am sure that many Members were berated frequently during the recent general election campaign about the poor quality of health services in their part of the world, and had to tell people that that is the responsibility not of the Westminster Government, but of the Welsh Assembly Government. The hon. Lady is quite right to raise that issue.
Wales is changing. Nowhere are the changes more apparent than in north Wales, and the poll of 12 December is proof of that. Of the nine seats in north Wales, seven are now represented by Conservative Members of Parliament. Former mining constituencies such as Wrexham and Clwyd South, where I was brought up, now have Conservative representation in this place. That is a remarkable state of affairs and something that I would not have believed as a boy growing up in the village of Rhosllanerchrugog. The desire for change was apparent at the 2016 referendum and was repeated at the general election two months ago. A challenge has been laid down to the Conservative Government to deliver the change that people are looking for and, most importantly, it is a challenge to deliver the economic change that the people of north Wales seek. Key to delivering that change is the improvement of infrastructure throughout north Wales.
Broadband is an important element of that infrastructure, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) pointed out in his contribution. Much work has already been done, and superfast broadband is indeed present in north Wales and enjoyed by a large section of the business community and some householders. However, it is barely there at all in some parts of north Wales. Take the village of Pandy Tudur in my constituency. I had a complaint from a resident only a couple of weeks ago that she was unable to get broadband speeds of more than 800 kilobits per second. That is completely inadequate for business purposes or leisure purposes and barely adequate to send an email.
Pandy Tudur is certainly a remote village. It is about 12 miles from the nearest town of Abergele, but it is not so remote as, for example, Pitcairn Island. I mention Pitcairn because I happened to watch a TV documentary about it a few weeks ago. Pitcairn is 3,400 miles away from the nearest significant land mass of New Zealand, and yet its residents enjoy speeds of 5 megabits per second, which is enough to enjoy streaming video, so they enjoy a luxury presently denied to my constituents in the village of Pandy Tudur.
The north Wales growth deal, which is an extremely important initiative of the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, has digital infrastructure as a major plank of its policy and is rolling out faster speeds across north Wales. The 2019 Conservative general election manifesto undertook to bring full-fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the whole of Wales by 2025. That, of course, is highly welcome, but those promises will be judged by what happens on the ground. In the case of the residents of Pandy Tudur, who are looking with envy at the residents of Pitcairn Island, that cannot come fast enough.
The next piece of north Wales infrastructure that needs attention is the A55 expressway. The A55 is a vital arterial road that links north Wales to the great cities of Liverpool and Manchester and to the main motorway network. It was first developed about 30 years ago, but it is already creaking. The area around the Dee crossing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) will attest, is particularly in need of urgent attention. Some 10 years ago the Welsh Assembly Government promised an upgrade of the area around Aston Hill, which was never carried out. The area remains a significant bottleneck for travellers along the A55 in both directions, particularly at holiday times.
I was therefore delighted to see the commitment in the Conservative manifesto:
“we will, working with the Welsh Government, upgrade the A55 as the main…transport artery for North Wales—improving its capacity and resilience to build connections between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.”
The commitment acknowledges that road infrastructure is the devolved competence of the Welsh Government. However, it is a remarkably generous statement of intent to assist the Welsh Government in upgrading that road, and I cannot stress too strongly how much we need that road upgrade in north Wales.
North Wales voters will want to see positive action with a view to early delivery, which is a challenge not only to this Government but to the Welsh Assembly Government. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister touched on that in his winding-up speech and indicated what progress has been made so far on agreeing a plan of action with the Welsh Government for the upgrade of the A55.
The third piece of infrastructure in urgent need of attention is the north Wales rail system. High Speed 2 is very popular and very welcome in north Wales and, contrary to the assertions of some Opposition Members, it will benefit north Wales by cutting journey times between London and north Wales. At the moment, the journey from London Euston to Colwyn Bay, for example, is some two hours and 40 minutes. That will be reduced by about 30 minutes as a consequence of HS2 and the new hub that will be constructed at Crewe, so there is a benefit.
However, HS2, which as I say is tremendously welcome, should not blind us to the need to improve regional connectivity. Journey times from north Wales to the great cities of Liverpool and Manchester are extremely poor, and particularly poor are the journey times to Manchester airport, which is the principal air hub for the north-west of England and north Wales. It takes two hours and 20 minutes to travel from Colwyn Bay to Manchester airport. The journey time by car is approximately half that: one hour and 10 minutes.
Of course, I realise there is a problem in that there is no access to the airport from the west, but there is also a huge problem in the poor quality of the rolling stock. The north Wales line has been operated by Transport for Wales for the past two or three months, and it uses obsolete rolling stock that is well past its sell-by date. There is no reason at all why the people of north Wales should be expected to put up with such rolling stock. Again, although this is a devolved competence of the Welsh Assembly, I urge my hon. Friend to confirm that pressure is being put on it to upgrade the rolling stock so that the people of north Wales can see the improvements that are already being seen in the Cardiff and south Wales area.
Finally, before my voice completely gives out, I would like to refer to a piece of infrastructure that I mentioned in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: the north Wales tidal lagoon. It will be a tremendously important piece of infrastructure, if the Westminster Government will support it. It would have the capacity to generate some 2.6 GW, which is twice as much as a nuclear power station. It would generate that completely cleanly and predictably, as nothing is more predictable than the tide. I appreciate that we had an unfortunate experience with the Swansea lagoon proposal, which was much smaller, but there is great backing in north Wales, from not only its people, but my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and myself, for seeing this proposal progressed. May I therefore urge the Wales Office to facilitate a meeting between the proposed developer, the Members of Parliament for the relevant area and the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth to see whether this project can be moved forward? Let me repeat, in conclusion, that north Wales is changing and its people will embrace that change. They want that change, and I believe that this transformational Government can deliver it.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), and I join him on many of the issues he has raised about infrastructure and the potential for a tidal lagoon in north Wales. I am sure he would join me in asking the Department and the Ministers to consider the funding required and the potential for an innovation power purchase agreement in relation to funding tidal lagoons, as was presented to the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth yesterday.
Of course, I should say: Hoffwn gymryd y cyfle hwn i ddymuno Dydd Gŵyl Ddewi hapus iawn i chi i gyd. I am sure all Members will realise from the context that I was, entirely appropriately, wishing everybody a happy St David’s Day in Welsh. For Welsh people and those of Welsh descent all over the world, no matter where we happen to be St David’s Day is a chance to come together to celebrate what it means to bear the mantle of being Welsh, whether by birth, luck or design. Many hon. Members will have taken part in excellent events this week to celebrate St David’s Day as part of Wales Week London. The best in Welsh music, art, food, tourism and heritage is proudly on display here in this city for Cymry tramor—the diaspora of Wales—in London to enjoy. This is an opportunity to showcase what we have to offer to the world. This year, for the first time, Wales Weeks are occurring in 21 places around the world, including New York, Ohio, Paris and Melbourne.
Of course, this is the first St David’s Day since our departure from the European Union, which makes flying the flag for Wales the world over more important than ever. Leaving the EU demands a discussion about what the future holds for Wales; and with our position in the world being redefined around us, we owe it to the people of Wales to set out a positive vision for the future. In the last few years, the political tectonic plates have shifted dramatically across these islands; in Ireland and in Scotland, we have seen a radical realignment of identity and politics. People are no longer willing to accept the old notion that the Celtic fringes are a colourful, cultural indulgence, humoured at best and otherwise tolerated, with the meaningful powers—I say that with an element of sarcasm—shored up where they have always been, in south-east England. With both Irish reunification and Scottish independence now discussed more widely and in more forums than ever before, it is important for us, Welsh politicians of all colours, to be under no illusion about what the future holds for Wales. In the event of the reunification of Ireland and an independent Scotland, the default setting will be the emergence of an England and Wales entity that would surely be the most imbalanced, inequitable so-called Union in the world: one nation would comprise 56 million people, the other 3 million. One would have its devolved Parliament, which would inevitably feel the strain without a wider context of devolution across the state, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) mentioned powerfully earlier.
Even as things currently stand, despite 20 years of devolution there are those who seek to mock, denigrate and deny the people of Wales the institutions and the powers that normal countries take for granted. There is clearly a failure on the part of the current Welsh Government, whose Ministers have failed so spectacularly to capture the hearts and minds of the people with whose Parliament they have been entrusted for 20 years. They are a Government marked by a lack of ambition, by managerialism and by a reluctance to face scrutiny—all tragically evidenced by a decline in education standards and a failing health service. Welsh Labour were given the tools to build a nation; it has kept those tools in the toolbox.
The recent floods raise questions about the performance of both the Welsh and British Governments. There has been chronic under-investment in flood-defence infrastructure and a shameful lack of response. The Prime Minister failed to call a Cobra meeting in response to the floods. The Welsh Government do not even have a Cobra-style national emergency response system. Our First Minister deemed it “too dangerous” to send in the Army to flood-stricken areas, despite their being called in to help in Yorkshire three times in seven months. It is 30 years to the week since the Towyn floods in north Wales, and the message that only preparation can prevent an emergency from turning into a disaster remains unlearned in those 30 years.
The UK Government are already acting to claw back powers to Whitehall. Take, for example, the UK shared prosperity fund. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that there should be a strong Conservative influence over how money that replaces EU structural funds is spent in Wales, despite the Welsh Government having controlled that EU funding over the past two decades. The Secretary of State said earlier that shared prosperity investments have to be meaningful and not vanity indulgences. Let us recall Boris’s bridges: the garden bridge in London and the bridge to Northern Ireland. To put this in context: investment in Wales must be decided in Wales. I put it to the Government that not only is the precedent intolerable, but they are setting down a short-termism precedent that may return in future. Investments for Wales should be made and decided in Wales.
Of course, an England and Wales entity already exists across key policy areas: despite 21 years of devolution, our national Parliament has no powers over policing and justice and we still lack a legal jurisdiction—the only nation in the UK to do so. I therefore wish to explore how treating Wales as an appendage of England in this respect is bad for the people of Wales, because that is exactly how we should look at and evaluate it. The issue is particularly timely because we have the upcoming police and crime commissioner elections in May, when the two excellent Plaid Cymru PCCs, Arfon Jones and Dafydd Llywelyn, will be seeking re-election.
Let us look at some specific problems in Wales in relation to policing and justice—problems to which the solutions are out of the hands of the people of Wales until the powers are devolved. Since the creation of the system of PCCs, we have seen the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice hiving over more and more responsibilities to commissioners to carry out new functions. But—this is the important point—rather than seeing a corresponding level of additional funding, we have for 10 years seen an abdication of duty on the part of the UK Government to fund the police service. It is all very well to talk about additional thousands of police officers now, but we are talking about 10 years of underfunding and what politicians with the interests of the people of Wales in mind have had to do in Wales to provide some remedy.
The PCCs have been forced to rely on raising the local tax precept. The precept for the four Welsh forces as a proportion of the overall funding increased from 32% in 2008-09 to 47% in 2019-20. They did that for good reason: to keep the police on the streets and to keep the public safe. This increase in police precepts meant that Welsh police funding was £34 million greater in 2018 than it would have been had it risen in line with that of England. We have had to find the means to do it ourselves without the sufficient powers to do so, but we have done it anyway. That is a message for all of us. None the less, this is clearly an unfair funding system, demanding a stark choice between increasing the precept and cutting services, neither of which would need to be done if the Home Office addressed the issues with a comprehensive and equitable funding formula.
The prison system in Wales is also let down by the current framework. Research carried out by Dr Robert Jones of Cardiff University’s Welsh governance centre found that in 2017 Wales had the highest prison population rate in western Europe, with 154 prisoners per 100,000 population. That is equivalent to one in every 650 people, and this is despite the fact that recorded crime in Wales was lower than in England in every year between 2013 and 2017. I wonder whether this is something to do with the fact that we have had to put our money where our mouth is in Wales. We have had to do that, and it has had an effect.
Women are more likely to receive an immediate custodial sentence than men. That is despite the fact that there are no women’s facilities in Wales. In 2016, 623 women were sentenced to immediate custody, 86 of whom were convicted for non-violent offences. They were sent to facilities in England, far away from their families—and we know the effect that that has on the children—when a more rehabilitative programme based in their communities would have been better for everyone. Wales was promised a residential unit for female offenders back in 2018, but we have yet to see it even in 2020.
Imprisonment rates among black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are even more disproportionate relative to population in Wales than in England. For every 10,000 white people in Wales, 14 are in prison. For every 10,000 black people in Wales, 91 are in prison. Further to that, BAME people have the highest average sentence length. Therefore, a person of colour in Wales is both more likely to be imprisoned and to receive a longer sentence.
Prisons are perhaps the clearest example of how an England and Wales approach simply does not work. We need to build a system that fits our purpose and is suitable for the people of Wales. Devolving policing and justice for Wales must now be a priority if we are to do better for the people of Wales, and we will, of course, be arguing for that strongly. At the same time, we will also be arguing about the specific ways that we can improve the lives of the people of Wales with the powers that we already have, because that is part of being ambitious. This includes the establishment of an economic crime unit for north Wales, dedicated to investigating fraud against the most vulnerable, and protecting those who are being increasingly exploited by fraud. That would include things such as implementing the victims’ code of practice and implementing changes to systems to provide a seamless service and support, so as to give victims increased confidence in coming forward with evidence. We will have a focus on reducing reoffending—by mainstreaming Checkpoint Cymru and the Early Action Together team, which relates to adverse childhood experiences, in the work of North Wales Police. We will also pledge, across Wales, to increase the capacity of our rural crime team to address rural criminality and wildlife crime, which is something that I am sure every Member here would agree should be a priority in Wales.
No matter what one’s position is on devolution, it is clear that designing policy on an England and Wales basis does not work at the moment. There is a chance that, in future, more policies will be designed without Wales’s specific needs taken into account—that irresistible urge to centralise powers here in Westminster.
We often hear about Brexit being a chance to bring power closer to the people, but I do fear, whatever the Conservatives say, that the reality will be the exact opposite. None the less, let us look to the future. This is Saint David’s Day. Let us look to our future and our role—all of us—in growing a stronger, more confident, more wealthy, more equitable Wales. That is what we can do here until we get the powers back home to do it properly. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We should be able to get everybody in if Members keep their contributions to just under seven minutes. I would prefer Members to do that voluntarily, if possible.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I will be mindful of that time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), my constituency neighbour. I agree with much of what she said, although we often disagree on how to deliver what we want. I pay tribute to the two Members who made their maiden speeches this afternoon. It was a privilege to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), my constituency neighbour, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis). It is truly delightful to have a flock, a team, a gang of Conservative Members from across Wales. We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones)—it is a delight to see that tie come out at this time of year. I agree with much of what he said about the feeling of change in north, mid, south and west Wales. I will touch on that later.
At the start of the week, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and I were on the Wales Week London podcast. Much of the debate focused on what is great about Wales, but specifically what is great when people work together—Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, those in local authorities and those in the private sector. I pay particular tribute to Dan Langford OBE for his work pulling together the Welsh Government, the UK Government and the private sector to put Wales on the map this week, in London and across the world. Wales Week now lasts for two weeks, and next year it will possibly be three. That growing passion for Wales is really taking flight. The more we can work together, the better—the private sector is captaining that movement—but it is something we have struggled to do in Wales; it would really be cause for celebrating St David’s Day.
I associate myself with the remarks made by most Members about the recent flooding across the UK, but especially in Wales—people would expect the Member for Montgomeryshire, which is the source of the Severn, to touch on flooding. I pay tribute to our farmers—they have not yet been mentioned—who throughout these crises have stood up and delivered for our communities yet again. It always amazes me how, with such little warning, they can protect their livestock and prevent them from islanding by getting them safely away from the floodplains in Montgomeryshire and across the UK. They have also looked after our roads and constituents, saving many of them in their beautiful farm vehicles as they drive across what at times looks like an ocean.
I want to touch on devolution in relation to flooding, because some of the tone of this debate has been amiss, particularly given the change that I felt for the first time on devolution. I am one of the most passionate advocates for strengthening the Welsh Assembly—a badge that does not always win me a huge number of friends—and I believe in making devolution work. While I have huge problems with the Welsh Government and with the managerial style that we have heard Labour Members talk about over the past 20 years, we really need to look at the way that cheap political points are being chucked around at a time of crisis.
I know that we will have an Opposition day debate next week, and we can have this out again then, but the Prime Minister said yesterday that he would passport funds, and the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is working with the First Minister. My constituents—and, I detect, constituents across Wales—are really getting annoyed at the rhetoric. I fear that unless those of us who care passionately about devolution work together, that change could mean looking at devolution, and I fear what that would mean.
I am reminded of the EU referendum, when many Labour Members of Parliament and Assembly Members were delighted to help campaign for the remain side in Cardiff—they looked at their constituency and thought, “Hmm, I’ll go and help in Cardiff today, because it’s showing 70% for remain.” We need to look at what is happening across Wales with this rhetoric of, “We don’t have the powers; we don’t have the money; it’s not our fault this time.” Twenty years on, if we do not take this seriously, and if both parties do not look at the competences and delivery, working with the Welsh Government, then next year that wind of change could mean that we look at the fundamental constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom.
Let me move on to a happier note: Montgomeryshire. What is great about this debate is that we can talk about the infrastructure that we require, want and campaign for in our constituencies. Montgomeryshire is a cross-border county. We look east and west, and we work with our neighbours. I am conscious that Members, from my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) onwards, do not want us to send any more water their way, but they certainly value the businesses and expertise—in public and private life—that go back and forth over the border.
I turn to the Montgomeryshire canal. I should actually say the Montgomery canal; I will receive countless letters and emails for having called it the Montgomeryshire canal. Volunteers have kept alive the vision of reconnecting our canal to the national network. They have put in a terrific amount of hours, physically rebuilding the canal, getting the technical documentation ready, and getting the grants and funding in place to reconnect Montgomery canal to the UK national network and to Llangollen canal in the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South. I pay tribute to them for that work.
As well as the Montgomery canal, which we want to go from Newtown right out of Wales to the rest of the UK, there are people setting up and building their visions across Montgomeryshire, including organisations such as the Centre for Alternative Technology. We can argue about funding models and vehicles for delivering renewables, but looking at organisations such as the Montgomery canal, the Welshpool and Llanfair light railway and the Centre for Alternative Technology, one cannot help but admire the spirit of the people getting involved locally and those who travel from across the UK—and, indeed, the world—to help out and take part. In fact, such is the ambition of Montgomeryshire that the Welshpool and Llanfair light railway just lent one of our great steam trains to Taiwan; the growing global network of our heritage railways continues. But we do not have to look far to see what makes Wales stand out, and to understand its great tourism potential. Welshpool’s Powis castle, the canal and other aspects of the area really do put us on the map.
I am conscious that I should wind up, but I quickly want to mention a couple of issues on which we need to work together. The national development framework sets out where we should build our next tranche of wind and solar energy infrastructure. We need to work together to ensure that these frameworks and policies are right for our communities and for national grid connections. We need to ensure we do not overly concentrate that infrastructure on our beautiful rolling hills, or industrialise them, and so affect tourism. The scheme should not go near areas of tourism. I will end on that point about Governments and parties working together. If we are to change our energy mix and deliver the next phase of renewable energies, we need to get electricity out of Wales and connect it to the grid, while being mindful of the need to take our communities with us. Over-concentration will not work.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you have nodded at me more than once, so I will sit down, having given that caution about devolution and been over-dramatic on occasion, but let me also say how great it is to be Welsh on St David’s Day. Happy St David’s Day!
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams). I fear that I am going to break the consensus on cross-party working—something that he knows that I am keen on—but I am afraid that I need to highlight some of the inequalities as I see them, because they come within matters that are the responsibility of the UK Government. It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and I wish all Members across the House a happy St David’s Day for Sunday.
We are just two months into a new decade, and the start of a new decade should be a time to reflect on the past 10 years and think about the progress we have made. It is the aim of every Member of this House to ensure that, as the decade rolls on, the lives of the people in our communities improve, there are more chances for our children, better services for our families and an ever-increasing number of better, well-paid jobs, enabling people to live secure and satisfying lives, but it is not that simple, because the UK has had a decade of Tory rule at Westminster. We have had 10 years of relentless cuts and Tory disdain for communities such as mine. Sadly, my party’s failure to win the general election means that we are set for more of the same, or indeed worse, because behind the bluff and bluster of the Tories harping on in 2020 about levelling up our country, the Prime Minister and his now rather famous adviser are among the most divisive teams we have had in Downing Street since Mrs Thatcher—and we all know how that ended for Wales.
What is different now, though, is that since the advent of devolution in 1999, delivered by Tony Blair’s Labour Government, we have had a devolved Labour Government in Cardiff Bay. Over the past 10 years, they have strained every sinew to protect our communities from the brunt of austerity, but in the face of the savage cuts to funding from Westminster, there is only so much the Welsh Labour Government can do. I will outline a few areas for the Chancellor to focus on in his upcoming Budget, and a few of the things he could deliver in Wales, in return for a few Welsh cakes to go with his Yorkshire tea. Failing that, I am happy to drop the Welsh cakes off at No. 10 when Mr Cummings redrafts the Chancellor’s work.
First, I want to talk about infrastructure. Since Christmas, we have had talk of bridges to Ireland; HS2 was given the go-ahead; and dead cats about moving Government Departments across the country seem to have been flung about on a daily basis. One thing has been missing in this apparent funding frenzy: yet again, as has happened ever since the Tories came to power, we have had nothing —not even a crumb—for Wales. But should we even be surprised by this? The UK Government scrapped rail electrification to Swansea. They put to bed the idea of delivering the world’s first tidal lagoon in Swansea bay—although I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State is U-turning on his predecessor’s decision on that—and they completely and utterly fail to give Wales fair funding to improve infrastructure.
Contrast this with the Welsh Labour Government, who are investing a whopping £5 billion in our rural rail network through Transport for Wales, and providing a £1.8 billion investment to ensure that all trains are replaced with new rolling stock by 2023. Half those trains will be built in Wales. This is bringing skilled job opportunities for workers across Wales and ensuring that we have a transport system that is fit for the future. Meanwhile, despite our having 11% of the track across England and Wales and 20% of the level crossings—yes, I am back on that complaint again—over the past 10 years Wales has received only 2% of the available funding from the UK Government. The Government’s great train robbery is a scandal and shows just how little the Conservatives care about investing in the future of the Welsh economy or the communities who support it.
Whether it is transport infrastructure, digital infrastructure or renewable energy infrastructure, the Tories are failing Wales at each and every turn. Looking to the economy more widely, Members across this House will be all too aware of the low pay crisis we face across too many of our industries.
Jonathan Edwards
The Silk commission identified the issue about rail infrastructure development. Following that, we had the so-called St David’s Day process, in which Labour and the Conservative party agreed to take measures on that recommendation out of the Wales Bill. The failure therefore falls on the hon. Gentleman’s party as well.
Chris Elmore
The failure falls on the Government. The hon. Gentleman knows that. His party has been in government as well. My party created devolution—something that Plaid failed miserably to do, despite all its years of campaigning for it.
Unemployment is at a historically low level in Wales, thanks to the hard work of the Welsh Labour Government, but sadly, for too many, this work is not paying. I am pleased that Welsh Labour is delivering on, and surpassing, our promise to create 100,000 all-age apprenticeships to give our young people skilled and well-paid jobs long into the future. It is also great to see Welsh Labour’s commitment to make Wales a fair work nation, which means that companies wanting Welsh Government support must sign an economic contract helping to boost the number of people who are being paid the real national living wage. What have we seen instead from the UK Government? A fake living wage that people under 25 cannot even be paid, a backs-turned approach to the future of our steel industry, and a “couldn’t care less” attitude to the universal credit crisis that has plunged thousands of people into poverty across Wales.
While the Prime Minister and Chancellor are busy making No. 10 and No. 11 a joint office, perhaps they could take just a moment—I plead with the Minister—to stop and think about what a grave impact their party’s policies have been having on communities in Wales since 2010. Ogmore cannot take another five years of the same old stale Tory policies, and he has heard that from those on his party’s Benches today. Ogmore needs a pay rise.
More widely, Wales needs a pay rise. The Welsh Government’s budget is around 5% lower in real terms than it was in 2010. If the Welsh budget had risen in line with the long-term trend of public expenditure, it would be £6 billion higher than it is today. That is around £1,800 per person. Just think what we could spend that on. It could build on the Welsh Government’s work to tackle homelessness; it could be pumped into local government, which has been pushed to breaking point because of Government austerity; and it could save lives in our NHS.
I ask the Minister to impress on the Chancellor the need for reinvestment in Wales, because levelling up our country is not about trying to buy the trust of the so-called red wall seats the Conservatives won in the north of England; it is about providing a fairer future for everyone across our United Kingdom. I stand here as a proud Unionist; I will staunchly defend our Union while I am in this place and long into the future, but under this Tory Government, Wales is too much of a tick-box exercise that does not even matter; the box often does not get ticked at all. The people of Wales do matter. I plead with the Minister to reverse these 10 years of austerity and start investing in Wales.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Celebrated Welsh poet T.H. Parry-Williams wrote in his famous work “Hon”:
“Beth yw’r ots gennyf i am Gymru? Damwain a hap
Yw fy mod yn ei libart yn byw. Nid yw hon ar fap
Yn ddim byd ond cilcyn o ddaear mewn cilfach gefn,
Ac yn dipyn o boendod i’r rhai sy’n credu mewn trefn.”
Unfortunately, that is sometimes how the people of Wales think. The translation of the words, which does not quite encapsulate the feeling of the piece, is:
“What do I care of Wales? It is by accident and chance
That I am living here freely. She isn’t on a map
And is nothing but a piece of land in a hidden creek,
And a bit of a nuisance to those who believe in order.”
In the rest of the poem, Parry-Williams was searching for the “Welsh way”, questioning the relevance of Welsh culture in society and the blaming of the country’s problems on the English, when in fact sometimes our problems can be closer to home and generated by ourselves.
What a neat segue into devolution that is! Who would have thought that this theme would be repeated so often at the Senedd in Cardiff? Every week at First Minister’s questions and other departmental questions, inquiries are made about transport services in Wales, where the providers are asked to make changes such as making it possible to get from Holyhead to Cardiff in four hours on the train, but they can only do so by cutting out a raft of local stations from the programme, and they then have to take the complaints imposed on them by the requirements of the Welsh Government. Inquiries are made about educational standards in Wales, where our hard-working teachers are asked to do more with less and feel more disenfranchised and unsupported. Inquiries are also made about health in Wales, where four out of the seven health boards are in special measures or have some form of targeted intervention, with the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board in north Wales having been in that state for almost five years. Our health boards have some of the most dedicated and caring professionals, who come in every day to fight fires and battle against a system at breaking point.
Every week, when those questions are asked in the Senedd, there is only one answer from the First Minister and his colleagues: “Westminster doesn’t send us enough money.” That is the stock response every time, yet for every £1 spent on the NHS in England, there is around 15% more available to be spent on the NHS in Wales—it is just poorly spent and targeted in the wrong ways. T.H. Parry-Williams was right: we cannot just keep blaming the English for all our ills. We need to look closer to home.
Like my right hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), I was amazed during the campaign just how few people I spoke to on the doorstep realised which services are devolved and which are not. A lot of people complained to me about the health service in north Wales without realising that it is the responsibility of the Welsh Government. A&E waiting times have been the worst on record for two months in a row, and in education, 2019 GCSE results were no better than in 2007, but the number of people who continually blame Westminster for those challenges is staggering. I consider it very important over the next 14 months, in the run-up to the Welsh elections in May 2021, to highlight to people just who is responsible for what, so that their frustrations—and, indeed, occasional praise—can be directed to the appropriate places.
The Wales Act 2017 delivered a clearer and more stable devolution settlement for Wales by devolving important powers to the Senedd on energy, transport and local government. At the 2018 Budget, the UK Government announced plans to increase the Welsh Government’s budget by £1.2 billion, including a 5% Barnett boost of £67 million over the next five years. Subsequently, at the September 2019 spending round, the Government increased funding for the Welsh Government by a further £600 million. They cannot keep complaining that they do not have enough funding; they just need to make better choices.
There are still issues and problems with the funding formula for Wales. The Barnett formula—that short-term measure designed in 1978—is not fit for purpose and needs wholesale reform. Demographics are the key, and they are not properly considered under Barnett. By way of example, my constituency of Delyn has a median age of 46 compared with a median age of 40 across the rest of the UK, and 23% of the population are over 65 compared with 18% nationally. These figures may not seem hugely substantial, but they are statistically significant, as they indicate the ageing population in my constituency, which therefore has an increased need for health and social care. The calculation of funding based on headcount, which does not take into account different needs or costs, is flawed, and that should be addressed as a priority.
Devolution is here to stay and is not going away. There are many in north Wales who feel it has never worked: funding coming from Cardiff is just as detached from the north as it was when it came from Westminster, and we have just switched one funding body for another, while adding an extra level of governance and cost in the middle. In many ways, they are right, but let us be very clear: it does not need to be that way. The calls for the abolition of the Senedd are not fair and are unreasonable. Honestly, I used to be one of those who called for its abolition, and then my mind was changed by hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who, sadly, is no longer in his place.
If the Labour party had won the election here in December, nobody would have been calling for the abolition of Parliament just because there was a useless party in charge—nothing of the sort. They would just have campaigned harder next time and highlighted the weaknesses in that Administration, and so it is with us. We need to get over the fact that we do not like it and feel that it is not working, and recognise that it is not that the structure does not work, but that the problem lies with the party in control of the structure.
In closing, I urge my constituents and the wider society across Wales to recognise that these will be the issues next May, and to make sure they install a Welsh Government who are focused on levelling up across the whole country, remembering that a huge amount of Wales exists if they happen to look north of Newport.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The wind-ups will begin at 4.40 pm, and seven Members are wishing to catch my eye, so I am sure they can do the maths. Please be generous to your colleagues, starting with Alex Davies-Jones.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Diolch, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts). Although we do not share a lot of common interests, we do share a love of Welsh poetry and a dislike of the Barnett formula.
Dydd Gŵyl Dewi—St David’s Day—is an important day for everyone in Wales, and I wish everyone a very happy St David’s Day for this weekend. I will be spending the weekend celebrating with a paned and a welsh cake or two, and I also look forward to celebrating with my son for his first St David’s Day. It will come as no surprise to colleagues that I am extremely proud to be Welsh, and the Welsh valleys do truly run through my veins. I am Ponty born and bred: I was born in Church Village in my constituency, and I spent my early years training to be an air cadet in Pontyclun. I sang in the National Youth Choir of Wales, and my teen years were spent socialising with friends at the Rhondda Bowl in Tonyrefail.
We have so much to celebrate in Wales, including our proud musical heritage and our rugby teams’ prowess—as others have done, I will quickly move past the scores last weekend—yet there is so much more to home in Wales than the traditional stereotypes may suggest. In recent weeks, it has become clear that Wales really does not receive its fair share of funding from this Government. I hope colleagues will indulge me as I briefly touch on the Barnett funding, which we have just heard about, and on why I believe that the recent events, such as the unprecedented flooding in my constituency, are simply more evidence that Barnett consequentials are no longer fit for purpose.
Last year, the Public Accounts Committee published its assessment of the Barnett formula and found that there is a lack of transparency about how funding is allocated. I find it utterly staggering that the formula is not set out in law, but is instead up to interpretation by the Treasury. This clearly outdated method left spending per head in Wales last year at the lowest of the devolved nations, and I truly believe that my constituents and the people of Wales deserve better. The Welsh Labour Government are doing some fantastic and pioneering work, yet with not enough funding. I specifically want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my colleagues in the Senedd, who are leading the way on a range of issues from climate change to investments in new construction technologies to help with the apparent housing crisis.
The effects of Storm Dennis and the subsequent flooding that hit Pontypridd and the wider Rhondda Cynon Taf area just over a week ago are a key example of where the UK Government’s funding for Wales is falling short. The floods in my community were completely unprecedented. The River Taf’s levels rose to over a metre above all previous records, and the flood defences that were in place were simply unable to cope. I would like to pay tribute to all the hundreds of volunteers and people from across our communities who have pulled together to help in these awful circumstances. We have raised considerable amounts of money, and many have donated clothing or food to help others. That is what our communities in Wales do. We are always there for each other when times are hard, and we will always continue to be there.
I am extremely proud of how our local authority and First Minister responded to the crisis in my community. Others may say that we are making cheap political points, but I would argue that this situation basically shows that the UK Government do not care about Wales. The Prime Minister’s absence last week was utterly staggering. It is clear that the Barnett formula is simply not designed to cope with the financial impact of natural disasters such as this, and that problem affects all of us in Wales, including colleagues across the House. The Barnett formula requires urgent attention, and I hope Ministers will do all they can to find a way forward—a way forward for Wales.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is such a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She has made a real impact since coming to Parliament some months ago, and she is also in the process of organising the Welsh parliamentary Labour party social. That is an excellent role and a task for which she is perfectly qualified, and I am glad she has taken it on.
I want to look forward to this year, because I think 2020 promises to be truly memorable. That is not because it will be the first year of this Tory Government—far from it—but because having waited 58 years to reach a major tournament in 2016, the Welsh football team, just like a London bus, is now back at the Euros. Let us cast our minds back to 2016—what a summer that was! Great memories. Who can forget Gareth Bale’s free kicks against Slovakia and particularly England, or Hal Robson-Kanu’s Cruyff turn in the comeback win over Belgium, en route to the semi-finals? Euro 2020 may be even more extraordinary and unforgettable—I certainly hope so.
The summer of 2016 typified what it means to be Welsh: a proud nation, punching above its weight, with everybody coming together. Indeed, that was summed up by the team’s motto, “Together Stronger”, and over past few weeks, as Wales has been buffeted by truly terrible weather—first Storm Ciara, and then Storm Dennis—“Together Stronger” has felt appropriate. More than a month’s worth of rain fell in just 48 hours, and despite being left to fend for ourselves as usual by the part-time Prime Minister and the Tory Government, communities across Wales stepped up to the plate. I pay tribute to them, and to our wonderful emergency services and brilliant council workforces who have worked tirelessly in these challenging circumstances.
We have always been tough and resilient in Wales, but we are experiencing more and more extreme weather, and such events bring into sharper focus the need to do more to address the climate and environmental crisis that we face. Out of every crisis should come an opportunity—an opportunity for Britain to lead the world in renewable energies. The Swansea bay tidal lagoon would have provided heat to thousands of homes, using clean, green, reliable and sustainable energy, and saving almost 0.25 million tonnes of carbon during each year of its operation. If the Government are serious about tackling climate change, they should reconsider that opportunity and back that game changer for the industry. What an opportunity to “level up” the country, as the Prime Minister likes to put it, by putting the Swansea bay area at the forefront of that clean, green, energy technology.
In reality, while the Tory Government talk a good game on caring about Wales, they are not willing to put their money where their mouth is. Just look at rail electrification to Swansea. In 2016, the then Secretary of State for Wales gave me a categorical commitment on national TV to electrify the line to Swansea. It was even a Tory manifesto commitment in 2017, but it has fallen foul of one of those famous, or perhaps I should say infamous, Tory U-turns. The entire budget for electrifying the main line to Swansea would be less than 1% of the vast sums that will be spent on High Speed 2. Will the Secretary of State do what his predecessors have failed to do, and stand up for Wales by committing to electrify the main line to Swansea?
This is not just about rail infrastructure. For decades, wealth, power, opportunity and talent have been agglomerating in our major cities at the expense of industrial, rural and coastal areas. To truly rebalance our economy, or level up as the Government like to say, we need the Government to back a modern manufacturing renaissance, starting in places like Aberavon. Part of the package must be a sector deal for steel. Steel is a 21st-century industry and is integral to our everyday lives—to transport, to infrastructure and to our defence industry. It underpins our entire manufacturing base. HS2 will use 2 million tonnes of steel and is a real opportunity for the Government to back British steel through a patriotic approach to procurement. The Government need to strike a sector deal for steel if they are going to foster growth. Automotive, aerospace and construction all have sector deals. Why does the steel industry not have one? Action on energy prices is essential. UK steelmakers are paying prices that are double those of our German competitors and 50% higher than in France. UK steelmakers are fighting with one hand tied behind their back.
Industrial towns need clarity on replacing EU funding. The UK shared prosperity fund—I am proud to chair the all-party group—is set to replace EU funding, but it has taken on near mythical status. What has happened to the promised consultation? Everything about the fund is still to be worked out and the clock is ticking down every day towards 1 January 2021. What is certain is that the Government must not use the fund to row back on the devolution settlement or to short-change communities like Port Talbot by a sleight of hand in Westminster. The Government must guarantee not a penny less and not a power lost. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to be a strong voice for Wales on this issue.
The Welsh Government must also give Wales a voice in the EU trade negotiations. The First Minister today made clear that the Government’s negotiating position would almost certainly result in a loss of jobs in Wales and a diminishment of livelihoods. He made it clear that there has been no consultation on the UK’s negotiating mandate and that we are not represented in the talks.
Labour is a proud party of devolution, but devolution only works if the UK Government respect the devolution principle. The Welsh Government have suffered a decade of diminishing budgets. Even with the previous Chancellor’s extra £600 million for Wales, the Welsh Government’s budget for 2021 will be £300 million lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11. As a result, my council, Neath Port Talbot Council, has had to remove more than £80 million from its budget since 2010 and is expected to find a further £42 million in cuts between now and 2023. Despite the sterling efforts of the Welsh Government and Welsh councils to shield our communities from the worst of the cuts, my constituents have suffered due to the Conservatives’ dismissive attitude towards Wales. They are quick to devolve blame, slow to devolve resources. The first step must be to junk the Barnett formula and replace it with a fair funding formula for Wales.
This year marks 35 years since the end of the miners’ strike, which will be marked in mining communities across Wales and in coalfield communities across the UK. During the strike, we saw the true meaning of community spirit. That has not left us and it never will. As the grandson of a coalminer, I know that that never-say-die attitude and commitment to local community has been passed down through the generations. It is with that spirit that I will continue to fight for Aberavon in Westminster. My Aberavon constituents deserve better than what is being offered by the current UK Government. They need a Government who deliver on their promises to Wales and recognise the potential of our fantastic, vibrant and talented communities. We in Wales know that together we are stronger. It is high time that the Government realised that, too. Diolch, and happy St David’s Day.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lefarydd, am y cyfle i siarad yn y ddadl y prynhawn yma. Mae e’n gyfle pwysig i ni drafod materion o bwys i ni fel Aelodau Seneddol o Gymru. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today, as it is an important opportunity to deal with matters of importance to us as Welsh MPs.
Two recent events that have affected my particular constituency, Cynon Valley, and the local authority area of Rhondda Cynon Taff, have given me food for thought on a more general level. One has obviously been the devastating floods we have suffered and the other is the future of services in one of our local hospitals, the Royal Glam—the Royal Glamorgan Hospital.
The flooding has been a tragedy for individuals, with over 650 homes and 500 businesses seriously affected, roads and bridges damaged and individual lives traumatised. I have been in tears seeing how people have lost so much that was precious to them. I also pay tribute to all the local residents, councillors, the fire services and the First Minister for the work that they have done.
Dealing with the aftermath of that event is going to be hard on an individual constituent level and on a wider scale, in terms of local authorities and the Welsh Government having to deal with the immediate and longer-term consequences of what has happened. However, this is happening after 10 years of Tory austerity policies and the underfunding of the Welsh Government since the Barnett formula was set up. Our Welsh Government get less money than they did 10 years ago. My local authority, Rhondda Cynon Taff, lost £90 million in funding over the last years of Tory austerity policies, but if I say that, I am accused of playing politics with the flooding. I am not ashamed of or going to shy away from the reality of inadequate funding—the underfunding —of Wales over these years of Tory Government. It is not me who is playing politics with the lives of the people of RCT; the Tories have done that with their policy of austerity. That was their political choice.
If that argument does not work, the Tories come back with, “Ah, but flood defences, or the health service, are devolved—nothing to do with us folks”. Rubbish—neu swbriel yn Cymraeg! Yes, those services are devolved and the Welsh Government take their responsibility seriously, with progressive policies to combat climate change and on free prescriptions, and having introduced organ donation changes seven years before that was considered in England. But who holds the purse strings? Westminster, and our health and social care system throughout the United Kingdom is straining to survive, and we will strain even further to do so if the immigration policies being proposed get through. All this is happening against the backdrop of Wales being one of the poorest areas of the United Kingdom, where people have to use food banks to manage and where benefit cuts mean that families must decide whether to eat or heat their homes. This is unacceptable.
My final thought is that we need to make our politics here in Westminster relevant to the people we represent. This argument about devolved services is used by the Tory Government to wash their hands of their responsibility and we need to make it clear that we will not let that happen. One of my grandfathers was a miner and the other was a steelworker. What little they had, they earned by hard work. They did not make millions by speculating on the stock exchange. We have a responsibility to the people of Wales at every turn to argue that the wealth that exists in this country, much of which was created by them, needs to be shared out so that we reverse the position where 10% of the population owns 45% of the wealth. As I said in my maiden speech, we need state intervention to help our people. It has helped wealth and privilege for far too long. A alla i orffen trwy ddymuno Dydd Gŵyl Dewi hapus i bawb? Diolch yn fawr.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate ahead of St David’s Day this Sunday. The designers of this place were very much aware of the significance of a reminder of who we are and our story. Central Lobby is adorned with beautiful mosaics of the patron saints of the four parts of this United Kingdom. To get from Central Lobby to the Chamber, Members pass underneath the mosaic of St David. One of my Scottish colleagues, who shall remain nameless, pointed out to me that the mosaic of St Andrew sits above the route to the bars.
Coming from Scotland, I am used to our patron saint’s day being a national holiday. I think it is something to be celebrated and I do not understand why we cannot make St David’s Day a national holiday in Wales. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who is no longer in his place, commended the increased prominence of St David’s Day, so hopefully he and Government Members would support the call for the Government to give the Welsh Government the power to do just that.
Last weekend, I attended the These Islands conference in Newcastle and contributed to a panel on the work of the Constitution Reform Group, members of which included the CRG member, Carwyn Jones, the former Welsh First Minister. We need to examine the powers that have and have not been devolved to the Welsh Government and whether the current arrangements deliver the best outcomes for the people of Wales. Justice is not currently devolved in Wales, unlike in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Commission on Justice in Wales, which was set up by Carwyn Jones when he was First Minister, was designed to review the operation of the Welsh justice system.
The report of the Commission on Justice in Wales was unequivocal. It said that the justice system should be devolved for Wales. That was the evidence-based finding of an independent commission chaired by a former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. I come from a policing background in Scotland, where these matters are devolved, and although I have concerns about the structure of Police Scotland, which are being highlighted in the Scottish Parliament today, I believe that the Welsh Government should have the same devolved oversight of their police service. There are clear difficulties in managing the different governance arrangements of different public services, and ultimately those difficulties fail the people of Wales. I call on the Government to engage properly with the report and not to reject it outright, as they appeared to do in the recent Westminster Hall debate secured by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). The findings of that impartial report should be implemented and Welsh devolution arrangements in this area be brought into alignment with those of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Ahead of St David’s Day, I pay tribute to my Welsh Liberal Democrat colleagues, in particular their leader Jane Dodds, the former Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnorshire. It is a matter of personal sadness that Jane and I did not have the opportunity to sit together on these Benches, and it was a privilege to campaign with her last year in the villages dotting the Wales-England border. In her brief tenure as an MP, she fought on behalf of her constituents to stop a no-deal Brexit, which would have been damaging to the communities she represented. I am confident that she will return to this House in the future.
I know that Jane has been visiting those affected by the recent flooding caused by Storms Ciara and Dennis, and it is on that subject that I will make my final remarks. Throughout this week, we have heard from Members in all parts of the House about how flooding has affected their constituents. The impact in Wales has been particularly severe, with areas that have no history of flooding experiencing it for the first time. I therefore find it deeply disappointing that the Prime Minister has not visited and listened to the people whose homes, workplaces and lives have been devastated. Visible leadership is an obligation, whether you are seeking votes at the time or not. I have been heartened by reports of communities coming together in response to flooding. The hon. Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) have set up crowdfunding pages, and Welsh rugby international George North donated a number of personal items to raise money for Lydney rugby club in Gloucestershire, which demonstrates the close connections and bonds of friendship that exist across the border of England and Wales. In that spirit of friendship, I conclude by wishing all in this place a happy St David’s Day this Sunday, and say “Sláinte!” to all those raising a glass in toast to the Welsh patron saint.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
As ever, it is a huge pleasure to speak in today’s debate on Welsh affairs, in honour of which I sound as if am impersonating Bonnie Tyler.
As deputy leader of the Welsh Labour party, I thank every candidate who put their head above the parapet and stood as a candidate in Wales in the last general election, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). It is not easy to stand in an election, and it was especially difficult at the last election because of the unpleasant atmosphere that, sadly, characterised the campaign, but together Welsh Labour took our strong campaign into the communities up and down Wales in very challenging circumstances. Although I was and continue to be devastated by the result of the election, I remain immensely proud to be the deputy leader of a party I love, and I have no doubt that our strong Welsh Labour team will bounce back. I am confident that we can unite and show that another future is possible as we campaign together ahead of next year’s Assembly elections.
The St David’s Day debate is always an important opportunity to showcase what we love about Wales, as well as to shine a light on the challenges facing us in the future. Far too often, what happens in Wales goes under the radar. Put simply, to have one debate a year is to pay lip service, at best. Wales deserves far, far more. Labour Members know the truth: where Welsh Labour leads, others follow. In so many areas, Welsh Labour policies are improving the lives of people across Wales and setting the bar for the rest of the United Kingdom. Presumed consent organ donation has been saving lives in Wales since 2015. Hospital car park charges were scrapped by the Welsh Government in 2018. Social housing stocks plummeted, so right to buy was scrapped by Welsh Labour in 2018. Nursing bursaries were scrapped across England, but in Wales, Welsh Labour protected them to invest in the future of the NHS and the workforce.
Schools in England were stripped of funding, with children forced to learn in crumbling buildings devoid of resources. Welsh Labour delivered our most ambitious housing programme in history, giving pupils across Wales a 21st-century education in new buildings with state-of-the-art facilities. The Conservative Government scrapped rail electrification, but Welsh Labour is investing £5 billion, which is making a difference even with the problems posed by a backlog of legacy issues. We have already talked about the tidal lagoon, and the House will know my feelings about that.
While the Conservative Government push more families into poverty through universal credit, Welsh Labour is delivering the most generous childcare offer for working families anywhere in the UK. When I called for a children’s funeral fund, it was the Welsh Government who responded almost immediately, although I am grateful to the UK Government for following suit eventually.
The truth is that when it comes to standing up for Wales—against the background of Plaid Cymru’s reborn obsession with independence, which diverts attention from the pressing challenges that our communities face, with dogma always triumphing over delivery—it is Welsh Labour that delivers. All too often, however, those outside Wales, and far too many in it, could be forgiven for not knowing much about that. In far too much of our political discourse and in our media, both public service and privately owned, what happens in Wales stays in Wales; or sometimes, apparently, it does not happen at all.
This is not the disgraceful “fake news” bandwagon that has poisoned so much of our public debate. This is not me pointing the finger at politicians from across the UK. This is about my wish to end the blasé and too frequent approach of too many people in this place, in the media and in UK public life who are not discussing or reporting effectively on politics in Wales.
How many Members have heard Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and forget about devolution when it suits them? How many times have we, as a UK Labour party, repeatedly missed opportunities to shout loudly and proudly about the achievements of our party in the only nation of the UK where we still have a Labour Government? How many times have the Government—and all too often, sadly, the Opposition of late—announced plans for “England and Wales” which are clearly for England only? How many times have we seen news articles circulate online about policy areas that are fully or partially devolved, making zero—literally zero—reference to the Welsh Labour Government? How often does the “Today” programme, or the front pages of the newspapers, or the discussions on our political panel shows, give Wales, our Government and our civic society the respect that they deserve? Hardly ever, and it makes my blood boil. We have to do much, much better.
So I am throwing down the gauntlet as ballots go out in this crucial Labour leadership contest, which is responsible for my loss of voice. Whoever the next UK Labour leader is—and yes, I will happily declare an interest—will need to bang the drum for Labour in Wales, for Wales in Labour, and, quite simply, for Wales. I am fed up with people spending so much time debating whether we should be proud of the last Labour Government, while apparently forgetting to take seriously the record of a Labour Government who we are still running to this day. Our UK and our Welsh media have a role to play as well: to hold to account, to expose failures where they exist, and to hold our collective feet to the flames.
It is about time that our national broadcasters and national newspapers acknowledged that Welsh government exists, and should get a look in from time to time. How many times, on big, UK-wide issues, do we hear from Nicola Sturgeon but not from Mark Drakeford? How many times do we hear about the financial impact of something on Scotland, but not about its impact on Wales? If we are truly to be a country of four nations, and if we are to prove that we value our precious and threatened Union, we need this to start being reflected in our national debate.
We should not be the “And finally” segment at the end of “News at Ten”. We never get an opportunity to see Wales on a national platform, and it really is pitiful. I am not looking at this through the lens of narrow party self-interest. The way we see our media, particularly our broadcast media, being degraded by the trolls on social media and the special advisers in Downing Street, should make us take back a step back and pause for thought. Our free and crusading media, which I work with, respect and value, is the envy of much of the word and often a courageous force for good. That is why it infuriates me when they so often ignore one of the most important parts—to me—of the United Kingdom.
I want Wales to be centre stage, and I want a UK Labour leader who is committed to putting us there. I want us to celebrate and value Wales every day in this Chamber, not just for three hours once a year. We need to do better. I do not want to stand here in a year’s time trumpeting achievements no one had heard about to a Press Gallery that treats this debate like a primary school bring-your-toys-to-school day. I want us to do better and I am marking the homework. I am saying that we must do better. We should do better. We have to do better.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In the brief time available, I want to touch on the need for support for Wales in terms of both climate change and Brexit. In relation to climate change, we are all aware of the catastrophic impacts of flooding in Pontypridd and Rhondda Cynon Taf. As the former head of flood risk management across Wales with executive power to invest in flood defences, I know that the needs of Wales are dictated by its topography. The steep sloping valleys give rise to fast flash flooding, and over time climate change is increasing that risk. We also have the legacy of coal tips. Meanwhile on our coasts, in certain parts of north Wales and also in Swansea, there is a great deal of tidal flood risk, which is also increasing as a result of climate change.
The UK Government need to respect the fact that those things need to be sorted out sooner rather than later, and that they are not linked to our population or to the Barnett formula. They are linked to the actual risk; the number of people living in an area is just a fluke. We need that money now. I very much hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will take that forward as a matter of great urgency because there is great risk as the weather continues to deteriorate.
In relation to Brexit, Wales has benefited from convergence funding, particularly in the valleys and in south and west Wales, and it is important, given that that funding has been awarded on the basis of need, that we get replication of the finance. I respect the fact that people might argue about value for money and the targeting of the funding, but the Secretary of State needs to stand up for Wales. We need that money in Wales, and if we get it, we can then have an argument about where it should be spent, rather than having an argument about how it should be spent and ending up with less money. For example, Swansea University is doubling in size by investing in the Bay campus. It is a massive engine for economic growth, and it has a great need for those stimuli.
Speaking of Swansea naturally leads me to talk about the railways. We were promised rail electrification, which would have put us on the pan-European network, with all the advantages that would have for business communications, industry and exports, but that was denied us. In addition, Network Rail took out an extra £1 billion, and we now face HS2, which will get between £80 billion and £100 billion of investment. That will mean it will take one hour and 10 minutes to get from London to Manchester instead of two hours and 10 minutes, but it will still take three hours to get to Swansea. This is a problem. We need to think about a strategic plan that will link Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea, which have a population of 3 million people—the same number of people as Manchester and Leeds. The difference is that Manchester and Leeds have connectivity six times an hour, and we have it once an hour. We need to make that regional economic cluster work for us.
In the short term, Great Western Railway has already changed the timetable, so instead of having two trains an hour out of Swansea that go to Paddington, one changing at Cardiff on the Manchester Piccadilly route, we now have only one. Instead of leaving at 28 minutes past, it now leaves at 23 minutes past, meaning that people cannot connect at Cardiff. If someone randomly arrives at Swansea station, the average wait is now half an hour instead of a quarter of an hour. To reduce a waiting time by quarter of an hour would normally cost hundreds of billions of pounds, but the alternative in the short term would be for the Secretary of State to write to Great Western Railway and tell it to look again at the timetables, so that we can get connectivity with Transport for Wales and have not only two trains an hour out of Swansea, but two trains out of Paddington to Swansea to encourage inward investment. It is a simple thing that would not cost much, so I urge the Secretary of State to get on with it.
On trade deals and our relationship with Europe, it has been mentioned that 60% of our trade is with the EU. Whether someone is producing lamb, steel, cars or aerospace products, frictionless trade is massively important. It is all very well the Prime Minister saying, “It’ll all be all right on the night. It is all about our sovereignty,” but it is not all about sovereignty; it is all about people’s jobs, livelihoods and future. The people who voted to leave the EU did not vote to leave their jobs.
Finally, I am reassured to a limited extent that the Secretary of State is again using warm words about the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon and, indeed, the lagoon in north Wales. Climate change is really hitting us for six. We know that 80% of fossil fuels cannot be used if we are to avoid irreversible climate change, and the spot price of oil is deflated due to excess production and fracking, which produces enormous amounts of excess methane that is making climate change even worse. Fossil fuel companies are basically sitting on stranded assets, and the financial markets will belatedly move out of that sector, so we need to invest now in green, climate change-compatible energy projects, such as the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I will attempt to condense my speech in the brief time available. I obviously want to echo what other hon. Members have said about the terrible flooding that has taken place in communities across south Wales. Newport East was fortunate not to be directly impacted, although nearby Monmouthshire was, and we sympathise and stand in solidarity with those whose homes and businesses were affected. I thank all the emergency services and everyone who helped.
We have had difficult news again this week for the Orb, with Tata announcing that no suitable buyer has been found for the steelworks. Hon. Members may know that the site was mothballed before Christmas, and Tata is now considering offers to use it for other purposes. Fewer workplaces are more ingrained in the history of Newport than the Orb, and I have spoken at great length about its history, but it also had a fantastic future as the only producer of electrical steels in the UK. With investment, it could have played its part in the electric vehicle revolution and electrification generally, so this is a huge shame. We went to the Government for help, and the Welsh Government did what they could, but help was not forthcoming. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who said that we need far more action than warm words from the Government on steel if the industrial strategy is to mean anything.
Given that today has been a time for maiden speeches, I felt the need to renew my vows and talk at great length about the brilliant things going on in Newport, but there is not much time to do that. However, the CAF railway factory in Newport was officially opened by the Prince of Wales last week. It has the capacity to provide trains for HS2, so I hope that Ministers take that on board, because we would really appreciate it. I fully support the excellent “We’re Backing Newport” campaign launched by the South Wales Argus to promote our city as a great place to live, work and bring up a family, which I know that because I am bringing up my own family there.
Brilliant opportunities are coming to Newport. It is the ninth-fastest growing city in the UK. We have experienced the fourth highest rise in property prices. We have the international convention centre and amazing things going on in the city centre, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). We have had help from the Welsh Government, and Newport City Council has a new visionary leader in Jane Mudd, who is doing a fantastic job.
It is not all about urban regeneration either. We have the fantastic RSPB Newport wetlands, which will feature on BBC “Countryfile” on St David’s Day, so please watch that. Lots of great things are going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) mentioned colleagues who, since the general election, are no longer with us for a variety of reasons. They played a fantastic role in this place and their work will continue. I, for one, have inherited the all-party mindfulness group from Chris Ruane. We will continue with that and with Madeleine Moon’s campaign to scrap the six-month rule for those with terminal illnesses, on which the Government have been silent—we need to press further on that.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a privilege to close this debate. Of course I wish all hon. Members a happy St David’s Day.
I also wish the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), well. Today is his long-awaited and long-anticipated Dispatch Box debut in a St David’s Day debate. By my count, he is the ninth Under-Secretary of State for Wales since 2010. I am sure he will support my argument that the revolving door approach to Wales Office Ministers now has to stop.
I am grateful for all the contributions today. I wish the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) well in his role as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) on his maiden speech. All of us who grew up in south Wales are familiar with the beauty of Rest bay, and he spoke well about the importance of the armed forces to his constituency. He also paid an entirely appropriate tribute to his predecessor, Madeleine Moon, whose fantastic campaigning on mental health and motor neurone disease and, indeed, her achievement as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly gained her respect on both sides of the House.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who spoke with his usual authority and erudition both on the floods and on the wider issues of the Welsh economy.
I pay tribute to the second maiden speech of the day, made by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes). I was interested to hear about his musical work for those with dementia and Alzheimer’s, and I send my condolences on the unexpected death of his mother in January. He, too, paid a very appropriate tribute to his predecessor, Susan Elan Jones. I entirely share his view about her strong sense of integrity and care for others, which brought so much to this House during her time here.
My thanks go too to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). He and I attended the same school in Pontypool. He was the first MP from that school and I was the second. When he says he is now the Welsh Father of the House, I guess I will have to accept that he has beaten me to another title. He made a powerful contribution on public sector broadcasting, which will certainly be an issue in this Parliament.
My thanks go also to the right hon. Members for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for their contributions and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) on his second coming to this House. I certainly agree with what he says about the efforts of our farmers in recent days.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), who spoke extraordinarily powerfully about the impact of the UK Government over the past 10 years. He also reminded us that of course it was a Labour Government who first brought devolution to Wales.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) spoke well about Welsh culture in society. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and it is clearly a very special St David’s Day for her this year as it is her son’s first one. She spoke powerfully about the proud musical and sporting heritage not just of Pontypridd but of the Welsh nation.
I share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for the Welsh football team, and I very much hope that 2020 will be a repeat of the summer of 2016. I pay tribute to his work on the all-party parliamentary group on post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, which will be looking at post-Brexit structural funding for Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) spoke passionately about the politics of austerity. Like hers, my grandfathers were both miners, and the industrial heritage of south Wales is a timely reminder that we always achieve more together than we achieve alone.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for her contribution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her contribution and for her work as deputy leader of Welsh Labour. Nobody could ever accuse her of not shouting loudly and proudly about Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) spoke powerfully and passionately about the need for urgent action on climate change, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) was able to make a contribution, particularly on steel, to which I shall return in a moment.
The impact of flooding on our communities, which is the backdrop to this debate, has been devastating. Our thoughts are with those families who have lost everything. As the water recedes and the national media interest fades, the human cost will remain, as will the damage to the Welsh economy. The Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, has acted quickly and decisively. It is not a cheap political point to say that the Prime Minister is not just a party leader, but the national leader; he is the Prime Minister, and at times of crisis above all, it is for those who hold that office to show leadership to the communities affected. I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister simply has not done that.
In the Prime Minister’s absence, our communities certainly have shown their extraordinary resilience, of which we can all be proud. I pay tribute to all my colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for Pontypridd, for Ogmore and for Cynon Valley, who have shown that leadership in their communities. I also pay tribute to the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, Andrew Morgan, and to all the council workers and emergency workers who have done us proud in recent weeks.
At this moment, as we leave the European Union, it is also so important to stand up for the manufacturing sector in Wales, particularly the steel industry. I was sad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East said about the Orb steelworks, which was mothballed before Christmas; it now seems that it will not be used by the steel industry at all. That is a good example of why we need better long-term planning. The Government are committed to a transition to electric vehicles by 2035, yet this is happening to the Orb plant, which could have provided an end-to-end supply chain for the electric vehicles industry. We would then not have had to import this kind of steel. It is crucial that the Government step up and support our steel industry.
We have heard about the go-ahead for HS2. This is a timely moment to revisit the procurement rules. I hope that on every big project in the UK, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will push for the maximum use of UK steel. Today the mandate for the trade talks was published; if there are to be jobs and growth in that sector, it is vital that we ensure that our manufacturing sector does not face tariffs in accessing the single market, and that regulatory alignment remains. It is also vital that the shared prosperity fund ensures that none of our communities loses out, with not a power or a penny lost.
On all these issues, we are asking the UK Government to step up to the plate. Let us not forget that devolution is about partnership. Where the Welsh Government lead the way, the UK Government need to follow. We have heard so many times in this debate in the past 10 years about the scale of austerity cuts in Wales; we can see that, but none the less, the Welsh Government have sought to deliver for our people. They have funded hundreds of police community support officers. Wales was the only part of the UK recently to see improvement in all three programme for international student assessment scores—reading, maths and science.
I have heard a lot about the Welsh NHS today, but health spending per person is 6% higher in Wales than it is in England. I have been pleased to see that Wales has led the way with a single cancer pathway, meaning that all suspected cancers are treated the same. Wales was the first nation in Europe to legislate for safe nursing staffing levels, and it has led the way on organ donation. On the environment, Wales has the best rates of domestic recycling in the UK and has banned fracking, and it has produced the leading Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, putting the interests of future generations first, with sustainability at the heart of policy. As we talk about generations of the future, it is fitting to recall that 16 and 17-year-olds will have the vote in the next Senedd elections. Ultimately, though, it is for the UK Government, working with the Welsh Government, to deliver for the Welsh people.
We have had many excellent contributions from Members of all parties on many, many issues. The Labour Government in Wales have continued to invest in our communities, in health and in our schools, seeking to advance the lives of our constituents. My message to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales is that the UK Government have to step up and do the same.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I thank all Members for their contribution to the debate. I will do my utmost to try to address as many of those contributions as possible.
I thank my friend and constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) for his comments. We may disagree on rather a lot, but on the issue of revolving doors in the Wales Office I stand with him 100%. Perhaps at another time we will discuss some of the other issues.
A third member of the Wales Office team has just been appointed: my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton). She has in common with the other two members of the team the fact that she, too, has worn the uniform of the British Army, although I believe for rather longer than either I or the Secretary of State did, and in a full-time capacity. I thank her for her help.
As Minister, I look forward to working closely not only with the Secretary of State but with all Members of Parliament from all parties and, of course, Members of the Welsh Assembly from all parties.
The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) made a powerful contribution, as she always does, and channelled her inner Bonnie Tyler. She made a very good point: she achieved a change in the law, not just in Wales but in the rest of the United Kingdom as well, because people were willing to listen to what she had to say, and she was willing to work with members of other parties. That is something we must continue to do.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), who will take over as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, for his comments. I am sure that he will do an outstanding job and continue the tradition of ensuring that members of that Committee are willing to travel the length and breadth of Wales to find out anything that may be of importance to that Committee’s inquiries.
Let me turn to the flooding that has devastated Wales. We heard about the issues from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) and the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden). I echo the thanks that all Members gave to the emergency services—to the police, the fire service and the rescue services, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Severn Area Rescue Association and others.
Various Members also mentioned perhaps forgotten heroes. Like a few other speakers, I pay tribute to local authority workers. I was privileged to be able to thank those who helped out recently in Monmouthshire at a depot, where they had worked 24 hours a day to fill thousands upon thousands of sandbags and get them out. I have to say that when I got a complaint from one constituent that somebody’s bin had not been put back in the right place in the garden, I had to restrain myself from sending a rather strong message, given what workers in Monmouthshire and across Wales had been responsible for.
I also pay tribute to other forgotten heroes: the workers of Dŵr Cymru—Welsh Water. The water treatment centre in Monmouth was inundated over that terrible weekend. As soon as it was safe to do so, Welsh Water went in there and took out all the pumps, dried them out, replaced them, and put in more electrical fittings. Again, they were working 24 hours a day, although in 12-hour shifts. At the same time, Monmouth and its surrounding areas faced running out of water within 12 hours, so 40 tankers were sent in to make sure that water was still pumped into homes—ironically, it came from England—and there was bottled water ready. The chief executive of Welsh Water, Peter Perry, did an absolutely outstanding job. He was on the phone to me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others at all hours of the day and night. He made himself available, and I absolutely pay absolute tribute to him and to Welsh Water—
David T. C. Davies
Indeed, and I will not query that decision at the moment. I remember that taking place 20 years ago in the Welsh Assembly, and if Members are asking me to praise a nationalised, mutual industry, I am very happy to do it in the case of Dŵr Cymru today. I am a pragmatist.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has obviously been meeting the various people involved, and we will continue to do that, but I should gently point out that the leader of Monmouthshire County Council made it clear to me that he did not want politicians going into the flooded areas during the emergency.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister makes the point that the Prime Minister would have got in the way if he had turned up; is that an implicit criticism of Prince Charles for doing exactly that?
David T. C. Davies
Far be it from me to criticise the royal family; that would be a bit above my station. I was simply saying that the leader of Monmouthshire Council made it clear to me that he did not want me or anyone else going into the flooded area while the floodwaters were still there.
Let me move on to other matters. The Secretary of State for Wales and I have been thinking very carefully about the importance of ensuring that when Wales leaves the European Union, we continue working with the Welsh Government, the local authorities and businesses, so that Wales maintains its position at the heart of a strengthened United Kingdom. We are looking forward to negotiating the cross-border Welsh Marches growth deal, and to developing schemes for improving cross-border infrastructure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) spoke about the importance of good broadband, and compared Pandy Tudur rather unfavourably with the Pitcairn Islands. Some £200 million has been promised by the UK Government to ensure that areas across the United Kingdom that are not properly connected become so, and we recognise the importance of that. Rail connectivity was mentioned by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). Again, I absolutely recognise the general point that he made, but I will have to get back to him on the specific point.
David T. C. Davies
Yes, I will get back to the hon. Gentleman on that point. On the general issue of rail services, as he will know, we are spending £1.4 billion on rail infrastructure over the next control period. We could do even better for connectivity if we could persuade colleagues in the Welsh Government to support the M4 relief road, and to accept the borrowing that is being offered to them to build that much-needed road.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, who all had in common an attempt to see who could use the most Welsh in the Chamber. Dydw i ddim yn siwr pwy sydd wedi ennill y wobr. I will not push my luck. I was on the Welsh Affairs Committee when we changed the rules to allow Welsh to be used at all times. It was right that we should do that. We now allow Welsh to be used, of course, in the Welsh Grand Committee, and it is quite right that we should do that as well. There is more to be done in the Chamber and around the House of Commons. I would be perfectly amenable to supporting further changes and reforms to allow Welsh to be used even more widely in the House.
Wayne David
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the next Welsh Grand Committee will be held?
David T. C. Davies
I am told by the Secretary of State that I cannot at the moment, but I am sure that it will be coming soon.
I suspect that I may have left out some hon. Members. If I did, I apologise. I say to the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) that like me, he remembered the referendum, but I was on the opposing side at the time. There may be those, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said, who now oppose devolution in Wales, but I am certainly not one of them. I recognise that the people of Wales have spoken not once, but twice on this, and they have made their views very clear. We have a Welsh Assembly, and it has the support of the people of Wales. It would be utterly wrong for anyone, in my opinion, to try to undermine the Welsh Assembly. That is not something that I or the Secretary of State for Wales will do. I am pleased to put on record our support for the principle of having a Welsh Assembly, and of course we will do what we can to ensure that the Government of the Welsh Assembly change.
As we leave the European Union, we stand on the brink of a new chapter—a potentially glorious chapter—in the history of Wales. As we regain control in the United Kingdom of our laws, our borders and our taxpayers’ money, there will be enormous opportunities to ensure that Wales prospers and develops. I very much look forward to being a part of that. I wish everyone a very happy Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Sant. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Dydd Gŵyl Dewi hapus.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Welsh affairs.
Crime (West Sandwell)
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
A few weeks ago, I stood in this Chamber and stated very clearly that I would not allow the people of West Bromwich West to be abandoned again. That is why I am here today: to fight for them and keep our communities safe. I am sure that all of us across the House can agree that it is that sense of community—that coming together of people, and the genuine care and compassion we show each other—that makes all our communities great. However, the great communities that make up my constituency are under attack.
My constituents are decent, hard-working and caring people, and one of the benefits of having such a great community is that we are blessed with some fantastic community groups, such as the WMA community fitness centre in Tipton, which works to keep young people off the streets and prevent them from falling into crime, through a variety of martial arts, fitness work and pastoral care.
However, the most recent figures, from December 2019, highlight the battle that we are facing in West Sandwell more widely. We have seen a sharp rise in anti-social behaviour; in burglary; in vehicle, violent and sexual crime; in drug-related crime; in bike thefts; and in muggings. With just under 100,000 people in my constituency, the 2019 figures are, quite frankly, shocking: 2,990 violent and sexual crimes, 1,089 vehicle-related crimes, over 1,000 cases of anti-social behaviour, 850 cases of burglary, and 790 cases of criminal damage and arson.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned burglary, but is he also seeing, as we are seeing in Warley, aggravated burglary, where people are smashing into homes even when residents are in, terrifying and intimidating them, and causing huge fear in the neighbourhood?
Shaun Bailey
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, having also seen that in my constituency casework. I am sure it is something he sees almost daily in his mailbag.
Since the Labour police and crime commissioner for the west midlands took office in August 2014, we have seen month-on-month increases in violent crime—we have seen violent crime rise by 175%. For example, in August 2014 there were 3,148 violent crimes reported in the west midlands area, and in December 2019 that figure had risen to over 8,500 incidents, in a single month. Those are astonishing and shocking figures, and they cannot be ignored.
Nobody—and I mean nobody—should feel unsafe in their home or when walking to the shops, or feel concern for their children walking to school, or have concerns about their car being vandalised at night, or question whether it is safe to leave their windows open while they sleep. However, that is exactly what I am hearing on the ground, and the statistics very much reflect those concerns. Those concerns are a daily occurrence for many constituents who just want to get on with their lives.
My constituents are coming to me, as their voice in Westminster, and pleading with me to do something about the rising levels of crime in West Bromwich West and west Sandwell. I have seen at first hand the pain and anguish that these criminals are bringing to an otherwise cohesive, close-knit, welcoming and warm community. This is not simply about reducing numbers on a spreadsheet or grabbing a headline; the consequences of the current situation are very real and damage the livelihoods of good and honest people.
I want to share a real-life example that one of my constituents has asked me to use today. Ellie lives in Wednesbury, in the north of my constituency. She moved to Wednesbury last May and is now nine months pregnant. She was the victim of a burglary at the end of last year, around seven months after she first moved in. The perpetrators broke into her partner’s van on 23 December, just two days before Christmas. They took over £1,000-worth of tools, and the damage to the van was so bad that it had to be written off. Ellie’s partner relies on the van and his tools for his livelihood; that is how he provides for his family.
Ellie has told me that she has experienced two other attempted break-ins since she moved to Wednesbury just last May, and her and her partner’s lives have had to revolve around checking the CCTV daily. I ask all Members to think about that for a second. Expecting parents should be thinking about baby names and decorating the baby’s room, deciding on the nappy changing rota and generally celebrating the new life that they will be welcoming into this world. Instead, Ellie and her partner are spending their time checking the CCTV system out of fear that somebody has been trying to break into their vehicle and their home. I will not allow this to go on. I am intervening today because I was sent here to fight for people like Ellie and her soon-to-be-born baby, whose voices have not been listened to for too long. As a result of the situation, tragically Ellie has told me that she does not feel that she can stay in Wednesbury once her baby is born, so she is moving away with her partner and their family.
If we want to revive communities such as Wednesbury, Tipton and Oldbury, we need to ensure that they are safe for people to live in so that families can settle there, feel safe there and want to contribute to our society. I know that this Government and the Minister are committed to tackling rising crime, wherever it rears its head. However, we need to remember that what we are talking about is not solely the responsibility of national Government. Shockingly, the response from our local Labour police and crime commissioner to these very real concerns has been to consider closing a further three police stations in west Sandwell—in Oldbury, a town that I share with the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), in Wednesbury, where Ellie lives, and in Tipton. How the conclusion was reached that that was the right decision, I am not entirely sure.
The response I have received when I have had a frank discussion about this issue is, “By closing the buildings we can put more officers on the street”. On the face of it, that sounds like a sensible proposition. However, it is certainly not an either/or, considering that the PCC has taken the decision to invest £33 million in the refurbishment of Lloyd House, the headquarters of West Midlands police. It is slightly baffling to me that the refurbishment of an office could be even a slightly more pressing matter than the safety of residents or boots on the street. It simply is not good enough for my residents and my communities. This refurbishment is an unnecessary waste of vital resources that should be pushed to the frontline. I invite the police and crime commissioner to Tipton, one of the most vulnerable communities in our area, where the police station has been threatened with closure, to tell the people there why their police station should close but the headquarters can be refurbished.
Shaun Bailey
I am afraid that I must make some progress.
I also ask the PCC to tell people in Wednesbury who have lost their desk service why an office refurbishment should be the priority. I thank my good friend Jay Singh-Sohal, the Conservative candidate for West Midlands police and crime commissioner, for his steadfast support and leadership in the campaign to keep Tipton police station open, as well as a review of provision in Wednesbury. Jay has proven that he is a strong friend of the communities in my constituency, and I look forward to working with him as we continue this fight.
I am fully aware that crime is changing, as is the way we react and deal with crimes.
Shaun Bailey
I really do need to make some progress.
I have been impressed by the efforts of police forces across the country to focus on cyber-crime, recruiting special police officers to deal with cyber-crime and tackling the new ways in which crime has developed, particularly in the west midlands. But I am sure that what our constituents want to see is community-based policing.
Shaun Bailey
It is as if the right hon. Gentleman can read my mind. Community-based policing means boots on the ground, just as he says from a sedentary position, but it also means buildings and a real estate strategy, as well as fostering community engagement—another core point.
How we manage the roles of police officers in our communities also needs to change. Police officers tell me that they do not just want to be the last response and final line of defence. In fact, they want to reclaim the position that they feel they have lost, of being at the core and centre of the community. That means encouraging and allowing police officers to get themselves out there, whether by sitting in their local café, going around their local shop, carrying on going into our local schools or, yes, simply walking up and down the high street on the beat. We need to allow police officers the freedom to come out from behind the desk and to be out there in the community. I have been encouraged by conversations that I have had recently with people from a range of forces, a range of police and crime commissioners and a range of chief constables. With the adoption of new technologies, and innovative ways of thinking and working, we can get back to this grassroots policing.
This is also about continuing and building on the amazing network of neighbourhood and street watch schemes. I pay tribute to these groups in my constituency, particularly the Tividale street watch group. I visited them two weeks ago and hope to be out on patrol with them soon. Those groups are stepping up and doing an amazing job by engaging with our award-winning neighbourhood policing teams in west Sandwell. It is fantastic to see the strides that they are making. But we need to ensure that the resource is there, because, as I am sure all Members will agree, they cannot be their own private police force. They should not have to be. These people are civilians—normal human beings. Why should they have to be acting like a private police force?
While my contribution today has focused more on the gritty and harsh reality of what my communities face on a day-to-day basis, I am optimistic about the future. I know that we can solve the issues I have highlighted—because, quite frankly, we have to. The 20,000 new recruits that we will see across the country are a welcome and vital addition to our community. The Government’s wider commitment to protecting our officers on the beat—
John Spellar
Is it not true that that we have lost well over 2,000 officers and will get just over 1,000 back, whereas Surrey is getting an increase on its baseline? Were not the cuts by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) when she was Home Secretary absolutely devastating in the west midlands?
Shaun Bailey
I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but let us look at the reasons why those cuts were made. Quite frankly, it is all summed up by the individual he is backing to be the Mayor of the west midlands, who left the note to say there was no money left. I assure this House that we will be working to ensure that he does not do to the west midlands what he did to this country.
On the 20,000 new recruits, I have three asks for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, I want her to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to ensuring that they will use their influence to encourage PCCs to deploy those extra police officers in the areas that need them. I am sure we can all agree across this House that we need to be maximising where they are deployed. Although that is a decision for our local police forces, hopefully the Government can intervene on that. Secondly, I hope that she will reaffirm the Government’s commitment to community-based policing whereby we work with all our stakeholders to ensure that police are once again embedded at the heart of our communities. Finally, I hope that she will meet me and other stakeholders in west Sandwell to discuss how we can ensure that police forces have the tools and support they need to operate and to keep our communities safe.
As I said in my maiden speech, I was brought up to believe that we have a duty to speak out for those who cannot speak out for themselves, and I wanted to ensure that Ellie, her unborn baby and the rest of my constituents were heard loud and clear by this Government. Our community is vulnerable. I hope that my constituents will see that I am keeping my promise to them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) on securing this important debate and speaking with such passion about the impact of crime in his constituency. He set out very clearly the promise he made to his constituents on his election. I, for one, think he is very much delivering on that promise.
My hon. Friend eloquently set out the corrosive and devastating impact of crime. People have the right to feel safe when they visit their local high street, walk home, or go to sleep at night.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that keeping our streets safe is an absolute priority for this Government. We have taken swift action to tackle crime on multiple fronts, with clear priorities of addressing serious violence, homicide and neighbourhood crime. We are also investing heavily in policing, enabling the biggest increase in police funding in a decade and the largest recruitment drive in many more. The Prime Minister promised that, and like my hon. Friend, he is delivering on his promise.
While there is no shortcut to solving crime, this people’s Government have the commitment and resolve to see this through. We will maintain a relentless focus on cutting crime and addressing its root causes. We will see extra police officers on the streets and support law enforcement to deliver innovative approaches that keep them a step ahead of these fast-evolving criminal groups. We must protect the most vulnerable, invest in safeguarding and support those at greatest risk of becoming victims or offenders.
John Spellar
Can the Minister tell us when those police will be on the streets of the west midlands and how many there will be?
Victoria Atkins
The right hon. Gentleman is surpassing himself today—I am just about to move on to that, because it was the first question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West. We have pledged to recruit an additional 20,000 officers, which we believe sends a clear message that we are committed to giving police the resources they need to tackle the scourge of crime. West Midlands police will receive up to £620.8 million in funding in 2020-21—an increase of up to £49.6 million on the previous year. To put that in context, it is an increase of 8.7%, which is the third highest in the country. This year alone, West Midlands police will benefit from 366 more police officers, but we make it clear that this is the first tranche in a three-year programme.
Forces have been given a generous funding settlement in order to provide for the associated costs alongside new officers, such as additional cars, estate equipment and uniforms, and give them what they need to tackle crime. How and where in each force those officers are deployed is a decision to be made by the local chief constable, but I note my hon. Friend’s encouragement for central Government to get involved. I suspect that he will be a very good advocate for his constituency, to ensure that it sees the benefit of those new officers and the extra funding. Fundamentally, this is about tackling crime. The uplift programme provides the opportunity to ensure that we have the officers that policing needs to respond to the increase in demand and to take a proactive response to tackling and preventing crime.
My hon. Friend asked about community and neighbourhood policing. Local policing fulfils two essential functions: responding to calls for service and preventing crime and harm. It is also the key vehicle for building legitimacy through community engagement and public confidence. The College of Policing published guidelines on modernising neighbourhood policing in March 2018. The Home Office contributed to the guidelines, which cover a variety of topics, including engaging communities, solving problems, targeting activity and promoting the right culture.
That is all good work, but we want to build on it, because two of the crime types that are at the heart of neighbourhood policing are, sadly, acquisitive crime and vehicle crime. The Government recognise the distress and disruption that acquisitive crimes can cause. Indeed, my hon. Friend set out clearly the experiences of his constituent Ellie and her partner, and the longer-term consequences for the family’s livelihood and wellbeing. Residential burglary is a particularly invasive crime that can have a lasting impact on its victims, and vehicle theft can also have a real impact, particularly on those who rely on their vans, scooters and other vehicles to earn a living.
We are committed to driving down those crimes and making our communities safer. One way in which we will achieve that is through our £25 million safer streets fund, which will support the communities who are disproportionately affected by acquisitive crime to implement crime-prevention initiatives such as improved street lighting and home security. The principle behind the fund is that policing cannot deliver this on their own. We need to engage neighbourhoods in the package of measures to have success in local areas. We are encouraging bids to the fund not only to be developed in partnership with local communities but to include community-focused elements—for example, building support and engagement in the proposed interventions, or direct funding for community groups to undertake prevention activities themselves.
We have made it clear that, although police and crime commissioners are the lead bidders, they are encouraged to work in partnership with a wide range of local organisations to ensure that local priorities are addressed and local communities are engaged. The application process for the fund is currently open, and I would encourage my hon. Friend to work with the police and crime commissioner, his local police force and community groups to develop and submit a bid or bids to the fund before its closing date of 20 March.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of serious violence. Again, we understand and recognise the terrible impact that serious violence has on local neighbourhoods and communities. Preventing and tackling serious violence is a matter for law enforcement—of course it is—but we also need to find long-term solutions to the problem and to tackle the root causes. We recognise the importance of effective partnership working across the wide range of professions that must work together to bear down on this problem.
To support this, we are introducing the serious violence Bill, which will create a new duty on a range of specified agencies—the police, local government, youth offending, health and probation—to work collaboratively, share data and information, and put in place plans to prevent and reduce serious violence within their local communities.
We invested £100 million in 2019-20, through the serious violence fund, for the 18 police force areas most affected by serious violence. Of this, £7.62 million was allocated to the West Midlands to pay for a surge in police operational activity. Only yesterday, the Home Secretary announced a further just under £5 million for the West Midlands, as a provisional allocation in an overall announcement of £41.5 million for police surge funding in the year 2020-21. West Midlands will provisionally be allocated this as one of the 18 force areas worst affected by serious violence.
A further £3.37 million has been invested in developing the West Midlands violence reduction unit. On 29 December 2019, the Home Secretary announced a further £35 million to continue funding these units. The West Midlands VRU has been allocated another £3.37 million for 2020-21 to continue to tackle the root causes of serious violence. Indeed, when I joined officers out and about in Birmingham a few months ago, I was very pleased to meet some of the people setting up that important unit in my hon. Friend’s local constabulary area.
My hon. Friend asked me the very difficult question—question 3—of whether I would meet him and his constituents in his constituency, and I would be delighted to do so. I would be delighted to visit him in his constituency so that I can see for myself the issues that he and his constituents are facing. I thank him very much for the opportunity to listen to and discuss the particular issues facing his constituency. I will of course continue to reflect on them in considering the Government’s approach in the future. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will continue to raise these issues with continued passion and determination.
Finally, I wish my hon. Friend’s constituent Ellie and her partner all the very best with the happy arrival, I hope, of their cherished baby.
Question put and agreed to.
Agriculture Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 27th February 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 February 2020 - (27 Feb 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind hon. Members to switch electronic devices to silent mode and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. We shall now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. Before we begin, I should tell the Committee that Sir David Amess and I have used our discretion to select amendments 63 and 64 and new clauses 23 and 24 for debate today, even though the usual notice was not given. We have done that because the circumstances were exceptional. A relevant policy paper was published by the Department on Tuesday, and we took the view that it was in the Committee’s interest to have the opportunity to debate amendments arising from that policy paper today. I am assured by the Clerks that our decision is well precedented.
Clause 2
Financial assistance: forms, conditions, delegation and publication of information
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 2, page 3, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for establishing any financial assistance scheme and setting out how it will be designed and how it will operate.
(1B) No motion may be made in either House of Parliament for the approval of any regulations under subsection (1A) unless—
(a) a draft of those regulations has been submitted for scrutiny by any select committee of either House of Parliament which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, has a remit which includes responsibility for scrutiny of financial assistance under section 1, and
(b) any such committee has expressed a view on the draft regulations.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 64, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after “subsection” insert “(1A) or subsection”.
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to continue under you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank you and Sir David for exercising your discretion. I will make some points about that matter in a moment, but I shall start with amendment 63; amendment 64 is consequent to it.
The reason why we want to make this amendment and think it important is that we believe that the design and implementation of the environmental land management scheme that the Government have suggested should be subjected to proper scrutiny. Amendment 63, with amendment 64, would ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny by requiring the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations for establishing any financial assistance scheme and setting out how it will be designed and will operate. Under our amendment, those regulations must be considered and reported on by an appropriate Select Committee, of the Secretary of State’s choosing—we are very generous—before being brought to the House. Amendment 64 would ensure that a proper debate on the regulations could be held by subjecting them to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I apologise to you, Mr Stringer, and to the Committee for warning that I will speak at some length on this amendment to demonstrate why it matters. This goes back to our debate on Tuesday about the Government’s behaviour in relation to publication of the “Environmental Land Management: Policy discussion document”. I am sure that everyone has carefully read it and I advise everyone to have it to hand for the next hour or so, because I shall be referring in detail to various elements of it.
Just in case anyone thinks that this is somehow a diversion or distraction, the document itself says on page 7:
“The new ELM scheme, founded on the principle of ‘public money for public goods’, will be the cornerstone of our agricultural policy now we have left the EU.”
It would be very strange if the Committee were discussing that complicated new future and we did not have a chance to discuss what will be, in the Government’s own words, its cornerstone.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that it is a shame that we got the ELM document—as he says, the cornerstone—too late to make meaningful progress on it on Tuesday? It is also a shame that the Prime Minister decided to take it to the National Farmers Union, rather than bringing it here first.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will say more about that, as she can imagine.
This discussion is hugely important, and I hope that we will be able to give it the attention it deserves. As my hon. Friend said, the document was delayed until half an hour after the Committee had started our sitting, although I am grateful to Ministers for having the grace to look a little sheepish and to be apologetic—not their fault, I suspect. Frankly, however, it was a poor way to behave, although ironically the desired outcome was not achieved—for reasons that I am not entirely au fait with, the Secretary of State went to the NFU the day after anyway, and I understand that he had a fairly traditional welcome. It is not unusual for Ministers to go to industry events and get a bit of a roasting. I am opposed to all forms of cruelty—we will come to that later—but he clearly had a tough day.
More importantly, I fear that this has skewed the way in which we are discussing the Bill. Had we had the document in advance, we would have framed a different set of amendments to the key clause 1. I am grateful to you, Mr Stringer, and to Sir David for exercising discretion, which allowed us to table amendments to clause 2. That would not normally have been possible within the timescale. I put on record my thanks to the hard-working staff in our offices, who were up until late at night working on that, and to the Clerks, who were also up late working on potential amendments. People were under considerable pressure, and I hope to do justice to their work this morning.
I have to say that something made me cross and, when I came to read the environmental land management policy discussion document that we are talking about, at times it made me even crosser. It is a mixed bag. Some of it is excellent, and we will be supportive, but my overriding impression was that, despite detecting some extremely hard work and thought put in by officials, they had been hampered by some basic contradictions in the Government’s thinking. That is a political failing—not a policy failing—which I suspect partly reflects changes in personnel and thinking over time. The original architects—the unrepentant sinners to whom I referred on Tuesday—have moved on, and others have been left to figure out how to make a complicated set of ambitions work.
The thing that made me cross—we do not have to read far—is virtually in the opening line, although I understand that the prefaces to such documents are often bolted on at the end, possibly by eager-to-please special advisers. I will read the opening sentence:
“For more than forty years, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy…has dictated how we farm our land”.
“Dictated”—think about that sentence. We were members of the European Union of our own free will—[Interruption.] I do not want to go over old ground, but I invite people to think about how that reads to those who might not share in support for the current situation, which is possibly half the country. It is a poor way to start the document.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
As a farmer, I can only describe the three-crop rule as dictating what I can grow on my farm. I cannot see any other interpretation.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure we will have a to and fro this morning. We will come to the three-crop rule later. I have a suggestion for a more conciliatory word: “framed” is a more accurate term, frankly. “Dictated” is highly contentious and in some ways designed to rile, and I can say to whomever did that, it succeeded. Some of us take exception to the idea that the Government of our country seems to have become a Vote Leave franchise operation.
To add evidence, I have a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs press release from 2013, when the then Farming Minister—different context, different time, obviously—who is now the Secretary of State, told us:
“The UK ensured that we have choices in how we implement the Common Agricultural Policy, rather than having to work with a one-size-fits-all approach from the European Commission…This gives us the flexibility to target funding in ways that will deliver real benefits to the environment, boost the competitiveness of our farming industry and grow the rural economy.”
I actually agree with him, but it does not sound like the policy has been “dictated” to us. I make a gentle plea to the Minister to change that one word, which might help people to be brought together.
Now that I have got that off my chest, we can move on to the substance of my argument. To be fair, there is something much more welcome a few lines later in the document, although it is not entirely reflected in the body of the document. It talks about the new system making it
“possible to meet the objectives of protecting the environment and producing food.”
That is a significant discussion within the document, and I will come back to that point. I appreciate that this is a framework Bill—as the Government constantly tell us—but there needs to be scrutiny as the framework is fleshed out. That is what we seek to do with our amendments.
As I will show in the next few minutes, these are complicated, interesting and important issues, which need scrutiny. I hope the Government will see sense and merit in our proposal. I hope the excellent Government Whip might consider allowing his side a little leeway, as we have considerable expertise present on the Government Benches today. Although he was gloriously successful in ensuring that people did not make contributions earlier in the process, it would be helpful if a little leeway could be shown at this point in our discussions on the Bill, because we are now getting into the real meat of it.
Some Members will have attended Second Reading of the Environment Bill yesterday. The interaction between these various Bills is really important, as was mentioned by the Chair of Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I think many of us have come to the same conclusion. As so often happens, the debate yesterday strayed into the Agriculture Bill by mistake at one or two points. That is no surprise, because the Bill is important.
There are number of puzzles and contradictions in the policy discussion document that are worthy of discussion. I will come to some of the positive aspects, but one or two sentences jumped out at me. On page 6 —I suspect this is by the same author who wrote the opening remarks to which I referred—there is a sort of eulogy to our wonderful system at the moment. The document quite rightly praises our farmers for the wonderful things they do. However, one of them is
“supporting our supply of clean water”.
I think that will jar slightly, particularly with some of the water companies, which know that one of the unintended consequences of our current agricultural system is that they, and as a consequence all our constituents, have to pay considerable costs to clean up some of the water. Obviously, the hope is that our new system will have ways to deal with that.
Later in the document there are some very positive proposals, but there are also some big unanswered questions about the interaction between the documents. Again, that point was raised yesterday in the discussion on the Environment Bill. This is a particularly pressing issue, given our current situation with flooding in this country. Some things look in danger of falling between the cracks, particularly overall land use policy. Our amendment is designed to allow proper scrutiny of how the proposals will be developed. Given that this is a very long-term set of pilots in development, things will change and lessons will be learned. Having proper parliamentary scrutiny seems to be well worth while.
The document—as I said, I suspect it had various authors—is littered with problems and quite a few internal contradictions. On page 7, there is a hopeful claim that environmental land management schemes will
“help us maintain our food security.”
That feels as though it is a bolted-on, pious hope, given the tension between environmental goods, which we all support, and food production. Indeed, in the list of public goods on page 7 there is no mention of food. There are some non-sequiturs here, although if I were to be generous, the fact that some of these problems have not been entirely reconciled may explain some of the delay in producing the document.
It actually gets worse. On page 7, at the end of the introduction, it says that the goal is to “improve” existing standards, but later in the same sentence it says it is to possibly maintain them. This is one of the key conundrums of the legislation—what are we actually supporting? The document goes on to say a bit more about that, which I will come to later.
The key issue is whether we should support people who have already made improvements to get to a high standard or target resources on lifting others. That is an important and difficult point—we could call it additionality, if we want to get into jargon—but it is a profound issue. Page 8 defines two strategic aims. I do not have any issue with them, but there is no strategic aim for food production, so this running internal contradiction continues.
The Chair
Order. I understand that this is not a completely satisfactory way for the Committee to proceed with what would normally have been a starred amendment. However, the wording of amendment 63 relates primarily to
“establishing any financial assistance scheme”.
I understand that the hon. Member is trying to relate that to the whole paper. I will be grateful if he could not turn this into a debate on the paper, but relate the paper to the amendment and the design of the financial assistance schemes.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful, Mr Stringer, but I am slightly perplexed as to how to proceed because the case I am making is about the need for proper scrutiny. I am trying to explain why we think that is so important, and to do that I have to delve into the detail of the paper, which we were not given sight of before. I will do the best I can and I will keep trying to refer back to the point about the need for scrutiny overall, if that is acceptable to you.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Member for that. It is not a satisfactory situation that the Committee has arrived in, so I am trying to be as flexible as possible while abiding by the correct rules of debate.
Daniel Zeichner
Thank you, Mr Stringer. I will try to take heed of that. I will not refer so closely to the paper and I will try to put my comments into the framework you suggest.
People would always want a more simplified financial assistance scheme. Looking back at parts of the common agricultural policy, I suggest that that has been an aim for a long time. From debates about the statutory instruments this week, some of us have had the opportunity to read closely regulation (EU) 1307/2013, in which paragraph 2 states:
“One of the core objectives, and one of the key requirements, of the CAP reform is the reduction of the administrative burden.”
So, in designing any financial assistance scheme, we are all trying to do that. The suggestions coming forward from the Government face exactly the same kind of problems we faced within the CAP now that we are without it.
As I have made clear, designing such assistance schemes and getting them right is a complex task. Any design will take time; to give the Government credit, they started on this path some 18 months ago. From our understanding, and from the National Audit Office report, it has not been an easy task. The suggestions about how financial assistance schemes should be developed make sense to me.
Referring back to the policy discussion document, there is a suggestion of a three-tiered approach that sounds remarkably similar to the system we already have. Looking at the suggestions for a financial assistance scheme set out under tier 1, many farmers—if they get that far in the document—would be encouraged because for those who do not want to see change, the scheme looks remarkably like the old basic payment scheme. Given that a three-tiered approach is suggested, what do the Government envisage to be the split between the three tiers? That is a reasonable question. It is similar to a pillar 1 or pillar 2 issue—12% or 15%—in that a lot could be put into either tier 3 or tier 1. It would help if we knew how that would be done.
It is correct that we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the CAP, but in designing any financial assistance scheme it is important to know what was the intention when the scheme was designed in the first place. The CAP was not designed as an environmental scheme but effectively as a food and rural support scheme, so we are undertaking a different task.
Clearly, the Government based those designs for a financial assistance scheme to some extent on the experience of the tests and trials. Of course, numbers are relatively low in tests and trials, but the National Audit Office—in a way, its report advises those of us who are trying to scrutinise the design of financial assistance schemes—was not particularly complimentary about progress so far. According to the NAO’s commentary on the numbers that DEFRA hoped would be signed up by different stages of the process, the Department initially wanted 5,000 to be signed up by the end of 2022, but that dropped to 1,250. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm what the numbers are now.
My contention is that such a system is not easy to create; it is hard. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made the important point that, sadly, under the three-crop rule, parts of the country are now underwater, and farmers are rightly arguing for a derogation. On the design of financial assistance schemes, it has been suggested that payments should be based on outcomes. Many of us would welcome that, but I wonder how difficult that might be in a time of floods. There are outcomes over which we have some control and outcomes over which, sadly, it appears we have much less control. I think that is worthy of discussion in the context of how we design financial assistance schemes.
There is a kind of irony on page 22 of the environmental land management document, where the authors, in asking themselves how to design financial assistance schemes, rightly ask how we should define what it is we want. Lo and behold: up turns our old friend the good agricultural and environmental condition—GAEC—standards from the CAP years. Again, that seems in effect to be the CAP coming back—I suspect the Vote Leave checker had lost the will to live by that stage and did not scrutinise that paragraph—through the back door. I do not criticise that. Anyone would struggle with that, because however they tried to design a financial assistance scheme, they would have to design some definition of how public money was to be allocated. I am sure we can change the acronym, but the same conundrums will arise.
The paper also contains—this is absolutely relevant to the design of the schemes—innovative, interesting suggestions about how payments may be calculated, including some market-based price-setting mechanisms using tendering or auctioning. I am not convinced that that is addressed elsewhere in the Bill. There is not much detail about it, and it is important that we tease out the Government’s thinking. Of course, they conclude that it would not necessarily be appropriate in tier 1. I can see why. If we are talking about thousands and thousands of agreements—this goes back to my question about distribution across the tiers—that would look like a very bureaucratic mechanism indeed. It may make more sense for the higher level, but any financial assistance scheme will have to deal with some of these points.
I return briefly to how the advice under these schemes will be funded. I have to say that tier 3 looks good. It has some similarities with the pillar two LEADER schemes. It is also the first appearance I can see in the Bill of the idea of devolving down a bit and involving local communities in designing financial assistance schemes. That is a really important point, which I will return to. However, bringing people together, which is really important, requires resource. In the past local councils played that role, but I am no longer convinced that many of them have that capacity.
If that is to work, we must answer the key question about any financial assistance scheme: where are the resources going to go? One assumption is that it will be derived from the savings that result from not making direct payments, or reducing them bit by bit, but that question needs a light shone on it. At what pace will this be done, and how will we do it? Unless those things are specified somewhere within a financial assistance scheme, it will be unclear who will have the resources to lead it. There is a potential danger that those who know how to make these systems work for them, and have the resources and wherewithal to do so, will be the ones who will take up the scheme. Its resources may not necessarily go where they are most needed, or where they will produce the best environmental benefit—as, to be fair, the Government have referenced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer. While dealing with some of the points that the hon. Member for Cambridge has raised, I will try to stick closely to the wording of the amendments.
However, I will start by saying that although this is a cornerstone document, as the hon. Gentleman was keen to point out, we are still at the beginning of this scheme’s development. We are planning a major change in the way that farmers receive money from the state. We have done a great deal of work, as he was kind enough to acknowledge, but we are currently running a programme of tests and trials. The priorities of that programme will become the building blocks for the national pilot, which does not start until the end of next year and will not conclude until 2024. At this point, we simply cannot answer many of the more detailed questions he asks, nor would it be right for us to fetter the development of policy by doing so. The national pilot will provide a real, living opportunity to test and refine the scheme design before we roll it out properly at the end of 2024. That is a careful, sensible way to make policy.
However, I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. I know he thinks deeply about these issues, and it is important that, wherever possible, we work together on the development of these major changes. In that spirit, I thank him for the amendment he has moved, and agree that we must be transparent while establishing our future financial assistance schemes and make sure that Parliament can scrutinise the use of public money. We have introduced new duties into the Bill that do exactly that. As we said on Tuesday, these include the multi-annual financial assistance plans, which are a major change and, to my mind, an improvement—many thanks, once again, to those who sat on the Committee of the previous Agriculture Bill. We have agreed to provide an annual report setting out the financial assistance given under clause 1 and, importantly, reports on the impact and effectiveness of the schemes.
Those plans and reports give Parliament the ability to scrutinise the Government’s plans, to check that future funding decisions under the Bill powers are aligned with the Government’s strategic priorities as those develop, and to hold the Government to account on how much they are spending. Flexibility and collaboration are essential and we hope they will be embedded in future schemes. We do not intend to impose policy from the top down, but rather to work with farmers and land managers to develop schemes that can deliver achievable outcomes. The word the Secretary of State likes to use is “iterative”.
I fear that the amendment may unintentionally undermine that approach. Under the ELM scheme, we are planning a pilot that will enable us to learn and prepare for the full implementation of the scheme, once we have seen what works and what does not. Once the scheme is launched, we want to continue to have flexibility to improve the scheme and be responsive.
For example, our current thinking is that for tier 2 of ELMS, payments could initially be based on actions, potentially offering top-up payments when results are delivered. However, over time we might well want to move away from payments for actions and start giving results-based payments. We would want the scheme to be able to adapt to that as we see whether it is really achievable.
We also want the ability to improve the scheme as our understanding of the environment and technology develops. For example, we might wish to adapt how we monitor the delivery of environmental outcomes, taking advantage of new technologies such as remote sensing and geospatial data. Who knows where we will be going in the future? It is impossible for us to plan for everything at the moment.
The amendment as drafted would limit our ability to respond to what is effective and to what farmers and land managers tell us is working. It would put us back into CAP-type inefficiencies, where there was no opportunity to review or change things if they were not working. I am keen that we do not mirror that deficiency within our domestic policy.
When discussing these schemes, it is important to remind ourselves that farmers and land managers will be the people most affected by these changes. I would not wish them to be adversely affected by hold-ups in the parliamentary timetable. Looking at clause 1 as a whole, we are discussing the potential for a great number of financial assistance schemes.
If we were to pass the amendment, an appropriate Select Committee might need to consider a vast number of schemes in different areas, and then we would need to debate each one, no matter how broad or narrow they might be, which would place significant demands on parliamentary time. Should there not be enough time, I am concerned that farmers would ultimately suffer, as payments would not be made in a timely way. We will launch our pilot in 2021, as well as productivity grants and animal welfare grants. We do not want confusion, or farmers left in limbo for longer than necessary, because of problems with the availability of parliamentary time.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must allow Parliament the chance to scrutinise our plans for providing financial assistance under clause 1. I hope I have set out where the Bill already provides for that. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the Minister for her response and I fully appreciate that it is difficult to respond to a series of questions that are only loosely related to the amendment. I listened closely to what she said, but I still think there is a potential problem. I do not think our intention is that every single local scheme would be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; it is the overall financial assistance scheme that we are concerned about. I fully appreciate the notion of iterative and learning processes, but the difficulty in which we find ourselves is that for farmers, the change effectively starts next year—we have seen the Government’s announcement about the 5% and so on—so real people will start losing real money quite quickly. Although it is wonderful to have theoretical discussions about how best to develop policy, people out there need some certainty, as the Government keep saying, which may partly be why the Secretary of State ran into problems with the NFU yesterday. In the 40 minutes of this debate so far, we have seen that, far from there being any certainty, there are a huge number of uncertainties.
Obviously, if one is trying to make change and be ambitious in moving to a different system, uncertainty is almost inevitable, but the Labour party feel that there needs to be a little more clarity on some of those points to give people better opportunities to plan ahead, which is a point that many people in this room, who know far more about practical farming than I do, have made. The timeframes are not always easy for people, because they have to plan and will make decisions fairly soon, so not knowing even the most basic point about a financial assistance scheme and whether the Government expect it to apply to 5% or 95% of those who have been in receipt in the past, is disappointing, to put it mildly. I very much hope that we will get more clarity at some point in the future, in discussion, correspondence or written answers.
The discussion has demonstrated a weakness in our processes; I am not sure that many of the questions that I have asked this morning have been answered. It would be much more helpful if the Government had been able to have an open discussion—perhaps not in Committee, but at some point—that would have been facilitated by the existence of the Bill.
The amendment is a long, probing one, and it has largely achieved what I wanted it to by establishing that there is no clarity on the schemes. I will not press the amendment to a Division, but I ask for an assurance from the Minister that we will get answers to our questions through one means or another. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 2, page 3, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any person who is not compliant with standards set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”
This amendment and NC9 provide a duty for the Secretary of State to set baseline regulatory standards governing agricultural and horticultural activity, which must be met by any recipient of financial assistance.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 9—Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity—
(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticultural activity for or in connection with the following purposes—
(a) the management of land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment;
(b) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment;
(c) the management of land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage;
(d) the management of land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;
(e) the management of land or water in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;
(f) the protection or improvement of the health or welfare of livestock;
(g) the conservation of native livestock, native equines or genetic resources relating to any such animal;
(h) the protection or improvement of the health of plants;
(i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant; and
(j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision about the standards to which activity for or in connection with all of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision about enforcement, which may (among other things) include provision—
(a) about the provision of information;
(b) conferring powers of entry;
(c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure;
(d) about the keeping of records;
(e) imposing monetary penalties;
(f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or a fine not exceeding an amount specified in the regulations, which must not exceed level 4 on the standard scale);
(g) about appeals;
(h) conferring functions (including functions involving the exercise of a discretion) on a person.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
New clause 22—Consultation on regulatory framework: enforcement—
(1) The Secretary of State must, within one calendar month of this Act being given Royal Assent, open a consultation on what body should regulate and enforce the regulatory framework under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].
(2) The consultation shall seek views on whether an existing body should carry out the regulation and enforcement under subsection (1) or whether a new body should be created for that purpose.
(3) The Secretary of State must, in any consultation under subsection (1), consult with persons or bodies representing persons who he or she considers are affected by the functions of the proposed body.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) in summary form, the views expressed in the consultation held under subsection (1), and
(b) a statement of how the Secretary of State intends to proceed, with his or her reasons for doing so.
Daniel Zeichner
We are moving on to a complex set of issues on baseline environmental standards. Amendment 36 reads:
“(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any person who is not compliant with standards set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”
New clause 9 reads:
“(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticultural activity for or in connection with the following purposes—
(a) the management of land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment;
(b) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment;
(c) the management of land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage;
(d) the management of land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;
(e) the management of land or water in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;
(f) the protection or improvement of the health or welfare of livestock;
(g) the conservation of native livestock, native equines or genetic resources relating to any such animal;
(h) the protection or improvement of the health of plants;
(i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant; and
(j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.”
Some will have noted that that reflects the wording elsewhere in the Bill.
“(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision about the standards to which activity for or in connection with all of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision about enforcement, which may (among other things) include provision—
(a) about the provision of information;
(b) conferring powers of entry;
(c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure;
(d) about the keeping of records;
(e) imposing monetary penalties;
(f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or a fine not exceeding an amount specified in the regulations, which must not exceed level 4 on the standard scale);
(g) about appeals;
(h) conferring functions (including functions involving the exercise of a discretion) on a person.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
The Chair
Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading out the whole of new clause 9, but all members of the Committee have the new clause before them, so it is unnecessary. I would prefer it if hon. Members did not take up the Committee’s time by reading out new clauses and amendments.
Daniel Zeichner
My apologies, Mr Stringer. I quite appreciate your direction.
The purpose of new clause 9 is to set baseline environmental standards across all farmed land, regardless of whether the land manager has chosen to receive financial assistance for any of the clause 1 purposes. To some extent, that follows on from the discussion about the previous amendment. There is a genuine concern about the systems—it was referenced in the document about the design of the schemes, to which I referred. Uptake is a key issue, as we saw in relation to stewardship. The worry is that if the systems are too complicated, difficult and onerous, there will not be the levels of uptake that we hope for. I asked the Minister about the numbers that the Government anticipate will take up under tier 1 because that is absolutely vital to our discussion. I do not want to press the point, but I cannot believe that there has not been some discussion in the Department about where we hope to get to. There must have been some discussion; there must be some idea of the scale that is expected. I would welcome a response on that point.
As part of the common agricultural policy, our farmers had to meet cross-compliance standards on EU environmental management, animal welfare and traceability to qualify for payments. Its onerousness and the fact that, to many, it seemed a bureaucratic system was the cause of justified complaint, but it is actually quite difficult to design compliance systems that do not end up in that situation. That is not to say that we cannot do better. Again, had we had the opportunity to discuss the ELMS policy paper in detail, we would have seen that there were some innovative suggestions in it. I will have to continue to try to refer to them tangentially.
We have left the European Union, and our worry is that there is a gap. We might well find that the Bill has unintended consequences that will leave much more of our countryside relatively unprotected. A point that I had hoped to make in the debate on the previous amendment, but which I will make now, is that there was an astonishing statement in that document about whether tier 1 payments should be dependent on regulatory compliance. I cannot think of any other sector in which there would be an issue about regulatory compliance. I may be missing something here—the Minister is a learned lawyer, so I shall be careful—but it seems pretty odd to be paying people to obey the rules. In any other sphere of life, I think people would find that surprising.
In the slightly odd world of the common agricultural policy, the payment was an accepted part of the way we did things, but it is certainly worth raising the question now, when looking at potential compliance issues, and debating it. All members of the Committee, depending on their point of view, either enjoyed or winced at George Monbiot’s evidence last week. He put it pretty forcefully. I think many of our fellow citizens and constituents would want to ask the question, too. It is a reasonable point.
The Bill includes provisions to move away from cross-compliance, with clause 14 giving Ministers the scope to simplify and amend the horizontal legislation that facilitated the operation of the CAP, including farmers’ compliance with EU laws on environmental and animal welfare standards—I apologise for diverting into eurojargon, but I am afraid the debate is constantly beset by it. I do not think that we have yet seen any long-term plan from the Government to replace that system, flawed though it may be, with the robust regulatory baseline that we believe we will need to ensure that environmental and animal welfare standards are met across the board in land management.
There is an irony in that. The Committee on Climate Change issued a report in January titled, “Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK”, which is a useful document to inform our discussion. It includes a handy chart on page 80 that outlines the current proposals for the replacement of the common agricultural policy. If people want a one-pager, it is pretty good. The only problem is that its opening line says that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposes:
“The development of a new regulatory baseline reflecting the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”
I am not sure that that is, strictly speaking, accurate. We are looking for it, but we do not think that it exists, without our amendment.
The concern is that farmers may decide not to participate. When I first looked at this brief, one question that struck me was what percentage of people currently do. Most do, of course, because public money is on offer; it would be foolish not to. However, it was a simpler system—a direct payment system—and people were happy to take the money. If they are asked to do more to get the money, it will be a different decision. I suspect that some will decide that it all looks a bit difficult and complicated, going back to my point about uncertainty, and will operate outside it.
Returning to my point about numbers, a few farmers operating outside the system may not be a problem, but many doing so certainly would be. We would have to rely—this goes back to my point about the interrelationship between this Bill and the Environment Bill—on having some pretty strong legislation. Again, it is difficult for the Committee, because many would argue that the Bills are being considered in the wrong order. It might have been better to pass the environmental legislation first. We do not know what it will include. On the basis of what we have seen so far, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the shadow Secretary of State, said last night on Second Reading, we support much of it. We did not vote against it, but we think it needs to be greatly strengthened. Not knowing whether it will be leaves us in a difficult position.
Some of a cynical disposition might say that the Government are left in almost a win-win position. They have burnished their green credentials, setting up a fantastic new environmental scheme, and have even got the money for it, which is quite unusual in politics; but the scheme is such that most people will not take it up. Far from being a greener, pro-environment Bill, it will therefore have the unintended—or possibly intended—consequence of saving the Government a lot of money and making them look good, but doing nothing to improve the environment. That is a really serious issue, which is why the amendment is so important.
Part of the solution relates to the points I raised about take-up in the ELMS document. If there is mass take-up, which is the suggestion, everything is possibly fine. If not, as I said, the downside is direct payments through the back door, and not getting the environmental lift we are looking for. I know the Government will not agree with that, but it is a risk. If we do not go that route and instead go the tougher route, there is also a danger of damaging the environment.
I do not deny that it is a difficult conundrum; it is one that I would love to be dealing with as a Minister, rather than as shadow Minister. I suspect that if I were in that position, the Opposition would be making exactly the same tough, robust points, because these are real-life conundrums. It is my job in the interim to make the points on behalf of our environment and our farmers.
We need to make sure that across all our agricultural land, the baseline is land management that recognises the huge challenge of climate change, protects our soils, guards against flooding, encourages resilience in biodiversity and prioritises high animal welfare. We believe that we have to set minimum standards across the board, so that the Bill—this goes back to a point I was making earlier—genuinely incentivises those that go above and beyond. I still think that that is probably what the Government want to do, but the contradictions and difficulties are being glossed over at the moment.
The Institute for European Environmental Policy, in its report, commissioned by a number of the witnesses that we heard from in the evidence sessions, said that there are a number of gaps in legislation, which will have real consequences, particularly for wildlife on our agricultural land. The interaction between EU retained law and our current legislation is tricky. The assumption that all these plans will necessarily work as we think they will could well be open to challenge. We will return to that wider point, but on this particular point we believe, and the institute believes, that there may be some gaps in legislation that will result in there no longer being protections for hedgehogs, nesting birds and hedgerow habitats, partly due to some of the potential changes in the 2 metre wide buffer strip rules. Given that we have already lost 97% of our hedgehog population since the 1950s—a point that was made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in the Second Reading debate on the Environment Bill—there is genuine concern. That is why we need to make sure that we are covered.
There is also the point—I certainly would not say this about the current Ministers—that in future some of the financial assistance that is being redirected could be moving towards productivity rather than environmental protection, and that, too, could compromise our environmental safeguards. That goes to the heart of what the Bill is really all about. The “Health and Harmony” DEFRA consultation paper for the Bill outlined that the Government wanted to embed the “polluter pays” principle throughout. As I have said, the danger is that we could end up, as George Monbiot explained, paying the polluter not to pollute, which is the other side of the coin. We do not want that to be the outcome, and we have heard from a number of key witnesses how important that is.
In conclusion, new clause 9 outlines that it should be a duty for the Secretary of State to establish a baseline regulatory framework “for or in connection” with the listed purposes. It outlines that the regulations “may include” provisions about enforcement and would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure that we continue to have robust debate and scrutiny of the most appropriate baseline regulatory framework.
Amendment 36 would ensure that those who receive financial assistance under clause 1 public goods are meeting those baseline environmental standards as well, and will be rewarded for going above and beyond.
Victoria Prentis
The amendments would enshrine in the Bill a legal duty to make regulations that govern agricultural and horticultural activity and to restrict financial assistance to those who are compliant with those regulations. In our view, the amendments are unnecessary, because we already have a regulatory framework that manages agricultural and horticultural activity and protects the environment.
In our view, the amendments are unnecessary, because we already have a regulatory framework that manages agricultural and horticultural activity and protects the environment. With this Bill, we will enshrine in law our commitment to the environmental purposes that matter so much to us all.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the reasons why she does not believe we need the baseline. I neglected to make any comments about new clause 22 in my opening statement, so I shall weave those in to what I say at this point.
Of course we all agree that enforcement is critical. One of the things that has struck me in my relatively few years in this place is how often we pass legislation and then struggle with enforcing it. That does not do our reputation any good, and it certainly does not do our constituents any good. I have in the past reflected on the fact that all it does is to make good, law-abiding people cross. It does little to dissuade non-law-abiding people from their actions. As the Minister says, it is a conundrum.
I was impressed by Dame Glenys’s report on the farm inspection and regulation review and I echo many of the points that the Minister made. I am sure she did not need to know that Dame Glenys is her constituent to reach the conclusion she did. I will just point out one or two observations from the report that reflect what I have said. I think that she said that current enforcement is nowhere near effective, and I am told that of the 10,600 staff at the Environment Agency only 40 do farm inspections. That seems extraordinary to me. There is thus only a one in 200 chance of being inspected by the Environment Agency. Quite clearly it is pretty busy at the moment, so that is not a criticism of the agency, but it shows the scale of capacity that is needed. I gently go back to my earlier observations: it is great to be ambitious but the Government have to think through the enforcement mechanisms that go along with that, and ask themselves whether they are prepared to bear the costs.
Of course, there is quite a range of DEFRA-related bodies that deliver compliance with farm regulations, such as Natural England, the Forestry Commission, the Animal and Plant Health Agency and, sometimes, local authorities. It is not unfair to say that the Rural Payments Agency has not always covered itself in glory in the past. We congratulate it on its improvements in recent times, but we know the historical difficulties that it has had with, frankly, just doing the administration. I appreciate that it is assisted by others in that, and my understanding is that Natural England has a lot of the expertise behind it. Given some of the well documented pressures on that agency as well, however, the question arises of where the resource to make everything work will come from. Maybe it will come from the money that would have been going to farmers out of the direct payments scheme, but we do not know.
That is the problem with the entire debate. There is potentially £3 billion to spend: how will it be used? We need some clarity from the Government. Our suggestion was that the Secretary of State should, within a month of the Bill’s receiving Royal Assent, hold a proper consultation on the most appropriate body to enforce important baseline environmental regulations. We would then want to require the Secretary of State to bring before Parliament the decision on the consultation and tell us how it is intended to proceed.
We know from the Stacey report that the current punitive compliance measures often do not have the effect that we seek. We want not to punish people but to help them to do the right thing. One of the positive things in the paper “Environmental Land Management” was about finding a way in which help can be given. A common complaint about the previous system was that it was pernickety and that a minor transgression could cause a disproportionate response. Those are things we all agree on, and would all like to get changed.
The one thing I am nervous about is that a better system may require more people—or more technology, or whatever. The question is how it will be resourced. That is why we think we need a more comprehensive framework to deal with it. I appreciate what the Government have said about trying to implement the Stacey review’s recommendations, but we remain nervous that, without the resources needed, we may not be able to achieve what we are trying to do. We think that is key not only to supporting rural communities and people who work in producing food, but to achieving the environmental gains that we wish to see.
Our worry is that without a comprehensive compliance regulatory system behind it, this move could lead to unintended consequences and possible environmental degradation rather than improvement. We think that that is so important that we will press the amendment to a vote.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 2, page 3, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) Financial assistance allocated to a scheme in a particular year but not spent within that year may be carried over to a future year for spending on one or more schemes.”
This amendment would enable Ministers to “carry over” any monies left unspent at the end of a particular budget year for spending in subsequent years.
This is a more probing amendment and one that we do not intend to put to a vote, so hon. Members can be at ease. Mr Stringer, you will be pleased to hear that I will not read out the amendment.
I may have misunderstood how DEFRA’s economics works, and I am ready to stand corrected. The Government have not put it in legislation but have indicated that the money will be available for the remainder of the Parliament. If not all that money is used in one year, what happens to it? All I am looking for is some explanation, as the amendment suggests, that it would be possible to carry over money into subsequent years. That point has been raised on a number of occasions by a number of people, and there may be a simple explanation.
When debating the statutory instrument on Monday and looking back at our old friend regulation 1307/2013, it struck me that the current system has quite complicated reserves that the CAP specifies for dealing with some issues around fines, compliance and so on. It goes into considerable detail about how that should work. A similar system may be envisaged for us. I asked some questions about the issue during the debate on the statutory instrument, so perhaps when there is a reply there will be some clarity.
Again, it has been said that this is a framework Bill. That is fine—we get that. But this is the opportunity for Parliament to ask these questions. The headline figure of money is a concern to some in rural communities, and it may not be available if is not within the right timeframe. I suppose I have a simple question.
Mr Goodwill
Is the hon. Gentleman talking about money allocated to a scheme in general that is then not used, or money allocated to a farm that is not used due to some situation on that farm? Is he talking about the specifics of money allocated to farms or the generality of money allocated to a scheme?
Daniel Zeichner
That is a good point. Some of this discussion has conflated the two things, which may not be helpful for people. Actually, no money is allocated nationally. It is a political promise; it is not in legislation. Of course, no Parliament can bind future spending allocations. We will watch with interest what happens in the coming weeks, but the political promise has been given.
Mr Goodwill
Is that issue not covered by clause 8, which allows for the extension of the scheme? When I come to discuss my amendment 9, we can explore the matter. One could possibly freeze the switch from the basic payment scheme to ELM schemes. I guess that the hon. Gentleman is discussing the situation in which the uptake of ELMS is not very high, because we are fairly sure that the uptake of the BPS will be pretty much 100%. Is this not already covered in that clause of the Bill?
Daniel Zeichner
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but I am not sure that the issue is covered; that is why I am seeking clarification. I am afraid these points are about a lack of certainty. We are looking ahead a long way—seven years, potentially—for the transition. We have some clarity on the 5% plus, capping and so on for the next year, but beyond that —I hate to go back to the ELMS document, but there are timelines in there—some of it looks a touch optimistic, frankly.
Given that the process was begun 18 months ago, I hope that it will become clearer through the trials and tests, but we would like to pin down the finances. That is what we are trying to achieve through the amendment. I understand why Government Ministers cannot concede, but I suspect that, as people look more closely, quite a lot of them would agree with this position; if we are going to embark on these ambitious environmental schemes, as we want to, we want as much money as possible to be drawn from the Treasury. It is a very unusual situation, politically, to have a pot of money that looks like it has been allocated before. Where does it go in the future? That is what we are trying to pin down.
Victoria Prentis
As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, I suspect that many people in this room agree with a great deal of what he told us. On this side of the House, we are determined that UK farming should not see a reduction in Government support at this important and exciting time in British agriculture. That is why we have pledged to guarantee the current annual budget in every year of this Parliament.
As I said on Tuesday and again this morning, in response to the previous feedback from the Committee’s last sitting, we have now included clause 4 in the Bill. It requires us to prepare a multi-annual financial assistance plan covering the seven-year transition period. That shows our commitment to planning our future expenditure, part of which will include minimising the likelihood of any underspend from our financial assistance schemes. I am more optimistic than the hon. Gentleman: I expect very high take-up of our new scheme—that is definitely the aim. However, I recognise that underspends can happen despite the very best financial planning.
Daniel Zeichner
I am sorry to press the Minister on this point, but will she define “very high”? I would say it has to be more than 50%; maybe it has to be more than 75% to be “very high”.
Victoria Prentis
For all the reasons I mentioned earlier, I cannot possibly give the hon. Gentleman any more detail than is in his favourite document, but I look forward to working with him over the next seven years or more while we develop this marvellous scheme. I thank him, because he is broadly supportive of many of the aims and objectives of the scheme, and he has been moderately polite about it. I agree with him: underspends can happen.
The concept that the hon. Gentleman describes in his amendment is, in principle, something beneficial that we would support. He has been kind enough to talk about my legal experience; I am not sure that this is a matter for primary legislation. I would rather discuss the matter first with the Treasury as part of the spending review process, which is the correct way to deal with it. I hope I have assured him of our interest in exploring the ability to retain financial spend across different financial years, and I therefore ask him not to push the amendment to a vote.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 27th February 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 February 2020 - (27 Feb 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(4A) Financial assistance under subsection (1)(1)(f) for protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock shall only be given to a person who satisfies the Secretary of State that they—
(a) achieve, or have undertaken to achieve, standards of animal welfare which exceed the minimum requirements laid down by legislation governing welfare of livestock,
(b) raise animals in such a way that enables them to carry out their natural behaviours,
(c) do not subject livestock to any prohibited procedure (within the meaning of section 5 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006),
(d) do not kill livestock in any place other than in a slaughterhouse unless—
(i) a veterinary surgeon has certified that this is necessary due to the animal’s poor health, and
(ii) the method of killing is humane, and
(e) do not, after IP completion day, export animals for slaughter or fattening unless—
(i) the livestock is exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, and
(ii) it is made a requirement of sale that the livestock shall not be re-exported by the buyer.”
This amendment would set minimum baseline welfare standards for the receipt of financial assistance for protecting or improving the welfare of livestock.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(4A) Financial assistance may only be given under section 1(1)(f) for the purpose of protecting or improving the health of livestock if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or of any person to whom functions relating to the giving of financial assistance are delegated under section 2(6), the protection or improvement effects a standard which is significantly higher than that required by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”
This amendment would require a recipient of financial assistance for protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock to demonstrate that the protection or improvement would be of a significantly higher standard than the baseline required under NC9.
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4, line 5, after “section” insert—
“‘fattening’ means the keeping of livestock for the purpose of the livestock gaining weight in preparation for slaughter,
‘humane’ shall be interpreted in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015,
‘livestock’ has the meaning given in section 1(5) of this Act,
‘IP completion day’ has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020, and”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.
Daniel Zeichner
Welcome back, everybody. Our aim with this group of amendments is to highlight the need for financial assistance in clause 1 to be provided for the purpose of protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock only if farmers go above and beyond current animal welfare standards.
I have already touched on this issue. We believe it is important to avoid a situation where public money is paid for current welfare standards being met. I think the public would find that curious, but it is a risk given the systems we have inherited. The nod of enthusiasm from the Minister confirms that the authors of the Bill rather agree, although we say that it is still not entirely clear. I think it is agreed that the taxpayer’s principal role should be to provide funding for public goods that the market cannot deliver or can deliver only partially, such as high environmental and animal welfare standards. The funds available should be used not for marginal welfare gains but to support best practice and farmers who are willing to go substantially beyond the legal minimum requirements.
Of course, there is a whole series of potential issues associated with that. How much improvement? Do we want to set standards to which we want people to move quickly? I am struck when I talk to people about this that I think the industry will do what it is asked to do. Clearly, however, if it is not directed and just responds to the market, people will produce to different price points. Again, that is an issue for the politicians to think about. We had a discussion the other day with the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby about whether labelling gets us there. There are different views, and this is our view.
There are clear ways of identifying significant steps up in welfare for different species of farm animals, and it is extremely important that we tailor our welfare standards appropriately to what would achieve those outcomes for each species. Let me make a few suggestions for the high standards we would like ultimately to be achieved across each sector.
For pigs, funding could be made available to farmers who achieve intact—neither docked nor bitten—tails. There are schemes along those lines in other countries. Getting pigs to slaughter with intact tails is recognised by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee as a good outcome-based indicator of high welfare. This morning, in our discussion of the environmental land management document—I am pleased to see it is now on the table for all to enjoy—we touched on whether payments should be for what is done or what is achieved. I think the debate about that is moving; many of us would like to see outcome-based payments. At least in this area, we can discuss the outcomes we are looking for, and I suggest they are more easily measured. I am told—we heard this from witnesses, too—that such schemes already exist in Germany.
As we outlined in a previous amendment, which sadly was not taken up by the Government, we believe that the Government should encourage a move to free farrowing systems. However, we acknowledge that there is extra cost involved and we believe some payments could be made to cover a proportion of the capital costs involved in making that change. It is a decision for us as a country, as well as for consumers, as to where we want to get to on these standards. This is a clear opportunity.
For laying hens, we would like to see funding made available for farmers who use the best free range systems, such as low stocking density, low flock size, mobile housing and provision of trees and bushes. Outcome measures that one could look at are not trimming hens’ beaks, achieving low mortality and good plumage scores. Such outcomes can be measured; that is a decision we could make. This Committee is a good place to have such discussions, which, over time, could attempt to lift welfare standards in this country.
For broiler chickens, the key issue is often substantial overcrowding. Many UK broilers are stocked at 38 kg per square metre. As chickens in the UK often weigh around 2.2 kg at slaughter, that means approximately 17 chickens are kept per square metre. Without going into the wider points, we know the British public want to see higher welfare standards and many would probably be shocked to see those conditions. As Government Members have pointed out, people want food at affordable prices. We agree with that, so there is a tension and a balance in this, but if one has £3 billion to spend, to some extent one has choices.
At such high densities, sadly broilers can have high levels of infectious pathogens, leg disorders, foot-pad dermatitis and mortality. We believe that to be granted financial assistance, the maximum permitted broiler stocking density could be reduced to a specific number. We have talked today about the long transition period, but on another day we will come to the more show-stopping amendment on standards elsewhere in the world. We have to make decisions about where we want to get to, and then make sure we do not disadvantage our producers.
Funding could support the use of slow-growing breeds and low stocking densities, as scientific research shows that these bring welfare benefits. As an outcome measure, receipt of funding could be contingent on achieving low foot-pad dermatitis scores, which could be measured at slaughter.
Moving to dairy cows, a key issue is those that are kept indoors. Around 20% of UK dairy cows are zero grazed—that is, they are kept indoors for all or nearly all of the year. Again, funding could be made available for farmers who keep their cows in pasture during the grass-growing season, except when the weather is too wet. Such schemes already exist in Sweden. Research shows that pasture-based cows have lower levels of lameness, hoof pathologies, hock lesions, mastitis and mortality than zero-grazed cows. A potential outcome-based funding opportunity could be made contingent on pasture-based farmers achieving low levels of lameness and mastitis. We believe grass-based beef and sheep farmers could receive support for achieving low levels of lameness and disease.
Different research projects sometimes produce different outcomes. It is vital to have effective research into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming. We need that to contribute to a better understanding of what can improve animal welfare above the baseline and what better welfare practices can be promoted within the public goods element of the Bill. Therefore, we will be tabling an amendment to include a requirement for the Secretary of State to promote the conduct of research into the impact of highly intensive livestock farming practices on animal welfare, which, I believe, would be welcomed by many constituents and citizens.
Labour has argued in the past—and we continue to make the case—for an independent animal welfare commissioner, who would keep track of the most up-to-date and evidence-based science on animal welfare, in order to inform and update policy. We think that would be beneficial. We have proposed it in the past and I hope it is something the Government might consider. I am not aware that the Government have indicated thus far that they might do that, but let us see.
We back the great sections of the British public who call for an end to the use of cages on our farms once and for all. The Bill represents a real opportunity for the Government to get behind that call, if they can put in place the financial support needed for farmers to move away from high-intensity farming methods towards those that are significantly more supportive of animal freedoms and welfare. The Bill lacks detail on how financial assistance for improved animal welfare should be used. I hope the Minister has given due consideration to the careful planning needed to ensure that those receiving money for the clause 1(1)(f) public good are truly rewarded for achieving significant evidence-based improvements in animal welfare above the norm. Amendment 42 provides that financial assistance for the purpose of protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock would be given only if the recipient had exceeded a set of baseline regulatory standards, as established in new clause 9.
Amendment 4 provides an expanded alternative. We have a slight sense that the previous amendment may not be carried, so it is good to have a second string. It would put in place a provision that financial assistance would be provided for the public good of improving animal welfare and health only if the Secretary of State was satisfied that the recipient had gone beyond minimum requirements and followed a number of important measures to guarantee animal welfare, as set out in paragraphs (b) to (e). They include that the recipient has raised animals
“in such a way that enables them to carry out their natural behaviours”.
I suspect there would be considerable support for that among the wider public.
High animal welfare means taking into account scientific research that increasingly indicates that good animal welfare helps not only the prevention of suffering but the opportunity for animals to have positive experiences and exhibit their natural behaviours.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Would he consider, as some animal welfare campaigners do, that natural behaviour would be to allow a cow to keep her calf with her for perhaps the first six months? It is quite difficult to be specific about what natural behaviour might be.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman asks a probing question. I made the point earlier that there are many levels of welfare to which we can aspire. Some are even contentious, in the sense that not everything natural is necessarily something that we want to happen.
Responding to consumer demand is complicated. If consumers want the kind of standard of welfare that the right hon. Gentleman suggests, I would suggest that, in the business world, it is a good idea to give them what they want—normally the argument made by the other side—but that is costly. There is a dilemma, again, for this mythical £3 billion pot we are all busily spending—[Interruption.] Well, it may not be £3 billion, we will see. There is a dilemma about which sectors to support, which we will come back to, and what level of welfare is reasonable.
Beyond that, there is a further question. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, there may be things that lift to a very high standard, but who makes that decision? I suspect that, as ever, there will be a spectrum. There can be very high standards, which we see with the plant-based milk alternatives people are choosing. I choose them in my office, because my colleague does not drink dairy milk. We pay a premium, but we are happy to pay that. Consumers should be given the choice. That would be the answer to his intervention.
Pigs need space; they need a quantity of bedding and materials to fill a range of species-specific behaviours, such as rooting, foraging, nesting and exploring. Providing fibrous materials, including straw, brown wood, mushroom compost or natural vegetation, assists with comfort and can reduce aggression. Similarly, systems for laying hens should allow for species-specific behaviours such as nesting, foraging, dust bathing, perching and exercise, including walking, running and brief bursts of flying.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the reason we can discuss this practice is because we have left the European Union and have the freedom not to comply with single market rules?
Daniel Zeichner
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, as he well knows. At the very least, it seems evident that those involved in the live export trade should not be receiving public subsidy for good animal welfare. There is probably widespread agreement on that. Having said all that, there need to be exceptions for genuine cross-border movements from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, provided that the animals involved are not re-exported from the Republic. We provide such an exemption in amendment 4.
Other requirements for receiving money for higher standards should include that livestock are not subjected to prohibited procedures such as mutilations, as defined in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that livestock are killed only in the controlled environment of a slaughterhouse unless a veterinary surgeon certifies it necessary due to the animal’s poor health, and the method of killing is humane. Amendment 5 provides definitions for the practices outlined in amendment 4.
Mr Goodwill
I will be brief. Under clause 1, which we discussed earlier in the week, the list of objectives for which financial assistance can be given includes, under subsection (1)(f),
“protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”.
Therefore, much of what the hon. Gentleman talks about is already covered in the Bill. While I can understand his wish to incentivise less tail docking and castration of pigs, reduce the density of broiler chickens and phase out farrowing crates, the intensive pig and poultry sectors have not received funding through the common agricultural policy system. My worry is that he is looking at ways of switching support from the farms that have relied on it —particularly extensive farms in the uplands, those farms that are producing the habitats and environmental public goods that we want to protect—to the intensive sector, which already manages very nicely. Switching to some of these more welfare-friendly methods on a large scale could mop up quite large amounts of the money available.
My second concern is about amendment 4’s proposed new subsection (4A)(d) to clause 2 of the Bill, which talks about killing livestock
“in any place other than in a slaughterhouse”.
I am a little worried about the practicalities of how that relates to sick and injured animals on farms. The amendment states that a veterinary surgeon must have certified that the animal should be put out of its misery because of poor health, and that
“the method of killing is humane”.
I read that to mean that on every occasion when a farmer wishes to humanely put an animal out of its pain or misery, they must be observed by a vet. In our village, I have a neighbour whose farm has 16,000 laying hens. It is an extensive system; they go outside. They are barn-raised hens produced under the very best welfare standards, but from time to time a hen will be injured or, in some cases, attacked by other hens and my neighbour will need to euthanise it. I do not think it is realistic or practical to expect that the farmer will call a veterinary surgeon on every occasion that happens and incur a fee of maybe £40 or £50.
Similarly, on my own farm, until last Saturday we had four hens. Unfortunately, a pet dog got into our field on Saturday afternoon and killed two of them, and when I went on Sunday morning to let the two remaining hens out of the shed, one of them was obviously in a very bad way. The tail feathers that we thought had been pulled out by the dog were hiding quite a nasty injury, and I had to kill that hen myself. It would not have been realistic for me to take that hen to the vet, or to call a vet out. There are many instances in which an animal is in great distress, maybe because it has a broken leg, and waiting for a vet to come would not be practical, even if it were economically feasible.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not support his amendment, because I do not think he has looked into the practicalities of animal welfare on a farm when animals are sick. I think back to when we used to keep a load of sheep. Sometimes sheep were in a very bad way; perhaps they had had difficult lambing and were haemorrhaging. This might be taking place at 2 o’clock in the morning, so the most humane thing to do was to put them out of their misery straightaway, without any delay and certainly without waiting for a vet to come, even if that were practical. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come back with similar amendments on Report, I hope he will look at paragraph (d) again, because most practising farmers would look at it and say, “This is not going to help animal welfare. This is going to mean animals dying in suffering, particularly if by breaking these rules I lose all my subsidies.” I think many farmers would be very worried about that, so I hope the hon. Gentleman understands the practicalities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend, who as ever makes some very valid points. Animal welfare is important to us all, and I am proud that, broadly speaking, it is also very important to farmers in this country.
Touching briefly on the issue of live exports, as I imagine the hon. Member for Cambridge knows, the Government has a manifesto commitment to end excessively long journeys for animals going for slaughter or fattening. We have said to date that we are actively looking at this important issue, and I understand that a consultation is planned imminently for this spring, so that we can take it further as quickly as possible.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman very clearly, and not just by nodding, that there is no intention that payments will be issued to farmers for achieving basic welfare standards. The Government are world leaders in animal welfare, and are committed to retaining that status by maintaining and strengthening our standards, as part of a comprehensive series of measures to improve animal welfare. Using the powers in this Bill, we are developing a scheme that aims to improve welfare. As part of that, we are exploring a one-off grant system that will help farmers to improve welfare on farms, and might well include some of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Cambridge, which we discussed earlier in our consideration of the Bill.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
For clarification, would that grant system be for capital expenditure to change the animals’ accommodation? If so, does the Minister envisage that there will be ongoing revenue-type subsidies to maintain the higher welfare standards, or is it just capital that is being looked at?
Victoria Prentis
I envisage the specific grants that I was just talking about as payments to enhance buildings, for example, or for other welfare issues. However, the hon. Member is right to mention other means of paying for welfare, and it is true that the Bill is currently flexible. I expect that we will get into the detail of that sort of issue as we progress with devising the schemes to improve animal welfare. She is right to highlight that issue, and should make whatever points she wants to as we devise the schemes. We are exploring a payment-by-results scheme, under which farmers could receive ongoing payments for delivering specific animal welfare enhancements that are valued by the public but, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, not yet sufficiently valued by the market. The hon. Member for Bristol East is therefore right to continue to make whatever points she wants to in that space.
The amendment would restrict in primary legislation what will be included in the new scheme before those involved in the industry, as well as the Animal Welfare Committee, have had the opportunity to have their say. What defines enhanced animal welfare must be designed in consultation with those involved, so that the schemes deliver the best possible outcomes for consumers, the industry and, most importantly, the animals themselves. Our understanding of animal welfare today is far ahead of where it was when I was growing up on a farm, or 20 or 30 years ago. It would be short-sighted of us to set out requirements in legislation for payments, as it would restrict our ability to develop or amend schemes, such as the enhanced animal welfare scheme, when more evidence becomes available.
Turning specifically to amendment 42, improving the health of the national livestock, herd or flock, requires widespread co-ordinated action. We intend to launch the first schemes to improve the health of farmed animals from 2022 to 2023, concentrating on endemic diseases. We are co-designing schemes with farmers and vets, prioritising cattle—both dairy and beef—sheep, pigs and poultry, with the intention to widen participation to other species. Previous experience has shown that, without action being taken by the majority of farmers, efforts to control disease and improve health do not achieve very much.
That action does not have to be significantly above the legal standards to be very effective, but it does need to be part of a concerted effort on the part of farmers and others, which can, of course, include central Government. We are worried that the amendment would restrict us to providing financial assistance only, in effect, to better-performing farmers. Actions such as tackling endemic disease are best done when a large proportion of farmers and livestock owners are involved. If we limit the number of those who can benefit from a scheme, we will not be as successful in achieving our goals.
The hon. Member for Cambridge teased out the question of what constitutes a significantly higher standard of animal health. There is no single measure of animal health at the moment, and different actions to improve it will have different levels of public and private benefits. I am sure that we will continue to discuss such matters. At the very least, the amendment would make an important part of the financial clause difficult to work in practice, and could go so far as being counterproductive. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
That was an interesting and illuminating discussion that, as ever, probably raised as many questions as it answered, sadly.
I will start with the points made by the sharp-eyed right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. I am sorry to hear about his unfortunate incident with the dog at the weekend.
Daniel Zeichner
I am sorry to hear that. The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I fully concede that this was not a drafting error; I am not sure we guided those doing the drafting in quite the right way. I accept that we could improve on that. What we are trying to tease out, however, relates to the questions and points that I have already raised about what the public want from the Bill. He implied that he was tempted to support one of the amendments. I would like to tempt him to support the other one, which does not have those objections attached to it, but I fear that I shall be disappointed.
We are pushing for a commitment to much higher standards. The Minister made a series of important points. On live animal export, we absolutely support using the opportunities available and we hope that the Government will get on with it. We would all like that to happen.
The point relates to some of the earlier tensions. I think the Minister said that there is no intention to pay for basic welfare standards, which I understand. Page 20 of the policy discussion document—I hate to keep referring to it, but it makes the point and has illuminated the discussion—asks what tier 1 could pay for and gives a wide range of examples. There is a tension between what she said and some of those examples, not least because what it could pay for depends on exactly what is being paid for on what unit. Farms are not all the same; some are mixed farms.
The cross-compliance regulations that we had under the European Union made it incumbent on the whole enterprise to conform to rules and regulations, but we do not know, frankly, how that will work in this new set-up and whether one part doing one thing disqualifies or qualifies. Those are exactly the reasons why we wanted a more detailed discussion, because we do not know the answers.
I understand the Minister’s predicament, but it is all very well for her to say, “Ah well, these things are difficult. It’s going to take time. The world’s going to change,” and all the rest of it, but it ain’t going to change for the people who are farming next year. They will have to deal with this, alongside the reductions that are coming, like the sword of Damocles over them, at an unspecified pace. I am afraid that I do not think that is good enough. We need to sort out some of the thinking behind it.
I hear the Minister’s point about the potential unintended consequences when one is trying to apply a measure to entire herds, but I am not convinced that it is impossible to frame it in such a way that we could do that and still insist on high welfare standards for public money. This is a matter of huge public interest, which is reflected in the amount of correspondence that most MPs get on the issue. If the Government want popular support for these policies, this is exactly the kind of amendment that they would do well to look at. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Daniel Zeichner
I would like to press amendment 42 and withdraw amendment 4. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 42, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(4A) Financial assistance may only be given under section 1(1)(f) for the purpose of protecting or improving the health of livestock if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or of any person to whom functions relating to the giving of financial assistance are delegated under section 2(6), the protection or improvement effects a standard which is significantly higher than that required by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”—(Daniel Zeichner.)
This amendment would require a recipient of financial assistance for protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock to demonstrate that the protection or improvement would be of a significantly higher standard than the baseline required under NC9.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(4A) No more than 5% of the financial assistance given through a financial assistance scheme in any particular financial year shall be spent on administration or consultancy.
(4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations vary the proportion of financial assistance specified in subsection (4A).”
This amendment, along with Amendments 45,46 and 47 would place a 5% limit on the amount of financial assistance which can be spent in any year on administration or consultancy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 45, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after “subsection” insert “(4B) or subsection”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 46, in clause 2, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
“(10A) For the purposes of this Act, “administration or consultancy” includes money spent on “administration or consultancy other than in connection with the purposes in section [Financial assistance: duty to provide advice].”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 47, in clause 5, page 6, line 13, after “year”, insert
“, and (c) the amount of money spent on administration or consultancy, within the meaning of subsection (10A) of section 2”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Daniel Zeichner
Amendment 44 is another probing amendment. We are seeking to establish what protections there are against the financial assistance schemes’ administration costs being able to swallow large swathes of the budget. This is slightly difficult, since we still do not fully understand how they work; we are in a tricky position, but we think it is important that this issue be addressed.
We have talked already about the importance of having comprehensive enforcement measures in place that work to support compliance with the financial assistance schemes. However, I suggest that it is just as important to ensure that the bureaucracy associated with that does not take over the schemes at the expense of money going to farmers to deliver environmental public goods. The issue is clouded by the fact that we still do not know where the money is coming from—we can make assumptions, but it is not clear: how much will it cost and whose budget is it coming from?
There are plenty of unknowns, and we are trying to encourage the Government to share their thinking with us. We would not necessarily disagree with them, but knowing that would mean that we could query how everything should work. There is a worry that, given the ambition and complexity of some of the schemes, it could all end up costing a considerable amount of money.
If the system is not properly regulated and controlled, there could be opportunities for people for whom environmental goals may not be the chief concern. Even if that is not the case, employing people to carry out these complicated works could consume a lot of legal time and effort—many of those people do not work on the wages that farm workers do, so it would probably be quite expensive.
Of course, there is a delicate irony to all this: one of the chief complaints about the current system is the bureaucracy associated with it. I think we all probably share that frustration. The question is whether the bureaucracy has grown for reasons of its own, or whether there is actually a good reason for it. The Opposition think there is often a good reason for regulation and oversight, and we think there has been too much deregulation over the years. There will probably be a slight difference of opinion on this issue. I suspect that the world is changing a bit now that we have seen the dangers of just dismissing bureaucracy as somehow being a problem; many of us who have worked in bureaucracies think there is quite a good reason for enlargement in some cases.
The Opposition are looking particularly at the clause 3 measures on checking, enforcing and monitoring financial assistance. The Government want the Bill to be simple, but they also want a comprehensive system for checking that it is working. I suggest there is a tension there, which we would like to know a bit about. We are left with a lot of unanswered questions about how any of this will work. Again, it goes back to the detail in the environmental land management document. As I said earlier, it is laced with good intentions but also many questions.
The Minister will doubtless say, “Well, we’ve got seven years to sort it out and it’s an iterative process,” and so forth. I suspect that, among hon. Members who are still in Parliament in seven years’ time, some might well look back and say, “Maybe people should have asked a few more questions.” To cover my back against that possibility—not that I necessarily assume that I will be here in seven years’ time—I am trying to shed some light on this issue.
Looking at the complex web of organisations involved in all these processes—the Environment Agency, Natural England, DEFRA itself and so on—it is fair to ask whose budget any financial assistance will come from. I imagine that argument is going on behind closed doors. Everyone can see there is a pot of money, and presumably everyone thinks they will be given the resources needed. As I have already hinted, there is a real danger that the pot of money will diminish if everyone gets the budget necessary to do what they want. It could be the poor old farmer, or the local rural area, that finds the money has gone somewhere else.
The Government need to tell us a bit more about their estimates of how much all this will cost. We have suggested a 5% cut, which is not an informed figure—we can come up with an informed figure only if we have much more information on what the Government are thinking. Our concern is that, in the first year, it would look as though there is some headroom from the 5% cut. One would imagine that setting up some of these things will be quite expensive in the first place. We can envisage a situation in which the 5% in the first year does not go towards environmental improvements at all.
I used to be a software programmer, and I know how well most computer systems work. People are filled with confidence and enthusiasm but things do not work out in quite the way imagined, not least because the poor people designing the systems have the same problem: if it is not clear what we are trying to do, we cannot always provide a system that fits. My point is that a lot of money might need to be spent upfront. [Interruption.] I thought the Minister was about to intervene and tell me the answer, but she is not.
We certainly need clarity, which goes back to another fairly basic philosophical point: in other policy areas, we are familiar with the difficulty of targeted schemes in one way or another. The argument about universalism versus means-testing, be it for the BBC licence fee or any of the welfare payments, is well rehearsed. We know there is a considerable overhead with running these kinds of schemes. That was part of the reason for the reforms to the CAP some years ago—people had got frustrated with the costs, overheads and bureaucracy.
To return to EU regulation 1307/2013, on direct payments to farmers, we want to make the system simpler. Everybody wants to make it simpler until it comes to designing the system. These things have a habit of growing, so we want to tie it down and get a commitment from the Government. I am not wedded to 5%—I would be very happy to hear a different suggestion—but that is our starting point.
Victoria Prentis
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we pledged to guarantee the current annual budget to farming in every year of this Parliament. I want to make it completely clear that that commitment is separate from the funding that the Government requires to administer future financial assistance schemes, which itself is determined through Government spending reviews—behind closed doors, as he puts it. To make it crystal clear, the running costs for DEFRA and the DEFRA group are considered separately from the payments made to beneficiaries. I hope that clears up one of his questions.
As we continue to develop the future schemes, we may find that we need to include some administration costs for third parties, such as those incurred to run farm clusters or other groups that bring together multiple farmers and land managers to provide some of the schemes envisaged in the hon. Gentleman’s favourite new document. At this stage, we are unwilling to lock ourselves into saying how much will be spent on administration and consultancy. It will vary enormously from scheme to scheme.
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make sure that we remain transparent about the costs of running our schemes, and I reassure him that we are dedicated to remaining open and honest about our proposals and their costs. The purpose of the ELM document that we have heard so much about today is to start the discussion and to seek input from farmers, foresters and other land managers in co-designing the policy, and to give a demonstration of the open and transparent way in which we are going to be designing the schemes.
Similarly, the new clause we introduced that commits us to publishing annual financial reports on scheme expenditure will enable the public to examine how much we are spending. Those reports could include a breakdown of administration and consultancy costs, if the Secretary of State so desires—I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions on that. The public, and Parliament acting on their behalf, have a right to expect that public funds will be used wisely and so we will, of course, be following the rules under the Treasury’s “Managing public money” guidance.
I reassure members of the Committee that we recognise and are committed to delivering value for our taxpayers. Indeed, that is partly why we wish to keep such flexibility —to ensure that financial assistance is always delivered in the most streamlined and efficient way. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister has given a welcome clarification. The obvious rejoinder is: where is the headroom in the DEFRA budget for these very ambitious plans? I suspect we will return to that question. I was just flicking through my favourite document, but unfortunately could not find the appropriate line. [Interruption.] I know; it is a shame. I am pretty sure that there is a suggestion somewhere in there that some of the money saved from basic payments could be used for some of this work. We can return to that point another day.
I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 17, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, leave out
“or operated on behalf of”
and insert “by”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This drafting amendment is intended to clarify the exclusion of financial assistance schemes made by the Secretary of State from the definition of a third party scheme and also to achieve consistency with other references in the Bill to things done by the Secretary of State. As a matter of legal interpretation a reference to something done by the Secretary of State will pick up things done by others acting in the name of or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(5A) Financial assistance shall not be given for any act or activity in pursuit of a purpose under section 1 if the land on which that act or activity is to take place is to be used by the applicant, or by a person acting with the consent of the applicant, for hunting of a wild mammal with a dog, whether or not that hunting is exempt under section 2 of the Hunting Act 2004.”.
Amendments 49 and 50 would provide that no financial assistance can be given for land which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (including exempt hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under the Hunting Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 50, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(5A) Financial assistance shall not be given for a purpose under section 1 if land on which any act or activity is to take place in pursuance of that purpose is land on which—
(a) an offence has been committed under section 1, 3 or 5 of the Hunting Act 2004, or
(b) exempt hunting, within the meaning of section 2 of the Hunting Act 2004, has taken place since 18 February 2005.”.
Amendments 49 and 50 would provide that no financial assistance can be given for land which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (including exempt hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under the Hunting Act.
Ruth Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to amendments 49 and 50. Mindful of the Chair’s previous exhortations, I will not read out the amendments, but I remind colleagues that both amendments ensure that no financial assistance can be given for land that is to be or has been used for hunting, including exempt hunting, or on which an offence has been committed under the Hunting Act.
These are important amendments. I hope the Minister will think carefully about the need for us to show leadership and for this Parliament to pass legislation that is bold and strong and enshrines our values. Those values mean that I am especially pleased to speak to the amendments.
Colleagues on this side will not need to be reminded, but I want to reiterate to the Minister and her Back Benchers that Labour is the party of animal welfare. The Conservative party likes to talk about the last Labour Government—so do I: we should remember that, when in government, Labour brought forward the landmark and history-making Hunting Act 2004.
Mr Goodwill
Is the hon. Member talking about the most recent Labour Government or the actual last Labour Government?
Ruth Jones
I will pass on the semantics, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
The Conservative party has an appalling record on animal welfare in government. Announcements are often piecemeal, weak and kicked into the long grass when it comes to the advancement of animal welfare in every sense, including providing financial assistance for land on which hunting takes place.
Many colleagues have repeatedly raised concerns about the use of trail hunting as a cover for illegal hunting. The weight of evidence from independent monitors and non-governmental organisations shows that trail hunting is not a genuine activity. Indeed, a poll commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports found that only one in six rural residents believes that hunting with dogs reflects countryside values; more than nine in 10 think that observing nature reflects true rural values.
The Bill needs to show that we care, that we will lead by example and that legislation made in this House is relevant and sensible. Wildlife crime continues to blight many of our rural and green spaces, and many animal species across the country. There can be little confidence on the Government Benches that wildlife crime is being tackled effectively when the National Wildlife Crime Unit now has only 12 members of staff: they are required to cover the entirety of its UK operations. We need to get our house in order, and provide adequate resources to ensure that we can enforce legislation.
I mentioned the successes of the last Labour Government.
Ruth Jones
I will. This month marked 15 years since hunting with dogs was banned in England and Wales—two years after a ban was introduced in Scotland by the then Labour-led Government of my noble Friend, Lord McConnell, through the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. The 2004 Act, which banned hunting in England and Wales, was a landmark moment in the fight against animal cruelty, but there is still much to do to end the scourge of fox, deer and hare hunting in the British countryside.
I am sure that Members from across the House will have received pleas from constituents of all ages during the election that we continue to make progress on measures to tackle animal cruelty. In my constituency, I received numerous pleas that we take the matter seriously. I would go so far as to say that people in Newport West care more about animals than they do about—no, that is not true. It could be construed as such, but obviously they care equally for animals and people.
There are still 299 hunts active across Britain. Frankly, the sheer scale of the problem is shocking. The loopholes are widely exploited, and exemptions in the law show that we need to strengthen the ban. We can do that by supporting the amendments. The Government need to crack down on illegal hunting, and they can do that by strengthening the Bill and supporting the amendments. There is no real space for people to excuse away the chasing and killing of foxes as a mere accident, and what possible scientific research could justify chasing deer with dogs for hours across miles of countryside, only to shoot them at the end?
As the system of agricultural support payments shifts towards payment for public goods, we must ensure that public money does not support a cruel sport that should have been consigned utterly to history long ago. It cannot be right for public money, designated to fund real public goods such as animal welfare, could end up being be paid to places where land is also used for hunting with dogs. The amendments would rule that out, and should be accepted by the Government. Landowners are an important link in the chain. Hunts need land to operate on, and the more they are denied it the less opportunity there will be to flout the law.
If we make every effort to remove the temptations and opportunities to hunt, we will be doing what we can to stop the illegal killing of innocent animals. That was recognised by the Labour group of Nottinghamshire County Council, which passed a motion calling for the end of hunting, including exempt hunting, on council-owned land. I pay tribute to colleagues on the council for their activism and campaigning, and for standing up for what is right. By preventing support payments being paid to landowners convicted of knowingly allowing illegal hunting to take place, which we can do by supporting the amendments, we will ensure that landowners think twice before allowing hunting on their land, and provide added impetus to police and law enforcement authorities to pursue charges when they suspect landowners to have broken the law.
I am pleased that the new Minister has been appointed. I genuinely look forward to working with her on the Bill and working with her in the months and years ahead. When I was preparing this speech, I visited her website to see her views on hunting and what she said when she was an enthusiastic and conscientious Back Bencher. Like all good pupils, I found some interesting material. Under a section called “Victoria’s views”, the now Minister, then Back Bencher, noted that some of her constituents would disagree with her support for the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004. I confess that that applies to me too.
The Minister also said that she believes that her support for the repeal of the Act does not mean that she has no regard for animal welfare. I say to her today that she should show us how much she cares by supporting these important amendments. She went on to say that,
“the Government should work closely with rural communities, animal welfare experts and lawyers”.
She is now part of the Government, so she can listen to the experts and support amendments that demonstrate our commitment to strong, secure and effective animal welfare policies.
Opposition Members are committed to ending the hunting of animals with dogs once and for all. The end goal is clear, but it requires us to be on our guard and alive to the new opportunities that may arise to continue the chasing and killing of animals. Amendments 49 and 50 would be an important step on the way to meeting our end goal. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will support them.
Mr Goodwill
Again, I worry about the unintended consequences of the amendments that have been put forward for understandable and, for a large section of the community, well-meaning reasons. The explanatory statements say that the amendments,
“would provide that no financial assistance can be given for land which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (including exempt hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under the Hunting Act.”
When one interrogates section 2 of the Hunting Act 2004 and the exemptions listed in schedule 1 to find out what is defined as exempt hunting, one reads that that includes flushing using no more than two dogs, so that animals such as rabbits can be shot. In many cases, it says, that can be done to protect the biological diversity of an area or to obtain meat for human consumption.
My key concern is that there is a long list under exempt hunting—I am not talking about trail hunting—including using just one dog, whereas the Act refers only to using more than two dogs. Amendment 49 talks about using “a dog”. The hon. Member for Newport West can correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read, if a terrier has killed a rat on a farm at any time since 2004, that farm will be exempt from getting any agricultural support. I would hazard a guess that that would cover at least 95% of the farmland in this country, if not 100%.
When the hon. Lady talked about land, she was not specific about whether she meant the bit of land where the offence may or may not have taken place, the entire farm or the land in the ownership of that particular farmer or landowner, or whether the exemption still applies if the land is sold or the tenant who controls that land gives in the tenancy and it goes to a new tenant. My worry is that the amendments leave us with more questions than answers. If they are taken at face value—the Minister is a lawyer, so she is good at taking things at face value—and adopted, we could end up with maybe 100% of land in this country being exempt from getting any support at all.
Daniel Zeichner
I was rather anticipating that we would have a discussion about this issue. This is public money for public goods. We are trying to reflect what we believe is the strong view of the British public that they would not want public money to be used to support hunting. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should try to reflect the will of the people?
Mr Goodwill
I will take the other intervention, which I suspect may be on the same subject, before I reply to them both, if I may.
Alicia Kearns
If this legislation is meant to be pragmatic —if it is there to support farmers and ensure they act in the right way to steward our environment and our communities—should we not therefore be doing pragmatic things, rather than virtue signalling? We should recognise that cats have every right to hunt down mice if that is what they want to do, and therefore restricting what farmers can do in this way is neither sensible nor the place of legislation; rather, it is the place of press releases.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which answers the shadow Minister’s point very well. He has talked about the will of the people: the will of the people was expressed on 12 December last year, when they elected a majority Conservative Government.
I conducted an extensive survey of my constituents prior to my election. We got about 20,000 replies to that questionnaire, which asked lots of questions, including one about hunting. The Whitby part of my constituency was about 60/40 in favour of hunting; in the Scarborough part, it was about 60/40 the other way. I went to a primary school not long before the election, and as we all do when we visit schools, I talked about the issues that the children wanted to talk about. Hunting did come up, and one child who came from a farming family made it very clear that she took a dim view of foxes, and the fact that they had been in her family’s hen coop and were taking newborn lambs. She underlined the need to control foxes.
We are not revisiting the hunting legislation in this Committee; rather, we are looking at what the practical implications would be if this amendment were on the face of the Bill, with its provisions being retrospective and applicable to exempt activities such as one dog killing one rat or two dogs being used to flush a rabbit to be shot. If those exemptions were removed, almost every farm in the country would be covered by that retrospective application.
Daniel Zeichner
I fully accept that we can always improve the drafting. What I am trying to get at is whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that public money—taxpayers’ money—should be supporting hunting, in whatever form. We are trying to get at that to build on the landmark legislation that has been so popular. As we know, the Government are fairly reluctant to get back into this debate.
Mr Goodwill
My first point is that if the hon. Member for Newport West had drafted the amendment herself, she might have looked in a bit more detail at what schedule 1 of the Hunting Act 2004 actually says and what exemptions should be referred to, rather than making a general reference to exempt practices. We all rely on pressure groups and lobby groups to help with our work, but taking things at face value is not always the best way forward. Secondly, the objective of the Bill is not to support people killing rats with terriers, or people conducting legal activity within the context of the Hunting Act; it is to support our agricultural industry in a way that also achieves the green environmental objectives that we all want to meet.
The hon. Member for Cambridge will not be surprised to hear that I will not be supporting these amendments. Whether or not Members agree with hunting is almost beside the point, because the amendments are drafted in such a way as to destroy the objective of the Bill, which is to give support to farmers, particularly in some of the most challenging parts of our country—those areas where farming is most difficult to make economically attractive, where predation from foxes and rats are problems, and where other types of pest control need to be carried out. The exemptions within the Hunting Act exist to allow those legal activities to take place, and my guess is that using the amendments to take them out of that Act and make those farms exempt from support would take out nearly 100% of the farmland in the United Kingdom. Even farmers farming National Trust land where hunting is not allowed by the landlord will be carrying out rabbit and rat control, which is one of the exemptions that the hon. Member for Newport West is seeking to bring back in.
Victoria Prentis
Environmental land management will, as we said earlier, be most successful if the highest number of participants are enabled to join in. As my right hon. Friend has just made clear, I fear this amendment would limit uptake of our exciting new schemes, and therefore limit the environmental benefits that we all hope will flow from them. For example, under the suggested tiers 2 and 3 it will be vital for farmers and land managers to work together across a wide area, to deliver the environmental benefits we hope for, such as improving the status of habitats. Excluding some land from being eligible could prevent us from delivering those benefits.
I am concerned that the amendment might penalise legal activities. For example, exempt hunting is, by its nature, exempt from the Hunting Act 2004, and is a legal activity with clearly defined restrictions. No one should be penalised or have financial assistance withheld for carrying out or allowing lawful activities on their land.
Amendment 50 concerned me because it would exempt from financial assistance those on whose land hunting had been carried out without their knowledge. For example, hare coursing, which many hon. Members will have had difficulty with in their constituencies, is an offence under the Hunting Act, and is often undertaken without landowner or land manager consent, often by illegal trespassers.
I am also concerned that exempting land that has been used for hunting since February 2005, as my right hon. Friend said, including legal hunting activities, could mean that we are exempting financial assistance from being awarded to lawful landowners or managers, who had no control over what had happened on that land previously.
I hope I have made clear the difficulties in seeking to restrict financial assistance in such a way. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank hon. Members for their interventions and the Minister for her comments. I thank the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for his advice about not taking things at face value. I promise him that I have spoken at length to farmers in my constituency about hunting, as well as pest control and vermin control, which are two very different things.
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the potential unintended consequences of the amendments. We are willing to work with others in this room to ensure that the amendments are drafted soundly and safely, but we wish to put forward the basic spirit of the amendments today. He has gone to extremes by suggesting that no landowner in the country would ever get any money again. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made the point about cats killing mice and rats. My cats killed mice and rats, but I am not seeking public money for public good. That is the difference.
Ruth Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, but the point is, if one is not seeking public money for public good, it is not a problem.
We need to work together to ensure that these amendments come through. Everyone is aware of the pressure groups. There is the idea that hunting is a sport, and it has been taken up as a sport over hundreds of years. We, as a civilised society, should look to close that down. We have no problem with controlling vermin. The right hon. Gentleman made the point about foxes, which I completely understand, having had friends who have had chickens decimated by foxes, which, as he knows, do not eat them, but leave them.
We have no problems with controlling pests and vermin, but hunting is a massive game in the countryside and people do not want to see animals being put through this insecure and frightening sport. The evidence of the unintended consequences of hunting is clear: cats and dogs are killed as a result of trail hunting. It is important that we mitigate to stop that. While we are happy to work together on the wording of these amendments, it is important that we work together to ensure they are accepted. The spirit of them is very clear and I hope the Government will accept that.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I have not had any notice that the Opposition want to press amendments 50, 45, 64, 46 and 5. Is that correct?
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 18—Financial assistance: duty to provide advice—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to secure the provision of training, guidance and advice to persons receiving financial assistance under this Act, for the purpose of enabling those persons to deliver the purpose or purposes for which the financial assistance is given.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision for advice on matters which include but are not limited to—
(a) the impact of any practice upon the environment,
(b) business management, including the development of business plans,
(c) the health and welfare of livestock,
(d) the safety and health of workers in any agricultural sector,
(e) innovation, including alternative methods of pest, disease and weed control,
(f) food safety, insofar as it relates to the production of food or any activity in, or in close connection with, an agri-food supply chain,
(g) the operation of any mechanism for applying for, or receiving, financial assistance under this Act, and
(h) marketing of any product falling within an agricultural sector under Schedule 1.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for training, guidance and advice to be made available to persons receiving financial assistance.
New clause 23—Consultation on financial assistance schemes and multi-annual financial assistance plans—
“(1) Prior to framing any financial assistance scheme under section 1 or to preparing a multi-annual financial assistance plan under section 4, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the design of the scheme and how it relates to the Government’s strategic priorities for giving financial assistance.
(2) In the consultation under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such persons, or representatives of such persons, as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of interests substantially affected by the scheme,
(b) such persons, or representatives of such persons, as appear to the Secretary of State likely to apply for financial assistance,
(c) any relevant authority under section [Consultation on giving of financial assistance],
(d) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
New clause 24—Consultation on giving of financial assistance—
“(1) Financial assistance under section 1 may only be given to a person following consultation with—
(a) the relevant authority under subsection (3) for the area in which land for which financial assistance being claimed is situated,
(b) the owner, or representative of an owner, of any land adjacent to that for which financial assistance is being claimed,
(c) any water undertaker under section 6 of the Water Industry Act 1991 whose area includes land for which financial assistance is being claimed,
(d) such persons, or representatives of such persons, as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of interests substantially affected by the giving of the financial assistance,
(e) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) The consultation under subsection (1) may seek views on—
(a) the amount of financial assistance to be given to a person,
(b) the purposes for which a person is to be given the financial assistance,
(c) the outcomes which the person in receipt of financial assistance should be expected to deliver, and
(d) the potential for giving financial assistance in connection with a third party scheme under section 2(5).
(3) For the purposes of this section and section [Consultation on financial assistance schemes and multi-annual financial assistance plans], a “relevant authority” is—
(a) a parish council, or
(b) where there is not a parish council—
(i) a principal authority in an area with a single tier of local government as defined by section 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, or
(ii) a district council or London Borough Council in an area other than in subsection (3)(b)(i).”
Victoria Prentis
Clause 2 establishes certain aspects of how financial assistance provided under chapter 1 may be administered. It provides for funding to be subject to conditions and makes it clear that funding may include conditions under which it can be recovered. We recognise that the expertise of individuals outside Government can play an important role in delivery. For that reason, the clause allows financial assistance to be given to those who operate their own schemes and enables the Secretary of State to delegate functions in relation to giving financial assistance. To ensure transparency, the clause also creates a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to require the publication of information about payments.
Turning to new clause 18, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the types of support that we will look to offer those in receipt of financial assistance under clause 1. This is an important topic.
We recognise that there must be an effective advisory service to support ELM and other schemes established under clause 1. In the discussion document, about which we have heard so much, we have invited contributions on key topics, including on advice and guidance, and some of our tests and trials are focused on this area. For ELM, the tier that farmers, foresters or other land managers take part in could affect the type of advice that they need. For example, some may need advice at the scheme application stage; others may need help and support in planning their interventions. How much advice and guidance they require may change, depending on their level of experience. Therefore, the advice and guidance framework for ELM will be flexible and able to adapt to the specific requirements of the participants and the outcomes that they are seeking to deliver. The new clause would restrict that necessary flexibility.
We are considering a range of approaches for delivering the advice—for example, one-to-one advice and support direct to land managers. That could include, as we have discussed, agronomists visiting farms to give specialist advice. We are also considering group training, telephone and online support, and peer-to-peer learning.
We are still exploring different mechanisms for providing advice for all our schemes, but we would not want to lock ourselves into providing advice that may become out of date in the future and we are keen to retain sufficient flexibility to adapt how we provide advice as we continue to learn. We want to break away from the common agricultural policy’s rigid and inflexible approach. We are firmly committed to offering a range of supportive measures to ensure that our farmers and land managers will have access to good-quality advice, guidance and training.
I come now to new clause 23. We recognise the importance of engaging with farmers, foresters and other land managers as we start to implement our reforms. Consultation and co-design are at the heart of what we will do. We have extensive plans for, and a track record of, working with industry, experts and other interested parties.
The Department published our consultation on proposed reforms to farming in February 2018 and received more than 40,000 responses, each of which was read and considered. We can see the effects of that consultation throughout the policy document that we produced earlier this week. We will also consult on the detailed ELM scheme design after the pilot has started. That consultation will build on what we have learned from the tests and trials, as well as the national pilot, and will help us to refine and finalise our scheme design before the launch of the full scheme in 2024. These activities, I hope, will do exactly what new clause 23 seeks to achieve. We will also seek additional views and opinions from farmers, foresters, land managers and other interested parties through various special events and roundtables held throughout the country.
New clause 24 would require us to consult in an inflexible manner before giving financial assistance. Requiring the Government to consult neighbouring landowners and local authorities before any payment is made could prove problematic and introduce significant extra administration and delay into the system. For example, in the case of our animal health schemes, there are around 67,000 registered livestock holdings alone. While we would not make payments to all these, consulting on every payment to a small proportion could make the delivery of the scheme burdensome and possibly unworkable.
Daniel Zeichner
This goes to the heart of the problem. We do not know how many of these schemes will be administered. Until we know, it is very hard for us to comment.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion several times today already. Having new duties to consult, such as this, could result in unintended consequences, which I am keen to avoid. For example, if we need to respond to an emerging environmental issue, such as a novel disease or tree pest blight, having to consult widely on a new financial assistance scheme would make the grant less useful and effective.
Daniel Zeichner
This is both interesting and important. It again goes to the intended relationship between the tiers. Tier 3 schemes, at the catchment-area level, could have a big effect on the local landscape. Even if the Minister does not like our suggestion for tier 1—I see her point, if it would apply to large numbers—surely there is a case for tier 3.
Victoria Prentis
There will certainly be a case, with the wider tier 3 schemes, to involve more people, because the aim is to cross farm boundaries in order to provide a public good over a wider area. However, we do not want to tie ourselves to an inflexible consultation. Believe you me, I have been involved in DEFRA for under two weeks and I am amazed by the level of consultation with which DEFRA is prepared to engage. I really think that we do not want to tie ourselves to inflexible amounts of consultation, or consultations of the type that do not enable us to react quickly when needed. Responding in a timely manner may be important, such as when dealing with a disease or blight to a particular plant. I am concerned that the new clause is too inflexible.
I agree that the new clauses raise important issues, but I think we should take a flexible but reasonable and proportionate approach to consultation, in line with the Cabinet Office consultation principles. Requiring engagement in legislation is not necessary or, indeed, appropriate, and could result in our going back to the difficult days of delays in payments, which we all worked so hard to get over.
The Government have proven our commitment to joint working and consultation repeatedly, and we intend to continue that. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for Cambridge and the Committee that we will be taking appropriate action on engagement to ensure that financial assistance schemes are delivered in the best way possible. As such, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
Today’s discussions have been most illuminating and interesting and have shown the benefit of giving the proposals detailed scrutiny. To refer to my earlier comments, it would be so much easier with the detail before us. I think we are genuinely having a dialogue that explores some of the tensions and issues.
I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that there is a case for wider involvement. Earlier, she acknowledged that maybe tier 2 and certainly tier 3 had some similarities with some of the previous pillar 2 schemes. Those of us who have been involved in rural development over many years will be familiar with the European Union LEADER schemes. My understanding and recollection from when I was involved is that there was local authority involvement, and that is the bit I am worried is missing.
It does not seem to have come up in discussion much, but we are talking about public money being spent in rural, semi-rural and sometimes urban areas—my city of Cambridge has a farm—yet the bit that seems to be missing is the public voice, or even the voice of individual members of the local community. I get what the Minister is saying. I was a parish councillor. I started my glorious ascent many years ago on Dickleburgh parish council. As a district councillor, like many others, I used to regularly attend parish councils. In fact, my partner seemed to think that, as far as she was concerned, there was a parish council meeting for every night of the week. There are pros and cons for our parish councils.
My strong sense is that local councils are not party political, by and large. People there are absolutely motivated to ensure the best for their local communities. They are not always as representative as they should be, in my view—I do not think the farming community have to worry about that; in many cases they are well represented on those bodies—but they know their patch inside-out. I remember many discussions about gullies and culverts going long into the night. Sometimes it was hard to keep up. They know their local patch. If we are using public money for transformative schemes for local areas, I think these people have something to add.
I understand the tension with wanting to respond swiftly, but it is important that local communities are taken along in that, and I think there are dangers if they are not, frankly. It is not something that is easily resolved, but I hope that people will go away and think about some of that. To some extent, local councillors are an unused asset and an unused store of local knowledge. There are difficulties, because some of them might have conflicts of interest. In the end, the Minister’s suggestion that consultation is a bit slow and tedious—perhaps I am being unfair—is something we all struggle with, but that is what democracy is like. We are the country we are because we are prepared to spend that time having that discussion with people. I hope I have not misrepresented her.
Daniel Zeichner
Oh, I have. In which case, I withdraw that suggestion. I understand what the Minister is saying. She is trying to find a balance between an appropriate level of involvement without squandering the opportunity to act. I also have to say that a lot of the environmental goods we are talking about are not tackling an immediate crisis. In some cases, they are making long-term transformations, and it is important that local communities have their voice.
Going back to where I was going to start, I made it clear in my comments on a previous amendment that we are strongly committed to the advice-giving role. In fact, I just do not think that any of these things can be done without that offer of advice and help. On Tuesday, I did suggest that with slightly naive optimism. I am a naive optimist and perfectly up for that, some of this will be a bit more difficult than some of the policy papers suggest. We are asking people to change the way that many of them have operated for a very long time. The incentive we are giving them is basically a stick, by saying, “You are going to lose your money.” Some people respond positively to that, which is great—I am sure those are the farms that we are generally shown around.
3.30 pm
My recollection from my days as a district councillor in a very rural area is that there were also plenty of other farmers, and I am not sure that all of them will be quite so easy to work with. It will need advisers who have a whole range of skills, not just farming-related skills. In moving people from where they are now to where want them to be—this goes back to my earlier narrative, and we will probably pick this up when we debate the clause on delinking—there is a risk that a lot of people will just decide, “It’s not for me.” In fact, I have already heard people say that. That is another big decision we have to take and it could be the way we go, but is that we want to do? I am not convinced that it is.
We need to ensure that we have the resources now that the Minister has finally conceded that the budget will not come out of the moneys from direct payments. On one level, that is very welcome. Given that it is not particularly easy, however, it prompts questions about how much it will cost, where the money will come from, and whether we will have the skilled people to do it. I worry about smaller farms. Big farms, which have the resources and are used to dealing with the system, will probably be able to make the transformation. They might not all be enthusiastic, but they will be able to have a dialogue. I worry about smaller farmers, and I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that—going back to my earlier point—there might be a bigger plan. I wonder whether that plan includes smaller farmers in many parts of the country, because there is potentially a big social impact.
Looking back at the previous environmental schemes—which is one of the good bits of the document—the evidence clearly shows that having access to an adviser makes a big difference to their success. It is well worth providing advice to farmers on how they can meet environmental outcomes, navigate the often difficult paperwork—I suspect it is probably now done on a computer—and request money from these schemes, because such advice can help to address gaps in the skills, knowledge and motivation of farmers and land managers. It can help to build confidence, ultimately leading to better outcomes than for people who are not supported by advice. That is something we have heard from stakeholders and from witnesses in Committee.
We finally learnt from the aforementioned document—I think the Minister referred to it—that the Government are thankfully considering a range of different models for the provision of advice, including one-to-one support provided directly to land managers, group advice and training, telephone and online support, and facilitation of peer-to-peer learning. All of those are welcome, and we would strongly support them. It is also very welcome to read in the document that it is anticipated that there will be provision of extensive written information—I am sure we are delighted to hear that—both online and offline.
Daniel Zeichner
I will read it; I promise.
Guidance will be provided to everyone who participates in ELMS, including guidance on how to deliver the environmental outcomes that they will pay for. Having looked at the 139-page document on how to apply for the basic payment scheme, including the delightful colourful drawings of buffer strips and what a field looks like, I do not underestimate how complicated the previous system was. The challenge is to see whether it can be trimmed down. Based on previous experience in this country, it may be an ambitious hope, but I am sure that is where we all want to get to. As I said earlier, the difficulty is that we still do not really know how it will be paid for.
I want to pick up on an observation from the earlier discussion. A huge number of people would have been made ineligible by one of our previous amendments. There is nothing in the documents or the Bill to stop the entire budget going to one project, which it could do. It could be argued that that might be the most environmentally sustainable thing to do, but there lies the problem. The system being replaced is one under which people basically had almost an entitlement to public support by virtue of owning land—we were very critical of it, although if it had been applied properly and was subject to proper environmental improvement, there was a possibility to make it work—but we have no idea about the distribution of resources under the new framework. We do not even really know what the Government think would be a good outcome. Part of my worry about all this is that there is too much that we do not know.
Advice will need to be made available to farmers about a broad range of areas to incentivise take-up, which we hope to see, and to support them in delivering these environmental public goods. We will need really good information and explanations about why particular practices that people have perhaps been doing for a while are not approved of. We will need really good targeted help for people, with proposed innovations towards better animal welfare practices or alternative methods of pest, disease and weed control. We need clear guidelines on how the various financial assistance schemes work, and support with business management plans, to make the transition to ELMS work for each farming unit. I am still not clear about how we will make sure it is properly resourced and funded, or that we have sufficient people with the capacity to do this. To go back to the question of how many will be in tier 1, if advice is offered to all those people, that will be a big job. We will probably be pursuing the matter of how much that is likely to cost on another occasion through written questions.
If it is the Government’s intention to do all this, it would have been helpful to have a bit more detail in the Bill, rather than an ambitious but rather vague list of plans. That goes back to one of my themes: if we are trying to offer certainty to people in a time of change, we need a bit more than this.
With new clause 18, we propose including a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide training guidance and advice to those receiving financial assistance to help to enable them to deliver the clause 1 public goods. I think we have outlined a decent range of activities. There are no restrictions on suggestions. The Minister says that it is too prescriptive, but she is free to add as many extra suggestions as she likes. That would be helpful. Given that the Government are clearly moving in this direction in general, I am sure the Minister would recognise the importance of sending a strong signal to farmers that the Government really are going to be there to support them. I hope that, on that basis, they will consider supporting that amendment.
New clause 23 says that, prior to framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on its design and consult the relevant authorities. I have already spoken about the potential role of parish councils. It does not have to be parishes, because there are areas that are not parished, but we want it to be the lowest tier of local government in order to ensure that the local community has a role. I have hinted that that must be the case for tier 3 and possibly for tier 2. Much depends upon how broad tier 1 actually is. On that basis, I support these new clauses, which I understand will be voted on later, Mr Stringer.
Victoria Prentis
No.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Multi-annual financial assistance plans
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 4, page 5, line 14, after “period” insert
“, and
(d) set out the budget for each financial assistance scheme under sub-paragraph (c)(i) or (c)(ii) for the duration of the plan period”.
This amendment and Amendments 38 and 39 provide that the Secretary of State’s multi-annual financial assistance plan must include a budget informed by the Office for Environmental Protection to be established by the Environment Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 38, in clause 4, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(9A) For each financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to any advice provided by the Office for Environmental Protection, after it is established, about the funding required to achieve the strategic objectives of financial assistance for the duration of the plan period.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 37.
Amendment 39, in clause 5, page 6, line 10, after “scheme,” insert—
“(aa) any opinion provided by the Office for Environmental Protection, after it is established, as to whether the financial assistance given was sufficient to meet the strategic objectives of the financial assistance,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 37.
Ruth Jones
These important amendments call for the Secretary of State’s multi-annual financial assistance plan to include a budget informed by the Office for Environmental Protection, which is to be established by the Environment Bill.
The Environment Bill received its Second Reading yesterday and many important points were raised on the Floor of the House. They will receive their own scrutiny, and I will not touch on that legislation today—we certainly have enough to be going on with here. However, there are some important links to the Bill before us, particularly when it comes to the Office for Environmental Protection.
The fact that there are three big environmental Bills going through the two Houses at the same time shows that the Government have realised that they are running out of time to prepare for our ultimate departure from the European Union and that they need to get to grip with the challenges facing this important sector. They are running out of time to prepare our farmers, our farm workers and the agricultural sector more generally for the years ahead.
Our amendments call for the Office for Environmental Protection, for which the Environment Bill makes provision, to influence what Ministers do when it comes to the multi-annual financial assistance plan and the budget contained within it. We believe that the Office for Environmental Protection must be independent. It must be strong and it must be clear about its remit and the expectations upon it. It must push for higher standards, it must push for non-regression and it must push for measures to tackle the climate emergency. If it does those things, then it makes sense for the multi-annual budget to be informed by the scope, remit, strength and inspiration of the Office for Environmental Protection.
We hope that these probing amendments will encourage Ministers and Government Members to develop strong and clear mechanisms that make for long-term and organised funding structures. They are designed to fill the gap in the Bill’s proposal for multi-annual financial settlements. The Bill is silent on how the budget or funding envelopes are set in the first place. We have already had much discussion on that and I look forward to any clarification the Minister can give on those points.
Many stakeholders have raised concerns and called for clarity and further thinking on this point. Whatever proposals are finally agreed and provided for, let us be led by the facts and the experiences of those out there on the farms in our rural communities in all parts of the United Kingdom. That is why the amendments are so important.
The Opposition are giving voice to the concerns today, but it is not just we who are worried. Greener UK says that it wants to see a stronger and enhanced framework for long-term funding in the Bill, which will inspire confidence and demonstrate to the sector that the Government understand the pressure on it, and the need for us to support it wherever we can. The Nature Friendly Farming Network supports calls for greater certainty about long-term funding and notes the need for the Bill to be as strong and effective as possible. I say to the Minister that we should be listening to the experts. That is not just my view; it is the view of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He noted the other day that we need to listen to experts, and do you know what? I agree with him.
It is clear to me that the more certainty Members have and the more certainty the people out in our country have, the better. There are many people right now who are concerned that we do not have much certainty past 31 December 2020. Admittedly, there have been commitments to maintaining the current level of funding, but so far they are just commitments and they do not necessarily sit well with some of the comments and press coverage on payments to farmers that we saw in the weekend press. I am sure the Secretary of State would attest to the strength of feeling he encountered at his meeting this week.
Clarity, transparency and respect are going to be key now and into the future. Let us make it so and support these amendments today.
Victoria Prentis
It is always good to discuss funding for agriculture further. I begin with amendment 37. The Government faced a fair challenge from parliamentarians on the previous Agriculture Bill about the funding they were expecting to receive. The Government responded to that challenge and included what I am going to start calling the MAFA plan—the multi-annual financial assistance plan—in clause 4, which covers the seven-year agricultural transition period. This will describe the assistance schemes that are in operation or are expected to come into operation during that period.
Subsequent plans will run for at least five years, rather than seven, and the Secretary of State will have a duty to ensure that plans do not expire without a replacement in place, which is important. However, we recognise that the sector needs clarity on the budget, which is why we guaranteed the current cash total for each year of this Parliament, giving much-needed certainty for the next five years.
Daniel Zeichner
I welcome much of what the Minister says, but our concern and our reason for tabling the amendments is that, positive though her comments are, this is such a big change that we think it right and proper that there is more regular analysis of it, informed by the OEP. I fully understand why she does not want to rehearse the OEP discussion.
As I have said, our view is that the Bills have been introduced in the wrong order, which puts us at something of a disadvantage. However, if the prime, driving purpose of this legislation is to tackle the environmental crisis, as we think it should be, we do not think that the proposed structure—welcome though it is, and it is an improvement—quite matches that sense of urgency. I perhaps should have said more on this earlier. Seven years is a long time for a transition. While we understand why that is beneficial from the industry’s point of view, from my constituents’ point of view, some want it next week, frankly. People are pushing very hard. At the general election, my party committed to a much earlier net zero date, and we know that the NFU is pushing for a much earlier date than the Government’s. However, there is not that sense of urgency, which our amendments would help to bring forward.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said, it is not only us saying this; many conservation organisations share our concerns and worries. Their worry is partly that a considerable sum of public money is available and, as I have alluded to before, we want to know how the prioritisation will work. Will it be done at a local or national level? The document that we have been referring to throughout the sitting hints at an issue about prioritisation.
I somewhat mischievously suggested that the money could all go to one scheme, but that is not actually impossible, which is why we want a structure where the Office for Environmental Protection could say, “This is where your big gains are going to come from. This is where you’re going to get the difference.” There is a tension, however, between what would get the best environmental gain, what is most effective, and what will, out there in the world, be perceived as fair in a transition phase from the current system to a new one. That is why we think our amendments would provide a better structure.
We understand that there is tension because the Department wants flexibility; I am sure that if we were running the Department, we would want the same. It is our job as the Opposition, however, to remind the Government that they voted to acknowledge the climate crisis and to try to hit net zero in 2050. In every piece of legislation that is brought forward, we want to see a real commitment to making that happen. We think the amendment would contribute to that.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her honesty about the current funding uncertainties and the issues. I appreciate that she has a massive job on. I am glad to be on this side of the room.
Ruth Jones
The Minister is quite right that there will be lots of new acronyms—OEP, MAFA—and we are frantically learning them, so she must bear with us. She is honest in the way that she has expressed her concerns.
We accept that there will be a lot of co-operation—hopefully—as the Bill progresses, because it is important that this is not about us and them. It is not adversarial; a lot of this should be consensual. We should work together to make sure that we get the best for the agriculture sector across the UK—in all four countries. We look forward to lots of probing questions not just from Opposition Members, but from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We look forward to developing and fully understanding the complexities and intricacies of the Bill. With that in mind, I thank the Minister for her comments and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Annual and other reports on amount of financial assistance given
The Chair
Two amendments to clause 5, amendments 39 and 47, have been debated. Do the Opposition wish to press either of them to a vote?
The Chair
If no, we move on to the clause stand part debate.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Annual assessment of funding for purposes—
(1) The Secretary of State must report on financial assistance for each purpose listed in section 1.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must be made for each financial year and must be laid before both Houses of Parliament no later than 31 October in the financial year following the financial year to which the report relates.
(3) The first report shall be made by 31 October 2021 and shall relate to financial assistance in the 2020-21 financial year.
(4) A report under this section must record, on the basis of best data available—
(a) the total sum of financial assistance for each purpose in section 1,
(b) the source of any element of financial assistance under subparagraph (a) which comes from public funds, and
(c) the sums from each source under subparagraph (b).
(5) The Secretary of State must include in each report under this section—
(a) a statement of their opinion on whether any sum recorded under subsection (4)(a) is sufficient to meet their policy objectives in relation to each purpose; and (b) a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions if, in their opinion, a sum recorded under subsection (4)(a) was not sufficient to meet their policy objectives in relation to a purpose.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “financial assistance” means financial assistance either allocated or given in any form listed in section 2(1).
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the financial assistance given or allocated to each of the purposes of the Bill, on its sufficiency to meet policy objectives and on the Secretary of State’s intentions if in their opinion funding for any purpose was not sufficient.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 5 places a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare a report each financial year, which I have spoken about extensively already. The report will detail the financial assistance given under clause 1. The financial reporting provisions seek to provide greater transparency and certainty about the amount of public funding allocated under clause 1. That includes information on the extent to which the financial assistance meets any obligations or commitments under the terms of each scheme.
Mr Stringer, perhaps you can guide me. Should I turn to new clause 2 now?
Victoria Prentis
Thank you, Mr Stringer. I am so sorry to have to keep checking such matters.
Turning to new clause 2, the introduction of the multi-annual financial assistance plans has been welcomed by agricultural stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union. Clauses 4 to 6 will ensure that public stakeholders and parliamentarians have plenty of opportunities to scrutinise the Government’s spending on agriculture, as well as the impact of that spending. Were the new clause to succeed, Ministers would have to return each year to report on every purpose under clause 1. That could have the perverse outcome of schemes being designed to meet the report, rather than activities achieving outcomes in the best way.
Instead, our approach will ensure that we look to meet the outcomes in the most beneficial way—for example, by planting trees, the positive environmental effects of which may not show up for many annual reports but would be felt over a much longer period. We recognise that farms and land managers need certainty over future funding arrangements. That is why we have committed to a seven-year transition, starting in 2021, and have introduced a legal requirement to set out our strategic priorities for the transition period before the end of the year. We have also pledged to continue to commit the same cash total that is currently spent for each year of the Parliament.
I recognise the need for certainty, and it is right that the general public should be able to scrutinise our spending; however, the Bill already gives plenty of opportunity to do that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West not to press the new clause.
Ruth Jones
I am pleased to speak to new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the financial assistance given or allocated to each of the purposes of the Bill, on its sufficiency to meet policy objectives, and on the Secretary of State’s intentions if, in their opinion, funding for any purpose was not sufficient.
This is an important part of our deliberations, because it is about how we ensure that funding for each public good is adequate and effective. We accept that the Government have a majority in the House, so we must ensure that whatever system they design will work for our farmers, planters, growers and all the livelihoods and communities dependent on a thriving and well-funded agricultural sector. The new clause is about certainty and predictability, ensuring that the Bill provides for a sustainable, effective and transparent funding structure that helps rather than hinders this important sector in our economy.
There is a degree of understanding that no Government can say how much money there will be and where it will come from, but we can have a mechanism that can be reviewed every year. In fact, the system should be reviewed every year, too. Now that austerity is supposedly over, the Government could say to our farmers that money will be available to do all the wonderful things that they promised them during the referendum. That is why it is so important that the new clause is added to the Bill.
If the Minister does not accept the approach set out in new clause 2, what approach will the Government take to providing clarity, to ensure that there is a transparent and genuine approach to funding, and maintaining a detailed annual update on the state of play? I recognise that times will change, and in the future a new Minister will sit on the Treasury Bench. There will be a new Prime Minister at some point, too. I know that the Government cannot commit to money that future Governments will spend, but the Minister can commit to the mechanism. We ask the Government to look closely at the new clause, and we hope that they listen to us, and all those crying out for clarity and common sense.
We have already learned that the British Government spent about £3 billion on the common agricultural policy in recent years, as members of the European Union. We are now starting the process of leaving the European Union, and are sitting in a transition period. I worry that the period will run out far sooner than the Government realise, especially given the announcement about the forthcoming talks concluding this June. We are now on the outside, and those funds can be diverted to delivering public goods to improve the quality of our soils and water; protect, maintain and enhance the natural beauty of our landscapes in all parts of the United Kingdom; and tackle the climate emergency and protect vulnerable communities and industries from the most brutal and deadly effects of climate change. The storms in the past couple of weeks are a very clear example of that.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady refers to the EU budget. May I ask her how many times in the past 20 years it has actually been signed off?
Ruth Jones
Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman has far more technical knowledge than I do on the subject. I will not give a figure for fear of its being wrong. I accept that he has a lot more information. All I would say is that we were actually at the table and were part of discussions. We were not excluded; we were very much included. Even Margaret Thatcher agreed that we were part of those discussions, so I accept that.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, but I cannot resist joining battle with the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who refers to an old canard about the European Union. Of course we all wanted the auditing to work better, but are we so sure that it works so well here? If he is confident that it does, he would support the amendment, which is an opportunity for us to show that we can do it so much better. I invite him to join us today.
The Chair
Order. We are straying some way from clause 5 and new clause 2, so I ask the hon. Lady to come back to them.
Ruth Jones
Thank you for your valuable advice, Mr Stringer. I intend to get back to the subject, without the sparring, which would be very interesting.
Our farmers deserve a funding and reporting system that they can understand and is fit for purpose. In fact, they deserve to have a system in place, full stop. Farmers across Wales, Northern Ireland, England and Scotland are very worried indeed. They have let us know in no uncertain terms exactly how concerned they are, and I share their worries. If a mechanism for reporting annually is not in place, a future Government of whatever colour or persuasion could in effect just say, “Well, there isn’t enough money, so we are making large cuts, including to all those wonderful schemes we talked about and told you we would keep.”
I say this to the Minister. This is a time not for empty words or—dare I say it?—hot air, but for common sense and for the Government to recognise that they have a responsibility to farmers and farm workers across our country. That is why new clause 2 should form part of the Bill, and I hope Members from across the House will reflect, consider and give their support to it.
Daniel Zeichner
My apologies, Mr Stringer, for straying slightly from the detail of the amendment. This is an important amendment, because it says that the public should be able to go through the list of extremely good aspirations in clause 1, on which there has been no disagreement, and see how much money has been allocated to each of those categories, including managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment—I will not go through the whole list. That begins to make it real for people. It is fair to say that it was pretty hard to see how the money that they were putting into the European Union was being spent.
This is a great opportunity for the Government. Imagine the Secretary of State or the Minister being able to stand up next year and say, “For each of these categories, this amount has been spent.” The Opposition will be able to do the opposite: we will be able to point to subsection (1)(f) and say, “Actually, it appears that no money at all has been allocated to protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock.” The goal is to make it simpler and more immediate, like the excellent moves made some years ago by, I think, Lord Whitty to get some transparency about how the money was spent through the CAP in the first place. That transparency allows any of us to look through the statistics on the DEFRA website and see just how much money is being allocated locally and to which organisations, and I am sure some of us have done so.
David Cameron always said that sunshine was the way to throw light on something—to open it up and make it more transparent. I should have thought that the Government would be keen to do so and trumpet their achievements in that way. However, it appears that we are still lost in this slightly opaque, internal world of money effectively being allocated behind closed doors. This amendment opens that world up, gives people the opportunity to ask questions, and gives the Government the opportunity to trumpet their achievement. I cannot for the life of me understand why they do not want to do that—other than that, of course, it is never what Governments do.
Victoria Prentis
No.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
The agricultural transition period for England and the termination of relevant payments
Mr Goodwill
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 8, page 8, line 5, after “extending” insert
“or pausing the transition process and”.
It is my pleasure to move this amendment, although I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to satisfy me that it is superfluous. As we have already heard, the Government’s plan is to switch over from the basic payment scheme, which pays farmers for being farmers, to a system of environmental land management that pays farmers for delivering public goods. That will be a seven-year graduated transition, which I hope will be smooth and go according to plan.
However, clause 8(3) allows a degree of flexibility if things do not go entirely according to plan. There are a number of reasons why that might happen—some within the Government’s control and some beyond their control. We have heard that the environmental land management pilots will be concluded by 2024. We have been slow getting started with those—partly because of the parliamentary inertia over the past three and a half years; I will not suggest who might be to blame for some of that—but we are now in a position where we can move forward. The British people have given us a majority and our marching orders, which are for a quick march towards the ambition of delivering these objectives for our farmers.
We may not have all the evidence we need to fully develop and deliver every aspect of environmental land management at the time we hope to start doing so. Therefore, this amendment will allow us to not waste public money on a scheme that has not been fully proven with the evidence, including scientific advice and ecological evidence, that we need. There may be some administrative glitches in the introduction of the new system; Governments do not have a good track record of delivering big IT systems on time—or, indeed, on budget. There may also be external factors relating to weather or disease and the impact they may have on farming, so it makes sense to have the flexibility that clause 8 allows for.
I hope the Minister can give me some clarity about how this may work in practice. If the process is to be extended and the seven-year transition ends up being, for example, a nine-year transition, will that take place in nine equal steps, or will we be able to—as my amendment allows for—pause the transition and start a little bit later? Could we stop the clock on the transition from BPS to ELM, and then resume after a one-year or two-year pause? I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure me that that is perhaps not intended but allowed within the flexibility of the clause without my amendment. However, the reassurance would be very helpful to me, because I suspect that the existence of the clause in the Bill just might have something to do with the time that I spent at DEFRA last year.
Daniel Zeichner
I certainly would not want to intrude on a private argument on the Government side, but our view is that this is symptomatic of the problem of just how slow the process has been in coming forward. We have before us, of course, a Bill that has been delayed. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made suggestions as to where the responsibility might lie, and we can all argue about that one. I suggest that there would have been a simple solution, but I am sure that he would not agree. The trouble is that a huge number of questions are left unanswered, as we have been highlighting throughout the day, and the suggestion that there might be further delay is cause for great concern.
It is worth highlighting what the National Farmers Union says:
“The NFU believes that with less than a year to go, time is rapidly running out for the government to have all of the necessary legislation and implementation decisions and process in place for this timescale. There are still many aspects of the transition and the successor future farming support policy which remain unclear and the concern is that there will be a ‘gap’ before alternative and effective schemes are in place and the start of the phasing out.”
As I think has become apparent in this Committee, we very much share those doubts: we have been talking about the reasons pretty much all day. We understand how ambitious many of the things that the Government are trying to do are. In the document to which we have been referring for much of the day, there are timelines, although I have to say that they are a bit like Mr Barnier’s account of the trade position of various countries. The timelines are not entirely clear in terms of where we are likely to be at a particular point.
We would be worried about a further pause, because as I have said we just cannot afford it. We are in a climate and ecological emergency. There is no pause button there. The Bill has already been delayed. If we are to reach net zero more quickly than 2050—my suspicion is that the Government would like to do so, although that date is what they are committed to—we will have to move more quickly, so any pause or delay to a more sustainable and environmentally supportive system of land management is disappointing.
We recognise the delicate balance, because if what we are discussing proves as difficult as I am suggesting it might be, there is then a dilemma for the Government. One of the gaps in the explanations today has been about the period, probably post 2024, as we go through the next part. It is one thing to do tests and trials and then to move to a national pilot, but to then move it on to a national scale is challenging, for many of the reasons to which I have referred.
We would want to go more quickly—[Interruption.] The Minister enjoys the fact that I am in the privileged position of being able to say that in opposition, but basically this entire institution should be bending itself, at every opportunity, to find ways of moving more quickly to challenge the climate crisis. That is what we would be doing.
The Bill needs to be stronger and quicker. We need the clearer targets. I am therefore inclined not to support the amendment. I think the message that needs to go out after today’s discussions is that we need much more clarity, and providing more clarity would actually help the Government to achieve what we all want, which is to move to a new system more quickly and more efficiently and ensure that it works for all those in rural communities.
Victoria Prentis
Yes, speed is important, but so are certainty and good government. I know that many people in this room will agree with me that direct payments are poor value for money and untargeted and can and have inhibited productivity and environmental improvement in the past. We have therefore been clear in our intention to phase out direct payments in England. We know that farmers need certainty. That is why we have been clear about the length of the agricultural transition. As has been rehearsed many times today, we are pressing ahead with plans for our ELM scheme.
In the meantime, a simplified countryside stewardship scheme will continue to provide funding for farmers, woodland owners, foresters and land managers.
Victoria Prentis
I can anticipate what the hon. Gentleman will ask. It will be a domestic grant scheme with a more transparent administration process and regulation and enforcement regime, to encourage more applicants and simplify the application and payment process. It is designed to enable a smooth and efficient transition for land managers from CAP payments to ELM payments.
I also reassure hon. Members that phased reductions to direct payments during the transition period will be set in regulations under the powers in clause 11 for payments under the basic payment scheme and in clause 12 for delinked payments. There is no obligation in the Bill for reductions in every year of the transition. We have allowed for flexibility, as I have explained.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who was a great Minister in this role and has been enormously helpful to me during my speedy learning process as I have tried to get ready to take this Bill through Committee. I reassure him that if there are unforeseen exceptional conditions, such as those that he outlined earlier, that would have an adverse impact on farmers, clause 8 already contains the power to extend the transition period, if necessary. There is no need to make a decision now. There is sufficient flexibility in the Bill—we can make a decision later if necessary. But his point has been heard.
In conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated that the seven-year transition period set out in the Bill provides farmers with certainty and enough time to adapt to life without direct payments.
Daniel Zeichner
On this point, the Minister did not quite anticipate me. On the question of what happens when, I think I heard the Minister say that there is no guarantee that there will be further cuts to direct payments in any particular year. Surely there is a danger of our reaching a point where there will be a dramatic change. Things could be gently phased, but if this is not done in the first few years and we try to get to 100% in seven years’ time, the maths is obvious. There is a real risk here. If it is all backloaded, people will face a dramatic cliff edge at some point. Surely we want to smooth things out.
Victoria Prentis
That is why we are going slowly, or relatively slowly. That is why we have a seven-year transition period. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the back page of his favourite document and the policy document published on Tuesday, which gives an indication of the likely timeline. It is important that we retain some flexibility.
We have included in the Bill the ability to set reductions at an appropriate rate during the transition and, if circumstances deem it necessary, to extend the transition. I ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw amendment 9.
Mr Goodwill
I am conscious that I have broken my golden rule of not intruding on my successor’s policy areas for at least 12 months after leaving a Department, but we must thank the usual channels for the fact that I am here and able to participate.
I thought it a little ironic for the Opposition to be criticising us for the delay, given that they are, by and large, the architect of that delay—together with some of my former colleagues, who have sadly departed this parish following the general election. I have heard the Minister’s comments. I do not think my amendment will be necessary to maintain the flexibility I wish to see. She has reassured me in that regard.
The Minister has also underlined the fact that we already have very good stewardship schemes in operation, so it is not a case of having to wait for better environmental objectives to be met: we already have schemes in place that are delivering on a day-to-day basis. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Westminster Hall
(4 years, 1 month 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
School Admissions Process
(4 years, 1 month 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
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of the school admissions process.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck—for the very first time, I believe.
I applied for today’s debate not only because the topic is of national importance, but because of the issues that my constituents have brought to me in recent weeks. Two weeks ago, the parents of one boy in my constituency came to me, beside themselves and at their wits’ end. To protect the identities of the child and the family, I will call the boy John.
John used to attend one of the schools in my constituency. He was on track, he played football and he learnt judo, but after his mock exams things went downhill and he started misbehaving. Eventually, he was sent to a pupil referral unit and excluded for three months. John’s father told me that during those three months, he essentially became another person: he was arrested and charged for robbery and he received a community service order.
John kept trying to turn his life back around and had a job for a year, but his parents saw him withdraw. It soon became clear that he was caught up with a bad crowd, with drugs and with gangs. In July last year, like other vulnerable children in Edmonton, he went missing. John was assaulted and only came back to his family four months later. He now faces another court case. His parents say that he stays in his room. They fear that his mental health is dwindling fast and that he might harm himself. John’s parents do not excuse the things he has done, but they love their child. They want him to be safe, and they wonder whether things could have been different had the school not excluded him so quickly.
Sadly, the story of John and his parents is not uncommon. It is being repeated all over the country, time and again. All across my constituency, parents know a simple truth: whether, how and where a child is admitted to school, and whether they are excluded from it, can set them on very different paths in life. In recent months, growing numbers of parents have come to me, saying how hard they are finding it to access decent school places in Enfield. Across the borough, we are losing too many vulnerable children to crime and gangs. Our pupil referral units and the wider education system are failing them.
The lives of those individuals affected are ultimately why today’s debate matters so much. I called for it because I know many hon. Members who are not here today but who, had they been able to attend, would have scrutinised with me the schools that this Government have built. The Government have now been in power for the past decade, and I hope that the Minister will back up his defence of their record with firm evidence.
Let us look at some of that evidence. Today, the Sutton Trust released an important new report assessing inequalities in the schools admission process, called “School Places: A Fair Choice?”. It finds high levels of socioeconomic segregation across schools and a marked gap in academic quality between schools attended by poor and by non-poor pupils. We often hear the argument that better-off parents are just more proactive about getting their children into good schools. The Sutton Trust research demonstrates that, in fact, parents across the socioeconomic spectrum make choices based on academic quality. The report found that those families eligible for free school meals make as many choices as richer families about the quality of school and about whether to choose a local school.
The report concludes that it is the school allocation system, rather than parental preferences, that means that children of wealthier families do better. In other words, inequalities in schools admissions exist because of how places are allocated, not because of how parents choose. The Government have based their whole education policy for the past decade on the mantra of promoting choice, but it turns out that it is the supply side of schooling, not the demand side, that is the problem.
On the supply side of school places, the arguments are well rehearsed. On this side of the House, the Labour party favours universal equal access and creating more high-quality places. We said in our last election manifesto that we would consider proposals for integrating private schools into a better state school system. We said that we would end the fragmentation and marketisation of our school system by bringing free schools and academies back under the control of the people who know them best—parents, teachers and local communities.
Let us be honest: parents feel there are not enough good places for children. According to the latest figures published this week by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, the number of children being home-schooled in England has just risen by 13% to 60,000. The real number may be much higher. I ask the Minister whether the Government accept that in many parts of the country there are simply not enough high-quality school places available for parents to choose from, and what steps the Department is taking to correct that.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
One simple change that would help to create a sufficiency of places would be for the Government to allow local authorities to build schools directly again. There is a lack of schools, the process now to create new schools is difficult and schools do not always get built in the right places. Local authorities, as admissions bodies, know where the schools are needed.
Kate Osamor
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point; I shall express my support for that later on in my speech.
The new research from the Sutton Trust also highlights the perverse incentives of school accountability systems that have developed under this Government. Both league tables and the Ofsted system encourage too many schools and academies to take on advantaged children and ignore disadvantaged children in the interests of scoring highly. I ask the Minister whether this new Government will look again at the incentives in our school accountability system.
The Sutton Trust has today made important and considered new proposals for making the schools admissions system fairer. They include marginal ballots, expanding the use of banding tests, prioritising applicants eligible for the pupil premium and simplifying conditions for demonstrating religious observance for applicants to religious schools. Will the Government say today what they make of those options, and will they commit to examining them closely?
The incentives that our Government set for schools matter, not just for admissions but for exclusions. The scandal of off-rolling, whereby schools still willingly exclude pupils too quickly just to improve their academic performance, is appalling. The Government must end it once and for all. Will the Minister consider making schools accountable for the outcomes of pupils who leave their rolls and removing the perverse incentives that let pupils such as my constituent John fall through the system?
I will conclude with a note of caution about the illusion of choice that the Government are giving people. Just this week, the schools admissions watchdog released figures in its annual report showing that in the past year, two out of every five complaints it received were about access to grammar schools—but those complaints were from privileged parents about grammar schools enrolling disadvantaged children. Any parent will know that people want the best for their child, but I am extremely concerned that the reintroduction of selective grammar schools under this Government is encouraging support for inequality. It is giving only an illusion of choice, and we need to ask ourselves whether it may be turning parents of advantaged children against disadvantaged families, who are being blamed for the lack of good school places.
I worry that the Government have introduced competition among parents without creating the new school places to go with it and are passing that off as “choice”. That is turning society against itself and dividing parents and communities. Should we not be putting all our efforts in this country into strengthening our whole public education system and creating high-quality new places, rather than encouraging a brutal race to the top for a lucky few while letting others, such as John, fall through the cracks? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s speech.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. We have something in common. I was recruited to the Labour movement in the mid-1980s by someone who I think was a great mentor to both of us—Alf Morris, who was the MP for Wythenshawe between 1964 and 1997. The reason I bring that up is that 2020 is the 50th anniversary of his seminal private Member’s Bill that became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was the first such legislation anywhere on the planet and has influenced legislators all over the world in recognising the rights of disabled people. I look forward later in the year to a calendar of events celebrating his great work. It is therefore a real pleasure to serve under you, Ms Buck.
I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) on securing the debate. She is an absolutely tremendous advocate for Edmonton and Enfield and she spoke with real passion and power about the situation of her constituent John. There is nothing more powerful than bringing the real-life lived experience of your constituents to the heart of democracy in Westminster, and she has done that with aplomb and passion today.
This has been an interesting-themed week. We had a very similar debate on exclusions yesterday, when a number of London MPs in particular were talking about how exclusions ruin the life chances of young people. They fall into criminal gangs and county lines behaviours and are lost to our system, for a number of reasons. It is interesting that we are back here today talking about admissions.
I have been badly impacted by the market-driven admissions system in my own constituency. Just today, the Secretary of State has backed a decision to close Newall Green High School in my constituency. I am absolutely outraged by that, having written to the Secretary of State and the Prospere Learning Trust; they together have made the decision to close the high school. I have stood shoulder to shoulder with both parents and pupils to try to maintain the viability of the school—not just recently, but over a number of years. It is short-sighted on the part of the Government. They have rejected sensible, pragmatic proposals from Manchester City Council, which wanted to keep the school open and was prepared to put substantial revenue into the project. The city council has not had the courtesy of a response from the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) talked eloquently about this issue in his intervention: why are councils so driven away from the schools process? They are responsible for spatial frameworks, responsible for admissions to a degree and responsible for the welfare of every child, but we do not seem to think that they are fit to be part of the school system. I will continue campaigning against the unjust decision in my constituency.
Schools matter. Pupils’ academic outcomes are heavily influenced by the school that they attend. Academic achievement in turn strongly influences life chances. The effectiveness of the school that a student attends can have lifelong implications. All state-funded schools in England are subject to the school admissions code. Schools and local authorities must follow the statutory guidance when carrying out duties relating to school admissions. That should mean that all school admission policies are fair and transparent, but that is often not the case, as has been pointed out today. Some schools act as their own admissions authority and so set their own criteria, subject to the code. Voluntary-aided and foundation schools have been able to do that for some time, but the rapid expansion of academies under this Government means that thousands of schools can now determine their own admissions policy.
The problems are obvious. First, there is no single body responsible for ensuring that admission policies comply with the code. Secondly, schools can engage in back-door selection. On paper the admissions policy looks compliant; in practice a school may be unlawfully selecting or rejecting certain pupils. Schools may do that because they believe that certain pupils might adversely impact on their academic results and hence their position in the school league tables, with knock-on impacts on their Ofsted results. That was a key argument yesterday when we talked about school exclusions. Tens of thousands of young people are off-rolled annually from our schools. In fact, evidence from the Education Policy Institute that I cited yesterday showed that 69,000 young people were excluded from school in 2017 alone. We do not know the reasons why. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton makes the point that schools should be responsible, even when children are off-rolled or excluded, for their future welfare. That has been clearly stated in our party policy, but has the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Selective admissions such as those I have described result in discrimination against certain categories of pupils, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, those with English as an additional language and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Children from disadvantaged families attend schools that have a much lower proportion of children achieving the benchmark of at least good grades at GCSE. The average score for that cohort was 59%. That is 6.9 percentage points below the cohort of non-poor pupils. It is a substantial difference.
My hon. Friend referred to the research in a Sutton Trust report released today. It states that half of all secondary school headteachers say that social segregation is a problem in state schools, yet more than 40% of them do not consider the socioeconomic make-up of their communities when developing their admissions policies. When children are allocated to schools that are over-subscribed—higher performing schools—the criteria that they use often favour the wealthy. We have a system in which whoever can afford to live near the good school has a much higher chance of getting in. That results in high levels of socioeconomic segregation across our school estate.
I welcome the second report that the Sutton Trust has published, which makes several detailed and considered proposals for dealing with the injustices of our current system. It shows that there is clear support for a review of admission policy, which would be overseen most effectively by local authorities. Through that approach, a level of coherence, fairness and trust could be restored to how we provide for our young people locally in their schools.
I will finish by asking the Minister to now look again at school admissions policies and address the segregation to enable a more mixed and balanced student population in our schools and to truly level the playing field for our nations’ young people.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) on securing the debate and on her excellent opening speech.
I listened carefully to what she had to say, and she said that there are not enough high-quality school places in our system. I have to say to her that we have raised the proportion of schools graded by Ofsted as good or outstanding from just 68% in 2010 to 86% today, and in the period between May 2010 and May 2018 we created 920,000 more places in our school system. We have also changed the admissions code to allow schools to prioritise in their admissions arrangements, their over-subscription criteria, children who are eligible for free school meals, those who qualify for the pupil premium, so there are incentives on schools to actively seek children from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is particularly the case with the pupil premium. It pays £935 per pupil in a secondary school and £1,320 per pupil in a primary school. And of course in the national funding formula we allocated significant sums to children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
In relation to the school admissions system, only about 1% of schools are referred to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, which administers the school admissions system to ensure that they are fair. Anyone can object, if they think the admissions arrangements are unfair, but only 1% of schools are referred to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. In her annual report, Shan Scott, the chief schools adjudicator, said that it was
“an admissions system that as a whole works effectively in the normal admissions rounds and that in those rounds the needs of vulnerable children and those with particular educational or social needs are generally well met.”
We are concerned about children in need who are known to social workers and seek their support. That is what our review of children in need was about. Our forthcoming changes to the school admissions code focus on in-year admissions and the fair access protocols, to ensure that they work better for the most vulnerable children, including children who have been excluded.
Our system is producing more good school places, which has been the thrust of everything that we have done with our school reforms since 2010. The academies programme has been at the heart of this Government’s reforms. Today, over 50% of pupils in state-funded education study in academies, the number of which has grown from 203 in 2010 to over 9,000 today. Our vision is for a world-class school-led system, which gives headteachers the freedom to run their schools in the way they know best. We believe that the academies programme can provide opportunities for that through its key principles: autonomy, accountability and collaboration. Therefore, we do not agree with Labour’s policy to bring academies under political control or with its hostility to the free schools programme.
Some 75% of sponsored primary and secondary academies that have been inspected are now good or outstanding. Those are sponsored academies, which are schools that have underperformed for years. Only one in 10 of those schools were judged good or outstanding before they became sponsored academies. Pupils at those schools are getting a significantly better quality of education thanks to that academies programme.
Through the free schools programme, this Government have funded thousands of good new school places and opened schools across the country, and we are committed to delivering choice, innovation and higher standards for parents. We want it to challenge the status quo and drive wider improvement, injecting fresh, evidence-based approaches into our education systems. Free schools are created to meet the need for pupil places in areas that need them and to address the concern about low- quality provision.
Kate Osamor
The Minister says that the Government are providing enough spaces for parents and their children. If there are enough spaces of high quality for all parents, why has the number of children in home schooling gone up by 13%?
Nick Gibb
We are also concerned about the increase in the number of children in elective home education. That is why we issued a call for evidence on home education and we are looking at it carefully. We have consulted on the proposal to create a register of children not in school. A range of factors have led to the increase, but in my judgment, it is not due to a shortage of high-quality school places in our school system.
As of 1 February, 508 free schools are open, providing 275,000 school places. In 2019, the top seven of the top 15 progress 8 scores for state-funded schools in England were achieved by free schools, and three of those schools were in the top five: Eden Boys’ School in Birmingham, Eden Girls’ School in Coventry and the Michaela Community School. Each of those successful schools teaches a stretching knowledge-rich curriculum, has a strong approach to behaviour management and is committed to high academic standards.
This morning I visited West London Free School, for the second or third time. It has an excellent quality of education and superb behaviour. I was hugely impressed by what I saw. There were very high quality lessons in music and arts. Over 80% of pupils there enter the EBacc combination of GCSEs. Eden Boys’ School and Eden Girls’ School were opened by Star Academies, which has grown through the free schools programme from running a single school in the north-west to running 28 schools across the country. Ark John Keats Academy is an outstanding open free school. In 2019 its progress 8 score was well above average at 0.76 and 82% of students entered the EBacc.
At Michaela Community School, 84% of pupils were entered for the EBacc, and in its first set of GCSE results, the school reported that more than half of all grades awarded were level 7 and above, which is equivalent to A and A*. That school serves a very disadvantaged community. The London Academy of Excellence is a free school sixth form in east London that was set up in collaboration with seven independent schools. In 2019, the school had an average A-level progress score well above average. It recently reported that 37 students received offers to study at Oxford and Cambridge. King’s College London Mathematics School is a specialist maths free school. In 2019, 100% of its pupils achieved an A or A*.
Nick Gibb
Thank you, Ms Buck. I was addressing the concern raised at the start that there are not enough high-quality school places, whereas we have been focused on creating more good school places, because that is a key part of our education reforms. However, I will adhere to your strictures, Ms Buck, and address the statutory duty to provide enough school places, which sits with local government. The Government provide basic need funding for every place that is needed based on the statistics supplied by the local authority. The local council of the hon. Member for Edmonton, the London Borough of Enfield, has been allocated £122.7 million to provide new school places between 2011 and 2021.
We have an effective admissions system to ensure that schools and parents are supported when school places are allocated. All mainstream state-funded schools, including academy schools, are required to comply with the school admissions code, which is designed to ensure that the practices and criteria used to decide the allocation of school places are clear, fair and objective. The code is clear that admissions authorities must ensure that their arrangements will not unfairly disadvantage, either directly or indirectly, a child from a particular social or racial group, or a child with a disability or special educational needs. It is for a school’s admission authority to set its own admission arrangements, provided that they are lawful. For community and voluntary control schools, the admission authority is the local authority; for foundation and voluntary-aided schools, it is the governing body; and for academies, it is the academy trust.
For normal admissions rounds, parents can apply to the local authority in which they live for places at their preferred schools. Parents can express a preference for at least three schools. If a school is undersubscribed, any parent who applies must be offered a place. When oversubscribed, a school’s admissions authority must rank applications in order against its published over-subscription criteria. Parents then receive a single offer of a place at the highest preference school that is able to offer their child a place. If a local authority is unable to offer a place at any of the parents’ preferred schools, it will offer a place at a suitable school. The latest report from the offers of the schools adjudicator, published on Monday, states that we do have an admissions system that works effectively in those normal rounds, as I have said earlier.
The latest preference data confirms that the admissions system is working well for most families. In 2019, 97.5% of applicants were offered one of their top three preferred primary schools and 93% of applicants were offered one of their top three preferred secondary schools. In the London Borough of Enfield, the hon. Lady’s local authority, 95.8% of applicants were offered one of their top three preferred primary schools and 85.5% were offered one of their top three preferred secondary schools in 2019.
We understand that where demand is high, parents cannot always secure a place at their preferred choice of school, but parents refused a place at a school for which they have applied have a right of appeal to an independent appeal panel. The schools admission authority is responsible for establishing that appeal panel, but the panel itself is an independent body. The admission authority has no control over its decisions. The appeal panel must come to its own conclusions.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edmonton for introducing the debate. It is timely, because next Monday will be national offer day, when thousands of parents up and down the country will hear what school their child will go to in September. We want all children to have fair access to a good school place, regardless of their background. Academies and free schools create a healthy choice for parents, while raising standards in education. The school admissions system, underpinned by the statutory school admissions code, supports the system effectively, providing the tools that schools need to allocate places in a fair and objective way.
Kate Osamor
The Minister did not answer all my questions. Is he prepared to receive a letter from me?
Kate Osamor
I appreciate that. It is a very important issue to my constituents. I am sure that I will speak to the Minister about admissions again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of the school admissions process.
Construction Industry: Cash Retentions
(4 years, 1 month 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
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of cash retentions in the construction industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. We all know the procedure for Westminster Hall—you know it better than I do, Mr McCabe. I move the motion and, at the end, everybody agrees that this House has considered the matter. In this case, however, the subject matter has been considered several times, yet for some reason the Government choose to do nothing about it, which becomes ever more frustrating. Small companies continue to suffer cash-flow issues because of late payment by retention or, even worse, non-payment, often because of insolvency of the larger company.
I intend to focus on the lack of Government action, but I should first explain what a cash retention is. An October 2017 report by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Pye Tait Consulting defined a cash retention as
“a sum of money withheld from the payments of a construction sector project in order to mitigate the risk that such projects are not completed…to the required quality standard.”
Effectively, a retention is a cash bond withheld by the main contractor to cover any snagging defects in an agreed maintenance period of one to two years, and is intended as a lever to hold subcontractors to their legal contractual obligements to make good any defects in a set timeframe. The typical value is 5% of the works, which can create significant cash-flow issues.
At any one time, it is estimated that in England alone, between £3 billion and £6 billion of retention money is withheld. There is a logic to the origin of cash retentions, however, as an insurance policy or bond to ensure that work is completed to the desired standard. Of course, at one time, the only way to operate contracts was the use of cash, so there is a historical logic.
I fully understand, having worked in the construction industry, that retaining half of the retention money until the works are initially completed, and then releasing it, is a good incentive to ensure that work is done without leaving odds and ends. I also realise that during the snagging period, it can be hard to get a subcontractor back on site immediately to rectify snagging issues, because they have moved on to other projects and their resources are allocated elsewhere.
On the whole, however, the subcontractor will always return to remedy defects at their own cost, as per the contractual terms and conditions. As the retention money is seldom required to pay for snagging issues, it is due to be paid to the subcontractor at the end of a defect period. That is when subcontractors expect the money owed to them to be released.
History also shows us problems with cash-based retentions. Too often and for various reasons, the retentions are not released in a timely manner, or even worse, are not released at all. The most common reason for non-release is a company going into liquidation, but if the subbies fully comply with the terms and conditions in their contracts, why should their money not be released in a timely manner? Why, in the 21st century, are we dealing with unprotected cash retentions?
The worst recent high-level example of the effects of lost retentions was the collapse of Carillion in January 2018. Estimates of lost cash for companies are in the region of £250 million to £500 million. Just think how many small and medium-sized companies went bust as a consequence? How many training opportunities were lost because of the resulting cash-flow issues? How many subcontractors just decided that enough was enough, packed up and got out of the game?
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The knock-on effect is even worse than that. The great long chains of subcontractors mean that a company that was not even involved on the site may be dependent on getting payment, for a completely different project, from the company in liquidation. The ripple effect, which basically undermines the ecosystem of our construction industry, has been considerable over many years.
Alan Brown
I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman; that ripple effect can go all the way down to builders’ merchants and those who supply goods. It has a massive effect and we need the UK Government to do something about it.
I highlighted Carillion, and a further disparity is that for public sector contracts, for which tier 1 contractors are engaged, retention money is safe because the public sector will not go bust. Retention might cause tier 1 contractors some cash-flow issues, but their money is protected. In the case of Carillion, however, public sector clients will have retained Carillion’s retention money, which effectively included the subcontractors’ retention money. The subcontractors cannot get that money because they are legally creditors of Carillion. That shows an imbalance in the procurement process, because there is no regulation or guidance on how retention moneys are held or protected. If an employer enters into insolvency before the retention money is paid, the money is used to pay off creditors first—that is why changes are required.
In addition to the potential £500 million Carillion retention loss, the Specialist Engineering Contractors Group estimates that, in the last four years, £670 million of cash retentions has been lost to upstream insolvency, so for small and medium-sized enterprises, more than £1 billion has been lost in the system in that time. That highlights the need for Government action.
A micro-sized electrical business in the west of Scotland, which held a subcontract with Carillion, lost £40,000 in retention money when Carillion collapsed. Carillion’s client was the Ministry of Defence, which, ironically, did not hold retention money from Carillion. Carillion, however, took retention from the guys working for it. That subcontractor was lucky to survive, but could only do so by using reserves to plug the shortfall, cutting back on training, and cancelling plans to take on an apprentice. That single example shows the current imbalances in the procurement system and the impracticalities of using cash retentions.
The research paper “Retention in the Construction Industry”, published by BEIS and Pye Tait Consulting, found that 44% of the contractors surveyed had experience of retentions not being paid in the previous three years due to insolvency. In addition, 50% of contractors had their cash flow affected over the previous three years when their retentions were held, while they did not hold retention money themselves. Looking at the issue in the round, half of solvent contractors still suffer cash-flow issues because cash retentions are withheld. It should be noted that in more extreme cases, retention money is withheld for years. Why, in the face of such blatant evidence of those harmful effects, have the UK Government not taken action?
To illustrate the scale of the problem, the credit management company Creditsafe recently reported that 22 construction companies went bust in January 2020 alone. A further 158 firms were involved in varying stages of liquidation. Creditsafe predicts 4,000 construction insolvencies in 2020. That underlines the need for action.
Beyond the cash-flow issues, additional effects of withholding retentions include further insolvencies; job losses; cuts to training budgets and the inability to take on new apprentices; resources being wasted to chase up late payments, which leads to higher overheads for the company, an impact on productivity and unpaid hours for a non-chargeable activity; a possible inability for some companies to bid for other retention-based contracts or to expand because of cash-flow issues; and, if pressure bites, a desire to cut corners in other jobs to try to claw back money. Following the Grenfell tragedy, Dame Judith Hackitt’s “Building a Safer Future” report said
“Payment terms within contracts (for example, retentions) can drive poor behaviours, by putting financial strain into the supply chain. For example non-payment of invoices and consequent cash flow issues can cause subcontractors to substitute materials purely on price rather than value for money or suitability for purpose.”
There is of course a human element to this, because cash pressures bring personal stress. An industry survey before Christmas revealed that 90% of SME owners and senior managers were experiencing mental health issues, ranging from stress and anxiety to suicidal thoughts. Cash-flow issues clearly contribute to that stress.
John Spellar
Is there not an additional factor here? We have seen this: in any upsurge in demand, the construction industry has to go abroad for companies and skilled labour. The United Kingdom economy suffers a real loss in capacity, which impacts on private and public contracts, so the Government and in particular the Treasury should have a real interest in resolving this. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much of a sense of urgency about solving it.
Alan Brown
Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I thank him for it. Apart from the skills issue in the UK, it is another reason why we use labour from abroad, as he said. Also, we have relied on EU labour, but now the UK Government are ending free movement, so that will cause another issue and certainly underlines why we need to resolve the matter.
If the late release of retentions is such an issue, why do the sub-contractors not do something about it, such as adjudication or arbitration? They are caught between a rock and a hard place—they need their money, but they are often frightened to rock the boat, perhaps losing a vital pipeline of work from the contractor they are in arbitration with. That was the case for a local contractor in my constituency who approached me, as the MP, on the issue of cash retentions.
The processes also cost money in terms of resource time, often valuable resource. Therefore, it is not as easy a process for sub-contractors to follow as Ministers have suggested in the past. According to the recently published Government response to a consultation, the average cost borne by firms in adjudication over the past five years is £28,000, which is cost-prohibitive for small companies.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his superb speech. Brian Griffiths of Griffiths Air Conditioning in Burton Latimer wrote to me on exactly that point:
“When monies are held for long periods (often years), SMEs simply do not have the time, resources or legal skills to chase or recover, and have to take it as loss.”
Is Mr Griffiths not spot on?
Alan Brown
He is absolutely spot on—I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which illustrates the point that I was making. For the record, I think it is the first time ever that he has said he is enjoying the speech I am making.
I stated that there is a historical logic to the origins of cash retentions, but there is no logic—and plenty of history—to UK Governments ignoring evidence and recommendations that time is up for the use of cash retentions. As long ago as 1964, the Banwell report, published through the Ministry of Public Building and Works, stated that:
“Where sensible methods of selecting contractors are used, the entire elimination of retention moneys could…be accomplished without any unreasonable risk”.
The report also suggested as an incentive that this
“might well lead to a reduction in tender prices.”
That possible carrot was not enough for the industry and the Government to take action.
A further 30 years down the line, in 1994, we had the Latham report. This was a joint construction industry and Government report that recommended that cash retentions should at least be protected in a trust account—recommendation 27 of the report. We have a tenancy deposit scheme to protect individuals in the private renting sector, and yet for some reason there has never been the will to do something with the deposits, in effect, in construction.
Why have delays continued for nearly another 30 years since the Latham report? In 2002, the Trade and Industry Committee looked at the matter of retentions, compiling the report, “The Use of Retentions in the UK Construction Industry”. It concluded that the use of retentions in public procurement should be phased out by 2007. That deadline came and went, so it is no surprise that in 2008 the Business and Enterprise Committee produced a report called “Construction matters”, which looked at cash retentions. That report noted that the system undermined team working, damaged the cash flow of small companies and impacted on training and innovation, and that it should be ended at least in all parts of the public sector. The theme is consistent, but we are still waiting for action.
Moving forward to 2016, the industry again hoped for action. In a Westminster Hall debate on 27 January, the then Business Minister Anna Soubry assured us that the matter would be addressed following a review by Andrew Wolstenholme, to be completed by the end of that year. Due to cynicism in the Chamber, she confirmed that
“this Government”
will not
“prevaricate in any way or seek to knock things into the long grass.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2016; Vol. 605, c. 149WH.]
The following month, when the Enterprise Bill was going through its stages in the Commons, the same Minister said of cash retentions:
“I think they are outdated and I do not think they are fair. They are particularly unfair to small businesses.”
Yet the Government still defeated amendments proposing to eliminate the use of cash retentions, including one that I tabled on Report. When I expressed concern in Committee about timescales, the Minister also stated that
“the hon. Gentleman can be assured that this Minister gives absolutely her word that this matter is not going to be kicked into any long grass. In fact it is very short grass, which has only just grown, because the review will be completed by March and then recommendations will go out to public consultation. If legislation is required as a result of that consultation, I will be happy to be the Minister to take that through.”––[Official Report, Enterprise Public Bill Committee, 9 February 2016; c. 47-48.]
We now know that the consultation process did indeed end up in the long grass. In 2017, I tried to take through a private Member’s Bill on the subject. Although the election killed that Bill, it is fair to say that the Government would have blocked it anyway, given that they did not back the Bill of the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) in the last Parliament. We had both had considerable cross-party support for our Bills, so it was disappointing that neither made any progress.
The only action taken by the Government since were the BEIS consultations on “Retention payments in the construction industry” and on “2011 changes to Part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996”, undertaken between October 2017 and January 2018. To be fair, three meetings with industry and stakeholders were held, and those groups agreed that the status quo and doing nothing were no longer regarded as a viable option.
With the last consultation closing in January 2018, I have been getting frustrated—two years later, and no sign of anything happening. Then mysteriously, the day before this debate, the Government magically publish the responses to the consultation. Who would have thought it? Luckily for the thrust of my debate—I had already written some of this speech—that did not change what I planned to say, because we only have publication of the consultation responses. There is no hard evidence for what the Government will do next. Sadly, I fear for industry and the SMEs that the long grass is once again being prepared.
One of the just published documents on cash retentions states:
“Our aim is to work with the construction industry and its clients to achieve a consensus within the industry on how to resolve the problems associated with cash retentions. Several policy options are under consideration, a possible retention deposit scheme, and phasing out of retentions completely, and work continues to assess the viability and potential impact of these.”
It feels like we are going in circles, but will the Minister at least confirm that the status quo is no longer an option?
Why was there no acknowledgement in the consultation publication that a deposit retention scheme is the preferred option of respondents? Separately, the Scottish Government are consulting on retentions, including the possibility of introducing a deposit retention scheme. Their consultation closes on 25 March, but a key premise of the consultation is based on Pye Tait research, which states:
“The research particularly noted that retention money held in trust in a separate, ring-fenced account until it is either used to rectify defects or becomes due for payment or in some form of retention deposit scheme would meet almost all of the serious criticisms of the current retention system.”
That would allow a statutory solution to help prompt payments and deal with problems with cash flow. It has certainly given hope to SMEs that action will be taken in Scotland, and I urge the Scottish Government to follow through on that. Given their early adoption of project bank accounts, I expect them to be more receptive. It is fair to say that their consultation is a stage ahead of the UK Government’s.
The thing is that a working deposit retention scheme solution is at hand. Industry bodies and a major tier 1 contractor have been working collaboratively with academics, banking and financial experts, insurers and software developers to develop an IT platform as a digital solution to ring-fencing cash retentions. The key features in the proposed retention deposit clearing house scheme are that the aggregate of the retention moneys handed over to the client will held in a bank account and ring-fenced by a trust, and allocated to all supply chain firms as is relevant to their deductions. Also, firms will be able to use an app for online checks of the amount of their retentions held in the scheme. An insurance policy will be made available to the client to cover any shortfall in the scheme in case there is non-compliant work that is not rectified, because of insolvency, for example. The scheme will be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. The costs of administering the scheme are estimated at just £23 per £10,000 of main contract value, so cost is clearly not a barrier to introducing it.
It transpires from the responses that have just been published that the retention deposit scheme is the preferred option. Additionally, as I am sure the Minister is aware, the BEIS roundtable meeting of client and industry stakeholders in May 2019 voted for work to begin on the feasibility of a retention deposit scheme. I want therefore to ask the Minister what Government progress there has been to date, in relation to that work. What is the Department’s timetable for taking action on protecting cash retentions? Those are the key issues on which I am looking for an answer from the Minister—but by way of a conclusion there are some other questions I should like to put to him. Why did it take so long to publish the responses to the consultation? Does he agree that tier 1 contractors should not use subcontractor retentions for their own cashflow purposes? Will he definitively rule out the status quo? I have outlined Scottish Government recognition of the need for legislative measures on retentions, so what plans does BEIS have for legislative solutions? What is the Government position on retentions within their own projects? For example, will BEIS confirm that retentions will be removed from all Government-funded projects, as has been recommended for decades?
I genuinely hope that the Minister can give positive responses. Maybe he will be the one to cut through the long grass that cash retention has been hiding in for a long time. I assure him I would be happy to work with him to help him cut that grass, and help companies to get the money they deserve.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing the debate. As he mentioned, he and I both have form on this subject, in that we have both introduced ten-minute rule Bills to address the deep-rooted problems associated with cash retentions in the construction industry. He presented his Construction Industry (Protection of Cash Retentions) Bill in 2017, and our former colleague David Simpson initiated a debate in this Chamber in January 2016 following the collapse of the Patton Group in Northern Ireland. That left £10 million of retention moneys outstanding, which SMEs never saw again. My own ten-minute rule Bill was presented on 9 January 2018, a week before Carillion collapsed with £800 million lost to creditors, many of which were SMEs caught with retentions outstanding.
The problem has plagued the construction industry for a long time and should really have been addressed in the 1990s when Sir Michael Latham produced his report, commissioned by both the Government and the construction industry, entitled “Constructing the Team”. It had a significant impact on the industry and led to part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, generally known as the Construction Act. Unfortunately, one of Sir Michael’s recommendations remains outstanding and has never been implemented. That relates to cash retentions being retained in a secure trust fund. Two and a half decades on, we really should now be putting right that glaring omission. It is a scar that has blighted and held back the construction industry for many years and caused personal anguish and distress to the proprietors and staff of many businesses.
John Spellar
Is not the situation exacerbated by the fact that contractors and indeed their employees are way back in the list of preferred creditors?
Peter Aldous
That is true, and reminds me of something else I am handling at the moment where Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is put right at the top of the list. The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has explained the problem and I shall not go into much detail about it. Retentions are ostensibly held as security in case a firm fails to return to rectify defects. In practice, they are often withheld to bolster the working capital of the group withholding them. Under standard industry contracts, they should be returned within 12 months of the handover of the works in question, but there are regular delays, often of up to three years. I have seen one case of a delay of 12 years, and some retentions have even been held in perpetuity, as they are never returned. Most of that cash is provided by SMEs. No other industry puts so much cash at risk and places such burdens on its small businesses. That abuse of retentions has a negative knock-on domino impact that cascades through the construction industry. It restricts investment in new equipment and facilities, prevents firms from taking on more work, and disadvantages them in relation to employing more people and investing in apprenticeships. At a time when we need to build more homes and invest in infrastructure, the construction industry should be operating at full throttle. Instead, owing to the self-imposed brake of retentions abuse, it is struggling to get out of third gear.
What is the solution? There have been many failed attempts to solve the problem voluntarily, and they have all got nowhere. We can continue to go round and round in circles, but we should be introducing a statutory solution with legislation that secures the moneys so that they will be able to be returned, subject to the other party having recourse to the money. The Construction (Retention Deposit Schemes) Bill that I presented and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun kindly supported proposed that retentions should be retained in a Government-approved scheme. That would operate in a similar way to what is required for shorthold tenants under the Housing Act 2004, whereby deposits taken from them must be placed in an approved scheme. Ring-fencing the moneys in that way will mean that they will be secure, and available to be released on time rather than, as currently happens, after a wait of three or more years—if ever. That will help to increase the velocity of cash in the system, and if moneys are secured in that way banks will be able to lend to firms on the back of such security.
It is appropriate to look briefly at the situation in other countries. The UK is now very much out of step with what happens elsewhere, where there is legislation ring-fencing cash retentions and/or providing security for construction payments in general. In Canada and the United States there is a system of charges that can be placed on a building or structure by a firm that has not received its payments. Australia and New Zealand have legislated to ring-fence the money. France has a statutory framework that requires bank guarantees to be used as security for payment in the construction industry. The Bill is a relatively straightforward one that amends the Construction Act and requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulation to protect moneys.
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend has a fan in Kettering. Mr Brian Griffiths, of Griffiths Air Conditioning and Electrical Contractors, which employs 30 people locally, has mentioned my hon. Friend to me in dispatches. Mr Griffiths is of the view, as am I, that the ready-made solution to the problem is my hon. Friend’s Bill, which the Government could simply introduce as a Government Bill. Not only is my hon. Friend outlining the problem extremely effectively, he is providing the Government with a ready-made solution.
Peter Aldous
I believe that the Bill is the framework for resolving the issues, and an awful lot could flow from putting it in place.
A retention deposit scheme seeks to safeguard the money. Cash retentions can still be deducted as security, but they in turn must be secured by depositing them in the scheme. Failure to do so will mean that any contractual clause enabling the deduction of cash retentions would be invalid. The Bill would finally bring closure to the many efforts that have been made over the past two decades and before to address the problem. In doing so, it would transform the prospects of many SMEs that make up the vast majority of firms in the UK construction industry.
To the outside world, nothing has happened since January 2018. The Brexit impasse brought the machinery of government to a halt. However, behind the scenes, a fair amount has been going on. As a result of the outstanding efforts of the Building Engineering Services Association and the leading electrotechnical and engineering services body, the Electrical Contractors’ Association, the January 2018 Bill secured the support of more than 80 industry bodies and trade associations, representing over 580,000 businesses and sole traders. It was the largest fair payments campaign ever formed in the UK, representing every level of the supply chain from across the construction and engineering professions. The British Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors were also supportive. Only last week, Suffolk-based Breheny Civil Engineering, one of the largest privately owned regional civil engineering contractors, wrote to me in support of the Bill.
In the last Parliament, the Bill received strong parliamentary support, with more than 250 MPs from across the political spectrum indicating their support. Indeed, on the list that I have before me, in perfect alphabetical symmetry I am second from the top of the list and the Minister is second from the end. It is appropriate to acknowledge the work of previous Ministers at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who recognised the need for change, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) and our former colleague Richard Harrington.
Richard convened a roundtable meeting of industry representatives to address the problem. He very kindly ensured that I received invitations to the opening session in October 2018 and the concluding one in May 2019, although by then he was no longer a Minister. He made absolutely clear at the outset that doing nothing was not an option, and that we cannot continue to kick this particular can down the road. I got the impression that he wanted this reform to be his legacy from his time in office. Unfortunately, it was not to be. The outcome of the roundtable was not conclusive, though, on balance, my sense is that there was a clear preference for a retention deposit scheme as the Bill proposes, rather than an alternative surety bond-based solution.
Over the past 18 months, pay2Escrow has been modelling how a retention deposit scheme could work. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun outlined that scheme; pay2Escrow has taken me through its proposals, and I understand it has made presentations to officials at BEIS. I would anticipate that the Minister has been briefed on those.
I presented my ten-minute rule Bill 10 days before the Government’s consultation on retentions closed. Yesterday, they published a summary of the responses. Of the 52 responses in Citizen Space, 60% thought that a retention deposit scheme could apply to the whole sector. Of the seven business representative organisations that responded to the same question, 71% considered that an RDS could apply to the whole sector. Some 82% of 55 responses in Citizen Space believed an RDS should set up on a statutory footing. Of the eight business representative organisations that responded to the question, 75% believed an RDS should be set up on a statutory footing. The Minister concludes his foreword to the summary by stating:
“We will continue to work with industry on these issues and the policy options for addressing the problem of unjustified and late payment of cash retentions.”
Will the Minister address three questions? First, does he agree with Richard Harrington that doing nothing is not an option? Secondly, will he facilitate a pilot for the retentions deposit model that has been worked up? Finally, will he work to secure Government time for the passage of the Construction (Retention Deposit Schemes) Bill?
John Spellar
The hon. Gentleman has done a tremendous amount of work on this issue. What does he think is the Government’s underlying problem? Where in government does he think is the blockage against what is universally agreed to be a desirable solution? Who is holding this up?
Peter Aldous
I will try to answer, although I think the Minister is the best person to do so. First, there was the Brexit impasse, when nothing happened. Secondly, over the years, the main contractors have probably thwarted it, saying, “No, it’s going to cause us cash problems and the whole edifice will be crumbling down.” That said, some people in those firms who initially said, “No, you don’t want to go down this line,” have actually changed their tune, and now say, “Come on, let’s get on with it.” Thirdly, there has been concern that it is too difficult to put in place, so we should put it in the “too difficult” tray. The point of the pilot and the work over the last 18 months is that a solution is now ready to go. Those are the reasons I think things have not happened for a long time, but now is the time.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for securing this debate. It is fair to say that the practice of retentions remains a controversial issue. I hope that this debate has cast a little more light on the financial challenges facing the construction industry across the UK.
I would like to highlight a point made by my hon. Friend: some of these cash retentions have been withheld for many years, with an impact on productivity. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who is no longer in the Chamber, made an excellent intervention about small and medium enterprises not having the time, resources or legal skills to chase outstanding moneys. He recommended action—the best action would be a Bill in which the Government provide a solution.
The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) spoke about the chain of subcontractors involved, and the monumental ripple effect through the industry. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who is to be congratulated on introducing a ten-minute rule Bill in January 2018, made the point that the issue should have been dealt with in the 1990s, and has been dragging on all those years. He made the interesting point that some of the cash retentions have actually bolstered the working capital of groups that withhold the cash. The abuse of retentions prevents firms from investing and employing more staff. The way to go is definitely legislation.
Retention payments can skew the types of firms that bid for contracts. The practice of retentions has a significant impact on the entire supply chain, with small to medium-sized firms disproportionately affected. Many construction firms report that they will not even consider taking contracts that insist on retention payments, with significant implications on the types of firms that will bid for particular projects. Retentions also have a significant effect on cash flow and the supply chain. Although retentions will not be the only reason for late or non-payment for a project, anecdotal evidence suggests that cash retentions can cause or exacerbate cash-flow problems, meaning that companies with otherwise healthy balance sheets and considerable assets can be placed into administration or liquidation. That is especially true when companies are under pressure to win contracts by delivering high-quality work at low prices, leaving them little room for manoeuvre if projects overrun or incur substantial unforeseen additional costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun referred to the collapse of Carillion. The impact of Carillion’s collapse on the construction industry and the wider public sector is well documented. However, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the fact that Carillion went into liquidation owing more than £1 billion to 30,000 suppliers, many of which were smaller firms that subsequently suffered major cash-flow problems because Carillion demanded up-front payment. Carillion’s collapse demonstrates how vulnerable smaller companies can be in the supply chain. It is the tip of the iceberg.
The UK Government’s own research found that smaller construction firms lose almost £1 million in fees per working day due to insolvency issues further up the supply chain. That is untenable. The economy is not well served if smaller firms can be held to ransom by larger firms, placing every other contractor in the supply chain in a precarious position.
Late and non-payment has a real human cost, too, which my hon. Friend mentioned. It was worrying to hear the statistics about SMEs, including the fact that cash retentions cause a lot of mental health problems. Construction News reported on 22 major administrations of construction firms in 2019. There are hundreds of job losses each time a firm closes its doors. As we saw with Carillion’s collapse, the precarious nature of the system is felt most acutely by employees. It is incumbent on MPs to do what we can to tackle the scourge of late payments.
We need to create a level playing field for different firms to bid for major construction projects, while ensuring that those commissioning construction projects can have confidence in the quality of the works that are carried out. They need to feel that they have appropriate guarantees and a way to sort out defects should anything go wrong with the project, but the withholding of cash, particularly from small firms, could be the difference between a business completing a contract and going under. We must offer firms alternative quality assurance models for construction works, such as retention bonds, performance bonds and parent company guarantees, all of which provide security through a third party and avoid the cash-flow issues and problems of late and non-payment that we have discussed.
The Scottish Government, as my hon. Friend mentioned, are well aware of the impact of retentions on the construction industry and are consulting firms across the sector on possible alternatives. I encourage all those with an interest to submit their views on the impact of retentions on their business by the deadline of 25 March. The Scottish Government’s proposal of a retention deposit scheme as an alternative mechanism to guarantee works has considerable merit, and I look forward to seeing at the end of the consultation period how construction firms responded to that proposal.
The UK Government have also consulted on the use of cash retentions. My hon. Friend mentioned that that consultation closed more than two years ago. It has taken the UK Government far too long to address the issue—although as he said, magically, the response was published yesterday, in advance of this debate. Why has it taken so long to publish the findings? What steps does the Minister intend to take to encourage the use of alternative quality assurance models for construction work? We want to move forward on reforms that give construction firms financial security while giving the public confidence in the quality and safety of building works.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing yet another debate on this topic.
“Stop, thief!” That was my reaction when I learned that £573 million has been lost by SMEs in the construction industry in the two and a bit—quite a bit more than a bit—years since October 2017, when the Government published a report showing that £229 million a year is lost as a result of the application of retentions, which has been described so well by Members across the Chamber.
A crime has been committed. In fact, a series of crimes has been committed over many years. This is a crime in which there is an imbalance of justice between large and small: the big firm is allowed to exploit the small firm with impunity and continue to get away with it. The perpetrators are a relatively small number of very large organisations. The victims—in any crime there are victims, and we should take their side—are SMEs in the construction sector, and self-employed contractors, who often rely on SMEs for work. Retentions are applied unfairly and disproportionately in the supply chain. It is a crime that that has been allowed to continue.
Let us see some action to stop the thief. Let us end this criminal activity and imbalance. Let us ensure there is a level playing field in the construction industry by taking the kind of action that the hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and many of the rest of us, have sought for some time. It is time the Government stood up for the little person rather than siding with the large corporates. Frankly, the lifestyles of a small number of people running large organisations are funded on the backs of hard-working owners and workers in small businesses in the construction sector. Why on earth is that allowed?
I am afraid that the idea in one of the consultation responses that we should not worry about insolvency because there is a buoyant market is at best complacent and at worst downright disingenuous. We have only to look at what happened with Carillion—I think it was actually £2 billion in late payments that was lost by 30,000 businesses—and at the examples given to us by the Federation of Master Builders. K&M Decorating lost £230,000 in retentions alone. A number of the federation’s members that were in supply chains with Carillion went into liquidation as a result of unpaid retentions. We must not be complacent. We cannot afford to take the attitude that insolvency is not the problem that it really can be. Insolvency often happens, and even when it does not, chasing retentions—certainly the final element of them—is a huge problem for many businesses, some of which give up.
Let us remember that the amount of retentions we are talking about is often the margin for smaller firms in construction contracts. If firms are unable to collect those retentions, their financial viability is often threatened.
John Spellar
Does not that mean that many big contractors are in a mutually destructive relationship? If some of their subcontractors—or even their sub-subcontractors—go bust, they have to bring in new firms, delaying and putting at risk their projects. Somebody—actually, it has to be the Government—has to break that mutually destructive cycle.
Bill Esterson
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and that goes back to what the hon. Member for Waveney said about the big contractors beginning to wake up. They cannot carry on as they are because by continuing this disruptive practice, they will be undermined. When the large firms start to challenge the very behaviours from which they profit, we start to realise that perhaps those behaviours are coming to an end. We live in hope that that is part of the answer.
Some of the consultation responses said, “Everything’s fine, leave it alone”, but that is clearly a minority view. We often see the attempt to get small firms to apply for prompt payment in return for a discount, a quite disgraceful business practice that happens not just in retentions but across the board—and not just in the construction industry. Again, the Government should be challenging and ending that. It goes back to the point about tight margins.
I take exception with how some of the responses were reported by the Government in the summary of consultation responses, because it was quite hard to tell the difference between the responses from large firms and those from small firms—the perpetrators and the victims. We could work it out in the end, but we had to really look for it. Perhaps the Minister will speak to that point.
A constituency firm of mine called WT Jenkins, which does highway lighting, showed me its files on the shelf in the office. Its typical retentions, when I spoke to it about five years ago, were between 5% and 10% of contract price. That is in the public sector. There are problems in the public sector and in the private sector, in house building in particular. The firm was waiting between two and five years; the hon. Member for Waveney mentioned three years in his speech. It is an absurd way to carry on.
Other Members may have seen a letter sent to the Secretary of State from R Durtnell and Sons Ltd, building contractors who had been going for 430 years. I hope the Minister has had sight of it. The firm’s three-page letter describes the refusal to pay, the exaggeration of claims of defects by the main contractors and an exploitative model. It made clear in the letter that it paid its suppliers and its retention liabilities on time, yet it had to suffer having retentions withheld against it for many months, if not years, in wholly unacceptable ways. Other hon. Members spelled that out well in their examples.
Like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, I thought, “Great! We have had a Government response to the consultation. Fantastic news”—and then I read it. I thought that I could have told the Government every single one of the comments, because they have all been made in this House and to us individually by businesses and business organisations over the years. It has taken two years to get to the point of the response.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) rightly mentioned the lack of urgency. We have had roundtables, with the last one, as we heard, happening in May last year. Why are we getting only a summary of responses? Why have we not had an action plan? A paragraph saying:
“Several policy options are under consideration”,
simply does not cut it. That is not good enough. It will not stop the crime of retentions. We need action and we need it fast.
In the consultation, the phrase “the principle is sound” was used when referring to the concept of retentions. Not, I am afraid, in the way it is applied. It is not doing anybody any favours, certainly not those at the sharp end. As we have discussed previously, it is increasingly affecting the industry as a whole and those at the top as well. We can see some signs of improvement in the public sector with project bank accounts. Highways England is spending a £20 billion on work through project bank accounts and the devolved nations are taking active steps along similar lines.
The Government have a great tool in procurement. They can insist that those who spend money with the Government apply productive, responsible business behaviours through their supply chains. Why are they not doing that already? Perhaps they are considering that in their response, and perhaps the Minister will say that they will take such an approach. The fact that the tenancy deposit scheme in the private rented sector is effective and works well shows what kind of model can be put forward. The hon. Member for Waveney’s ten-minute rule Bill gives the Government a blueprint for what could be applied.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned Dame Judith Hackitt’s comments. A poor quality of work is one of the system’s consequences, with substitutions for poor materials made because of the impact of non-payment in the retention system on cash flow and profits. It is a very real problem, and anybody who looks at the poor quality of new build housing can see exactly what is happening. I have seen it at a 300-home development in my constituency next to the new Maghull North station, with shoddy work and the application of retentions while the developer, Persimmon, makes vast profits and pays significant bonuses to its directors. It is not good enough and it has to change.
The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 is quoted by a number of respondents to the Government consultation. Pay-when-paid is not allowed, but it continues and we need further action, intervention and support to deal with that problem. Is it not about time that the Small Business Commissioner and their office had full responsibility for looking into this issue and were given the resources needed to address retentions in construction in both the private sector and Government procurement supply chains?
This is an incredibly important issue for the construction industry and the wider economy. When will we get the full Government response? The Government say that they will work with industry. The policy options mentioned in the report are
“a possible retention deposit scheme, and phasing out of retentions completely, and work continues to assess the viability and potential impact of these.”
Why has it taken so long? When will it come forward? It should have been with us today had anything been brought in front of us for the debate. The retention deposit scheme has clear support in the consultation, as does a phasing out of retentions altogether. Everyone expects the Minister to give some answers on those ideas at this stage.
A level playing field is needed. Suppliers have to be treated fairly. There can be no more Carillions. There must be an end to the crime of retention and to the abuse, as well as proper support for victims and justice for the construction SMEs and self-employed contractors. In whose interest is it to continue as we are? It is certainly not in the interest of the small businesses and the self-employed contractors, and it will not be in the interest of the large firms for much longer. The Government can do something about this issue. They have the evidence to act and they must get on with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for initiating this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for his excellent contribution, and thank the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for their interventions.
The construction industry is vital to our future prosperity. Its turnover in 2018 was £413 billion, it accounts for 9% of the UK economy and it employs around 9% of the UK workforce, which is about 3.2 million people. The industry also builds and maintains our places of work, our schools, our hospitals, our economic infrastructure and, of course, our homes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney asked me three questions. In answer to the first, which I will refer to as the Harrington question, the Government are committed to tackling the problems of late and unfair payment that burden businesses. That is why we have introduced a number of measures, including requiring large firms to report on their payment performance, the power to exclude firms that consistently pay late from Government contracts, and the prompt payment code.
Prompt and fair payment has long been a problem within the construction industry. Payment has traditionally cascaded down supply chains, as we have heard from a number of colleagues. As a result, smaller firms in the supply chain carry a disproportionate amount of project and payment risk, through late or non-payment; my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering gave Griffiths Air Conditioning and Electrical Contractors as an example of that.
Cash retention is an example of a payment practice vulnerable to both insolvency and abuse. Many construction contracts include provision for cash retention. Holding retention money is a long-established way of providing insurance against defects in an industry that is highly fragmented and operates on a project-by-project basis and in which defective work can be common. However, the practice does not offer protection to contractors against the loss of their retention due to upstream insolvency, as we have heard, including in the examples given by the right hon. Member for Warley. It can be subject to late, partial or non-payment for the supply chain. I reassure you, Mr McCabe, that Ministers acknowledge that there is a strong case to reform the practice of cash retentions, which is why we committed to review retention payments.
It may be helpful to outline the work that my Department has undertaken on this issue to date. We have consulted on the introduction of a retention deposit scheme, and produced an independent research paper on the issue, and we have looked at other solutions to the abuse of retentions. Following the consultation, we have worked with firms in the industry and with public and private sector clients to gather further information and to discuss possible solutions.
Further work has been undertaken to analyse the design, operation, costs and wider implications, including costs for the industry, of both a retention deposit scheme and a statutory ban on retentions. That work included ministerial roundtable meetings, which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned, with key representatives from across the sector and from clients to tackle the abuse of retentions. While most people in the construction industry favour change, there is no consensus on the solution.
John Spellar
Quite frankly, has this issue not been researched and consulted on to death? As with most things in life, it will always be the case that there will not be unanimity. However, is it not the role of Government, and particularly that of Ministers, to make a decision, drive it through and make it happen? Without that we will keep going round in an endless cycle, while the industry, in all its various manifestations, is in a negative cycle of mutual abuse, which is dragging it down.
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. He is right that we have to make a decision, but it is complex and we do not want to create perverse incentives in a different direction. Consensus is necessary, as costs are driven by the extent to which industry adopts or resists change. If the industry does not adopt it, one sees a perverse incentive. It is clear that cash retentions in construction are a complex issue. I may be new to this job, but I spent many more years in business than I have spent being a Member of Parliament or a Minister. Sometimes the wrong decision can create a perverse incentive.
Alan Brown
As the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) pointed out, are the Government not incentivising companies to dig their heels in and keep saying no? If the Government wait for consensus, that incentivises the wrong behaviour for contractors. As has been outlined in this debate, this situation has been going on for decades. We are not getting anywhere because the Government are waiting for a magic, 100% consensus.
Nadhim Zahawi
I opened by saying that the Government are committed to tackling the problem of late and unfair payments, so I hope that answers the question whether we are going to do something about the issue.
To respond to other points that were raised, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and my brilliant hon. Friend the Member for Waveney both mentioned their private Members’ Bills. It is important that any action we take is robust, proportionate and evidence based, which is where we are at the moment. Several policy options are under consideration, including the retention deposit scheme. It would be premature to commit to anything at this stage while several policy options are under consideration.
Bill Esterson
The Minister is right to look for evidence. We have a tenancy deposit scheme that works. We have evidence from New Zealand, Canada, Australia, France and New Mexico that such a scheme is possible in construction. The evidence of best practice from around the world is in front of him. The evidence is also there from the construction industry in this country that it is desirable and needed. This has gone on for far too long; can the Government just get on with it?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his encouragement. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun talked about a clear majority supporting the retention deposit scheme. I take issue with that, and not as a party political matter. There is no clear majority supporting any solution at the moment. It is right for the Government to begin to distil opinions and come to a view.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun also mentioned that significant parts of the industry have called for the scheme and asked why the Government will not legislate for it. Given the evident complexity of the policy issues, as we have discussed, it would be premature to commit to introduce a retention deposit scheme. In addition, costs are driven by what the industry wants to adopt and what it wants to resist. Unfortunately, the lack of consensus to date means that a preferred solution has not yet emerged. We will continue to work with stakeholders and I would like to think that we can get to a place where we have that consensus.
John Spellar
Let me try to help the Minister out of this—we would even be prepared to call it the Zahawi scheme if he wants to do it. Waiting for unanimity and overall consensus is a recipe for eternal inertia. The Government have a real interest, not just from the point of view of the economy as a whole but as a client, so let me ask him the straightforward question: when is he going to come to a conclusion and decide the way forward? I am not asking for an exact date, but how about a month?
Nadhim Zahawi
The temptation is great, but the issue is complex, as I have said—
Nadhim Zahawi
I do not agree. I hope I have built a reputation over the past decade of being someone who is evidence led; it is important that we do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering talked about the inability of small firms to pursue unpaid moneys because they do not have the time or the resources. The 2011 amendments to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 were introduced to ensure fair and prompt payment through facilitating better payment, adjudication and arbitration processes, particularly for small businesses. I wanted to put that on record as well.
Alan Brown
Going back to timescales, the Minister is not willing to commit to a month—forget that—but surely to goodness he could give us an idea of a programme and also explain why it took two years, following the responses to the consultation, for them to be published? That does not give confidence that there is any clear programme for the Government.
Nadhim Zahawi
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. We are absolutely committed, but it is a complex issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney rightly asked the Government to agree that action should be taken. It is important to remind ourselves that we have now published the summary of responses to the consultation on the practice of cash retention. We will continue to work with him, with others and with industry on these issues and on policy options to address the problem. We are committed to addressing it.
My hon. Friend’s final question was about a pilot scheme. My officials have met with representatives of Pay2escrow on several occasions to discuss the proposal for a deposit retention scheme, and the meetings have been helpful in clarifying and understanding its work. We remain in dialogue with industry to try to build consensus on the future policy. As I said, given the complexity, it is important that we make the commitment when we think it is the right thing to do. I want colleagues to understand that we are committed to that process.
Margaret Ferrier
In the Government consultation, 82% of respondents thought that existing measures were ineffective in addressing the challenges of prompt release and security of retentions. The Minister mentioned an independent research paper. Can he tell us how long that research paper is going to take? Is this not, frankly, a matter of kicking this issue into the long grass once again?
Nadhim Zahawi
I think it is unfair and wrong to say that—we are not kicking the matter into the long grass. I have repeated over and over again that we are committed to dealing with this issue.
Nadhim Zahawi
I will answer the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), because he asked an important question—why will the Government not expand the remit for the Small Business Commissioner to include the construction industry? The honest truth is that the Government do not intend to extend the scope of the Small Business Commissioner’s activity to the construction industry. Section 4(5) of the Enterprise Act 2016 states that where,
“the complainant has a statutory right to refer the complaint for adjudication by a person other than a court or tribunal,”
that complaint is excluded from the commissioner’s complaint scheme.
The Government believe that that is the correct approach to considering the complexity of construction contract disputes, which tend to be incredibly technical, and we do not intend to extend the scope of the commissioner.
In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), the research was published during the consultation process. I hope that that sets her mind at rest.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for looking into this issue in such detail, and I appreciate that he has been in his role for only two weeks, but can he confirm that the status quo is ruled out completely and that he will be coming forward with alternative proposals?
Nadhim Zahawi
I think that my stating clearly and repeating over and over again that we are committed to dealing with this issue should give my hon. Friend the comfort he seeks that we are absolutely committed to dealing with this. Part of that process, as he can see, is the publication that we have made, and we will move forward to ensure we deal with it.
I will conclude by saying that there is no simple solution to the abuse of retention. Any changes would need to be implemented correctly and require consistent support from industry. I am clear that any solution must work for the industry and its clients, must be sustainable and must address all the issues and the need for both surety and fair payment.
Industry and clients need to work together to develop that alongside Government, as they are doing, and to define what the solution might be and how we create a process that gets us to that solution. I hope that that information offers some comfort to colleagues and some reassurance that the Government are committed—I say it one more time—to addressing the problems associated with the practice of cash retention.
Margaret Ferrier
The Minister has been very generous in giving way. He has said again that he is committed to tackling the issue, but do we have any idea of a timescale for this, or are we going to be back here in 2022 saying, “We were in Westminster Hall debating this issue”? Could we maybe get an idea of some sort of timescale?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady is right to continue to push on this issue; I agree that the process has been far slower than I would have anticipated or the Government would have liked. That is partly due to the complexity of the issue and one should not—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Warley may laugh, but it is complex, because we do not want to intervene and create perverse incentives, and of course a wide range of interested parties are watching this space. I promise that we will continue to work with the construction sector and its clients to achieve a solution to this problem.
Alan Brown
Thank you again for your chairmanship today, Mr McCabe. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed. This is an important matter, but unfortunately, having the 3 pm slot on a Thursday afternoon has probably prevented other hon. Members from taking part, given that they will be back in their constituencies.
In terms of Back-Bench contributions, we had fantastic interventions from the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and some key examples from the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), not only for his contribution today, but, more importantly, for the work he has undertaken with his Bill and in making progress on finding consensus on a deposit retention scheme. I am beginning to think that it is his willingness to get things done that keeps him on the Back Benches rather than the Government Front Benches.
We have heard, and we know, that cash retentions are costing jobs, training, opportunities and productivity, and ultimately—maybe the Minister should think about this—when companies go bust, it costs the Government in tax take. Yet today I am disappointed. I must say it is very disappointing. I know that the Minister is new in his post, but we are still hearing about options, about how complex the issue is and about how we need to find consensus on the way forward. He seems to be finding the long grass that his predecessors grew. I ask him to try to take hold of this situation.
There is a solution: a deposit retention scheme. There is a Bill there, and we can go on and get this done. As a minimum, at the very least, let us get a pilot up and running and let us get it done. The Government mantra that we keep hearing is about levelling up. Let us level up for the wee guys in the construction industry and sort this problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the use of cash retentions in the construction industry.
Written Statements
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingencies Fund
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Cabinet Office has sought a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund of £82,663,000.
This routine requirement arises each year because the Cabinet Office receives a high proportion of its voted funding at supplementary estimate, and as a consequence may only draw the related cash from the Consolidated Fund after the Supply and Appropriation Act has received Royal Assent in March 2020.
The cash advance will pay for programmes which will generate Government-wide benefits or savings and are urgent in the public interest.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £53,885,000 and capital of £27,903,000 and cash of £875,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £82,663,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS134]
Future Relationship with the EU
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Today the UK Government have published a Command Paper “The Future Relationship with the European Union: the UK’s approach to negotiations”. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
This paper sets out our vision of the future relationship with the EU. This is based on a comprehensive free trade agreement, or FTA, plus separate agreements on fisheries, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, aviation, energy, and others.
We are seeking the type of trade agreement which the EU has already concluded in recent years with Canada and other friendly countries.
Our approach is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals. It represents our clear and unwavering view that the UK will always have control of its own laws and political life, legal autonomy, and the right to manage its own borders, immigration policy and taxes.
This Government is committed to establishing the future relationship in ways that benefit the whole of the UK and strengthen our Union. We believe that this overall approach is a fair and reasonable one.
[HCWS129]
Loan Charge Review
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
In September 2019, the Government commissioned Sir Amyas Morse to lead the independent loan charge review. The loan charge is designed to tackle disguised remuneration avoidance schemes. These are tax avoidance arrangements that seek to avoid income tax and national insurance contributions by paying scheme users their income in the form of loans, usually via an offshore trust, with no expectation that the loans would ever be repaid.
On 20 December 2019, the Government published the independent review and the Government’s response, accepting all but one of the review’s recommendations (HCWS14). On 20 January 2020, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) published draft legislation giving effect to the changes to the loan charge following the review (HCWS45).
Today HMRC has published the following:
Additional draft legislation covering the Government’s commitment to refund certain payments made by individuals and employers for unprotected years which will no longer be subject to the loan charge where tax was paid voluntarily, together with details of the repayment scheme, https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/implementation-of-changes-to-the-loan-charge.
A tax information and impact note and explanatory note to support this legislation. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementation-of-changes-to-the-loan-charge.
Guidance for employers who are either subject to the loan charge themselves or have employees who are. https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-independent-loan-charge-review/guidance; https://www.gov.uk/guidance/report-and-account-for-your-disguised-remuneration-loan-charge.
All measures will be legislated for in the forthcoming Finance Bill.
[HCWS136]
Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Today, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) wrote to me setting out the options for their second forecast for the 2019-20 financial year, consistent with fulfilling their duties under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 (BRNA). The BRNA states that the OBR is legally required to produce two economic and fiscal forecasts in each financial year. A forecast was originally planned alongside the autumn Budget that was cancelled due to the general election. The first forecast of the year will now be produced alongside the upcoming spring Budget. However, to fulfil its duty the OBR must produce another forecast before the end of the financial year. I have commissioned the OBR to publish a second forecast on 13 March which will focus on providing updated information on debt interest. The second forecast will be laid in Parliament on 13 March with copies available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. A copy of the letter from the OBR and my response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS132]
Defence Equipment Plan
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am pleased to place in the Library of the House the 2019 financial summary of the defence equipment plan, which sets out our plans to deliver the equipment needed by our armed forces to defend the country and protect our national interest.
The threat to the UK and our interests is intensifying and diversifying. As we set out in the modernising defence programme, we need to modernise to keep pace with these threats. The forthcoming integrated security, defence and foreign policy review will provide us with the opportunity to re-visit our equipment plans to make sure that we are spending the defence budget on the right capabilities to keep our country safe in the decades ahead. This will inescapably bring some difficult choices.
We will need to create the financial headroom in our equipment plan to harness emerging technologies and develop the battle-winning capabilities of tomorrow. We know that to get this right, we must accelerate our work to mobilise, modernise and transform so that we deliver more effectively and efficiently over the long term. Reviewing our acquisition process will be an important part of this work.
While there is clearly work still to do, the Department has made encouraging progress in improving financial management, including in the equipment plan. We have balanced the budget for equipment in the 2019-20 financial year and refined our assessment of the financial shortfall in our plans for the next decade, which has reduced from £7 billion to £2.9 billion, or 1.6% of our equipment budget.
We take seriously the recommendations of the 2018 Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the equipment plan and in April 2019 reported the actions we are taking in response. These include revisions to this report to include further analysis of changes to the affordability of the plan and provide further background information on individual projects.
The Government remain committed to meeting the NATO target of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence, and at least 20% of that spending will be on equipment. During 2018-19, the Government committed £1.6 billion additional spending for defence and a further £2.2 billion was committed in spending round 2019. The detailed implications of this most recent settlement on the equipment plan are being reviewed and will be reported in due course.
The Department is alert to the financial challenges rooted in previous strategic defence and security reviews that were over ambitious and underfunded. That is why the Prime Minister granted a £2.2 billion uplift at the last spending review and it is why the integrated defence, security and foreign policy review will be vital in ensuring the Department’s plans are put on a stable footing.
[HCWS130]
Service Justice System
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
Today the Ministry of Defence is publishing the reports of the service justice system review and its response to them, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House. The service justice system review was conducted by His Honour Shaun Lyons, a retired Crown court judge, who was supported on policing matters by the former chief constable for Merseyside, Sir Jon Murphy and by former detective superintendent Mark Guinness on domestic bbuse, child abuse and victims and witnesses.
The review submitted three reports, part one on the need for the SJS and an overview of the system in March 2018 and a separate report on service policing, followed by part two on how the system can be improved in March 2019. In part two, the review made a total of 60 recommendations with the aim of improving the SJS.
The Ministry of Defence welcomes the reports and will be considering the recommendations in detail, including those that will require legislation for possible inclusion in the Armed Forces Bill.
[HCWS131]
Independent Review of Drugs
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
In February last year, the former Home Secretary, my Right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), announced that Professor Dame Carol Black had been appointed to lead a major independent review of drugs. Dame Carol was asked to look at a wide range of issues, including the system of support and enforcement around drug misuse, in order to inform our thinking about what more can be done to tackle drug harms.
I am pleased to announce that today Dame Carol’s review has been published. The review provides detailed analytical insights on the challenges around drug supply and demand and I would like to thank Dame Carol for producing such an accomplished piece of research. This will be of significant value in guiding further Government action to tackle drugs as we move forward.
This Government recognise that illegal drugs devastate lives, families and communities. There are strong links between drugs and serious violence which have played out on our streets, as well as a range of wider health and social harms. The review makes clear that we face a whole system problem that should be addressed by looking at Government intervention in the round. It is therefore critical that we bring together partners from across Government and externally to build upon this work and tackle the challenging issues Dame Carol has raised.
Activity is already in place to tackle the findings in the review. The Home Office is stepping up activity to address the challenges highlighted around drug supply and county lines. We will bring the full force of the Government’s response to bear on drugs supply, with work to disrupt supply from source countries; build resilience and enhance interception at the border; improve our ability to disrupt the groups that control UK wholesale and distribution of illegal drugs; pursue associated money flows; and use interventions to divert users into treatment where appropriate.
This activity includes further investment to significantly increase the law enforcement response to county lines. Our investment is having a direct impact against high harm county lines which is why we have now committed an additional £5 million, on top of the £20 million that we announced in October 2019. This means we will be investing £20 million in 2020-21 to further increase activity against these ruthless gangs. We are also working with colleagues across Government and with key partners to develop a wider, whole system response to tackle the county lines business model and associated violence and exploitation
Alongside this, my Right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will commission a further review of prevention, treatment and recovery. Dame Carol will lead this further review with input from experts in the field. It will build on Dame Carol’s work to ensure vulnerable people with substance misuse problems get the support they need to recover and turn their lives around. It will look at treatment in the community and in prison, and how treatment services work with wider services that enable a person with a drug dependency to achieve and sustain recovery, including mental health, housing, employment, and the criminal justice system.
The Department of Health Social and Care will work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice to ensure the review is wide-ranging.
There are also a range of wider activity across Government to address the issues raised by Dame Carol, including work to prevent drug misuse among young people.
I am pleased that the new Prime Minister-chaired taskforce on crime and justice has been announced, which will enable us to be ambitious in reducing crime, including county lines, and drug-related crime such as the acquisitive crime driven by heroin and crack cocaine use.
Given the devolved nature of many parts of the response, we will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure drug misuse is tackled as a UK-wide problem.
With this renewed focus on drugs across Government we are determined to address the challenges raised in the review head on.
A copy of Dame Carol’s review and the executive summary will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-drugs-phase-one-report
[HCWS 128]
Whiplash Reform Programme
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I would like to provide an update on next steps for the whiplash reform programme.
The Government remain firmly committed to implementing measures to tackle the high number and cost of whiplash claims. The reform programme includes the measures in part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018, which will introduce a fixed tariff of damages that a court may award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for whiplash injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, as well as a ban on the making or accepting of offers to settle a whiplash claim without a medical report. Alongside these, we will be increasing the small claims track (SCT) limit for road traffic related claims to £5,000.
The Government had indicated that they wished to implement these measures from April 2020. The Ministry of Justice has made major progress towards this. It has worked closely with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), and with stakeholders representing claimants, including litigants in person, and defendants, on the successful build of a new official injury claim service (the service). With the MIB, and using independent research, we have designed the new service to put the needs of the claimant at its heart. It will provide a simple, user-friendly and efficient online route to provide those affected by road traffic accidents with an opportunity to settle small claims for personal injury without the need for legal representation or to go to court. Where a claimant is not able to make a claim online there will be the option to do so on paper. A dedicated customer contact centre will be available to support all customers through the journey if necessary.
Alongside the MIB, the Ministry of Justice has demonstrated the development of the service at numerous stakeholder events in London and Manchester, and spoken at stakeholder conferences across the country. We have been clear about the design of the service, and how we will work to ensure stakeholders from across the claimant and insurance industries are kept aware of, and can feed into, the development of the new platform.
Despite this progress, the Government have given careful consideration to whether implementing the whiplash measures in April remains practical, given the work that remains to be completed. We have listened to the arguments made by both claimant and insurance representative bodies.
As a result, the Government have decided that more time is necessary to make sure the whiplash reform programme is fully ready for implementation. We have always been clear that we need to do this right, rather than hastily. In particular, we need to provide sufficient time to work with the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to put in place the supporting rules and pre-action protocol and to give industry sufficient time to prepare their businesses for the changes to how small road traffic personal injury claims are managed. We will also lay the statutory instrument in Parliament to introduce the tariff of damages for whiplash injuries.
In the light of this, the Government have decided to implement these reforms on 1 August 2020. The necessary rules and pre-action protocol, and the statutory tariff, will be published in sufficient time before implementation.
The new service is designed with all users in mind, and will be simple and easy to operate. Currently motor insurers accept liability for damages in the majority of whiplash claims after road traffic accidents, and we do not expect insurer behaviour to change post implementation. However, there will be occasions when insurers do not accept liability, and claimants will need to be able to resolve liability disputes. Initially, the Government proposed to include a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to enable liability and quantum claims to be adjudicated. However, in the event, no practicable solution which gave sufficient coverage of ADR for claims could be found. As a result, ADR will no longer be part of the online service. Instead, we will ensure access to justice by developing bespoke processes to enable litigants to go to court to establish liability.
The increase in the small claims track limit will not apply to those who have been termed “vulnerable road-users”, for example, motor-cyclists, cyclists and pedestrians, and who in any event will not subject our whiplash tariff provisions.
The increase in the small claims track limit will also not apply to children or protected parties. This will enable the Government to test the processes and ensure that we have them correct before considering further extension.
Because these claimants will not be subject to the new small claims limit, they will also not be subject to the new pre-action protocol and so will not have access to the online service. As such, they will not be able to source their own medical report via the online service, which is statutorily required to settle claims for whiplash injuries. Therefore, until they can access the online service, the normal track for claims by children and protected parties which include a whiplash injury, will be the fast track and these claims will not be allocated to the small claims track. This means that, for now, these claimants will be able to instruct a legal representative who may obtain a medical report on their behalf and their costs of legal representation will remain recoverable. This decision has been taken for no reason other than that we consider it the fairest and most straightforward approach to ensuring, for now, that these claimants can obtain the medical report which they must obtain before they can settle their claim.
It is absolutely right that this Government continue their commitment to tackle the high number and costs of whiplash claims, and the impact these have on the cost of motor insurance premiums for hard working families. Delivering these reforms remains a key Government priority. We will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that all are sufficiently prepared for the new measures on 1 August 2020.
[HCWS133]
Aviation: Heathrow Expansion
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Our airports are national assets and their expansion is a core part of boosting our global connectivity. This in turn will drive economic growth for all parts of this country, connecting our nations and regions to international markets, levelling up our economy and supporting a truly global Britain.
We are also a Government who are committed to a greener future. This Government are acting to tackle climate change and we are the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050.
The Court of Appeal ruled today that when designating the airports national policy statement, which was backed by Parliament, the previous Government did not take account of the Paris agreement, non-CO 2 emissions and emissions post 2050.
We have always been clear that Heathrow expansion is a private sector project which must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable, and delivered in the best interest of consumers. The Government have taken the decision not to appeal this judgment. The promoters of the scheme will be able to seek permission from the Supreme Court to appeal if they wish.
As part of its judgment, the Court has declared that the airports national policy statement is of no legal effect unless and until the Government carries out a review under the Planning Act 2008. The Court’s judgment is complex and requires careful consideration. We will set out our next steps in due course.
We want Britain to be the best place in the world to do business and as a Government we are committed to investing in transport and wider infrastructure as part of levelling up economic opportunities across the country, including investing in the strategic road network, proceeding with HS2, and committing £5 billion of funding to improve bus and cycle services outside London.
We fully recognise the importance of the aviation sector for the whole UK economy. The UK’s airports support connections to over 370 overseas destinations in more than 100 countries facilitating trade, investment and tourism. It facilitates £95.2 billion of UK’s non-EU trade exports; contributes at least £14 billion directly to GDP; supports over half a million jobs and underpins the competitiveness and global reach of our national and our regional economies. Under our wider “making best use” policy, airports across the UK are already coming forward with ambitious proposals to invest in their infrastructure.
We are committed to working closely with the sector to meet our climate change commitments. Our global aviation emissions offsetting scheme, sustainable aviation fuels, greenhouse gas removal technology and eventually, electric net-zero planes, will all help play their part in the aviation sector decarbonising. We also welcome Sustainable Aviation’s Industry-led commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and the range of innovative action this will unlock to achieve this outcome. We are investing nearly £2 billion into aviation research and technology, and this year my Department will publish an ambitious plan of actions setting out how we will decarbonise transport and support the UK achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
It is critical that vital infrastructure projects, including airport expansion, drive the whole UK economy, level up our regions, and unite our country.
[HCWS135]
House of Lords
Single-use Plastics
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to reduce substantially the use of single-use plastics.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, we have reduced annual sales of single-use plastic carrier bags by over 7 billion with the 5p charge. We launched the ground-breaking Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance alongside it. From April, there will be a ban on the supply of plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers, while our landmark Environment Bill will shift the emphasis towards producer responsibility. It includes powers to charge for single-use plastic items, introduce deposit return schemes and manage the export of plastic waste.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will be aware that dealing with litter and fly-tipping costs councils £660 per person per year, and that local councils spend 32% of their council tax revenue on dealing with waste. Does he agree that this cost should be borne not by people in communities but by the people benefiting from it? He may be aware that in the United States, the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act has just been tabled in the Congress, which calls for industry to meet those costs. Even better, since this plastic is choking our planet, should we not ban it altogether?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
The plastic bag tax itself has not put any additional costs on to local authorities; on the contrary, it has raised substantial funds, which have been deployed through local charities in the areas where it has been collected. On the broader point about the cost of tackling unnecessary or avoidable waste, that is central to what we are trying to achieve in the Environment Bill. Taking the Bill in its totality, it is about shifting the emphasis away from consumer responsibility towards producer responsibility, on the understanding that most consumers do not welcome unnecessary waste from the products that they buy.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, further to the noble Baroness’s question about banning plastics altogether, at the moment the supermarkets seem to be having their cake and eating it. They are charging us for our plastic bags but not all of that money is going to charity. Some of it is being kept by the supermarkets. Furthermore, they have developed a very tidy line in bags for life. I gather from a recent report that, on average, every family in England has 54 of these bags, which are made of much tougher plastics. On top of that, can the Government not use this year to come up with some systematic, countrywide system to tell people what to do with their plastics—which is which and how to dispose of them? It is a total muddle.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
There is no doubt that there has been an upsurge in the use of so-called bags for life, but the net impact of the plastic bag tax has unquestionably been superb for those interested in reducing unnecessary plastic waste. The noble Baroness’s second point, about the ease of recycling, is absolutely right. In the Environment Bill, which has been introduced in the other place and will be here later in the year, we commit to making recycling easier and ensuring a more consistent, comprehensive service right across the country to avoid exactly that confusion, which exists from local authority to local authority. The Bill introduces legislation requiring all local authorities to collect a core set of recyclable materials—plastic bottles, plastic pots, tubs and trays, glass, metal, paper and card, food and garden waste—from households and businesses in England from 2023.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we concentrate on single-use plastics, there is a danger that manufacturers will just switch to other materials that are not much better in terms of their impact on the environment? Should we not be challenging the whole concept of “single use” and tackling the throwaway society? This requires a much bigger change in mentality than simply, item by item, banning the use of particular materials.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
The noble Baroness is right. I make one point about the plastic bag tax. It is often argued that the paper bag alternative is, from a carbon point of view, not necessarily an improvement, but if you look at its environmental impact, there is no doubt that the paper bag is vastly superior to the plastic bag, which can last in the environment, breaking up slowly over anything up to 1,000 years. Paper, of course, decomposes very quickly. If you judge things only through the lens of carbon, perhaps single-use plastic bags might be better than paper bags, but that would be fundamentally the wrong approach to take. I agree with the noble Baroness on the broader point; the Environment Bill is designed to take us to a place where we reduce unnecessary single-use plastic bags consistent with the 25-year plan launched a couple of years ago by the former Prime Minister. Our emphasis on extended producer responsibility is essential and, in effect, means that producers will have to take financial responsibility for the lifetime costs of dealing with whatever they create.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Further to my noble friend’s comments welcoming the success of the plastic bag charge where it has been imposed on large retailers, can he indicate when that same charge will finally be imposed on small and medium-sized retailers, which even the Government’s figures indicate would result in a massive drop in the unnecessary use of plastic bags?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
My noble friend makes a very good point. At the risk of triggering a groan in the House, I am afraid that I can tell him only that, having consulted on extending the charge to all retailers and upping it to 10p—something the Government are very serious about—we will be taking the next step as soon as possible.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in 2018, the Government promised to review the waste prevention programme. If, as the Minister says, the Government are so serious about prioritising waste reduction, why has that not yet happened?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
I think the Government’s record on tackling plastic is pretty robust. We have, for example, world-leading legislation on tackling microbeads. The many billions of microbeads that would have ended up in the environment, particularly the marine environment, will not, as a consequence of the steps we have taken. I have already mentioned the plastic bag tax, and there are numerous other bans on the way in relation to plastic stirrers and spoons and so on. It is unfair to describe the Government’s progress as slow. However, when it comes to things such as extended producer responsibility, they cannot just be invented overnight. It is much more complex and requires us to look at the whole life cycle of individual products. We are working hard to develop the right answers but it is important that, when we introduce them, they are the right answers.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
There has been a significant, if perhaps small, increase in the use of compostable substitutes for plastic packaging. What assessment has been made of the genuine efficacy of these materials as far as composting is concerned? What percentage of packaging do we now think is being provided from these materials?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. The problem here is that, quite often, when plastic is sold or marketed as biodegradable, it is not; it simply breaks down into smaller bits of plastic and causes problems further down the food chain and, like much of it, ends up in the oceans. The second problem is that, even where it is biodegradable, if it ends up the recycling stream it can have a very damaging impact on the quality of the recyclate. We believe, however, that biodegradable plastics have an increasingly important role. We published a call for evidence last year to help us consider the development of standards or certification criteria for genuine bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics. We are looking at the responses at the moment and will publish a response very soon.
Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans, if any, they have to strengthen the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 as part of their review of procurement regulations post-Brexit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, as outlined in the civil society strategy, central government is stepping up our ambition to deliver social value through commercial activities. In future, social value will be explicitly evaluated as appropriate, rather than considered, and extended to goods and works contracts in addition to contracts for services. This joint programme between DCMS and the Cabinet Office puts social value at the heart of an estimated £40 billion of public spend each year. The Government intend to publish a Green Paper consultation on possible procurement reforms to make the rules simpler, more flexible and better placed to support improved commercial outcomes and meet the UK’s specific needs.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer and for taking the time and trouble to meet me last week. I think we both agree that social value is an incredibly powerful tool to create benefit for communities of all kinds. Does she also agree that social value needs to be central to the procurement process and not just an add-on, and that 10% of contract value is entirely insufficient to enable the full potential of social value to be realised?
Baroness Barran
I absolutely agree that social value is central to our procurement process: it is a massive lever. It is £49 billion of central government expenditure, but total public sector expenditure was £284 billion in the last financial year, so it is one of the biggest levers we have in terms of our focus on place and on levelling up. The 10% is a minimum, and my experience going around the country is that areas frequently go above and beyond when they get this. I was in Durham last week, where more than 55% procurement is through social value, and Manchester has set a minimum of 20%.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
How do the Government actually measure social content when they come to award these contracts?
Baroness Barran
The Government are developing a measurement framework. There have been two approaches. Most local government procurement uses a form of financial metric. Central government procurement, in consultation with the voluntary and community sectors, uses a more qualitative approach. My colleague the Crown rep for the voluntary and community sectors is working very hard to make sure that this is embedded effectively.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, further to that question, the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Young, five years ago specifically highlighted measurement, the need for a methodology, and the need to set standards and to propagate those across the sector. The Government have had five years, so when will we have a rigorous system for measurement that everybody understands? It is very important to measure the value of what we are doing.
Baroness Barran
We will implement the system this year. We are keen to be able to measure the distance travelled for individual departments and for procurement overall. Training is being rolled out to 4,000 procurement officers, and is available to strategic suppliers as well as to smaller voluntary and community sector suppliers.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, a number of local authorities across the country have made a commitment to pay their staff and contractors the living wage, as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation. This commitment goes well beyond that required under the Act. The Prime Minister has stated that he wants full sovereign control of procurement policy as part of his commitment to close regional inequalities. Does the voluntary living wage form part of his plans?
Baroness Barran
My understanding is that all aspects of these issues are being reviewed as part of that. I do not know specifically about the voluntary living wage, but in the short term a big focus is being placed on procurement that includes a number of diversity metrics, including ethnicity, disability and women leaders of organisations.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, when the forthcoming Green Paper is published, will the Minister discuss with her colleagues the idea of providing government incentives for public services and others to join together in procurement at local levels? Social value can be cascaded into the wider economic value that can accrue when different agencies and institutions are able to jointly procure, in a way that has been pioneered in areas such as Preston and my own city of Sheffield. Then we can see a much greater critical mass developed, which can have a major impact on the growth and productivity of an area as well as the social value we have discussed this morning.
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord makes a very important point. The proportion of procurement spending in the Preston area has increased almost fourfold in the past four years, with big economic impacts. We are already working to support smaller voluntary organisations to be able to bid in consortia so that they are not excluded, although I appreciate that that is wider than the point he is making.
Housing: New Homes
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in meeting their target of delivering 300,000 homes per year by the mid-2020s.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, last year over 240,000 new homes were delivered, the highest number in over 30 years, taking the total delivered to over 1.5 million new homes since 2010. This is very encouraging, but we know that there is more to do, which is why we are reviewing the levers at our disposal, including planning reforms and housing infrastructure. Taken together, our actions will continue progress towards 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining the progress the Government are making towards meeting their ambitious target. In the 10 years from 1974 there were two Housing Ministers, who did roughly five years each, and annual output of housing in England averaged 200,000 a year, against some difficult economic circumstances. In the 10 years since 2010, we have had 10 Housing Ministers and annual completions have fallen to 130,000, against a more benign economic environment. Does my noble friend think those statistics might be connected? Would she agree that capable Ministers, of whom there are many in your Lordships’ House, should stay longer in post if they are to have a chance of delivering the Government’s policy objectives?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That does not bode very well for me in my post, does it? My noble friend speaks with great authority on this issue, having himself been a rather longer-serving Housing Minister than many of his successors. However, despite that turnover, we can be proud of the Government’s housebuilding record since 2010. Having consulted on this issue before today’s Question, I would say that a greater issue of concern is the number of planning officers and the proportion of them who are job sharing, which is having a great impact on the efficiency of the planning process and inhibiting our ability to deliver.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to a renewed larger affordable homes programme, but the current lack of detail about the size and scope of the programme is affecting the social housing sector’s ability to deliver much-needed homes. I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation. The upcoming Budget presents a great opportunity to be bold in committing to the 10-year programme that will be needed to deliver the Government’s 300,000 target. What conversations has the Minister had with her colleagues in the other place about the upcoming Budget and government investment in the building of affordable and social homes?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I am afraid that I cannot speak for my colleagues in the other place about what is intended in the Budget. What I can say is that there are a number of reviews of the planning process and of the sections dealing with accessibility. All these will help us to deliver our target. While there is still work to do, levels of housebuilding have recovered from the financial crisis of 2008-09, and this country has now delivered over 241,000 additional homes, the highest number in over 30 years. We are driving forward an ambitious agenda with everyone involved in housebuilding, including housing associations, small and large private developers and councils. We are all working hard to deliver this target.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the promised homes, hospitals, schools, prisons, HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and more require a growth in the construction sector of 35%, but the sector is projected at the moment to shrink in workforce by 9% post Brexit? Does she agree that those sums simply do not add up? What urgent action will the Government take to grow this sector, or will the desperately needed housebuilding pipeline simply be a pipe dream?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
The Government are taking many measures to tackle the skills crisis in this sector. For example, the Department for Education’s £24 million construction skills fund is supporting 26 on- site hubs focusing on housing. The EU exit does create opportunities to grow our own workforce, but the industry is best placed to step up and train the workforce that it knows it will need. The Government are doing their part by improving skills provision, supporting modernisation to increase productivity and creating a fair migration system.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, to rescue the country from the small number of volume housebuilders who do 70% of all our housebuilding, have the Government made any progress with Sir Oliver Letwin’s radical and important proposals for local authorities to set up corporations that would acquire sites and capture the value for the public good, instead of leaving it to those volume housebuilders who, I am afraid, let us down every time?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
The Government fully recognise the importance of increasing the number of small and medium-sized housebuilders in providing the housing in this country. He is absolutely right to point out the dominance of the large housebuilders. We have done quite a lot to encourage SMEs in this space, and at the last Budget we announced up to £1 billion of new guarantee support schemes for SMEs, to be implemented by the British Business Bank. To go further into Sir Oliver Letwin’s report, I would rather write to the noble Lord with a fuller reply.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government are planning to look at different versions of what affordability might mean in relation to housing? I am sure noble Lords know that the West Midlands Combined Authority has been looking at income rather than market value. This has brought house prices within easier reach of more people in lower income brackets.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
We have done much to increase affordability for individuals. The affordable rent was introduced to maximise taxpayers’ money, which has allowed us to build more homes for every pound of government investment, because local authorities have had greater income at their disposal to spend on new houses. Removing the cap has also enabled them to invest much more in housing.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister recall that, when it comes to 300,000 houses, we have been there before with Ernie Marples in the early 1960s? In 1965, before the Conservative Government fell, they were planning to build more than 400,000 houses that year. If we could do it then, surely today, with modern fabrication methods, we could certainly do it now.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My noble friend makes a very good point. I heard the earlier point about our past history in building houses but, with modern methods of construction, he is absolutely right to say that we should be able to build a larger volume of houses more efficiently. The Government are committed to building more homes using modern methods of construction, including off-site and smart techniques. Indeed, there was a report from the Science and Technology Committee on this very subject quite recently. The Government have also created a working group to address barriers to modern methods of construction, chaired by an industry expert, the MMC housebuilding champion Mark Farmer, to develop a standardised definition of this. They are also taking forward work on a memorandum of understanding between the main warranty and insurance providers.
Ministers: Training
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what training and guidance is provided to their Ministers on (1) bullying and harassment, (2) diversity and inclusion and (3) staff management; and how many current Ministers have completed any such training.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Ministerial Code provides advice and guidance to Ministers on the standards of conduct that they are expected to uphold and the way in which they should discharge their duties. Obviously, Ministers are also traditionally able to seek further advice and guidance within the departments. The Government do not hold central records of training undertaken by Ministers.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord to his first performance on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment.
I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord may go back to the department and see whether it can be a little more precise in trying to follow this through. In Parliament, we now have a programme for training on abuse, harassment and so on. We should seek to apply that similarly at the highest levels where people have privilege and power, which is at ministerial level. I hope the noble Lord might reflect on whether something more formal could be established.
Secondly, given that we now have the freedom and have taken our power, we have an opportunity to have laws in this land better than those in Europe. As we have an employment Bill in prospect, will the noble Lord reflect on whether we could take the principles behind the Question on this Order Paper and see whether they could be applied to employment opportunities in general for people who have problems with abuse of power in general employment, so that we end up with a law that is better in this respect than that in Europe?
Lord True
My Lords, first, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said on a personal basis.
The noble Lord is addressing an extraordinarily important point, which we all share; obviously I am not here to answer for Parliament, but we are all aware of the facilities that this House makes available. I hope all Members of this House will avail themselves of those. The Ministerial Code is absolutely clear:
“Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.”
That clear message is given to new Ministers right at the outset—I can testify to that from this week—but I accept the spirit of what the noble Lord said.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Does the Minister agree that, if bullying and harassment will not be tolerated, any Minister guilty of such conduct should no longer remain in post?
Lord True
The noble Lord is wise and knows very well that whether people remain in office is a matter not for me or him but for the Prime Minister. In fact, this Prime Minister updated the advice around the code last August, to include greater clarity on how investigations into alleged breaches will take place. It made it very clear that if there is an allegation of a breach, the Prime Minister will consult the Cabinet Secretary. If he feels that it warrants further investigation, he may ask the Cabinet Office to investigate the facts of the case and refer the matter to the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, Sir Alex Allan.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords does the Ministerial Code apply to special advisers?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the paragraph that the noble Lord just quoted actually says that the Prime Minister
“may ask the Cabinet Office”.
What is the status of the Ministerial Code? When we had an exchange in this House at the time of the resignation of a previous Foreign Secretary, now the Prime Minister, and it was pointed out that he had been reprimanded for breaking the Ministerial Code in several places, it was also pointed out by the then Cabinet Office Minister that the Ministerial Code is an honour code and based on the idea that Ministers will always act on their honour. Is it now time that we had some stronger sanction than that?
Lord True
My Lords, I repeat: Ministers hold office at the Prime Minister’s request and remain in office only for as long as they retain the Prime Minister’s confidence. I note what the noble Lord says. The current position is that the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected and the appropriate consequences. The conduct of any Minister in office is subject to the most absolute scrutiny—that is, public scrutiny—and this Government intend to hold, and do hold, to the very highest standards of ministerial behaviour at every level.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, may I press the Minister further on his responses? The Ministerial Code says:
“Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect.”
The point picked up in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is: what happens when they do not? The Minister says that it is a matter for the Prime Minister, but that sets a pretty low bar of sanctions that could be imposed. I ask him to reflect on his answers. I am not saying that in every case a Minister should be sacked—there will be cases in which they should—but there is a lack of clarity about what happens when the Ministerial Code is breached.
Lord True
My Lords, I do not agree with the implied statement of criticism of the Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister expects the highest standards of performance and behaviour from all his colleagues. That is true at every level of the Government. I have said that Ministers are officeholders, not direct employees, but that does not—either at the human level, the work level or the professional level of any sort—absolve any person in any position in this country from the requirement to observe the highest standards of respect for those with whom we work.
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL]
Thursday 27th February 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 View all Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text
EU: Future Relationship
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made today in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Statement is as follows:
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like now to make a Statement on the Government’s approach to our future relationship with the European Union.
Now that Britain has left the EU, we are entering a new chapter in the history of these islands. This Government have honoured the clearly expressed wish of the British people. Their instruction to us, their servants, to secure our departure from the EU has been followed. The votes of 17.4 million people—more than have ever voted for any democratic proposition in our history—were implemented on 31 January and we are now on a new journey. As a sovereign, self-governing, independent nation, we will have the freedom to frame our own laws, control our own borders, lower all our taxes, set our own tariffs, determine our own trade relationships and ensure we follow the people’s priorities on security, the economy and democratic accountability. Over the next nine months, we will negotiate a new relationship with our friends and partners in the European Union, based on free trade and friendly co-operation. We have today published the approach for those negotiations, and copies of the document, The Future Relationship with the EU, were made available to Members in the Vote Office from 9.30 am.
Talks with the EU on our future relationship begin next week, and it is our aim to secure a comprehensive free trade agreement, as well as agreement on questions such as fisheries, internal security and aviation. We are confident that those negotiations will lead to outcomes which work for both the UK and the EU. But this House, our European partners and, above all, the British people, should be in no doubt: at the end of the transition period, on 31 December, the United Kingdom will fully recover its economic and political independence. We want the best possible trading relationship with the EU, but in pursuit of a deal we will not trade away our sovereignty.
The Government’s vision for the UK’s future relationship with the EU was outlined with crystal clarity by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign, the election result comprehensively confirmed public support for our direction of travel, and in his speech in the Painted Hall in Greenwich on 3 February, the Prime Minister laid out in detail how we will reach our destination. The first principle of our approach is that we wish to secure a relationship based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals. We respect the EU’s sovereignty, autonomy and distinctive legal order, and we expect it to respect ours. We will not accept nor agree to any obligations where our laws are aligned with the EU or the EU’s institutions, including the Court of Justice. Instead, each party will respect the other’s independence and the right to manage its own borders, immigration policy and taxes.
The second and allied principle of our approach is that we will seek to emulate and build on the types of relationship that the EU already has with other independent sovereign states. We will use precedents already well established and understood to ensure both sides’ sovereignty is respected, and by using already existing precedents we should be able to expedite agreement. We will seek functioning arrangements that the EU will recognise from its many other relationships. So our proposal draws on existing EU agreements such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada, the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement and the EU-South Korea free trade agreement. This approach will enable us to move swiftly towards the goal envisaged in the political declaration agreed last October, in which both sides set the aim of concluding a zero-tariffs, zero-quotas free trade agreement, or FTA.
As well as concluding a full FTA, we will require a wholly separate agreement on fisheries. We will take back control of our waters, as an independent coastal state, and will not link access to our waters to access to EU markets. Our fishing waters are our sovereign resource, and we will determine other countries’ access to our resources on our terms. We also hope to conclude an agreement on law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, so that we can work with the EU to protect their citizens, and ours, from shared threats, but we will not allow our own legal order to be compromised, and by taking back full control of our borders we can implement measures to make the British people even safer, and we can tackle terrorism and organised crime even more effectively. We also wish to conclude a number of technical agreements covering aviation and civil nuclear co-operation, which will help ensure continuity for the UK on its new footing as an independent sovereign nation.
Securing agreement on all these questions should not, in principle, be difficult. We are, after all, only seeking relationships with the EU which it has with other nations, relationships that respect the interests and sovereignty of both partners. It is in that light that we should view discussions about what has been termed the “level playing field”. It has been argued that EU demands in this area will make full agreement difficult. Yet there is no intrinsic reason why requirements that both parties uphold desirable standards should prejudice any deal.
The United Kingdom has a proud record when it comes to environmental enhancement, workers’ rights and social protection. In a number of key areas, we either exceed EU standards or have led the way to improve standards. On workers’ rights, for example, the UK offers a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert this to parental leave so that both parents can share care. The EU minimum is just 14 weeks. On environmental standards, we were the first country in the world to introduce legally binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets through the Climate Change Act 2008. We were also the first major global economy to set a legally binding target to achieve net-zero green- house gas emissions across the economy by 2050.
We will not dilute any existing protections. Indeed, as the Environment Bill, debated yesterday, demonstrates, we wish to go further and faster than the EU in improving the natural environment. We do not need the EU’s permission to be a liberal nation leading the world in the fight against climate change and for social progress. That is why the UK Government seek an FTA with robust protections for the environment and labour standards, but we do not see why the test of suitability in these areas should be adherence to EU law and submission to EU models of governance. The EU does not apply those principles to free trade agreements with other sovereign nations, and they should not apply to a sovereign United Kingdom.
Some argue that we must accept EU procedures as the benchmark because of the scale of UK trade with the EU, but the volume of UK trade with the EU is no greater than the volume of US trade with the EU, and the EU was more than willing to offer zero-tariff access to the US without the application of EU procedures to US standard setting. The EU has also argued that the UK is a unique case, owing to its geographical location, but proximity is not a determining factor in any other FTA between other neighbouring states with large economies. It is not a reason for us to accept EU rules and regulations. You need only to look at the USMCA—the agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico—for an example of a trade agreement that does not require regulatory alignment to one side’s rules or demand a role for one side’s court. Geography is no reason to undermine democracy.
To be clear: we will not seek to dynamically align with EU rules on EU terms governed by EU laws and institutions. The British people voted to take back control, to bring power home and to have the rules governing this country made by those who are directly accountable to the people of this country, and that is what we are delivering.
The negotiations are due to begin next week, led by the Prime Minister’s Sherpa, David Frost, and I would like to end by looking ahead optimistically to the coming months. There is ample time during the transition period to strike the right deal for the UK. We hope to reach a broad agreement ahead of the EU Council’s high-level summit in June, whereupon we will take stock.
We know our proposals are measured and our approach is fair. We know what we want to achieve; we are ready to go. This Government are committed to establishing the future relationship in ways that benefit the whole of the UK and strengthen the union. We are committed to working with the devolved Administrations to deliver a future relationship with the EU that works for the whole of the UK. I take this opportunity to reassure colleagues that our negotiation will be undertaken without prejudice and with full respect to the Northern Ireland protocol. This Government will act in these negotiations on behalf of all the territories for whose international relations the UK is responsible. In negotiating the future relationship between these territories and the EU, the UK Government will seek outcomes that support the territories’ security and economic interests and reflect their unique characteristics. As the Prime Minister committed to do at the Second Reading of the withdrawal agreement Bill, we will keep Parliament fully informed about the negotiations and colleagues will be able to scrutinise our progress in the normal way.
The Government are delivering on their manifesto commitments with energy and determination. This Government got Brexit done and will use our recovered sovereignty to be a force for good in the world and a fairer nation at home. We want and we will always seek the best possible relationship with our friends and allies in Europe, but we will always put the welfare of the British people first. That means ensuring that the British people exercise the democratic control over our destiny for which they voted so decisively. That compact with the people is the most important deal of all. In that spirit, I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to his role. He is the fourth Minister covering Brexit that I have faced. Two retired hurt—one fell out of a helicopter, and I think the other fell out with his political masters—although the last left the field having successfully delivered for his Prime Minister. While I wish the noble Lord well, I obviously hope we will be able to persuade him to listen to views other than just those emanating from No. 10.
Somewhat unusually, the lead negotiator—the Minister calls him a Sherpa—is a civil servant, David Frost. He is not a Minister; he is a civil servant, answerable neither to the Commons nor therefore, via a junior, to this House. We therefore welcome the Minister’s confirmation that he will be Mr Frost’s man in this House and report regularly as the negotiations proceed. Perhaps he will speak, or I can do so via him, to the Chief Whip to ensure we can have a proper debate on this document in the near future.
Today’s Statement is, needless to say, on a crucial and vital issue, but sadly I fear it does not bode well, since it leaves us with a query as to whether the PM really wants a deal, or at least whether he is willing to risk no deal simply to please his friends—whether Trump or the ERG—such that he prioritises a US deal over and above one with the EU. Without an EU deal, we would see tariffs, checks and barriers to trade implemented very fast, by January, in a way that would damage the whole economy. The price of a US deal, even if we got one, would be lower consumer standards, workers’ rights being jeopardised, and environmental concerns being downplayed. What would be the purpose of that?
The only reason seems to be the avoidance of the ECJ—a court—and, as we just heard, this reassertion of so-called “sovereignty”, which was mentioned 11 times in the Statement: a bit of a hang-up there. This is an interdependent world, where the value of currencies, confidence in economies, global interest rates, international tax and wage rates all impact on UK businesses every day. The idea that we live in this independent sovereign world unaffected by anything outside is a figment of the imagination. The best way to confront these global uncertainties is to work closely with our nearest partners and as part of a half-billion market to absorb the ups and downs in world trade and to secure a thriving market for UK goods.
Any idea that a deal suitable for a faraway country—3,500 miles in the case of Canada—would suit the sort of trade that we have with a continent 12 miles away at its nearest is surely pure fantasy. Do the Government understand that the imports and exports of meat, cheese, milk, nuclear medicines, flowers, fruit and vegetables depend on short distances, fast travel and a virtually identical time zone for that easy flow of trade? Or that our car manufacturers need rapid supplies of parts as well as exports of finished products which depend on easy access to the continent? Easy means quick and cheap. No wonder the Treasury predicted that a Canada-style free trade agreement would shrink the economy by up to 6.4%.
The Government seem to accept that there will be customs posts, tariffs and checks, and they even occasionally acknowledge that these will be between Northern Ireland and GB. But those cost money to businesses, to consumers, and to the taxpayer. I hope I have read it wrong, but this Statement seems to smack of a negotiating position which is seeking a very distant relationship with the EU, happy to establish barriers for those businesses trying to continue to trade with our largest economic partner. Despite the warm words which the Minister has just repeated, the Government’s commitments on rights, protections and standards, which were written into the political declaration that the Prime Minister signed, now appear to be at risk because the Minister seems to be saying that because some of ours are higher, we can junk all of the commonly agreed minima.
The political declaration promised that the Government would seek a free trade agreement that was underpinned by provisions that ensured a level playing field—the Prime Minister signed that—and safeguarded workers’ rights, consumer rights and environmental protections. Today’s Statement seems to back-track on both. That is not just bad for the people concerned, be they workers, consumers or those interested in the environment, but it is bad for business, with this new variable and reckless approach to negotiations taking business straight from one set of uncertainties to another. We know what businesses want from our deal with the EU: first, ambitious co-operation on regulation with regard to goods to reduce red tape for exporters; secondly, comprehensive coverage of services to maintain the competitive edge of UK providers—a vital part of our economy and, unfortunately, an element not mentioned in the Statement; and, thirdly meaningful customs facilitation to keep costs and complexities low.
It is no good the Prime Minister’s spinners attacking the CBI, as they did earlier this month, accusing it and others of neglecting their duty to prepare their members for the realities of a Canada-style free trade deal. Briefing from No. 10, referring to the CBI and others, said that they have a responsibility to their members that they are not fulfilling, and individual businesses might consider whether they are getting the best representation from the umbrella groups that they are funding. That sounds to me like Downing Street trying to encourage the CBI to mute its criticism of the Government’s strategy. That is not an open Government willing to listen to the views of others.
Without thriving businesses, we have no chance of levelling up or continuing to grow, so I urge the Minister to engage with representatives of consumers, of industry, of farmers and of the service sector so that real hard economic facts, rather than ideology and wishful thinking, will be the lodestar in the negotiations. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as of Gibraltar will be fully involved in all stages of the negotiations so that the interests of all parts of the UK are safeguarded?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position and look forward to a series of robust exchanges in the months to come. As I was coming down to the House, I was interested to learn that there is now a revised version of the Statement. Perhaps it might be of interest to the House to point out what has been revised. The original text stated that
“as a sovereign, self-governing independent nation we will have the freedom to … lower all our taxes”.
The Minister correctly read out the revised version, which is
“to set all our taxes.”
That seems a wise revision by a Government who are about to produce a Budget which intends to increase spending very considerably. If they were to promise in a wonderfully populist way to lower all our taxes at the same time, it would be a little more Trumpian than even Johnsonian.
I would like to tackle the language and assumptions of the Government’s current approach. This is a very harsh, autonomous independence. As has been pointed out, sovereignty—independent sovereign equality—runs all the way through it, as does the notion of the people’s Government, the “servants” of the people. Saying that
“we follow the people’s priorities”
is the not the language of Churchill or Thatcher. It is the language of Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, or even President Erdoğan of Turkey. This is not constitutional parliamentary language. This is not Edmund Burke. The Conservative Party has to recognise that it is slipping into different territory.
In his speech last week, David Frost started and finished by quoting Edmund Burke, but he also rubbished the idea of shared sovereignty. I recall listening to Geoffrey Howe and Margaret Thatcher talking about shared sovereignty and how we benefit in constructing a multilateral international order by sharing our sovereignty through international treaties and agreements, international organisations and international law. Britain has done a great deal in that regard. The language of the Statement suggests that we reject most of that and that we think we are now dealing with a power—the sovereign European Union—which is threatening our sovereignty and independence.
I have not yet heard any Minister say that in dealing with the United States we will expect the United States to treat us as a sovereign equal. I hope the Minister can assure us that we expect the same from the United States because it would not be desirable to establish our independence from the European Union hostile force—as it clearly in many ways is—by reinforcing our dependence in security, intelligence and a range of other ways on the United States. We see it in current extradition procedures and in the presence of American intelligence operatives in this country, who are not fully covered by treaty arrangements and not fully reported to Parliament. That is a degree of dependence which is certainly an evasion of British sovereignty, if we are going to talk about our sovereign independence.
How are we going to establish our political and economic independence by January next year? If we are going to be economically independent, are we going to ensure, for example, that all our key telecommunications equipment is made inside this country? Are we going to ensure that we have an independently owned steel industry, or at least a steel industry of some sort, or is that not part of economic independence? Do we think that supporting offshore financial centres under British sovereignty is part of independence, given that integration into the offshore world which is the ultimate denial of sovereignty in taxation and other terms? If we are not, that is misleading, populist language. It is wonderful to suggest that we stand for the people, but actually, we do not.
Free trade limits sovereignty. Protectionism is what protects sovereignty. North Korea is in many ways one of the most sovereign countries in this world. Once you open yourself to foreign investment and trade, you limit your sovereignty, and that is what we have done. We are one of the most open countries to foreign takeovers and, as a result, we have limited sovereignty and we have to share it with others. If we are talking the language of sovereign equality, we should remember what that great realist Thucydides said: strong states do what they like, small states—and we are smaller than China or the United States—do what they must.
There is no understanding of Britain’s position in the world now we have left the European Union. We have no foreign policy at present. That is not part of this current populist dimension. How do we approach climate change and how do we deal with pandemics? We have to share sovereignty. I hope, when it comes to the climate change conference, the Government will sign up to new international obligations, which will also limit Britain’s sovereignty. Perhaps it is only signing up to shared obligations with the European Union that we object to and we do not, apparently, object quite so much to signing up with China or India.
Can the Minister also assure us that what I understood the Statement to mean on regulatory divergence is that we demand the principle of regulatory divergence but, in practice, we shall be fairly closely aligned? We are standing up for the ideological dimension that we choose but, when it comes to it, we will probably go along with them. Of course, the alternative, if we do not align with European regulations, will be to align more closely with American regulations, rather than, I suspect, to choose our own.
I hope the Minister recognises that the change of tone from the political declaration we signed last October is very worrying for anyone who cares about our position in the world. He will have read the Times editorial the day before yesterday, which said that if we now suggest that we are not bound by agreements that we signed up to last year on Northern Ireland and on the political direction, no one will be prepared to trust us and we will not be able to get a future agreement. When a not particularly left-wing newspaper, such as the Times, says that about the Government’s approach to their negotiations, we should all be very worried indeed.
Lord True
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Obviously, I thank them for their references to my arrival here. I feel privileged to follow my noble friend Lord Callanan in answering on this subject at this Dispatch Box. He was often stoic and always willing to be open to the rest of the House. I assure both noble Lords who have spoken that I will endeavour to be fully open and I look forward to working with them. I know my noble friend is a hard act to follow and I will try to do that.
I will come to each of the contributions in a moment. I felt that they had something in common. One was, perhaps, slightly more robust but there still seemed to be a lack of recognition on the Benches opposite of the fundamental change in the circumstances in which this nation—and, frankly, this Parliament—operates and, I submit, has a duty to operate. Not only was there a very clear referendum result some years ago, following which this House did not cover itself in glory in the way it behaved, but there has recently been a general election—as referred to in the Statement—in which the British people gave a decisive steer. It is a mandate—whatever people on the other side may feel —and an instruction that, as the Statement said, we on this side feel an overwhelming duty and responsibility to respond to. Everything that this Government will try to do in this House will start from the fundamental fact that the British people have voted to leave and they have voted to be independent and that is the policy that this Government will pursue.
I come to some of the points raised. With respect to the noble Baroness, it was a little like hearing the briefing on the process before Brexit actually happened. The Government are trying to be as open with the House as possible right from the start, publishing this mandate before the negotiations begin. We are in a new phase. Brexit has happened. In the period up until 31 December, we are seeking to reach an agreement with our friends and allies in Europe; that is, an agreement based on full respect and friendly co-operation, and centred on free trade. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, it sounded as though he was seeing the Government as inspired by Stalinist socialism in one country. The Government are fully alive to our international friendships and obligations, which stretch right across the world. I repeat that the key position, which this House must understand, is that we want friendly relations and co-operation between sovereign equals, but it must be informed by the decisions taken by the British people—by our mandate.
On workers’ rights and environmental matters, the Statement was unequivocal. The position taken by the Government is that we aspire to the very highest standards in those areas. We had exchanges earlier about environmental matters. There is no question of the Government resiling from that aspiration.
The noble Baroness asked about friction. Our objective is free trade. That was the proposal put forward by our European friends. But, if it turns out that some element of friction—which we hope will be minimal or non-existent—is present, we have made clear the importance of our need to be an independent, sovereign nation. The noble Baroness talked about a different relationship. We do not want a different relationship in the sense of being hostile, as the noble Lord implied. We bear no hostility to our European friends but we do want a free trade agreement as sovereign equals. In that sense, the relationship is certainly different.
Financial services are, of course, absolutely critical. The noble Baroness asked about this. The position is that, again, it is an area of hopeful co-operation. We have a common interest with the EU in establishing an enduring relationship on financial services, based on mutual trust and co-operation. As my right honourable friend said in the other place, that means completing equivalence assessments, one hopes by the agreed June 2020 deadline.
We must not run ahead of the negotiating process—it is yet to begin. It is disappointing to hear in your Lordships’ House the assumption that everything is impossible. I do not agree with that. I am happy to repeat that we will, of course, try to keep the House informed in an appropriate way as the negotiations go forward; yes, we will keep the devolved Administrations informed. Indeed, in the House of Commons, my right honourable friend expressed his gratitude for the valuable recent discussions he had had with representatives of the devolved Administrations.
On language, I was invited to be robust, but I must try to stop being robust now that I am a Minister. I want full co-operation and friendship with the noble Lord, who I enjoyed working with in coalition, but it is a bit rich to be given a lesson on language by a party that went to the last election planning to revoke Article 50 without any reference at all to the British people. To my reckoning, that seemed mildly harsh. I will not go into a philosophical argument about what sovereignty means. Some things the noble Lord said were true; some were not. This Government intend to be a leader on climate change, as we have already demonstrated.
I have tried to answer the questions, but I am sorry to have gone over time. We must accept this as a fresh phase, and I hope the whole House, on all sides, addresses this phase in the positive spirit of wishing to get a good outcome by the end of this year, both for this country and for the European Union. That is the position of this Government and what we will try to achieve.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I warmly welcome my noble friend to his new role, and I warmly welcome the comments he has just made and the whole tone of his speech, particularly its emphasis on the principles of our co-operation with the rest of Europe—in a sense, our European policy for the decades ahead. Does he accept that the Statement might have benefited from a description of what is going on in the EU, where radical change is under way? It is adjusting to a completely new style and emphasis in the digital age. Would he applaud a statement from the 19th century and the famous statesman Leopold von Ranke that
“the union of all depends on the independence of each”?
If we stick to that principle, old though it may be, we will be able to influence our Europe—which we still belong to—constructively in the future, along his lines.
Lord True
I thank my noble friend and agree with him, but this Government are not going to lecture the European Union on how it should manage its own home. We respect their right, as 27 sovereign nations, to determine their own future, but the points that my noble friend made are germane and important. We will, and I personally will, bear them all in mind.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister had a lot of questions to answer, but I wonder if he could pick up the point raised by my noble friend from our Front Bench about integrated supply chains. Can the Minister assure companies such as Nissan that they would not be adversely affected by the Government’s approach, particularly to alignment? I hope also that the Government will try to avoid a triumphalist approach to the negotiations and their dealings with this House. You would never have guessed from the Minister’s Statement that, actually, 16 million people voted the other way. Neither would you have guessed that the Conservative vote increased by only 1% overall at the last election. It seems the Government should approach these negotiations in a spirit of compromise, and keep as close a relationship with the EU as possible.
Lord True
My Lords, I am not very good at doing triumphalism, and I do not believe that either this Statement or anything the Government have done has that tone. It is not triumphalism but the act of a historian to point out the result of the recent general election. It is not a mark against any party that took part, but a clear outcome of that election was that the British people renewed an instruction. As for the key question about business interests, the Government are continuing our dialogue with business over the coming months, in the usual way. We are fully aware of all the issues involved, but let us not leap forward and assume the worst at every opportunity. The Government will wish to be informed and to inform, but many supply chains successfully exist in areas where there is no customs union—in North America, for example. I do not accept the advice that we must be defeatist and that problems and issues cannot be satisfactorily addressed, at this early stage, when negotiators have not even met yet.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that, if these discussions with the European Union do not lead to a happy conclusion, the no-deal situation will be brought to Parliament for approval?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to his new responsibilities. I look forward to many a True statement. He emphasised the importance of our understanding that the world has changed and that we are in a brave new world that is all fresh. What I am worried about is whether the foreigners will see it that way. I am worried that the foreigners will still believe that the joint commitment in the political declaration to a level playing field perhaps still holds. I am worried that the foreigners—the 27—noting that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister are in denial about what the Northern Ireland protocol says and that no work is being done in Belfast or in London on implementing it, may feel that “pacta sunt servanda” is no longer the governing principle here. Will the noble Lord assure me that we still believe that commitments should be honoured? If that is his view, will he please raise it with the Prime Minister?
Lord True
My Lords, I take particular note of what the noble Lord says. I thank him for his kind remarks. I have the highest respect for his great service to this country. I remember watching from the sidelines in the early 1990s his extraordinary achievements. I think I said at one stage in these discussions that he was the Duns Scotus, the great scholastic who understood everything. I hope he will not regret having to deal with a Dunce Anglius here at the Dispatch Box who has a lot to learn. Look, the negotiations are just yet to begin. People will lay out their positions next week. Again, the noble Lord invites me to run ahead of the position. Each side’s position will be staked out by the appropriate people as the negotiations commence.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
Do the Government not appreciate that no one will invest in manufacturing capability in this country, the output for which will be dependent on demand from the single market to a considerable and possibly larger extent, in a climate of regulatory uncertainty where it is not clear whether at any moment our regulations might divert from those in the European single market? It seems to me that the Government either have decided to neglect or have never heard of one of the most elemental requirements of industry in the important area of investment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend’s Statement has exposed the speciousness of the argument that for some reason the UK should be treated as a special case because of our proximity to the European continent. Does he agree that this is actually an indication of the insecurity of the EU? It is a euphemism for saying that we should be punished for daring to leave the EU. This is not exactly a vote of confidence in the future of the EU.
Lord True
My Lords, I am not going to be critical of the EU. As I have said, we respect its right to conduct itself as it wishes. I repeat: we certainly do not accept the proximity argument that requires that we should be in a customs union. It is not an argument that applies in North America, and I do not believe it applies on the European continent either.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to his place and assure him that we accept that we are now in a different situation. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, just asked about, do the Government still adhere to the political declaration that the Prime Minister signed on 19 October last year? I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph 77, which deals with the point that the noble Lord just raised. It starts:
“Given the Union and the United Kingdom’s geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field.”
That is what the Prime Minister signed up for last October. Can we have it clearly stated that the Government still sign up to that statement? This is a matter of great importance; I think hundreds of thousands of people’s jobs depend on it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I too welcome my noble friend to his post and wish him every success. Does he accept that the hallmark of successful negotiations has to be mutual respect? Can he assure the House that we are not aiming for splendid isolation, but rather mutual prosperity? Does he also remember that the last negotiations, of unhappy memory, were bedevilled by the proclaiming of red lines far too early in the process?
Lord True
My Lords, I thought I had said in the Statement and afterwards that they will be approached in terms of mutual respect. But mutual respect and friendship—as I think my noble friend will understand from our happy relations in this House—does not always mean absolute identity on everything.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box very warmly. May I tempt him to enter into the philosophical discussion? Was not the very point of Brexit that we should reclaim that part of our sovereignty that we lent to the European Union, and does not the sovereignty of a democratic state reside in its ability to make its own laws in its own Parliaments and Assemblies, accountable to its own people? The sovereignty of that people also resides in their ability to have those laws applied and interpreted in their own courts. To reclaim sovereignty is therefore not to advance propositions about power in international relationships or economic independence. It is simply about the right to national autonomy.
That being so, is it not inconceivable that the Government should accept the principle of dynamic alignment, thereby tying a democratically elected Government in this country in the future to accept whatever new regulations and laws might be promulgated by the institutions of the European Union? Should not the EU therefore, if its negotiators really care about the well-being and prosperity of its peoples, move quickly to agree a trade deal that involves no tariffs or quotas, and enables us to pursue the friendly, co-operative and mutually advantageous trading arrangements that surely we all should seek?
Lord True
Yes, I very much agree with the noble Lord’s analysis but I think that the House, when it has a Minister for a brief time, does not want a philosophical discussion. But I take his side in the discussion that he will no doubt have with the noble Lord afterwards, and agree with what he said. Our objective is to have a free trade agreement; that is what we have asked for and what the EU once offered. It is my hope that we will get there and have the other agreements that the Statement refers to as well. Our approach is based on a precedent that the EU has accepted with other nations. We see no reason why it should not be accepted. The EU has not asked for the kind of alignment that the noble Lord referred to in a number of other agreements that it has already accepted.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend and welcoming him to his new position, does he recall the Government— or the leave campaign’s position—at the time of the referendum clearly stating that they were seeking frictionless trade with our European partners? Why have we left that position, and is it not explicit in the Statement he has just read out that the Government intend to leave the negotiating table in June? As my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones asked, is it not incumbent that we should return to this House to discuss that position and the impact that leaving on World Trade Organization rules will have on the British economy?
Lord True
My Lords, I do not answer for Vote Leave; I was not a member of Vote Leave. I was trying to lead a local authority at the time. Business in this House is a matter for the usual channels. The direct answer to her question is no; the Government intend to procure a successful negotiation and successful outcome, and we hope very much that that view will be shared by our friends and allies in Europe. We will continue the negotiations with a view to a successful free trade agreement and agreement on the other matters covered in the Statement before December.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Like the Minister, who I welcome to his post, I do not want an academic debate about sovereignty, but I do think that, in having a sensible discussion, it is fundamental to recognise the difference between having relationships with other countries via treaties or any other mechanism and a relationship between sovereign states. To have the kind of organisation that exists in the European Union, of which we are thankfully no longer a member—whereby the multi- national organisation can legislate, trumping domestic law, and that can be interpreted by courts outside the control of the nation state and its legislators cannot be removed by the people of the nation state—is a difference in kind. It is not a gradation. It is time that people recognised that and put that particular argument to one side.
Lord True
My Lords, I profoundly agree with what the noble Lord said. I thank him for what he personally said and reciprocate with my respect for him and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and their strong voices through the past two or three years against the overwhelming view on the other side. I agree with their analysis; I do not agree with that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome my noble friend to his place on the Front Bench. Can he assure the House that, in the negotiations, the highest priority will be given to delivering on the Conservative manifesto commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses and producers will have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom and that that will be enshrined in UK law? Does he also agree that, while Monsieur Barnier might have one interpretation of the protocol, it is not the only interpretation?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord to his new position. I have two brief questions. First, we heard in the Statement and we have heard from many other noble Lords on the Government Front Bench that we want to maintain or exceed the current EU standards on the environment and workers’ rights. If that is the case, why is there any problem with signing up to them if we are planning to keep or exceed them?
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the number of times the word “sovereignty” appeared in the Statement. We are focused on issues of national sovereignty but, if the multinational corporations around the world were countries, Walmart would be the 24th largest country ranked by GDP, Volkswagen the 43rd and Amazon—the great tax dodger—the 58th. Can the Minister reassure me on how we will maintain our sovereignty as a solitary nation state up against those giant multinational corporations, when we have found that difficult even as part of a giant union of the peoples of Europe?
Lord True
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Howell said, the United Kingdom will never be a solitary nation state. The United Kingdom seeks friendship and alliance with every other nation of the world except those that, by their behaviour, do not merit it. I do not believe that this great United Kingdom is incapable of doing on its own what 135 other nations are capable of doing. I do not accept that we have to be told by an external power or nation what we must do as we cook our eggs in the morning. The British people want to cook their own eggs.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the European Commission responded very warmly in its mandate to what was proposed in the political declaration and that the Statements we have heard since, from the Prime Minister and today, have simply disregarded or hardly mentioned the political declaration, which was approved by so many members of his party? Can he reassure me that we will see a Statement very soon that includes things in the declaration? I am thinking particularly of international security, the CSDP missions that we do and international development.
Lord True
My Lords, international security will be a separate strand in discussions. On my first outing at the Dispatch Box I am not going to interpose my body between what the Prime Minister has lately said and what the House might or might not want him to say. All I will say—I respect and understand noble Lords’ feelings after what has happened—is that we must all try together, whatever our position, in the interests of this country and the European Union, to assist a constructive, positive and friendly outcome.
Children and Families: Early Years Interventions
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
That this House takes note of the case for improved early years interventions to support children and families.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, it is a great privilege to initiate this debate today on early years intervention. My interest in this subject comes from my experience as a paediatric speech and language therapist, then in parish ministry and now as a bishop committed to the flourishing and well-being of diverse individuals and communities. In light of that, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register of interests.
The experiences we have as children, and in particular as young children, shape the rest of our lives. A child’s development score at just 22 months can serve as an accurate predictor of educational outcomes at 26 years. Adverse childhood experiences—ACEs—have significant public health and social consequences. Having had four such experiences is associated with poorer physical and mental health, drug and alcohol abuse and inter- personal and self-directed violence. There are stories up and down the country, including those I hear in prisons and women’s centres, about those who are now adults who were deprived of appropriate early years intervention, and about those who are turning their lives around for their children and their families as a result of receiving early intervention for their children and for themselves as parents.
My intention in tabling this debate today is to reflect on how government, both centrally and locally, can work with families and communities to support children’s well-being, particularly at the start of life—I deliberately use the word “with”. The Government have plenty of evidence that early interventions are not just good for children’s life chances, they are also sound financially. The old adage, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, rings true here. Despite this, the Children’s Society estimates that local authority spending on early intervention services for children and young people fell by 49% between 2010 and 2017.
Health visitors are a highly effective intervention and support for all babies and families across the social spectrum, yet their number is falling. Similarly, most areas in England have experienced a real-terms reduction in reported spending on speech and language therapy over the last three years, despite the fact that children with poor vocabulary skills at the age of five are three times as likely as their peers to have mental health problems in adulthood, and twice as likely to become unemployed.
For those in government concerned about money, it should be enough to point out that, when we provide early support and catch problems early, intervention is far less expensive. However, we have to be able to do this. The Government’s troubled families programme comes too late. The families it supports are already in trouble, not simply struggling or at risk.
Increases in government spending on children’s services have been largely a result of the increased number of looked-after children and the Government’s expansion of free childcare hours, while spending on children’s centres and provision for families has decreased, particularly in the most deprived parts of the country where they are most needed to address inequality. In the case of looked-after children, this is by far the most drastic and expensive intervention the Government can make in a child’s life. What assessment have the Government made of the causes of this rise?
On childcare, academic research shows that pre-schooling and paid childcare improve children’s outcomes only if they are of high quality. Where children are looked after by private providers, vital links with local authorities can be missed and staff may not have the specialist training required to spot early issues. Research done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that the free entitlement for three and four year-olds does not effectively target the most needy and at risk. What assessment have the Government made of the quality of this provision and its effect on early years outcomes for children?
Child poverty has a strong link with child development. Children who have lived in persistent poverty during their first seven years of life have cognitive development scores on average 20% below those of children who have never experienced poverty. The Millennium Cohort Study shows that poor children are four times more likely than rich children to develop a mental health problem by the age of 11. Gaps in achievement open up early on, and by the time they start school the poorest children are already 11 months behind their more advantaged classmates. Overcrowded, poorly maintained housing can lead to children sleeping in living rooms or with parents, which has consequences for physical and mental health. Poverty puts families under pressure, and that stress can be a source of ill health and family breakdown, leading to expensive work by public authorities further down the line.
Simply expanding both entitlement to free childcare for disadvantaged two year-olds and the number of free hours that older children are entitled to is unlikely to counteract the effect of benefit changes and the two-child limit. To put it simply, incentivising single mothers to work is not a panacea for their child’s development. Can the Minister explain what analysis the Government have made of the impact of DWP changes on child poverty, particularly the two-child limit, and any impact assessment of the effect that this will have on children’s life chances and well-being?
We also know that worklessness is no longer the root of poverty. Seven in 10 children in poverty are now in a working family. Part of the problem is that families have to pay the entire cost of free childcare up front before they can claim back the 85% that the Government will cover. Many low-income families do not have the capital to pay this up-front cost or risk going into debt. Moreover, childcare support has been capped at £175 per week since April 2016, while childcare costs continue to rise. The deep irony of this situation is that most childcare workers are themselves women on low pay, and 44% of childcare workers claim state benefits or tax credits.
To paraphrase the Sutton Trust and the Marmot review published earlier this week, it is difficult to see how even well-designed policies to support parenting and ensure access to high-quality early education can have the optimal impact against a backdrop of a sharp increase in child poverty.
Furthermore, navigating the benefits in the childcare system is hugely complicated, especially as families begin to migrate on to universal credit. Anecdotally, we hear that this is something that churches and toddler groups help with around the country. Toddler groups —many provided by churches and other community-based groups—do a huge amount of early intervention and signposting work, informally across the country. It amounts to thousands of hours each year. Often, these are the only places in a community where children from different backgrounds mix and parents and care givers are provided with support. Yet toddler groups are almost invisible in impact studies and government reports. They are a tremendous asset to the country, provided by hard-working, committed volunteers. We want to encourage this sort of expression of civil society, but the Government must partner with the community to make sure that local services are joined up, holistic and sufficiently funded. This work cannot simply be outsourced to stretched volunteers.
While I welcome the Government’s commissioning of research on family hubs, surely the case for children’s centres is already well known. For each Government to have to learn the benefits of early intervention for themselves is frustrating and a poor use of resources. One of the most important parts of Sure Start was co-creation with the local community—a bottom-up approach that listened to the needs of service users. Will this happen with family hubs? What support will the Government provide for children and their families from all walks of life to ensure that parents who have concerns about their child’s welfare and development have somewhere to turn?
If I had longer, I would have liked to say something about families of children who have a disability. The long-term well-being of such children and families is about not only access to early diagnosis but appropriate early intervention. Early intervention by definition needs to be made early, and I hope that the Minister, in her reply, will explain how the Government are working across departments to improve early years policy, given that the interministerial group on the early years has been disbanded. Will the Government introduce a cross-departmental early years strategy as part of the plan to level up Britain, and ensure that every child can achieve their potential? What attention have the Government paid to the work of the Early Intervention Foundation and its analysis of what works as effective interventions? Will the Minister assure the House that local authorities have sufficient ring-fenced funding to deliver them?
There is an urgent need for join-up. At present, we do not have a single framework, even across health and education, to assess and support the development and well-being of every child. This is more than join-up across health and education—although that would be a good start. This is about every aspect of life if we are rightly to look at the whole child in the context of the family.
In this debate, we are not simply focusing on little people. We are talking about investment in the start of life, which affects the long-term well-being of individuals, families, households, communities, our country and beyond. There is a very strong case for improving early years interventions and having a clear and joined-up strategy for doing so. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members on this topic today.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for securing this debate. It gives me a great opportunity to share with your Lordships the excellent work being undertaken in Wales on early years education and care. As a classroom teacher with more than 35 years’ experience in the secondary sector, I saw all too often that if only issues had been addressed earlier on in a child’s life, the problems that surrounded them in their teenage years could have been solved.
Last October, the Welsh Government launched a new approach; the reform of the provision is aimed at creating a single, child-centred approach to early childhood education and care. The early years are defined by the Welsh Government as the period of life from prebirth to the end of the foundation phase, or nought to seven years of age. These years are a crucial time for children. They grow rapidly, and both their physical and mental development are affected by the environment in which they find themselves.
The first three years of life are particularly important for healthy development, due to the fast rate of neurological growth that occurs during this period. There is an abundance of research showing that investing in the first years of a child’s life improves outcomes for them throughout the rest of their life. A mentally healthy child has a clear sense of identity and self-worth and the ability to recognise and manage emotions, to learn to play, enjoy friendships and relationships, and deal with difficulties. A wide range of interrelated factors play a role, such as individual, family, wider society and of course environmental issues.
Co-ordinated interagency action at national and local level is required to improve the health of children and young people and its determinants. It is hoped that this will reduce the attainment gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers and will allow parents and children better access to education and childcare in ways that meet their differing needs and circumstances. The six outcomes the Welsh Government are looking at are that children: feel safe are cared for; feel supported and valued; are resilient and capable; are coping; are healthy while they learn and develop; and are not disadvantaged by poverty.
We know that adverse childhood experiences play an important role in lack of future development, and development is the start of a good life. We know that by the age of just three children from poorer backgrounds start to fall behind. This gap then widens as they start school, and the self-fulfilling prophecy of under- achievement and underattainment is set in motion, with a lifetime’s impact.
With this renewed approach, the Welsh Government are determined to redress the imbalance and close the gap. They want to ensure that every child has access to the same, high-quality support, and early childhood education and care are key to this. In Wales, we have managed, despite a decade of crushing austerity and lack of funding of public services, to extend excellent childcare provision across the early years. We have a long-established and well-regarded offer for three and four year-olds, with the delivery of the innovative foundation phase of education.
The foundation phase is the developmental statutory curriculum for three to seven year-olds in Wales, and it is based on the principle that early years education provision should offer a sound foundation for future learning through a developmentally appropriate curriculum. It brings more consistency and continuity to children’s education in this all-important period. It places great emphasis on children’s learning by participating in practical activities. Young children are given opportunities to gain first-hand experience through play and active involvement rather than by more formal education and completing exercises in books. It encourages children to be creative and imaginative and to have fun, and places the child at the centre of their learning. They are given more opportunities to explore the world around them and understand how things work by taking part in practical activities that are relevant to their developmental stage. They are challenged with open-ended questions and given opportunities to explore and share ideas for solving problems.
This latest approach will be built on those foundations, and at its core is the aim that all children will have a high-quality, stimulating learning and care experience in any education and care setting that they attend, whether in Welsh, English or bilingually. Putting child development at the heart of early childhood education will ensure that the principle of quality is clear to all who work with children and will underpin the provision in every setting in Wales.
Who is eligible? Working parents of three or four year- old children can claim 30 hours of free early education and childcare in Wales a week, for up to 48 weeks of the year. Local authorities will be a key player in this delivery, and there is investment in innovative solutions that will enable more parents and children to have better access. It is particularly important to ensure that children with additional learning needs or physical disabilities can access this provision without any inequalities.
It is an ambitious change and full implementation will take the next decade, but it will include a plan for developing a quality framework that enshrines the principles supporting it by setting out the quality required. This will be the guide for practitioners to use, for parents to understand and for inspectors to assess, thus linking those elements together.
I commend the Welsh system of early years education and care to the House and hope that Ministers in the UK Government will look carefully at what Wales is doing, learn from that embedded good practice and those future ambitions, and develop similar excellent systems of care for young children across England.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for securing this vital debate and refer to my interests in the register.
It is widely understood and acknowledged these days that what happens during pregnancy and in the early years shapes children’s physical health, language and communication, learning, emotional well-being and ability to form positive relationships. In short, the early years of a child’s life are pivotal to their ability to flourish throughout childhood and into adulthood.
Given the importance of early years, I am sure I am not alone in this Chamber in thinking that improving outcomes in the early years is just about the smartest investment we can make as a society. We still have much to do in ensuring that high-quality early years services are equally accessible to all families, wherever they live.
I make the case for improved childhood interventions on two grounds. First, intervention is crucial to a child’s long-term well-being, which should be a crucial objective of any Government; and, secondly, there is certainly room to improve a system that at the moment is either barely adequate or, in some places, does not even exist.
The evidence is instructive: 4 million children living in poverty; 50,000 children aged nought to five living in households with domestic violence, alcohol or drug dependency and severe mental ill-health; and an attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their better-off peers clearly evident at the age of five when they start school. There is also a wealth of evidence showing that failing children in the early years has devastating and long-lasting consequences. For example, we know that an estimated 220,000 children aged 10 to 15 are unhappy with their life. Children who live in families under financial strain are more likely to be unhappy and to experience symptoms of depression than their better-off peers. As we have already heard, there is a clearly established link between poverty and poor mental health, which manifests itself early on in a child’s life. Where we fail to act early, we fail to equip children with the necessary tools to improve their life chances and social mobility.
Before turning to some specific policy responses, I will say another word about poverty, because it is so important. Child poverty is acting as a key barrier to children’s educational achievement and good health. At just five years old, children from the poorest income groups are twice as likely to be obese as their better-off peers. This is just one example of how poverty can ruin childhoods and cause irreparable damage to society’s future health and productivity. Early years education, childcare health visitors and early help family support services, often provided by the voluntary sector, can boost outcomes for most disadvantaged children, but research shows that take-up among these groups is low. Simply put, those who need these services the most are often missing out. Many families are unaware that the services are available to them.
I very much share the view expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester that one thing we currently lack is an overarching children’s strategy. Happily, this can easily be addressed. It is absolutely crucial to demonstrate joined-up working and leadership within central government to inspire local areas to see early intervention as a shared responsibility. Early intervention needs to be everyone’s business, and we must reflect the complex ways in which various components of children’s well-being interact.
The National Children’s Bureau—last year I stepped down as its president after a seven-year term—has called for a comprehensive cross-government children and young people’s strategy to establish a new vision for childhood and create a binding set of outcomes that all government departments are accountable for delivering. Many programmes to drive these improvements in early years either exist or we know about them, but to make the most of these interventions, we need the sustained, focused and committed efforts of all government departments to address poverty, integration of services, and funding.
Service integration is key. Children’s lives are heavily influenced by many aspects: their family, their neighbourhood, their nursery or school, their GP surgery and so on. These interactions impact on child outcomes in a complex way. Therefore, co-operation and integration between education, social care and health services, and between the voluntary and statutory sectors, is needed, not only to improve outcomes but to narrow inequalities. Of course, this needs to be done in full partnership with children and their families.
I will finish on the issue of funding, which is so important. The last decade has seen the capacity of early years services to work in a preventive way undermined by significant reductions in public spending, with local authority budgets particularly badly affected. We have already heard the statistics: since 2010, cash-strapped councils have had to reduce spending on early intervention by almost 50%. That is a very big figure. The LGA estimates that an investment of at least £3.1 billion per year by the middle of the decade is needed to prevent children’s services from collapsing. The Government have committed just £1 billion per year, to be split between adult and children’s services, so let us hope that there is better news in either the Budget or the spending review. It will be great if the Minister can give some reassurance on that point.
The Government also promised in their manifesto to develop a network of family hubs, but no further detail has been given. With proper funding, they could be a very welcome re-extension of early intervention services back into the communities. Can the Minister give an update on the Government’s plans for family hubs?
Finally, Storing Up Trouble, a report published by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children, of which I am co-chair, found that just a small proportion of local authority resources are being spent at the early, preventive end of the agenda. Virtually all of it at the moment has to go on crisis support. We have already heard today—and so powerfully—how it is crucial to intervene before families reach this crisis point. I am looking forward to the all-party group’s hearings and inquiries in May, which will take a strategic look at spending and identify the interventions on which the Government could best target its investment. I will be delighted if the Minister attends those inquiries and responds to the APPG’s recommendations.
Lord Astor of Hever (Con)
My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate said, early intervention in education is essential to any child with special educational needs or any learning disability. Numerous studies in the past decade show that early intervention increases a child’s potential for greater all-round development, that a child learns as much in the first three years of its life as it will throughout its remaining years, and that if help is not given that vital period is irretrievably lost. These points were very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox.
I am the father of a 27 year-old daughter with special needs. At the age of four she was diagnosed with severe autism and a learning disability, as well as dyspraxia. Through my personal experience I feel sufficiently qualified to know the enormous value of early intervention. Our daughter attended special-needs schools and left at 19 with several entry-level qualifications, able to read fluently and work a computer and mobile phone. This would not have been the case without the early intervention that she received.
Autism is a lifelong condition that affects more than one in 100 children and young people. Intervening early in these children’s lives to support their communication, learning and development increases the chances that they will make good progress with their education and ability to cope throughout their adult lives. Children may be able to access early intervention only if they have a diagnosis, but the length of time that many families wait for an autism diagnosis means that too few autistic children benefit from early intervention programmes. Research by the National Autistic Society found that children wait, on average, three and a half years from when their parents first seek help to when they receive a diagnosis of autism, despite NHS guidelines stating that children and adults who may be on the autism spectrum should be assessed within three months.
Diagnosis is vital. It enables a child on the autism spectrum to be better understood by their parents, teachers and others. It should also open access to crucial help and support. As soon as a diagnosis is made, intervention should be carried out with immediate effect. If children are not given the help that they are entitled to when they are young, they will grow into adults who require infinitely more expensive care throughout their lives and put enormous strain—emotional and financial—on their families.
An important initiative for young children on the autism spectrum is the EarlyBird programme, run by the National Autistic Society, a three-month programme of group training and individual home visits for families of preschool children. The aim is to help parents understand their children better; how to support them; how to get into their child’s world; how to find ways to develop their interaction and communication; and how to understand how the child behaves and reacts. Children on the autism spectrum do not experience the world in the way that we expect of most children in the early years stage of development and learning. Early intervention programmes can help these children learn and develop the skills they need, understand their environment and reduce their levels of stress and anxiety.
Early intervention is vital for these reasons, and should be available for everyone, regardless of their postcode or bank balance. There are over 1 million children in the United Kingdom with special educational needs. In the light of this, will the Government make a commitment to implement the guidelines on waiting times for diagnosis, so that no child must wait years for the help and support they need?
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, for 35 years my colleagues and I have supported East End families and children and worked with them at the coalface. We have spent our lives operating within the machinery of the state and have witnessed countless promises made to these families and communities, many of which did not turn out quite as expected. It takes a family and a community to raise children well. If we want to be serious in this debate, given all the money that Governments spend on research that few people read, we might like to look back over the last 30 years and learn from the programmes that the state has run. In our experience, government is not a learning organisation. It has little memory, and this fact has unintended consequences for many of our most vulnerable families.
We had a rich ecology of childcare providers in our area 30 years ago, often with strong relationships with parents and families. Then Governments started disrupting this. They said that they would encourage children to enter school one or two years earlier, thus destroying the business model of many small nurseries and support networks. Then they set up Sure Start and children’s centres. The launch of these centres was at the Bromley by Bow Centre, which I founded. They were all our ideas. We were told that we were the model for what should happen nationally, and now, of course, we are saying that we cannot afford them. The Bromley by Bow Centre had its children’s centre contract cancelled at short notice. What is the net effect on childcare and support services over the last 30 years? How much money has been spent, to what overall effect? One experienced children’s officer in one London borough described to me recently the present overduplication in her borough, the outdated silo systems incapable of real integrated working and staff waiting out their pensions and poor leadership.
Our work—often despite government—is starting to go national and my colleagues and I are today working in challenging communities across this country. I was in Skelmersdale last Monday at one of our innovation platforms with the NHS civil servants who are writing the new Green Paper on prevention. Local people and I shared with the civil servants the long journey of state intervention in this town and the unintended consequences. I do not know Dominic Cummings—I have never met him—but if he is really interested in the dysfunctionality of so much of the machinery of government systems and their countless interventions, he would do well to spend some time in Skelmersdale. This community, like countless others, is littered with three-year government programmes that spent loads of money and came to little. Local families know this fact. The civil servants we met seemed more interested in policy than implementation—classic Oxbridge culture. It is the impact that counts.
As a Christian community in east London, we took these families seriously and created four nurseries—a network of integrated health centres—which now have 42,000 patients because we saw that the health services were not joined-up locally around them. We have set up 87 businesses with local people and countless programmes and projects. We began to understand the state only when we tried to bend it and make any of the machinery work for these families. You only really understand and learn by practical engagement, not through policies, research and the paraphernalia the Government seem to spend so much money on—most of it, in our experience, simply does not work. The Word becomes flesh in John’s Gospel, not policies, not research, not minutes—flesh. You learn by doing.
There is an awful truth: the poor will always be with you. I was listening to a woman on the radio in Rotherham recently, another town where my colleagues and I are working. Even after all the sex scandals there, the horrific effects of a PC religious culture and ideology in that Labour council and all the statements about lessons being learned, she said that nothing had fundamentally changed. In poor areas, the state struggles too—that is true. It will only ever be part of the solution. It is the traditional Catholic message; it is what the Pope would say. He, of course, has the long view.
When we began working with families and children, we decided not to follow the then trendy approach in the 1980s focused around equal opportunities and an advert in the Guardian when it came to employing a person to work with these families. We knew we would end up with a bright young graduate with all the right papers, who had done all the right courses but had never had a child. We chose Jackie, a brilliant East End mum who had had four children by the time she was 21. She was a brilliant mother and role model, and she did a great job. She eventually introduced us to a 35 year-old mother called Jean Vialles, a friend from school, who had two kids aged 16 and two, sleeping in the same bed. Jean was dying of cancer and the NHS was busy writing four reports about her, but no one was giving her a bath. Through Jackie, we discovered a Baby P scenario on our doorstep—the profound dysfunctionality of the state. Jackie forced us into a massive confrontation with the NHS and we have the scars to prove it. Out of it came the first working model of a fully integrated primary healthcare centre in the country. Nowadays we have 2,000 visitors a year coming to see what this all means in practice. It was all about focusing in a joined-up way on the complicated lives of local children and families and believing in them, and that they could achieve great things, as many of them have gone on to do—learning by doing.
It is easy to blame the state, but what about the behaviour and interventions of our own institutions? Let us start there. I am listening to too many bishops telling us that the solution is for the state to spend and do more, and all will be well. They are listening to too many academics who have never built anything. I worry about all this research our politicians are quoting, emanating from our universities. They all seem to be saying the same thing. I do not believe in these too tidy by half solutions. The clinical psychologist Dr Jordan Peterson, the Ezekiel of our day, is raising some rather awkward questions about the state, our universities and their Marxist/liberal consensus that is infecting a generation. He is worrying away about the simplistic ideological glasses through which so many academics, whose salaries rely on the next research document, view the world. Few of them will spend real time with these children and families. Go and look at the many millions of pounds being spent on the Born in Bradford study and ask yourself: where is the money going and how much of it will stick to these families and communities in Bradford? Will we be able to point to the name and address of one family in the city who will have benefited from all this research funding?
This is not about policy but about implementation. I encourage the Minister to come with me to Rotherham to have a look at what that means in practice. I have had the invite out for a while, but maybe after this debate we might have coffee.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for arranging this debate, for her excellent introduction and for her reliance on expertise in her introduction. I hope to reflect that approach in my speech also.
For our debate on early intervention, the invaluable House of Lords Library briefing, which we always have for such debates, talks about early intervention specifically for children with atypical development, but I want to focus first on what is typical for children in the UK. A Children’s Society report from August 2019 showed that the level of happiness of our children is the lowest for a decade: a quarter of a million children said that they were unhappy with their lives; a third of 10 to 17 year-olds were fearful about the future; and one in eight children were unhappy at school. If we go back to 2016, a UNICEF study placed Britain 13th out of 16 countries for the happiness of our eight year-olds. We have a problem, widely acknowledged, with child poverty. There are 10 constituencies in the country where more than 50% of children—whole communities of children—are living in poverty. Overall, around the country, 4.6 million children are living in poverty.
If we look at where the support and the services for children—both those who need special interventions in children and in general—come from, local council funding has fallen by 17% on local services. That is nearly £300 per person in the past decade. Some 57% of the budget for services goes to social care, under huge pressure for the need for early interventions, among other causes. That has meant the loss of libraries, parks and other services, so I put it to your Lordships’ House that we have a real problem in our treatment of all children and this will increase the number of children who will have what will be seen, in historical terms, as atypical development and who will need intervention.
I turn briefly to some reflections on what that intervention should be like and how it should be funded. A report from the Sutton Trust recommended:
“The Government should move towards giving early years teachers qualified teacher status, with the increase in pay, conditions and status”
to match. I think we can all agree that there can be no more important job than taking care of our youngest children, particularly helping those children who need extra support to reach standard landmarks. I will, very shortly, be joining the National Education Union outside, which is concerned about the funding for post-16 education. We have a problem of how we prioritise education right across the board in our country.
I move to another point brought forward by the Sutton Trust in its 2014 report Sound Foundations. It stressed the importance of prioritising quality of services, particularly for the under-threes. There are two things I want to pick out from that: one is the focus on play- based activities and routines and the other is the opportunity to move and be physically active. Last night, when I joined the National Trust downstairs to celebrate its to celebrate its to celebrate its 125th anniversary, it was focusing on the importance of access to nature for all of us, but if we think about children, particularly struggling children, that access to nature—the chance to play and run around—is absolutely crucial. All the expert evidence shows that, yet we know this is being denied to many of our children, particularly children who may need early intervention. I think of the recent exposure in London of the fact that children living in social housing that is divided between social housing and purchased housing were being excluded from playgrounds. That is the kind of behaviour that will create situations that need intervention.
The point I really wish to make to your Lordships’ House is that there will always be a need for acute interventions for some children whose development is not proceeding as it should, but we are now at risk of creating a situation where social and economic circumstances put more and more children in that situation. That will demand more and more resources for more and more stretched services. We risk entering a downward spiral. Many speeches have already focused on the detail of the services for early intervention, but we also need to look at issues of equality—not social mobility for the few, nor help just for those most acutely affected, but a decent life for all our children.
Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for bringing this issue forward. For far too long, issues relating to families and their support have had a confusing history and some have been lost in time. One Government would organise the benefits system to penalise mothers who went to work, and the next would penalise those who stayed at home. Who suffers? It is of course children and families. Society would demonise mothers who chose to earn a living because they were not at home to control their children, but then penalise mothers—especially single mothers, and single fathers—who stayed at home but also claimed benefits.
The practical help needed came just over 20 years ago when the Government of the day—I am pleased that it was a Labour Government—introduced the idea of Sure Start. It really was a start. These centres were designed to boost the educational and life chances of socially and economically disadvantaged children. The first centres were set up in deprived areas, with baby-weighing clinics, childcare and play sessions alongside more general health needs, as well as parenting advice and employment coaching. Looking back, and judging by today’s standards, I think it was a progressive start.
In 2004, the programme was expanded, with the aim of delivering a childcare centre in every community. At its peak in 2009, Sure Start had more than 3,500 centres delivering major health benefits for youngsters in deprived areas. A report last year by the Institute for Fiscal Studies told of how Sure Start centres had reduced the number of people taken to hospital and delivered millions of pounds of NHS savings.
However, in 2010 the coalition came into office and introduced austerity cuts that reduced centre numbers by nearly 1,000 and their funding by some two-thirds. The numbers have reduced every year since. The biggest reductions have been in deprived authorities at a time when rising poverty has fuelled demand for parent and child support services, and when families and children need their support more than ever.
Millions of parents are now being punished and pushed out to work in order to feed, clothe and look after their children. A weapon is used in some instances; it is called universal credit. If your child is aged under three you will not have to find a job, but you will have to prepare for work, which means having regular meetings at the jobcentre and possibly doing some training. There is, presumably, a presumption that granny will look after the children. Those with children aged under 13 can limit their availability for work around their schooling and childcare, if they can find an employer prepared to accommodate that. If their child is aged over 13 the number of hours they are expected to work will vary, but they can be assured that their problems will be greater and more expensive.
Universal credit might pay up to 85% of childcare costs, but the maximum payment assumes a lower cost of childcare than you are likely to find. With payment in arrears, many applicants find themselves in a position where there is only one way out: to take out a loan. At different times we have all heard of latch-key children and criticisms of parents who are perceived not to control their children. Via universal credit, the Government positively encourage this. The threat is: work or else.
The Government continually argue that employment leaves the individual in a better place. No one disagrees with that, but everyone believes that it should not be solely at the expense of looking after children and families. Therefore, we on this side of the House believe that the Government and the media should not blame children and families. They are victims, not the cause. We believe that the regeneration of the principles that underpinned Sure Start would make a fundamental difference today.
Sure Start and children’s centres were closed; sports centres, playground and other outside playing areas are unkept; schools are deprived of resources and staff; children with special needs are deprived of services; libraries are closing. That is the United Kingdom shutting down, rather than looking up. It is therefore time to place responsibility where it belongs. It is time for the Government to take responsibility, in the context not just of work, but of work and the community. That is how we build a nation. If we were to judge building our nation by how we treat our children overall, we would be failing.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for this important debate. However, it also saddens me that yet again we are talking about young lives. Over the past 12 years, for 10 of which I have been in your Lordships’ House, including just recently over the weekend, my girls and I have gone through turmoil and upset at the lack of confidence in government departments, policies and systems that we all genuinely and honestly believed would provide support when it was truly needed. Yet the system itself retraumatises and breaks you once again.
This debate shines a light on systems which for some are simply no longer available, or else the severity of the case does not match the threshold set by agencies. Adverse childhood experiences, or ACEs, are potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood from birth to 17. They include violence and abuse to a family member, committing or attempting to commit suicide, substance misuse, parental separation, chronic health problems and mental ill health, and, again, substance misuse in adulthood, all leading to a negative impact on education and job opportunities.
I do not stand on ceremony. I am not a policy person and I do not do scripts very well. But while I do not wish to undermine the role of my noble friend Lady Berridge, who I have great support for, the time has come to take all political parties out of this loop. This is about tiny, small children who are undernourished and undereducated and have such a dreadful start from birth onwards—be that substance misuse, domestic abuse, or simply that we now have a generation of young, vulnerable and mentally ill people having babies.
As a mother of three daughters, I am very proud of my working-class background. I do not say that to show that I have the profile of someone who understands what it is like; I say it because my working-class parents worked so very hard for my sister and me. They had a day job as well as a night job, always providing to make sure that we had a happier and healthier lifestyle, always saying education was very important but also providing a warm home and food to instil in my sister and me that you have to work hard in life to get what you want—and we also knew that we had the support of our parents.
Parenting is not the easiest of jobs. I am definitely not Mother Teresa and Gary was not the Pope and we were not a family who lived on a mountain like the Waltons. Parenting is very, very hard, whether you come from a good family or a bad family. There are worrying issues of health, as my parents had with me because, unbeknown to them, I was born with a hole in my lung. I had really bad health, and still do, so at times it shook them. Also, my parents did not have the best upbringing—they suffered hardship and parental separation—but they ensured that my sister and I had the best. So I am proud to stand here to say that I am stood here today because of them. They made me the person that I am and they made me understand that we should have morals and manners and we should respect one another. We will only get that if everybody who has spoken in this debate—hence my notes look like something out of the Beano, with blots everywhere—understands that it is not easy for the system if the system does not understand the hardship on the ground.
I have worked with many communities to find out what is going wrong in cycles. What I find further insulting is that we hear about young lives battling to survive daily struggles, as well as peer pressure which leads them into bad behaviour in our schools. Then that system moves them into pupil referral units, and in turn that system makes their vulnerabilities bait for those who feed them and give them love, only to turn that into the power to corrupt so they end up within our criminal justice system. And then we blame that system, but is that not putting the cart before the horse?
The real issues have been spoken about again and again in this Chamber, but now we are seeing young people become young parents, those children now scavenging in bins for food, washing uniforms at schools because they have no other uniform and no washing facilities at home, children not wanting school holidays because they are scared to be at home. We have children unable to speak who get frustrated because they cannot communicate, which then sadly manifests itself in mental health problems further down the line. That leads to behavioural and social problems and we no longer flicker so much as an eyelid when we read about this or watch it on TV. We label young people with exclusions and yet it is their very home environment that makes them behave in the way they do. So, unless we change, we are feeding that carousel even more.
I have had the pleasure of working with the Wise Owl Trust with children as young as three, talking to them about their character traits and emotions, having weekly missions with them where they have to use resilience. I love the resilience programme because it is a pipe where the rain goes down, which brings a nursery rhyme with a spider. If they cannot get the spider out, they have to carry on, because they get angry until that spider appears. That is an innocent childhood nursery rhyme. But I am fed up with seeing people pushing prams and their babies have got iPads—people who cannot take the time to have conversations with their children because the mother or the father is on their mobile phone. And, more importantly, I am sick and tired of sitting at tables, hearing about the lack of health visitors, of midwives, of GPs and of GP surgeries when we have families living in poverty, children being carers to mentally ill parents, going to school and to bed in the same clothes, and children in nappies at five because they know no other thing to do.
Surely it is a sad occasion when we stand here today. There is one thing that I know. The character build for respect is called resilience. It stands for “Resilience: I can do it”, Empathy: “I know how you feel”, Self-awareness: “I understand”, Positivity: “I believe in that”, Excellence: “I will do my best”, Communication: “I will share”, and, moreover, “I will work with others”. We have three-year-olds doing that, but we need to act soon before we have a generation who will not do that.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on this timely debate, which has been particularly enhanced by her speech; she has very considerable and distinguished experience in this matter. Early intervention is not short of attention, and the excellent briefing from the Library highlights no fewer than 10 different sources and authorities on this vital subject. The absence of early intervention, which can go back to the womb, can affect the subsequent adult life of a child; this is absolutely irredeemable.
The case for early intervention is fortunate in having among its advocates a number of committed and articulate charities, of which the Early Intervention Foundation mentioned by the right reverend Prelate is a good example. The mission of this body is simply expressed. It identifies four causes requiring its services: home lives and family relationships, physical and mental health, cognitive development and educational attainment, and social and behavioural skills. There is nothing new here, but by working on these simple categories the EIF is more able to target the children most in need of its support.
Research by another fine charity, Home for Good, gives very bleak statistics, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. Of 75,000 children in care in England, 10,000 are between the ages of one and four and a further 4,500 children are under the age of one, and 63% of those children will have experienced abuse or neglect. This charity places great emphasis on the alternatives for care through kinship, foster care and adoption. Its guiding principle is that every person needs a family for life. Those are just two outstanding charities among many.
There have been three relevant Select Committees in another place: on education, science and technology, and health and social care. The Science and Technology Committee acknowledged the marked differences in the need for early intervention in different parts of England and called for a national strategy. This has been rejected by the Government, who have argued that
“Local areas are best placed to understand the early needs of their local communities to commission early intervention services to meet those needs”.
However, the committee contended that the national strategy would not have to run contrary to this locally led approach. Instead, it
“could have raised the awareness and ambition among local authorities with regards to adversity-focused early intervention, provided guidance and described best practice”.
This sentiment was echoed by the Health and Social Care Committee and the Education Committee, the latter of which in February 2019 published the report Tackling Disadvantage in the Early Years. It concluded:
“There seems to be little strategic direction … on early years”.
I also draw noble Lords’ attention to a powerful cross-departmental committee organised by my right honourable friend Andrea Leadsom. It focused on ages one to two. It had a debate in the other place in July 2019, but a report has never been issued. Will the Minister say whether it is possible that the Government will release that report? The committee was, of course, disbanded.
All these reports add up and give the impression that the Government are missing the chance to give an effective national lead on this vital subject. I shall very much welcome the Minister’s assurance that the Government are looking again at their role in early years intervention. I am particularly pleased that in response to a Written Question by my honourable friend Steve Baker, on 7 February Michelle Donelan, the Minister of State at the Department for Education, announced that a further £165 million is to be given to the Early Intervention Foundation for its troubled families programme, and we look forward to its report, which is anticipated in the spring of this year.
There have been references from many quarters to the three years wasted by the Brexit debate, and I suggest that it meant that many domestic issues have not had the time and attention they deserve. The Conservative manifesto at the election stated:
“A strong society needs strong families.”
The Government now have a strong mandate, and I hope the Minister can assure your Lordships that they will be unstinting in their support for bodies such as the foundation to which I have just referred, Home for Good and others that share their admirable aims in giving effect to that manifesto pledge.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, every child has the right to a good life and, even more, every child has a right to a good quality of life. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester set the scene when she opened this debate in such a powerful and expressive way. We have a duty to ensure that children are given the best opportunities in life whatever their circumstances. For this reason, early years interventions are important. Those early experiences are crucial, as they set in motion a child’s life trajectory. The decisions made and the support received in the first few years of life will have lifelong implications.
As this debate has shown, early years interventions are a broad subject so I will focus specifically on the need for early diagnosis for children with learning disabilities and autism. There are around 700,000 people with autism in the United Kingdom, which is more than one in 100. If we include their families, we are talking about 2.8 million people who live every day with someone with autism. Children with autism can start exhibiting signs from as young as 18 months. Evidence shows that early diagnosis of special educational needs allows these children to make better progress, with minimised long-term impacts. For children with autism or learning disabilities, giving them much-needed skills early allows them to reach their full potential.
Non-diagnosis can result in difficult behaviour, social isolation and children not attaining their best achievement in school. When I visited a school in Wales last year I saw at first hand how, with the benefit of early diagnosis, the staff had helped a young boy with behavioural problems. When I was introduced to him, he said, “You know I have behavioural problems?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “My brother’s five. He’s got behavioural problems, but I’m helping my mother cope.” I said, “Well done.” He said, “You know I’m going to comprehensive school in September?” “Yes,” I said, “I’ve been told.” “I’ve decided on my career,” he said. “Well done,” I said, “What are you going to be?” “I’m going to be a High Court judge, and if you come up before me you’ll get a lenient sentence,” he said. That young lad’s quality of life had been helped so much by the early diagnosis and the understanding and support of the education system. An early diagnosis gives a child and their family understanding, the relief of knowing and the ability to get the help the child needs.
An important early intervention for children on the autism spectrum is the EarlyBird programme run by the National Autistic Society, of which I am a vice-president. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, spoke about the society and explained how it operates. However, children may be able to access early intervention only if they have a diagnosis. I endorse and support the noble Lord, Lord Astor, in pressing the Minister to commit to implementing the NHS guidelines on waiting times for diagnosis—a wait of no more than three months—so that no child has to wait years to access the help and support they need.
Investment in improved early intervention must be paired with an investment in support further down the line. Yet, from my experience of talking to people, diagnosis is sometimes a double-edged sword. Knowing that your child needs support and not being able to get it, or having to make a full-time job of fighting to get it, can in many ways be as damaging to quality of life as non-diagnosis. Reports from the Commons Science and Technology, Education and Health and Social Care Committees have all highlighted the lack of government strategic direction in early years policy and the need for a cross-governmental approach. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, spoke about this. The Government rejected those claims. Well, sadly, they would, wouldn’t they? Look at what has happened to Sure Start. My noble friend Lord Morris spoke powerfully about Sure Start. It was one of the best examples of early years intervention this country has known. It targeted parents and children under the age of four living in the most disadvantaged areas. Sure Start projects delivered a wide variety of services designed to support children’s learning skills, health and well-being, and social and emotional development—and where is it now? Since 2010 the Government have presided over the laying waste of this scheme, cutting funding by two-thirds and seeing more than 500 centres close.
In the meantime, the Government continue to put pressure and responsibility on to our underfunded local councils and schools. If a child with special educational needs is lucky enough to get across the hurdles of receiving a diagnosis and getting an education, health and care plan, we are asking our schools to stump up £6,000 per child in addition to the funding from the local authority. Given that local authority schools have an average funding deficit of £570,000 and that there will be a projected national high-needs spending deficit of between £1.2 billion and £1.6 billion by next year, this is surely untenable. Short-term cash injections of too little money will not suffice. Local authorities and schools in their current state cannot adequately support the most able of our children, let alone those in most need. We must ensure that the importance of early years intervention is not under- estimated. We must invest in early years interventions across the board. While good work is being done, more needs to be done so that no child goes unsupported and no family has to fight for the support their child desperately needs. This is Britain in the 21st century. We need to wake up to this.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for securing this important debate. I congratulate her on the excellence of her speech.
Early years intervention for the most vulnerable children and families is a multifaceted topic that requires a collaborative approach. The evidence which suggests that the early years of a child’s life are pivotal to their ability to flourish throughout their childhood and into adulthood is compelling.
It is a grave misfortune that far too many children do not experience the care and security they need in their early years. The welfare of the most vulnerable citizens in our society is not a partisan issue so it is only right to pay tribute to the former Labour MPs, Graham Allen and Frank Field, for their extensive work in this area.
I broadly welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s decision to allocate an extra £165 million to the troubled families programme. Can my noble friend the Minister say how the Government will ensure that the money is used effectively?
Research suggests that children from unstable homes are 75% more likely to fail academically, 70% more likely to engage in drug abuse and 35% more likely to experience long-term unemployment and become reliant on state benefits. These children are also often dealt with in the juvenile criminal justice system.
I welcome the Government’s emphasis on how the merits of localism can bring about the change so desperately needed in our communities. Local authorities, agencies and community groups have the potential to play a vital role in ensuring that individuals and the most vulnerable members of society receive the support that they need.
A renewed focus on prevention is required to draw on the expertise and capacity from all areas of society for it to be sustainable. These groups have a role to play in offering practical and emotional support to children and families in need. Can the Minister inform your Lordships’ House of any steps HMG are taking to give local councils adequate support in tackling this important issue?
The delivery of early years intervention programmes will be most effective when operating with the long- term stability of the children in mind. In cases where children are unable to return to their birth parents, permanency will be sought elsewhere through adoption or foster care. In the context of early years intervention, adoption is particularly relevant as a high proportion of children placed for adoption are under the age of five. There are 75,000 children currently in England’s care system, of which 13% are between the ages of one and four, with a further 4,500 children not even one year old.
The charity Home for Good has been running a campaign called Change His Future, which raises awareness of the reality that black children wait significantly longer to be adopted compared to other children. This is largely due to a lack of adopters stepping forward from BAME communities and an overrepresentation of these children in the care system. As such, many of these children face long waits to find an adoptive home or never find one at all. Furthermore, there is a large shortage of foster carers from BAME communities in two-thirds of English councils.
We are all aware that committed family relationships have an unrivalled impact on children in their early lives. The current shortage of foster and adoptive families in this community must be addressed. Can the Minister inform your Lordships’ House of any steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking alongside local authorities to address these challenges?
Analysis by the Early Intervention Foundation suggests that £16.6 billion is spent on late interventions by the public sector each year in England and Wales. This figure does not take into account the ancillary costs to society. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s decision to commission the Early Intervention Foundation to investigate the family hub model and sustainable local practices. I very much look forward to learning the findings of the report later this year.
We all have a moral duty to support the most vulnerable children and families in our communities. Early intervention requires a collaborative approach built on trust and sustainability. I sincerely hope that we are closer to reaching a point where no child is left behind.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for her splendid introduction to this debate. I did not disagree with a single thing she said. I also did not disagree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson.
Prior to working in the trade union movement, I worked in community development and I agree that the involvement of local people, with their experience and knowledge, is hugely important in the proper delivery of services in local communities. However, these two matters are not mutually exclusive. Local people, no matter how well intentioned, experienced and knowledgeable, cannot deliver a service out of thin air. It needs financial support and clear policy guidelines and commitment from central government for those two interventions to work together.
Other noble Lords commented on the closure of Sure Start centres. I will repeat the point, despite it having been made several times already, because the more we say it, the more people out there may take notice. More than 500 Sure Start centres have closed since the coalition Government came in in 2010. The programme had been established by the Labour Government and was just finding its feet. Closing the centres was a completely ridiculous decision and a waste of both money and the experience and knowledge that were being built up. Some 66% of the finance for Sure Start has been taken away but the Government have the audacity to say that they support early years intervention.
I will give the House a small example I saw a couple of weeks ago that made me think that a local Sure Start centre would have been a really good thing. I got on the bus to start my journey to the House. A mother had a baby in a pram and a little boy, probably about three years old, sitting next to her. She was not one of those mothers who never says a word to her children—of which there are many—but she never said a single positive thing to that little boy. She told him to shut up. She told him to stop fidgeting. The final straw, in my opinion, that nearly made me leap up, was when she told him to stop laughing.
That poor little fellow was getting no encouragement, no language development and no assistance to know how to behave. I thought that a Sure Start centre would help that family. However, the Treasury in its wisdom has its books at the ready, adds up its figures and, like the computer, says no. The result is a family with no help, where the children will be incapable, as they grow up, of developing their full potential or being able to make a good contribution to the state. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
The second example that has been brought to my attention is the effect upon children of homelessness. Personally, I do not know anybody who has become homeless. I count myself as grateful for that because there are so many homeless people. Shelter tells us that, every eight minutes, a child in this country becomes homeless. We may as well be living in a third-world, undeveloped area when we think about those kinds of statistics. This particular family includes five children: an older teenager, an 11 year-old, a seven year-old and two year-old twins. The father lost his job, and the private landlord decided that he would not have a family on benefits living in his rented accommodation, so out they had to go.
They approached their local authority, Redbridge London Borough Council, and were rehoused in a room in a hotel miles from anywhere. There is no bus to go to the shops, so the mother and the twins are stuck in the one hotel room. The father takes the two other children to school on the school bus. The school bus turns up at 7 am. It takes the best part of two hours to get to the dropping-off point. Actually, he can take only one child to school, so, when I said he takes the two children, I made a mistake—I beg noble Lords’ pardon. He takes one child to school. By the time they get to the dropping-off point, there is insufficient time for him to take the two children to two different schools. The seven year-old was going to junior school; but the 11 year-old is now at senior school. It has been decided by the family that, as the 11 year-old is in more senior education, she is the one who has to be taken to school. So the seven year-old is now not at school.
Is that a good start in life? Any early years intervention that the seven year-old may have benefited from when she was smaller will soon be gone. The two year-old twins are getting no stimulation as they are stuck in the hotel room miles from anywhere. Do we think this policy is going to help the young people of this country? If austerity carries on for much longer, we may find what John Maynard Keynes always said: the more you have austerity, the poorer everybody gets and the more we go down and down. I beg this Government to reconsider their austerity programme. If we are to have young people able to grow up properly and contribute to our society and to this country, we have to invest in them. That means money.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester on securing this important debate, and for her continued work to support children and families. I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as a board member of Ofsted.
If your Lordships will indulge me, I would like to start today by paying tribute to the many wonderful early years professionals who have supported my own family over the last decade. It would feel wrong not to do that. I have three young daughters, born in 2010, 2012 and 2015. Many times I have wished away a sleepless night or a toddler tantrum, yet now I find myself emotional about the fact that the “baby”, as we still call her, will start reception in September. We are coming to the end of our own early years.
Like millions of others up and down the country, my family is indebted to the people who helped us: the midwives, the health visitors, the nursery teams; they do not often become famous, but these are the people who save our sanity when we stumble blindly into the journey that is parenthood, and whose patience seems to know no ends when we ring up, once again, and ask, “Is this normal?” I thank each and every one of them. I have a simple ask of the Government—I am afraid that it is a wish list, but I do not do this often. I echo my noble friend Lady Newlove: train more of these people, pay them properly and use your platform to speak about their value to us all.
It strikes me that, when we talk about early years policy, we sometimes fall into the trap of thinking about the country’s youngest children as isolated individuals, weirdly forgetting altogether that they are completely dependent on their parents and, when their parents need help, on wider society. I do not mean this as a particular criticism of the Government. I am simply thinking of the number of times that I have heard funded nursery hours cited as the magical solution to every societal problem, as if two and three year-olds will get themselves up and dressed and trot along to nursery, leaving the rest of us to focus on economic productivity.
To be clear, I think funded nursery hours are a wonderful thing; my youngest daughter will be taking part in story time as we speak—at least, I hope she is. However, the debate around early years provision is sometimes soulless. We have spent endless hours in Westminster agonising over our national identity in the context of Brexit. I suggest that what we are talking about today is far more important, although there may be fewer of us. I venture to suggest that, if we invest as much time in thinking about how we bring up well-balanced young people, we may find the upcoming generations less likely to tangle themselves up in the way that we have all done over the last few years. We can but try.
This is why I want to talk again about family hubs— now a very welcome government manifesto commitment —as an integral part of the early years offer. Family hubs ensure that families with children from the early years right up to age 19—or up to 25 for special educational needs and disability—can access early help to overcome difficulties and build stronger relationships. Before I go on to say why I think they are the right approach, I want to say that I have listened very carefully to the all the contributions today. I accept some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Government; I think that, on the whole, they have been made in a fair-minded way. I will talk about why I think this is the right approach, but it is in that context.
At the moment, even in areas with excellent services, they can often feel piecemeal to users. One consequence is that the transitions for young people are often difficult. Family hubs bring together both targeted and universal services. Placing universal services such as birth registration within a family hub means that they can provide the ideal place to identify more complex needs and refer people on to targeted provision. This is particularly important for perinatal mental health. With 20% of new and expectant mothers experiencing mental illness, hubs provide an opportunity for practitioners to identify early warning signs, especially where they include health visitors and antenatal and postnatal support. The integration of voluntary initiatives into hubs means that mothers have access to community and peer support that go beyond just statutory services.
Time is, as ever, tight, but we can point to some very good examples of hubs, from the Isle of Wight, to Leeds, to Wallsend in my own native north-east, where hubs can take an innovative and bespoke approach to early years based on a deep understanding of local need. I am urging the Government to support family hubs because I think that a birth-to-adulthood support service will establish deeper relationships and make transitions less risky.
I am very aware that children’s centres across the country have closed and that local authority budgets are tight. I want to be clear that there can be no dilution of early years support. This is about offering support in a holistic way, not striving for efficiencies for the sake of it. There is evidence, of course, that family hubs can report cost savings through the co-location and co-delivery of their services. I have no problem at all with making public money work harder and better; this is for local authorities to lead on. But I want to know that the investment is there in the first place, and I would be grateful to my noble friend the Minister for reassurance.
As we sit here this afternoon, parents up and down the country will be confiding in a health visitor, or perhaps awaiting the results of a speech and language assessment, worrying about the short and longer term. The early years are, for families, some of the most joyful but also the most anxious. Will the Minister please update the House on how the Government plan to implement their manifesto commitment to “champion family hubs”, and reassure the House that excellent early years provision will be at the heart of all that hubs do? When it comes to working with our youngest, there is a saying that another mother gave me one night as I was sitting by a hospital bed when my little one had bronchiolitis. She said, “The days and nights are long, but the years are short.” We have a short window of opportunity, and we cannot let our children down.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate, which is timely given the other things going on.
All children learn and develop quicker in the early years than in the rest of their lives. By the time they are two, the brains of babies will have a different shape and size which reflect the nurture, care and stimulation or the neglect they have had. When you look at scans of two year-old babies’ brains, it is terrifying to see the difference between someone who has been severely neglected and someone who has had the sort of loving care and stimulation we all want for our own families. It is, therefore, in the interests of all of us to pay attention to the needs and opportunities of children in their very early years.
We need to look at this again. The nature of family and community life has changed drastically in my lifetime, and our services need to understand and reflect that. We hear stories this week of the rising costs of childcare. It is now a problem for most families. I have not come across a family with young children that is not talking about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, addressed this complexity and lack of coherence, but it is also very challenging, so we all have to look at this again, and do so seriously.
When I was appointed to the Cabinet Office—and this reflects my old age—in 2006, I was given the social exclusion brief. The Prime Minister charged me with looking at why the Government had not succeeded in really changing the life opportunities of the bottom 2% of our society. I will not talk about the rest but about that bottom 2%. We had set up and started the Social Exclusion Unit in 1997 and, 10 years later, were really frustrated that we had not shifted this bottom 2%. Anybody who had any engagement or work with the different benefit systems for single-parent families, people with disabilities and so on was able and encouraged to access other services, such as Sure Start, and received tax credits and the minimum wage. That sort of package made an incredible difference to their lives.
Sure Start was part of a package to improve opportunities across the board, but we also knew there had to be systems within it to recognise not only the best start for every child but those who were going to face particular challenges, so they could be picked up early with appropriate interventions and just to keep hold of them. My work was to ensure that the most disadvantaged had the most effective interventions and opportunities. Spotting or identifying these children and beginning the intervention cannot wait until school. People now talk about school readiness, because they know that, if we do not enable children to start school with a chance, we are making it clear that, for the rest of their lives, they will struggle to keep up.
I insisted that there was someone from the health service based in every Sure Start centre. It was normally a health visitor, because they have a statutory responsibility to visit every family in the early years. I would like to see more health visitors, but that is part of their role. I looked around the world at all the different interventions for disadvantaged families to find the most effective. Coming back to the speech from my noble friend Lady Wilcox, I discovered the Incredible Years in Wales. It was an international programme, devised in Canada, but taken up by an inspirational educational psychologist in Wales, who persuaded the Welsh Government to train every Sure Start in how to introduce the Incredible Years parenting package. It had fantastic outcomes.
I also learned from other evidence-based programmes and introduced 10 pilot programmes of the nurse-family partnership—we now call it the family nurse partnership. It is expensive, because it starts six months before birth and then works with the mother and newly born child until the child is two. The 20-year analysis that we looked at showed better outcomes than anything else in the world, in terms of the amount of money spent for the return, first by the time the child was seven and then when they were 15. All Governments say it is great to introduce programmes like that, but they are virtually disappearing in this country, because we are not paying for them. It goes back to that: if we make the right investment, at the right time, we will save a lot of money down the road. I do not care what the Government call any intervention but, for goodness sake, do not throw everything out because it was done by a different Government. Learn from what works and make sure kids get those opportunities.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those debates in which there has been an incredible amount of agreement. There has been a slight tonal difference, but the agreement has been overwhelming. The right reverend Prelate—I thought of this, so I have to use it—is a prelate who displayed some punch today. She started the whole thing by saying that if you get the basis right, somebody’s life gets a little easier; it is easier for them to have a pleasant experience and for society to benefit. I am paraphrasing, but that is roughly what was said, and everybody has agreed.
The difference becomes clear when you look at what it means. It means start at the beginning: government has to work together. I do not know how many people have spent how many hours, in this Chamber, saying, “Get two departments of government to work together to a commonly agreed goal.” There are many ex-Ministers in this place who have battle scars and tears on their bodies from trying to drag another department to work with them. I have seen it happen. I have seen stress lines appear on a face almost in front of me. We have touched on housing, the DWP, education and health today, all of which have a key part to play here.
The briefing from the Library lists 12 different projects over two pages—and it said it was not in any way an exhaustive list. These are the structures and organisations involved in trying to support people. The number of problems here is mind-blowing, because of the number of things that do not work and create problems. A parent may not have the facility, financially, intellectually or educationally, to deliver this, usually because they did not get support themselves.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester brought in language development. If a child cannot talk properly, there may be many reasons why—for instance, dyspraxia, mental development, language facilities or autism, down to simply not being talked to and stuck in front of a screen or being shouted at and told not to speak. If that is coming through and that person cannot talk, they are stuffed when it comes to dealing with the rest of society. If their capacity to communicate is fundamentally limited, what will they do? How are you to explain that you even have a problem if you cannot talk coherently? You might need help at school but be unable to talk or interact. This can be caused by a variety of things, and it is just one small example of how you cannot get by.
With regard to my own background—I remind the House of my interests, predominantly in special educational needs—dyslexia is not normally easily identified at an early age because it is not really ingrained in education. However, the principle is the same: if you get in early, you will get help. The noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Touhig, pointed out that autism is possibly the classic example of early recognition being needed to get the right help. In this area, too, you need to identify early, but if there are lots of people around who for other reasons are not communicating or developing normally, it gets much more difficult.
You have to start developing because if you have a hugely clouded field of vision, with the best will in the world, you cannot deliver the help you want to. How can you do this? What happens normally is that the parent comes in and supports the child, who gets the help. That process involves 12 different bodies, and people try to find their way through. If you have not come from that background yourself, how do you do it? My noble friend Lady Tyler put her finger right on this issue; indeed, I have not forgiven her for taking away the biggest point in my speech. The parents who come from that background are the best equipped to get the best out of the system. That has become accepted practice. We have a series of debates coming up next week that point that out.
How are the Government going to help people to identify the problems just for people with special educational needs? Let us take that group to get them out of the way; if they are dealt with then that clears the field for everyone else. We will do that only if we have very well-trained staff, access to them and support for them, but this is not an area awash with very well-paid jobs. There is SENCO support when you get in early, but do the staff know even when to call in the help? The answer is no, they do not have the training. These characteristics are found throughout the education system later on, but here I feel that they are even more difficult to identify.
You have to get the staff trained well enough to know when to call in help and say, “This is it”, particularly when you have parents who are not equipped to do the heavy lifting themselves. Those are the groups most difficult to reach. The question, “When are you going to come in and do this?” is very important. The rest of the organisations, such as those dealing with autism and dyspraxia, are run by parents who are taking on this job themselves. It is less likely to happen early on, but if it does it is better because you do not have the structure or the experience. Problems that manifest themselves at the beginning are less likely to be spotted. If you want to save yourself money later, start training staff properly. Of course, we know that that does not really work because no one looks beyond their own department and their own budget, so the Government have to co-ordinate. We have to make sure that these people are better trained and that the people who support them are numerous and well-trained enough to intervene. We should start to make a difference in that cohort.
The rest of this is a huge task that society may never get right but it can certainly improve on. Bad housing and bad accommodation, where people are not working together, will add to all these problems. We have to try to become a little clearer about where to apply leadership. I put my bid in there, but others will have other points to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, commented that we do not need another study or another survey. I quite appreciate what he feels because, many times in various fields that I have been involved in, I have heard people say, “Yes, they’re saying exactly what they said last time. They have said it slightly differently but it is essentially the same thing.” They still do not talk to someone else who may have carried out the same survey somewhere else. If you want to have a moratorium to ask, “What’s the best thing that we have discovered over the last five years?” you might save yourself some money and time and get yourself to a more coherent position.
Lastly, what is the Government’s position on centralising this issue? The briefing suggests that the local authority should do it, but there is no real doubt that local authorities are in no shape to do that. It does not really matter how we got there; it is where we are now. Are the Government going to co-ordinate this? How will they bring the departments together, even if in this field it is just health and education? What are we going to do and what is the timeframe? We have established very clearly that we need central direction and action. We have identified the problem; let us start identifying at least some solutions. Let us see if we can make some progress.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester not just on securing this important debate but on the impressive and comprehensive manner in which she introduced it. I also noted the quite penetrating questions that she posed, not least about children and families hit hard by the cruelty often inherent in the introduction of universal credit, and about the Government’s determination to force mothers from disadvantaged backgrounds into work irrespective of the obvious effects, as other noble Lords have said, on their children’s early years development. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to those questions, among others. In passing, I welcome her to her expanded ministerial role in education.
The Early Intervention Foundation has shown that effective early intervention works to prevent problems occurring, or to respond immediately when they do before the problems get worse. It also helps to develop a set of personal strengths and skills that prepare a child for adult life. Every noble Lord has alluded to the fact that a child’s preschool years are critical to development, involving rapid growth unmatched by any other time in their lives. My noble friend Lady Armstrong spoke with great experience and highlighted the damage that can be done during that period.
Improving child development in the early years is vital in aiming to ensure that every child is school-ready, because only that will begin to reduce educational inequality. Despite successive Governments raising levels of development, according to research by the charity Action for Children, only 57% of children from poorer backgrounds are ready when they first arrive at school, compared with 74% of their better-off peers—a gap that the charity says has not reduced over the past year. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds spend significantly less time in preschool than those from affluent households. Timely and effective early years interventions have the potential to help reduce this difference. The Action for Children research also revealed that the availability of early years interventions, as well as the resources available to provide high-quality interventions, have reduced significantly over recent years.
My noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Touhig outlined the sad decline of Sure Start, which had some 3,600 children’s centres when Labour left office in 2010. My noble friend Lady Wilcox provided a Welsh perspective to the debate, and I know that the Flying Start programme there has brought similar success. I have to say that my noble friend Lord Touhig was actually too kind; there are now over 1,000 fewer designated Sure Start children’s centres, and it has been deeply depressing to see so much of this transformative programme allowed to wither on the vine under Tory Governments.
The family hubs that have been much mentioned today are supposed to replace those centres, but they do not. Many of them fail the Sure Start test of being within pram-pushing distance for parents, and as a result they are much less well used. I very much hope that the forthcoming report on hubs will address that issue.
If childcare and early years education policies are designed to enhance child development at the earliest opportunity, the underfunded 30 hours’ childcare offer is failing. The Minister may have seen an article in yesterday’s Times reporting that nursery fees have risen at twice the rate of inflation because the 30-hours policy does not meet the cost of delivering those hours, and the gap has driven up charges for the additional hours that working parents need. Fees across the UK now average more than £13,000 per child per year.
Last year an inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Childcare and Early Education into the policy of 30 hours’ free childcare found that the average cost of delivering an hour of early education for three and four year-olds was £5.36. The Government’s funding rate is £4.46. That amounted to a £63 million shortfall and, unsurprisingly, has led to increase of almost two-thirds in the closure of providers, with those in the most disadvantaged areas, sadly, twice as likely to face closure as those in more affluent ones.
Last year, the Government announced what can only be called a miserly increase of 8p in the hourly rate for funded childcare, while it is estimated that the planned increase in the national living wage will add 51p an hour to the cost of provision. It is no wonder so many in the sector are in despair. I suspect the Minister will make much of the £66 million of funding allocated in last year’s spending review. But that does not even come close to the £300 million required to restore the cuts to early years provision and prevent providers having to close down, a fate awaiting many at maintained nurseries in August this year. They have the right to expect sustainable long-term funding to secure their future.
A research company contracted by the Early Years Alliance calculated that there is currently an overall annual funding shortfall of some £370 million for the various free entitlement offers, which represents a crisis by any standards. That plays into the landscape painted so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.
Preschool provision, whether at maintained nurseries, PVIs or childminders, is extremely important for early years because of their low staff-to-children ratios. But there are not enough staff qualified to degree level; we believe each setting should have a graduate leader. Between 2007 and 2011, the graduate leader fund was successful in setting the early years sector on a path towards increasing staff qualification levels. That period saw ring-fenced funding lead to the number of staff holding a first degree or a foundation degree increase by 76%, while the number of those holding a higher degree increased by 13%. These are significant figures and were welcomed by the DfE. Indeed, the department commissioned an evaluation of the fund in 2011 which was largely positive, yet it was allowed to die. Given its proven ability to raise the level of support staff who are able to provide for children in their formative early years, it should now be resurrected. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this.
Currently in England’s care system, around 10,000 children are aged between one and four, with a further 4,500 under the age of one. Two-thirds of these children, many of whom are adopted, will have experienced abuse or neglect. Studies have demonstrated that experiencing trauma in the key developmental early years, including in the womb, can adversely affect childhood brain development, which has a lifelong impact. It is imperative that these children receive targeted, ongoing support in their early years. The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, was right to identify the particular issues relating to fostering and adoption of BAME children.
One example of an existing intervention is the adoption support fund, which provides access to therapeutic support for adoptive and some special guardianship families across England. The need for that fund’s future to be guaranteed was a plea that I, together with other noble Lords, made in a debate in your Lordships’ House just two weeks ago. In what turned out to be his valedictory appearance, the Minister’s predecessor made it clear that he supported that aim. I hope that she will be able to repeat that today.
Equal focus should be given to the physical and psychological well-being of every preschool child and their family or carers. In its briefing to noble Lords, the British Psychological Society highlighted that 5.5% of preschool children have at least one mental disorder and that the preschool children of parents with poor mental health are three times more likely to have some kind of mental illness than children whose parents have good mental health. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, and my noble friend Lord Touhig spoke on this with regard to autism. The British Psychological Society wants the Government to develop a cross-departmental health and well-being strategy for under-fives. Central to that, it says, should be a cross-departmental, multi- agency approach—a plea made by several noble Lords today, including the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.
The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists also supplied an excellent briefing for the debate, pointing to the fact that around 50% of children from disadvantaged areas start school with delayed language and other identified communication needs, some of which they never fully recover from. The college also calls for the Government to have a national joined-up strategy: the need for one is a recurring theme in the various reports produced by Select Committees in another place in the past two years. They all reached that conclusion in order to counteract the fragmented and highly variable provision of early years intervention, and to meaningfully tackle childhood adversity. Yet each time in their response the Government rejected the proposal, citing their belief that local areas are best placed to understand the needs of local communities.
That might be plausible were all local authorities able to provide a common standard of provision, but that is certainly not the case. I suspect the real reason that the Government have set their face against a national strategy is because it would require national funding, which they are not prepared to countenance. Perhaps the Minister can explain why this Government believe they have a monopoly of wisdom on this subject, and know better than the professionals in the field as well as the considered views of parliamentarians, who have listened to evidence from a wide range of organisations before arriving at their recommendations.
Many noble Lords have spoken today about social mobility. Implicit in the notion of social mobility is that poverty and inequality are tolerable, provided some people can escape by climbing the social ladder. For Labour, the true measure of fairness is not social mobility but social justice. Social justice demands that we end poverty, reduce inequality and create a society in which the conditions for a fulfilling life are available to everyone. That should start from day one of a child’s life but that aspiration is some way removed from where we are today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester on securing this debate and all noble Lords who have spoken on this important issue. I am grateful for this opportunity to set out the Government’s approach to improving early years interventions. I hope that the level of co-ordination, although not perfect, will assure the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords that we are moving in the right direction.
The approach of the Government is based on a number of principles: that early, rather than late, intervention is the key, as noble Lords have outlined; that it is central government’s role to support, facilitate and work with local government and other partners to tackle the issues together; that our solutions should be focused on outcomes and underpinned by evidence; and that successful strategies should be identified and shared widely.
This is the first debate in my widened portfolio, and it is a serious and complex matter. It straddles a number of central government departments, including the Department for Education, obviously, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. But a co-ordinated approach to tackling early intervention is what the Government aim to achieve. There are meetings between the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care on the advisory programme board to ensure that there is co-ordination across government. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, mentioned the Welsh example, which is open to the What Works institutions that the department has set up—so there is a spread internationally and from the devolved institutions.
The need for a national strategy has been clearly outlined to me by many noble Lords. That need is under review, but I will take back to the department the clear message that while co-ordination with local government is essential, noble Lords also believe that a national strategy is valuable in this area. With this co-ordination in mind, the Government have prioritised three areas: first, improving social mobility, supported in the early years by high-quality early education settings and learning in the home; secondly, protecting vulnerable children through effective children’s social care; and, thirdly, improving mental and physical health in pregnancy and childhood. This is underpinned by our work to empower local areas to improve multiagency working and build the evidence base—not necessarily the type of research that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, would talk about—for what works.
Early educational entitlements are not a panacea, but there is extensive evidence to demonstrate that high-quality childcare supports children’s development and prepares younger children for school. This is why the Government have made sure that all three and four year-olds, and disadvantaged two year-olds, can now access at least 15 hours of free childcare each week. In 2020-21, this is at a cost of £3.6 billion.
As many noble Lords outlined, when children start their formal education, the reception year presents a window of opportunity to address the key development gaps between disadvantaged children and their peers, before they have a chance to widen. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned disadvantaged two year-olds. The take-up rose from 58% in 2015 to 68% in 2019, but there was a slight decrease last year, so the department is working with the Family and Childcare Trust and Coram to ensure that there is an upward trajectory in the take-up for those disadvantaged two year-olds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, focused on the early years foundation stage. Too many children leave the reception year with poor outcomes, and the current assessment system involves too much paperwork and reduces the time that reception teachers have to support children. The proposed reforms to the early years foundation stage profile will free up teachers to interact with and support children to ensure that they develop the rich vocabulary, skills and behaviours that they need to thrive in school and to access the education on offer to them. There is good news in relation to this assessment: in 2013, 51.7% of children achieved a good developmental score; by 2019, it was 71.8%. The assessment of language and development skills will also be introduced into the universal child assessment for all two year-olds. We have also set a 10-year ambition to halve the proportion of children who finish their reception year without the necessary language and literacy skills they need to thrive.
The home learning environment, as many noble Lords outlined, is also important. We are supporting parents to improve the quality and quantity of adult-child interactions—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. A three-year campaign called Hungry Little Minds has been launched by the department to encourage parents to chat, play and read with their children—the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, talked about a very moving example she witnessed on public transport—so that they can help to set their children up for school and beyond. We are taking a society-wide approach to get that message out, with different organisations, including charities and businesses, playing their part. The campaign will build on the department’s work with the National Literacy Trust. An interesting example arising from that partnership has been the work of Penguin Random House with Arriva, the train company, to give away books at stations and to train staff to have the confidence to interact with young children on public transport. So we all have a responsibility when we interact with children to help improve their outcomes.
Looking beyond parents, charities and businesses, we are committed to supporting the workforce in this sector to gain the appropriate skills and knowledge—a point made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Alongside our training of 1,000 health visitors to identify and support children with speech, language and communication needs, we have invested £20 million to ensure that practitioners in disadvantaged areas have access to high-quality professional development. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, we are also supporting graduates into the sector through funding the Early Years Initial Teacher Training programme, including fees, bursaries and employer incentives.
In relation to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, early help of course plays an important role in promoting safe and stable families. It is about supporting and intervening with families at the right time and in the right way. Of course, that does not detract from the need for statutory guidance: Working Together to Safeguard Children is clear that local areas should have a comprehensive range of effective, evidence-based services in place to address assessed needs early. Although many noble Lords have made the point in relation to children’s centres, there is a statutory underpinning that local authorities still need to meet, when looking at services, to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged in their communities. We have also strengthened the duty placed on police, heath and local authorities to work collaboratively to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Since September of last year, multiagency safeguarding partnerships have been in operation in England. We are implementing those reforms to try to see a further cultural shift in the way that police, health and local authorities work together in local areas to secure the outcomes for children.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Wyld for raising the issue of maternity and perinatal health. Since April 2019, new and expectant mothers have been able to access specialist perinatal mental health community services in every part of the country. Public Health England is currently undertaking a systematic review and refresh of the Healthy Child Programme in England to ensure that the future approach is both universal in reach and personalised in response to those families needing extra support. I am pleased to inform the right reverend Prelate that a revised health visitor and school nurse model is being looked at within that work. Also in relation to health, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, raised the issue of childhood obesity. The Government’s childhood obesity plan sets the ambition of halving obesity by 2030, and successful initiatives include breakfast clubs and doubling the PE and sport premium up to £35 million of expenditure.
As I have repeatedly outlined, local areas have a key role in commissioning and delivering effective early years interventions to meet the needs of children and families, and I have some examples of where we are supporting that. First, an additional £165 million has been announced for the troubled families programme, which many noble Lords mentioned, bringing the total expenditure to over £1 billion. Of the children on that programme, 34.2% are under two, showing that this is not always an intervention that is too late. This will ensure that more families get access to the programme’s support.
A key aspect of the programme is the key worker, who goes in and builds a trusted relationship with a family, with practical instructions and advice, but also helps that family access the specialist support on offer in their area. Many noble Lords referred to the fact that, often, the person needing the support is least able to be the advocate to go and get that support. That key worker reminds me of my noble friend Lady Wyld’s reference to the people who are around to help you in those years. As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said, it is the person who is on your side. I pay tribute to the local authorities—for schools, health provision and particularly those key workers—because this project has been and will continue to be evaluated.
When reading in preparation for today’s debate, there were moments that caused one to forget all the policy, the research and the words and to think about the lives that are being affected by this. The evaluation of this programme shows that, 19 to 24 months after starting to receive support, the proportion of children on the programme going into care—compared with a similar cohort—is reduced by a third. Those key workers, health professionals and local authorities have affected and changed the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of children who, as we stand here today, are not in care and are still with their families. I thank them for all that work. Also, the proportion of adults on the programme going to prison has reduced by a quarter and juvenile convictions have reduced by 15%. So this is not an intervention that is always too late—and, of course, everybody would wish that we did not have to make any interventions with any families at all.
Secondly, my noble friend Lady Newlove spoke very movingly about the issues for families facing adversity. There is now the Reducing Parental Conflict programme, with £39 million of funding. I am pleased to say that 98% of first-tier local authorities have taken up work on this programme. We know that children who are exposed to parental conflict can suffer long-term harm, and intervening early to help parents reduce conflict obviously affects the outcomes for both children and parents. Through this programme, we are supporting local authorities and their partners to integrate support to reduce parental conflict into their local services for families. DWP is working with 30 local authorities across England to test eight face-to-face interventions aimed at reducing conflict. There is a theme here: it is the face-to-face, the key worker, the person who is there to intervene in situations.
Parental conflict is related to wider family risk factors including, for example, domestic abuse, poor mental health and substance misuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referred to alcohol in this particular context. We are investing £6 million to improve the outcomes of children of alcohol-dependent parents who are also engaged in parental conflict. A key thing to say is that adult social services, which deal with the adult with the alcohol problem, work together with children’s social services to ensure that it is joined up.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, asked specifically whether funding was going into local government. The early years local government programme has funding of £8.5 million and is focused on how local services work together across health, education and early help to improve the outcomes for five year-olds. As part of this work, multidisciplinary peer reviews are supporting councils to identify reforms to services, and our early outcomes fund has provided approximately £6.5 million of grants to local authority partnerships. Gloucestershire County Council, in particular, in partnership with Swindon, was successful in securing an early outcomes grant and is using the fund to develop and pilot an early language support pathway: I hope that the right reverend Prelate, with her professional background, will be very pleased to hear that that is happening in her location.
The local government programme also includes work by the Early Intervention Foundation to review effective models for provision. The foundation is reviewing what family hubs and children’s centres can offer. There are still more than 2,000 children’s centres and we do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That evaluation will look at everything that works, and I assure noble Lords that it does not matter what badge is on it: we need to focus. The needs are so acute and these children need such help that it does not matter. What matters is what works: that is the threshold. The Government will continue to champion the role of family hubs because they are a slightly different model to children’s centres—to respond to the question from my noble friend Lady Wyld.
I assure my noble friend Lady Newlove that we are doing all we can for those children who live through adverse and traumatic experiences in childhood, such as abuse or neglect, or who have grown up in complex family circumstances. She has, in me, someone who did not relish school holidays and who is therefore going to take seriously these matters within the department. Such experiences can, and often do, have lasting consequences for children.
Many noble Lords raised the issue of mental health. New mental health support teams are going to be established in 25% of the country by 2023 and the Department for Education will be funding training for senior mental health leads in schools and colleges. The Government remain strongly committed to the What Works initiative. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about research, I will be going back to the department to ask about the three foundations that the department funds: the Early Intervention Foundation, the Education Endowment Foundation and the Centre for Children’s Social Care—these are “what works”. I will take back his insightful experience in the use of research and the need to monitor how far What Works is spreading from one authority to another: who is using this information to improve and share what is going on.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of special educational needs, in particular the diagnosis of autism. The NICE recommendation is that the length of time between referral and first appointment to start an assessment should be no longer than three months. Learning disability and autism is one of the priorities in the NHS long-term plan. Over the next three years, autism diagnosis will be included alongside work with children’s and young people’s mental health services to test and implement the most effective ways to reduce those waiting times. I was most moved by the contributions of my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, in this space, particularly regarding children with dyslexia. The Department for Education has contracted the Whole School SEND Consortium to deliver a two-year, £3.9 million programme to help embed SEND in school improvement. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is aware, from 2011 to 2018 the department funded the British Dyslexia Association and other organisations to provide resources to assist schools and local authorities in early identification of those needs.
On funding to tackle child poverty, there is to be a 4.4% real-terms increase in the local authority settlement. The specific issue was raised that local authorities have often prioritised spending on adult social care and other areas at the expense of children’s social care. The department is working with MHCLG to develop a robust and up-to-date fair funding distribution for children’s and young people’s services, which we are aiming to implement as part of a major funding reform package from 2020-21.
On child poverty, I have outlined that the 850,000 most disadvantaged two year-olds have been given free childcare places, and there is an additional 15 hours for lower income families in relation to the entitlement for three and four year-olds. There is also an early years pupil premium, which is just over £300 per pupil. It has been interesting to see how these issues all intersect and relate to that. I hope that the research into family hubs and children’s centres will enable us to look at how best we locate services and help the most disadvantaged children. The Government stand by our position that work is the most effective way to bring these children out of poverty, but of course we recognise that free childcare is needed for many parents to take advantage of that.
I apologise to noble Lords whose questions I have not answered, but I will conclude by responding to the two invitations I was kindly offered. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, invited me to the APPG. I think that may be for my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families, but I will take the invitation back to the department. I apologise for my late response to the persistent invitations of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, in relation to his wonderful work. I look forward to catching up with that and I hope that one of my first visits will be up to Rotherham. I thank noble Lords for their involvement in such an important debate.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response and all those who participated in this excellent debate. I do not have time to mention everyone, but I thank those who shared personal and professional experiences. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, feels he has heard another bishop say, “It’s all down to the state”, particularly as that was not what I was saying. I am passionate about community engagement and how we enable that, not least through our churches, our faith groups and all sorts of charities and communities. In order to enable that, we need a comprehensive, joined-up early years strategy and I am glad that that point has been clearly heard. This is about how we are investing not simply in small children but in children who grow up to be adults: we are investing in families for long-term impact, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that this is about the impact on our communities in the long term.
Rough Sleeping
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place on rough sleeping:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the latest rough sleeping annual statistics for 2019, published today, and the new approach of the Government.
I think we can all agree that it is a moral shame that we see so many people sleeping rough on our streets. We are determined to end the blight of rough sleeping and we have placed defeating this great social ill at the heart of the moral mission of this Government. Today’s figures are encouraging. They show that for a second year in a row the number of people sleeping rough has fallen.
Across England, the numbers have fallen by 9%, building on last year’s reduction which was the first fall in eight years. Areas funded by the Government’s rough sleeping initiative saw a 12% decrease. Manchester is down by 26%; Camden by 54%; Birmingham by 43%; and Enfield by 69%. Cornwall is down 55%; Hastings down 56%; the City of London is down 39%; Swale down 69%; Bedford down 41% and Tameside down by 86%. London saw a decrease of 11%, the first decrease in numbers of rough sleepers in London for six years and the largest decrease since 2010. That, as colleagues who represent London constituencies will know, comes despite the very considerable and specific challenges faced in the capital, including, as the figures show, that 42% of those sleeping rough in the city are non-UK nationals, and quite possibly more than that.
This confirms what I have seen since I became Housing Secretary in the summer: dedicated, targeted support, backed by significant levels of government support, is getting vulnerable people off the streets and into safe accommodation where they can begin to turn their lives around. The Government’s strategy is working, and I pay tribute to the hard work of charities, service providers, local authorities and the many volunteers backed by government funding across the country who are working tirelessly to give rough sleepers the support they need to help them off the streets and begin the long and complex process of turning their lives around. But this does not mean our work ends here. We are perhaps coming up out of the valley, but we are far from the mountain top.
This Conservative Government have made it an overriding priority to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. There is a great deal more to do; we must be honest with ourselves about the scale of the challenge and tackle it head-on with renewed vigour. That is why I am pleased that the Prime Minister and I are today announcing that Dame Louise Casey will lead a review into rough sleeping. This work will consider the links between 24-hour street activity and rough sleeping, particularly for physical and mental health issues. It will provide advice to me and the Prime Minister on how we can best use the levers of central and local government to support this group and continue to reduce rough sleeping across the country. I know Dame Louise’s vast experience, rigour and candour. The fact that she has worked across parties for many years means she is the right person to look at what is needed and help get the job done. I will support Dame Louise to move at a pace commensurate with the seriousness and urgency of the action we must take right now.
Meanwhile, we will continue to build on our successful rough sleeping strategy, guided by the best evidence, intervening rapidly where people are sleeping on the streets and supporting people’s recovery to ensure they never have to sleep rough again. Putting this ambition into action, the Government have today announced £236 million of new money for move-on accommodation, safely supporting up to an additional 6,000 rough sleepers, and those at immediate risk of rough sleeping, off the streets into the safe and secure accommodation they deserve with the support wrapped around them. This is on top of the £437 million the Government have provided to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping in the next financial year, including more than £112 million to fund services through the rough sleepers initiative. This funding will be used for councils to provide up to 6,000 beds and 2,500 support staff over the next year, so the number of beds will be increasing very rapidly.
We recognise that there are particular challenges around responding to the increase in European Economic Area national rough sleepers. Honourable Members may recall that, as part of the cold weather fund, the Government took the unprecedented decision to extend limited powers to the most affected local authorities to support certain EEA nationals sleeping rough for a limited period of time. This approach has been successful, with over 400 EEA nationals accommodated in November and December last year and many of them supported into work or to return home. The Government have today taken the decision to continue some of these services until 31 December 2020, when the transition period ends and the new immigration system will be in place. I will be working with the Home Secretary on how we address these challenges at the end of the transition period.
While prevention, outreach and emergency support are of course vital, we need secure, sustainable accommodation to end rough sleeping for good. Increasing the provision of affordable housing is fundamental to making that happen. The Government have delivered nearly half a million new affordable homes, and many are doing it. We have also abolished the council borrowing cap so that local authorities can build up to 10,000 more social homes a year. We cannot and will not let that momentum slip.
That is why we have committed to 250,000 new affordable homes by March 2022 through the affordable homes programme, backed by £9 billion. We are increasing the supply of social housing and will ensure that rough sleepers and those at risk of rough sleeping are provided with homes which are available in the long term and appropriate to their needs. We simply must build more homes as a country, and I will be doing all I can to ensure that.
However, boosting housing supply is just one of many long-term measures we must take to properly and permanently address homelessness and rough sleeping. We must redouble our efforts to tackle the underlying problems that have led many people to fall into a life on the streets. Last year, four in 10 of the rough sleeping population in London were suffering from a severe drug dependency and the same proportion were suffering from alcohol dependency. Half of all rough sleepers were assessed as having a mental health support need and, shockingly, data from 2017 indicates that eight in 10 rough sleepers who have died in London suffered from severe mental health conditions. We cannot allow this injustice to continue. We are stepping up our work to provide specialist help and support for those suffering from mental ill health, which is backed by the £30 million of additional funding from NHS England.
On top of this, we are working to implement test models of community-based provision access across six projects that are designed to enable access to health and support services for people who are sleeping rough with both mental ill health and substance dependency needs. Rough sleeping is as much a health challenge as a housing one, and our work going forward will reflect that. We also need a concerted effort to bring the different support services together, from outreach to housing, health, policing and immigration, so that we can effectively tackle the multiple issues that lead individuals to find themselves homeless.
We are acutely aware of the scale of the challenge before us. Ending rough sleeping within this Parliament is one of the most ambitious targets set by any Government since the publication of the Beveridge report and the creation of the welfare state. We accept the challenge as a moral mission and an obligation we cannot pass up. Many of the underlying causes of rough sleeping I have spoken about today are deep-rooted, built up over successive generations and Governments. I hope Members across this House will support us in this collective endeavour and help us as a country achieve the simple but profoundly important objective to bring rough sleeping to an end once and for all.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, even if the Government’s figures truly reflected the scale of street homelessness, the situation would be horrifying. But the situation is even worse. Yesterday, an FoI obtained by the BBC showed that 28,000 people slept rough in the UK over the last 12 months, of whom nearly 25,000 were in England. This is five times the number recorded by the Government’s statistics, which blatantly hide the scale of the problem.
The Government have no basis to parade their own figures as anything resembling an accurate picture. In 2019, the Office for Statistics Regulation said that it expected the Government to plan for better statistics on rough sleeping. The recent defence that these statistics are only a good estimate brings into question why they were ever published. Can the Minister confirm that these government statistics have official statistics status approved by the UK Statistics Authority? If they do not, that is because they fail to meet official standards on trustworthiness, quality and public value. If they fail this test, they should never see the light of day. These figures are misleading and I would welcome an investigation into their accuracy. If the Minister is unable to confirm the status of these statistics today, could he write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library?
In 2018, 726 people died homeless across England and Wales—the highest year-to-year increase since the ONS time series began. This is an emergency and requires emergency measures. The announcement of the £236 million and an urgent review to tackle rough sleeping is insufficient and shows that the Government are in denial of the problem. They have failed to properly address the issue over the past 10 years and must finally make it a priority, beginning with properly funding homelessness services. Such funding, in combination with supportive housing, has been cut by £1 billion a year, leading to 9,000 fewer hostel beds. Will the Minister tell the House what the Government will do to replace the beds that have been lost and provide new ones?
In recognition of the role local authorities can play, the Government must introduce a duty for councils, and proper funding with that, to deliver shelter and support, building on the emergency cold weather support that many already provide. The Government must, however, also look at why individuals and families become homeless in the first place. Many have found themselves on the streets after losing their privately rented accommodation—perhaps through extortionate rent increases or unliveable conditions, or through substance abuse. The Government must make renting affordable and give tenants the right to hold their landlords to account. There must also be recognition of the root factors that can trigger homelessness, be they substance abuse, domestic abuse, violence or mental health problems, so that support can again be offered to tackle these wider causes.
We can look back to the record of the Labour Government on homelessness and find that, by 2010, this had been virtually eliminated. Here we are back again, 10 years later, and it is back with a vengeance. Homelessness is not inevitable in a country as well-off and decent as ours, but the levels of rough sleeping under this Government have shamed us all. It is action, not words, that will put an end to this crisis; simply saying that rough sleeping is a priority for the Government is not good enough.
Just outside this noble House, in Westminster Station, there are people sleeping rough there now. In London Bridge—I walk through it most evenings—there are people sleeping rough in the station. I walked down Victoria Street to Victoria station: there are people sleeping in the doorways. Opposite Charing Cross station, people wait every night to get soup and bread from those who come to support them. We are one of the richest countries in the world; the homelessness we see on the street is an utter disgrace. As I said earlier, this was virtually eliminated by 2010 and the situation in which we find ourselves today is shameful and entirely of the Government’s own making. They get no credit for claiming to be solving the problem that had already been solved many years ago.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I echo much of what my fellow local government vice-president has said. This is a huge public concern, and on these Benches—particularly from within the local government family—we have always had a “credit where credit is due” policy. On this occasion, however, we have to say that so far, it is not good enough. Context is all, and as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has said, we need to be careful with the interpretation of the figures. Any decrease is welcome, so let us not be churlish about that, but in reality, according to the Government’s own figures—and they are surely not challenging their own figures—rough sleeping is still 141% higher than it was in 2010.
We all knew—those of us who have been out on the local authority counts night, searching under every flyover and in every station and shelter to make sure that we had an accurate count for the night—that we were underestimating the number of people because we knew all the homeless people in Watford by name. So where was Fred that night? That night he was probably sofa-surfing with somebody he had managed to get into a house with. I hope we can all agree, at least, that the current figures are inevitably an under- estimate.
Likewise, we hear that local authorities have suffered considerable funding loss in their budgets, but that is particularly so in relation to homelessness funding: £1 billion less was spent on these services last year than a decade ago. If that level of funding had been sustained—not increased, but just sustained—there would have been £6.2 billion more in services. On a very practical level from the homeless charity that I am involved with, all the funding is short-term: it is one-year funding. This gives charities and councils great difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff, as well as in sustaining long-term delivery. It is essential for these groups of people that we know that we can provide the services for the longer term. My question to the Minister is: is all the funding ring-fenced? Is there any chance, now that the Government are more stable, that they will look at three- or even five-year funding?
I particularly welcome Dame Louise Casey’s role. I think that she is a Dame who is prepared—as we northerners would say—to call a spade a shovel and that she will lift up stones. Can the Minister reassure us that her role will be to look holistically, compassionately and, particularly, cross-departmentally about the issues that affect homelessness? Let us take universal credit. Sanctions are automatic—we know this—but they do not take into account an individual’s circumstances or their vulnerability. Sanctions being implemented can make their situation more perilous. Delays in the housing element of universal credit being paid directly to the landlord lead to further issues. Issues around zero-hours contracts—if they eventually get work, it is very often in that area—can lead to a fluctuation that puts their situation in peril. As a direct consequence of all these things, private landlords are extremely reluctant to take these people on as tenants. That puts all the pressure back on local authorities to house people. The logjam is very much in move-on accommodation, which this money is for, which is why, on these Benches, we welcome it.
However, we see the issue as being the lack of social housing. It is noticeable even in the Statement that the terms “social” and “affordable” are being used inter- changeably all the time. Affordable is 75% of market rate and social is 50%. Can the Minister explain the Government’s policy? Is it to provide more affordable homes and have they given up completely on social homes to rent? Are they relying on councils to build social homes to rent? The unfreezing of the local housing allowance part of housing benefit is welcome, but in high-rent areas such as Watford and most of the south-east, it is still considerably less than the average rent. The shortfall is too great. It is certainly too great for this group of vulnerable people to make up the shortfall, so the private sector is largely out of the question.
Will Dame Louise also be looking at policies such as the Government’s Housing First initiative? When I saw this, it was about developers giving priority to veterans as one group, but when I looked at it further, I realised that it actually meant that there would be even fewer social homes available to vulnerable people. It sounded really noble and people agreed with it, but the actual reality of it will mean fewer social homes. A colleague on the Benches opposite—the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—actually mentioned last week in Oral Questions what we have come to know as the viability loophole. We have been letting developers off the hook from providing social housing for years. As a result, social housing in this country has been decimated. Social housing is what this group of vulnerable people and others need. Surely, if the Government’s own side is saying that it is time to close the viability loophole, it must be time. Finally, is it not time to stop making homelessness a crime and to repeal the Vagrancy Act?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I should make it clear to the House, because I forgot to earlier, that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Earl of Courtown
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions and the questions that they put to me. I was particularly pleased that the noble Baroness acknowledged the good news that there has been a fall and I hope that this is something that we can build on and keep reducing this abhorrence on our streets so that we can reduce homelessness throughout the country.
The noble Lord mentioned statistics and the Government’s method of a snapshot view of homelessness throughout the country. As noble Lords will be aware, local authorities across England take an annual autumn snapshot of rough sleeping using either a count basis of visible rough sleeping and an evidence-based estimate meeting with local partners, or an evidence-based estimate meeting, including spotlight counts in specific areas. The snapshot can take place on a single date, chosen by the local authority, between 1 October and 30 November. We found that it is better to do this in the autumn than in the summer, when numbers are likely to be higher due to warmer temperatures, or in winter, when numbers may be lower as there are more temporary night shelters set up to ensure that people do not sleep on the street in very cold weather. The snapshot is collected by outreach workers, local charities and community groups and is independently verified by Homeless Link. The noble Lord questioned more details of the statistics and I will write to him on that.
The noble Lord also drew attention to the figures produced by the BBC. Those figures refer to cumulative data that provide a picture of the overall number of people sleeping rough across the year; therefore, that figure is higher than the single-night street count or estimate figure. Those figures have not been standardised, published or quality assured, whereas, as I said earlier, the snapshot figures are verified by Homeless Link, which is a collection of groups interested in homelessness.
The noble Lord also talked about the shameful deaths of homeless people on our streets. Basically, every premature death of someone homeless is one too many, and we take this matter extremely seriously. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is working closely with the Health Secretary to ensure that rough sleepers also get the health and care support they need. That is why, as part of the rough sleeping strategy— this was also mentioned by the noble Baroness—the Government have committed to £30 million of funding from NHS England for specialist mental health provision to help rough sleepers. We are also working to implement test models of access to community-based provision across six projects. These projects are designed to enable access to health and support services for people who are sleeping rough, with both mental ill-health and substance dependency needs, and are being managed by Public Health England.
The noble Baroness also inquired whether this money is ring-fenced. It is not, but there is a memorandum of understanding on that matter.
On rents and housing, I remind the noble Lord that the renters’ rights Bill was introduced in the Queen’s Speech, and in due course we will debate that legislation, which I have no doubt the noble Lord will take a keen interest in.
The noble Baroness also drew attention to the fact that these figures could well be underestimated. As she pointed out, it is extremely difficult to count and estimate the amount of homelessness that there is. But using local people and local charities to do this means that they know the areas where people sleep rough and, as the noble Baroness said herself, they know some of the individuals as well. That is a great help in establishing the correct figure. If I have missed any other issues, I will write to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on appointing Dame Louise Casey to do a review. As her first Minister in 1998, I appointed her to her first job in the Rough Sleepers Unit, and within two and a half years together we managed to more than halve rough sleeping and then to bring it down to less than two-thirds of what it had been when we started in 1998. However, can the Government guarantee that she will have the freedom and the support from government to report on what she wants to report on? I know that she will want to do the comprehensive stuff and all the rest of it, because I know that she, almost more than any other person I ever worked with in government, will speak truth to power. She is part of a team which last week managed to get the United Nations to recognise a commitment and to agree a resolution to tackle homelessness world- wide, and in the last few years she has worked on the international programme on tackling rough sleeping.
We should not be in this position. The Government can have no complacency about this—it is shameful. We know what we could do—we did it—and the Government will now have to work hard, listen to Dame Louise and make sure that we do not all go home ashamed of this every night when we go through Westminster station.
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Baroness makes some good points, and I can agree with almost everything she said. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also drew attention to Dame Louise’s role and asked how the report will be handled in government. I will answer both questions now, because that will help the House understand the scope of the review, which I think the noble Baroness was asking about. The review will consider the evidence around the causes of rough sleeping and look at what the Government need to do to meet their manifesto commitment to end rough sleeping. It will also consider the links between 24-hour street activity and rough sleeping and how best we can support this group.
In addition, we recognise the ambition of our commitment on rough sleeping, which is why we have appointed Dame Louise, with her extensive experience with both government and the sector, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, to drive forward this work. Dame Louise will report to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. She will work with a team of officials from across government, so many government departments will be involved in this. She will also provide recommendations to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Dame Louise will provide government with advice on what is needed to end rough sleeping, building on existing programmes and making recommendations ahead of the comprehensive spending review.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I am grateful for that Statement and look forward to the review by Dame Louise Casey. Does the Minister agree that many elements of civil society, particularly churches, faith communities and charities, while waiting for this, are out on the streets almost every night? I refer to what we call floating shelters in many parts of the country through the winter months—which can be five months—which skew the figures a bit, because they take people off the streets. There are some excellent examples in my neck of the woods, where the churches host rough sleepers overnight and the mosques provide the curry.
The Earl of Courtown
Excellent, my Lords. The right reverend Prelate is quite correct that I should draw attention to the amazing work done by these various groups. Most local authorities consult with the voluntary sector, the police, outreach workers, substance misuse agencies, faith groups, mental health agencies, drug and alcohol treatment teams, and local residents and businesses. It is important that this is done on a local basis because, as I said before, local people know their area and know the individuals involved.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I often get the impression that we talk just about Britain. Can the Minister draw Dame Louise’s attention to the fact that last week in Brussels a report on homelessness in Europe was published, showing that it has increased by a minimum of 70% in the last 10 years and that the dimensions have changed significantly because of the enlargement of the European Union. Some 50% of those who are homeless in Britain were not UK nationals. Even in Spain, 44% were not Spanish nationals. In Belgium, 43% were not Belgian nationals. There is a tremendous imbalance between the new and old member states. When we look at it, I think we will find that the situation is quite complex. In the Minister’s Statement, he said a new immigration system will be in place by 31 December 2020 when the transition period ends. What does that imply? Does it imply deportation? What is the meaning of that statement?
Finally, I have a parochial question. In the Minister’s long list he did not mention Cambridge, which got some money out of the rough sleepers initiative. I would be interested to know whether it spent it as wisely as others and the numbers went down, because that is not the evidence I see when I walk into Cambridge city centre.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the points he raised. I will ensure that the department is aware of the report on homelessness throughout Europe, and I am sure it will draw Dame Louise’s attention to it. He mentioned a number of matters relating to the amount of homelessness throughout Europe. We also have to ensure that there is support for non-UK nationals sleeping rough in this country. We want to ensure that local areas have the tools they need to support non-UK nationals off the street. That is why the rough sleeping strategy commissioned training for front-line staff on how best to support this group, and provided £5 million of funding to help local areas take action to get non-UK nationals sleeping rough off the streets. My noble friend asked about Cambridge, but I do not have any information relating to that at the moment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I live in Oxford, where there is certainly a problem with homelessness. I pay tribute to the efforts of the council and the Oxford Homeless Movement, an umbrella organisation that does a brilliant job working with homeless people, trying to provide help for people with complex needs—shelter overnight and move-on accommodation. I particularly welcome the amount of money going into move-on accommodation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned universal credit, but the Minister did not answer her question. I wonder what statistics there are demonstrating that universal credit—or the lack of universal credit when people are sanctioned—has an impact on homelessness. It is absolutely clear in Oxford that there is a link between people who have had problems with universal credit non-payments and homelessness.
The Earl of Courtown
I thank the noble Baroness for reminding me of a question I did not answer. I do not have that detail but I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and ensure that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is copied in.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, also referred to the move-on fund and the great work it has done. It is a larger fund and reflects our greater ambition to eliminate rough sleeping. The 2016 Budget announced £100 million of grant for the new move-on fund, which will provide homes. The fund is split equally between the Greater London Authority and Homes England, which is administrating the fund outside London, particularly in areas such as Oxford. Homes England—leading on the rest of England, outside London —has to date awarded £27.4 million to deliver up to 725 homes.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, surely the problem is our planning system, which restricts housing development, inflates the cost of housing and adversely affects the most vulnerable members of our society while the rich get richer.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I will not move on to planning at this time. The Statement and comments by noble Lords have underlined the importance of affordable housing and having housing available. As I referred to just a moment ago, the move-on fund is very important to provide housing for homeless people.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, given the connection between homelessness and local government finance, am I right that the Minister said there would be more local authority housing directly arising from this review? If so, will he confirm how that would work in practice in the prioritisation for local government housing? At the moment it is not clear whether the Government are committed to this being part of the review he has announced.
The Earl of Courtown
I am sure Dame Louise will cover all issues when she begins her review. As I said earlier, she will work across government. As the noble Lord said, obviously homelessness is paramount, and to not be homeless means you have to be accommodated. We have to start with getting people off the streets. This is where this new, additional funding will help.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register as chair of the Charity Commission. I was recently in Manchester and visited a homelessness charity that supports rough sleepers. One of the things I learned during that visit was that there is a significant increase in providers of support for rough sleeping in places such as Manchester, but that not all of those providing the support are as well intentioned as they might be. In worst-case scenarios, some are potentially exploiting the most vulnerable. Others might be well intentioned, but the way in which they go about trying to provide their support potentially makes a serious problem much worse, instead of solving it.
Does the Minister agree with me that it is important that those registered charities doing very important work make clear their registered status—as something that distinguishes them from others operating in this field, whether well intentioned but not doing the right thing or worse than that—and in doing so provide some assurance to those in need of that support? It is important to remind the charities carrying that important status to distinguish them from others—charities that so many people rely on—of the expectations of standards that they must meet in doing their work.
The Earl of Courtown
Manchester is one of the areas that was funded by the government rough sleepers initiative, which overall saw a 12% decrease across the country. Manchester itself was down by 26%. My noble friend went on to mention the charity status of some of the organisations involved in this area. As noble Lords will be aware, if an organisation carries charity status there is immediate confidence among the people it aims to help that it will do the right thing. I am glad that she drew to my attention the fact of operators that do not have charitable status. I will discuss it with my colleagues in the department.
Offender Management: Checkpoint Programme
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the findings of the Checkpoint programme, run by Durham Constabulary, to reduce reoffending rates and custodial sentences.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, since today’s list was issued, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, have withdrawn from this debate. Therefore, the time limit for Back-Benchers speaking will now be three minutes, not two minutes.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, the Checkpoint programme is a multi-agency pre-court diversion scheme used by Durham Constabulary for adult offenders who have committed what is termed “low-level crime”. It was introduced in 2015 and initially funded by the Home Office innovation fund. It is a four-month programme which aims to tackle underlying causes of offending behaviour such as drug and alcohol misuse and mental health issues. It takes the form of a contract which has several conditions—the most obvious being not to reoffend—but it also has a restorative justice element, should the victim require it, and a community service condition for the offender to recognise the wider impact of their behaviour. Completion of the programme under close supervision of a designated navigator normally results in no conviction. A key strength of the programme is that it requires no plea or admission of guilt, so treatment and rehabilitation can begin immediately, rather than being subject to long delays before the case comes to court.
Early indications show that over 90% of those who agree to the four-month scheme complete it successfully. Initial analysis by Cambridge University, published in the journal Policing, found that those who took part in the scheme had lower reoffending rates—13.3% less in a sample cohort of offenders. Further analysis and results are due to be published in May. The initial findings of Checkpoint are consistent with a similar scheme, Operation Turning Point, run by West Midlands Police between 2011 and 2014. The results are also consistent with the reduction in reoffending rates observed as a result of the four-hour national speed awareness course that over a million offenders take each year as an alternative to a fine and points on their licence. The costs of operating the scheme are estimated at £480,000 per year and internal estimates suggest that, for every 1,000 offenders, it saves at least £2 million in reduced crime. So far, 2,660 offenders have taken part in the scheme in Durham and Darlington. I am grateful to Stephanie Kilili, policy officer in the office of the Durham police, crime and victims’ commissioner, for her helpful briefing on the operation of the scheme.
There are, rightly, several questions which need to be addressed about how any programme of this nature might work. Chief among these is: “How does it impact the victim?” A key function of our criminal justice system is to maintain public confidence by justice being seen to be done and wrongdoing being seen to be punished. Included in the excellent House of Lords briefing for this debate is a quote from Professor Lawrence Sherman of the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University, which points out that victim satisfaction increased from 50% to 75% within the programme cohort because
“the focus was on preventing reoffending rather than vengeance”.
Another survey, undertaken by the Centre for Justice Innovation, saw victim satisfaction increase by 43%.
The basic mission of the police service has not changed since 1829, when Sir Robert Peel declared it to be
“to prevent crime and disorder”.
Speaking to police chiefs yesterday, the Home Secretary said that the task of the police service was to produce
“less crime, safer streets and no excuses”.
I agree. Less crime means fewer victims of crime, and fewer criminals means less cost. If schemes such as Checkpoint reduce crime, increase victim satisfaction and reduce costs, why are they not operating in all 43 constabularies in England and Wales? It may be because they require an up-front cost from police budgets, funded through the Home Office, with many of the interventions being from the health and social care budget, while the major benefits of cases not going to trial and potentially resulting in custodial sentences will be found in the budgets of the CPS, courts and Prison and Probation Service, funded by the Ministry of Justice.
I have a number of questions for my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, who I am delighted to see is responding to this debate. First, while I recognise and welcome the increase in budgets announced for the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, how might such costs and complex benefits be recognised across multiple departmental budgets? Secondly, would he be willing to facilitate a briefing by officials from the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Department of Health and Social Care for interested Peers, on how they evaluate the effectiveness of such schemes and allocate resources to them? Thirdly, if pre-court diversion schemes such as Checkpoint and out-of-court disposals are, on this evidence, the most effective ways of reducing reoffending, does he accept that all the available evidence also shows that short-term custodial sentences of less than six months are the worst, especially in the case of female offenders? Finally, would he be open to extending the reach of such schemes to young offenders? Will these matters be within scope of the remit of the forthcoming royal commission on the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice process?
Such schemes have a wider societal benefit which goes beyond calculations of cost and benefit analysis. Through an offender’s facing up to their wrongdoing and the harm caused to their victim, and showing remorse, society is offering them a second chance—a chance to mend their ways and avoid a criminal record, a possible custodial sentence and all that it incurs. I am inspired by those victims who, despite their suffering, found their satisfaction increased, not diminished, by a focus on preventing reoffending rather than vengeance. I believe in a criminal justice system which is tempered by mercy, and which holds out the possibility of redemption. I believe that justice and society are not weakened but strengthened by mercy for, in showing mercy, we also acknowledge with humility the very thin line of chance and circumstance which often separates us from those whom we might otherwise harshly judge. In the words of Shakespeare:
“The quality of mercy … is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”
In that spirit, I gladly put what is left of my remaining allotted time at the disposal of the wealth of knowledge and expertise among noble Lords who are about to follow, and I beg to move.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who was a Member of Parliament in the same region as me, although he did not come from Durham—just near Durham. I want to intervene in this debate largely to recognise what Durham did, but I do that from the perspective of someone who, for a long time, has worked particularly with women to keep them outside the criminal justice system, and with schemes that really will reduce reoffending. We, as a society, do not deal with those who have offended very effectively. Even if we think they should be punished, it needs to be in a way that means they are less likely to cause harm to themselves and others when they come out of prison. We do not do that, and we are very bad at doing that. Reoffending is a real problem: we have a higher rate than many other western countries and we really need to do something about it.
I think I am the only person down to intervene in this debate who is from Durham, so I wanted to say a little bit about the Durham-specific position. Its police force is the only one in the country that has just had its third outstanding rating from the police inspectorate. One of the reasons it was able to be a driver in this programme was because it had the confidence that it was doing the basics well in the county. When I was at the other end, a lot of my constituents would come in to complain about crime, but the county had less crime than virtually anywhere else in the country. Ironically, I lived in Crook, but we had less crime than the rest of the county, so we were not doing badly as an ex coal- mining community.
The other reason was because of the inspirational leadership at the top of the force. We had Mike Barton, who was an exceptional chief constable. I got to know him when he was deputy chief constable. He rescued a village in my constituency that had become subject to one particular family terrorising everybody. He became chief constable and Ron Hogg became PCC. Ron had previously been a policeman, which gave me a few anxieties in terms of his new role, but he was superb. Tragically, he died last year, very quickly after having motor neurone disease diagnosed. The chief constable said at his funeral that it was his leadership, bravery and commitment to innovation that allowed this scheme to go forward. That is what we need in the rest of the country.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, not least for his important mention of mercy, which is so important to me in my Christian faith. I too would like to commend the work of the Checkpoint programme, especially on behalf of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham, who also wanted to pay tribute to Ron Hogg—so it is good to have heard that.
There are pockets of good practice across the country. The important question is: what is the Ministry of Justice doing to support and replicate them? The Nelson Trust, of which I am president, has liaison and diversion keyworkers who meet with women in police custody with the aim of diverting them away from the criminal justice system at the earliest opportunity. They also deliver a women-specific point of arrest referral scheme with Avon and Somerset Constabulary, which has supported over 500 women in just two years. The women’s centre is key to this preventive work, so I ask the Government what they are doing to support diversion and alternatives to custody for women, as promised in the Female Offender Strategy?
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I spent a great deal of what I used to regard as my middle age, and now regard as my youth, addressing the problem of keeping children out of crime. I am delighted to support and applaud the Checkpoint scheme and many like it which address the problem of people who have become criminals. It has seemed to me increasingly lunatic throughout my career that we spend so much on that and relatively so little on stopping people becoming criminals, which is far cheaper and more effective.
Of young people, I will say one or two things. First, most of them come into the world imbued with huge enthusiasm, energy and inquisitiveness that need to be channelled and directed. If they are not and find no release of their own, the young people turn to desperate actions, from stealing cars and driving away, to burglary or arson—you name it—or something else for a kick and a thrill. The channelling idea of this energy was highlighted in my career when I was commanding a Territorial Army squadron and two rather nondescript youths came into the drill hall, plainly bent on having a good laugh and disturbing things. We actually got them interested, and within two years they were the two best junior NCOs that I had ever had—because we got that energy, this vital quality that practically every human being has which can be used to make them creative, beneficial and lovely people.
The second thing that was brought home to me was during my middle years as a Minister when I spent six months in the Department of Health. I was introduced to a scheme in which children who had been convicted of crimes were referred to an Outward Bound course, where they were under the care of an adult on a ratio of one adult to two children all the waking hours of every day for a considerable period. It became abundantly clear that a considerable number of those children had encountered on that course for the first time in their 15 years or more of life an adult who actually cared about what happened to them, day by day and in the end. In other words, they were starved of love.
It is an elementary fact of human nature. My friend the right reverend Prelate will confirm that the essence of creation is love. We are too hesitant to talk about it, because the word has so many different meanings, but good parental and spiritual love is the essence of good behaviour. Without it, people fail to mature into the people they are meant to be. With it, they flourish, they do not commit crimes and we save a huge amount of money thereby.
Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)
My Lords, I also am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for securing this debate, and I gratefully receive his offer of some time. I am also from Durham—at least, long ago, I was for seven years the incumbent of St Nicholas Church. One day, the Bishop of Durham invited me to serve as part-time prison chaplain at Durham prison and Low Newton prison. Low Newton is very special. It is a few miles to the north of Durham. It was a demanding assignment, for one day a week for seven years, working with more than 120 young men aged under 21 and some 30 to 35 women in the women’s section. It brought home to me the wonderful work done by prison officers and other groups, such as teachers, probation officers and prison chaplains. That experience left me with great admiration for the people who served the prisoners I worked with, but, I am sad to say, with a very low expectation of the value that prison itself gives to those who end up there. Very little redemption can go on there. So it is with great pleasure that I welcome this initiative, which gives people an opportunity to break free from a life of crime.
It is very odd that this debate has followed a Statement on rough sleepers, as that is how many prisoners often end up. Checkpoint offers great hope and is something that we in the House of Lords ought to applaud and encourage. However, it is far from an easy option in its demands on those entering the programme to address root causes, and in offering hope. This initiative, together with the parallel scheme offered by David Lammy MP to help black, Asian and minority ethnic groups, has a huge potential to turn lives around. Do the Government intend to encourage other police constabularies to take on similar initiatives?
One aspect that I would certainly like to emphasise in my remaining seconds that comes out in the Checkpoint programme is the very strong social bonds that often inhibit but might also promote good outcomes if harnessed properly. This is a critical factor in the desistence element that the Checkpoint framework offers. The organisers recognise accurately that the programme offers co-operation with families, good friends and the wider community to offer hope to others. A question therefore arises: how might the wider community be of assistance in the reform of individuals who desire to change their lives?
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the preceding speakers, who are all so knowledgeable about this subject, and I also endorse what has been said already as to the achievement of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in securing this debate.
For me personally, this debate raises issues which cast in proportion the remarks which were made in a Sunday newspaper last weekend, which I read when I had the good fortune to be sitting on a Caribbean beach. I think we do not realise that the way we operate so often causes us to focus on the negative because we start off every day by asking questions, and you do not ask questions about things going well. What is important about this debate is that we are focusing on something which goes well.
I am glad to see here our newest Member of the House, who made a maiden speech when I was not here recently but which I have read. She will be very conscious of that point, because she has as great a knowledge of the working of the criminal justice system as anybody I know. Of course I refer to my fellow Cross-Bencher, my noble and learned friend Lady Hallett, who is here with me today. She would know how finding the positive things and making them work is so important and how sad it is that, again and again, useful initiatives do not result in long-term ends.
Octogenarians can have a very valuable service to perform—and I claim to do this today—because they have seen and heard it all before, and they have the long experience of what could work. This is not exploited in the way that it should be exploited so as to prevent the need to return again and again. I say that on the basis of the report I did into the prison riots, which were held a long time ago now, and on the basis of the speech I gave on the 25th anniversary of my report into those matters.
One thing that I hope will happen today as a result of this debate is that this excellent initiative, which has been shown to have so many important qualities, is taken up and embedded. If we cannot manage big reforms, let us focus on many little reforms and achieve a good result as a whole.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bates on introducing this QSD. I agree with everything he said, and I look forward to the answers from my noble and learned friend the Minister. I also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, about his points on positivity, and I can assure him that I have read his report very carefully.
Your Lordships will recall that I recently proposed to the House that we have a new sentence available to the courts of being “Detained for Training” at Her Majesty’s pleasure. Like both Checkpoint and Turning Point, my proposal contains a strong element of training designed to address the offending behaviour and act as an alternative to short prison sentences that all noble Lords know—and agree, I believe—are ineffective. My proposal is very much as a part of the criminal justice system, but these two approaches are absolutely complementary and would work together. The whole point of Checkpoint is to keep young people out of the criminal justice system and therefore I very strongly support it.
My understanding is that, very cleverly, Checkpoint is not too intensive, as this would be counterproductive and make matters worse rather than better. The architects of these schemes are to be congratulated.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for this debate. Because of the short time limit, my speech will mostly be a set of questions to the Minister.
I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of a new strand of police research called evidence-based policing—EBP for short—the brainchild of Professor Larry Sherman, who was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, at the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge. Is he aware of the Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing? I draw attention to my registered interests, because I lecture on its behalf here and abroad.
Evidence-based policing is based on the use of randomised control trials modelled on medical research techniques. I am sure the Minister is aware that Check- point is an EBP randomised control trial, but is he aware that it is only one of a large number of such experiments in the UK influenced by, and part of, the Cambridge EBP centre’s master’s degree programme? Randomised control experiments have, for instance, proved that police body cameras reduce conflict, that specific patrol patterns can reduce crime in hot spots and that issuing tasers to whole shifts of police officers does not improve citizen or police safety. The biggest gain in knowledge so far is the Cambridge crime harm index, which proved that in Northamptonshire 80% of harm caused by crime was the work of 7% of offenders.
Is the Minister aware of the UK Society of Evidence Based Policing, which is now replicated in many countries? Is he aware that Peter Neyroud—formerly chief constable of Thames Valley Police and now Professor Sherman’s academic colleague—recently explained evidence-based policing to a meeting of chiefs of police in India, which was chaired by Prime Minister Modi, who directed that the technique be adopted on a pan-India basis?
Is the Minister aware of how much interest in or support for this work has been shown by Her Majesty’s Government? The answer is practically none—and there has been almost nothing from Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition either, with the honourable exception of David Lammy MP, who noted the effectiveness of the West Midlands scheme Turning Point, which has just been mentioned, with black and Asian victims. This technique proves what works to reduce crime and, equally importantly, what does not. I have never seen anything as exciting as this in my police career.
The Home Secretary has indicated this week that nationwide targets for crime reduction will be reintroduced. They had a detrimental and distorting effect when they were in place. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice should be aware of what really does reduce crime before such targets re-emerge, so my last question to the Minister is: is he prepared to meet me, Professor Sherman and Peter Neyroud, preferably with the Police Minister, to see how this British invention can best be nurtured? Of course, I would be delighted if the noble Lord, Lord Bates, wished to join us.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on securing this important debate. It is clear that our justice system is not working. We lock up too many people. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, referred to the quality of mercy. I fear that is not a word we are likely to hear very much from our current Home Secretary, but we should find a way to use it.
Almost two-thirds of adults released from prison after sentences of 12 months or less go on to reoffend, so the Durham experiment is clearly a step in the right direction, but four months’ rehabilitation is just the start of turning people away from a life of crime. The crucial thing is getting offenders into employment. Ministry of Justice statistics show that only 17% of offenders get a job within a year of leaving prison. Those not in regular employment are almost twice as likely to reoffend. That is why, in its 2017 manifesto, the Conservative Party pledged to give employers a national insurance holiday if they took on any ex-offender. Last year, I asked what had happened to this manifesto promise and the Government told me that they were consulting on it. Is consultation yet about to turn into action?
Women who leave prison and fail to secure employment are just as likely to reoffend as men and, although the numbers are much smaller, the effects are potentially even more damaging. Every year, imprisonment of female offenders separates more than 17,000 children from their mothers. I applaud the efforts of Working Chance, a charity that helps female offenders into jobs. Its supporters include Pret a Manger and Virgin but, sadly, a lot of the companies that the charity has approached fail to see that this would help them and their staff, but ex-offenders become very loyal workers as the Timpson example has demonstrated. Only 4% of people that Working Chance has placed in a job go on to reoffend, which demonstrates why it makes such sense to fund organisations like it.
A survey by the Government in 2016 found that only half of businesses would consider employing an ex-offender. Can the Government tell me what they will do to encourage businesses to take on these people and help society in general?
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Bates for introducing this debate and I welcome innovative and holistic approaches like this one which build on much of the work I have witnessed over the years in the youth justice system.
We know that early intervention and out-of-court disposals have been effective in contributing to the reduction of youth custody and keeping children out of the criminal justice system. While there are, of course, differences between this approach and the Checkpoint programme, the principle of early intervention is the key parallel. Subject to successful completion, specifically designed interventions will help address the underlying causes of offending, including drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues and will leave offenders without a criminal record, which so often is a huge barrier to breaking the cycle of reoffending. It will also allow them to go on and lead a life free of crime. Prison will remain the right option for those who commit serious crimes, but prisons themselves are all too aware that rehabilitation outcomes are not good enough, although there are notable success stories,
We should and need to focus our time and resources on dealing with these underlying issues at the earliest opportunity because of how prevalent they are among offenders entering prison. It is good to see that Durham Constabulary’s interim impact figures are promising—as my noble friend Lord Bates mentioned—and that other police forces around the country are adopting innovative programmes to tackle these issues head on. Prison, after all, is the last resort.
We must not forget the victim and at no time should the safety of the public be compromised. We owe it to the offender and the victim, as well as society, to find a way to reintroduce reformed or reforming individuals so that they can become fully contributing members of society. Unless we continue to try and explore alternative solutions such as Checkpoint and address the underlying issues before people end up in prison, we will not make progress.
Getting the balance right between tough sentencing and rehabilitation will always be challenging, but there can be no greater prize than taking someone out of a life of crime and supporting them back into being a contributing member of society. This will always be worth fighting for.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, this is a short and compressed debate, but I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on introducing such an important topic. I thank Durham Constabulary for having been a pioneer in this field. It is not one of our largest police forces but it has really achieved something. As the current chief constable Jo Farrell said, we are talking about a cohort of people for whom this cycle—the cycle of repetitive convictions and, in many cases, repetitive trips to prison—will never end unless we do something different. Prison does not work for these people. It consumes massive resources; every decision to send someone to prison commits massive resources that could be used in more effective ways.
The Checkpoint programme is a managed form of out-of-court disposal that is contract-based. As the academic literature says, all the indications and evidence are that it works. I think that we should continue this process of evaluation and then learn from it what we can do with schemes of this kind, such as those that some other forces are pursuing.
Mention has been made of victims. My experience when talking to victims is that what they want most of all is for what happened never to happen to them—or anybody else—again. If they can be engaged in a situation where they see some prospect of the offender changing, so that he recognises what he has done and does not do anything like that again, they are very much attracted to that. I have observed this kind of restorative justice in practice in Durham jail, indicating that quite a lot of experimentation in this field takes place in Durham.
On wider public perceptions, we hear a lot from leading figures in some parties about prison working and locking more people up for longer, as well as all the newspaper headlines that follow that kind of rhetoric. But when you confront people with the facts of what led people to commit offences, which methods of dealing with them had any chance of success and which very little chance, the public are much shrewder about these things than we give them credit for.
This project has been properly conducted and is being properly evaluated. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Blair, pointed out, an example of evidence-based policing and evidence-based policy. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, when something is evaluated as being successful, it should be embedded and used more widely. We on these Benches would like to hear less of the empty rhetoric and more about practical schemes such as this.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for securing this debate. I also thank him for his introduction and his review of the scheme. It was a comprehensive presentation and I thought it particularly important in bringing out the fact that victim satisfaction radically improved—and the impact of avoiding short sentences, with their known failures.
Our criminal justice system is failing in its key task of tackling reoffending. This failure has created more victims and left their communities less safe. Reoffending costs are estimated at £18 billion per year, and nearly two-thirds of short-term prisoners go on to reoffend. Despite the Government admitting that their part-privatisation of the probation service was a disaster, they are still insisting that millions of pounds’ worth of new contracts should be handed to private probation companies. Rehabilitation and probation do not produce the best results when they are run for private profit, as Checkpoint’s welcome findings demonstrate. The programme’s tailor-made approach to cutting reoffending tackles underlying issues such as mental health and alcohol and drug misuse, and aims to improve life chances.
The first results from the trial have found a 15% drop in reoffending. Of the 2,660 offenders involved in the trial to date, only 6% have reoffended. It also appears cost-effective, suggesting that for every 1,000 offenders it saves at least £2 million a year in reduced crime. What research have the Government done on the most cost-effective ways to bring down the rate of reoffending? Does the Minister believe that short, ineffective sentences are unnecessarily adding to the cost of reoffending?
Labour has long argued that our criminal justice system needs to be rebuilt, with a focus on crime prevention and early intervention, giving people the best chance of rehabilitation. We have also said that effective police work requires the police to work collaboratively with youth workers, mental health services, schools and drug rehabilitation programmes. Checkpoint’s findings are impressive and I commend the work of the Durham Constabulary. I hope that the Government will sit up and listen.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bates for securing this debate. I note that Durham Constabulary is making a notable contribution to innovation and evidence-building through the locally led Checkpoint initiative. I seek to address this and to consider the wider context of the Government’s policy on out-of-court disposals and efforts to reduce reoffending.
Ultimately, it is for police forces to determine how they choose to use the flexibility that they have to adapt their own local policy and practice around the use of out-of-court disposals, albeit within the constraints of national rules and guidance. We, as the Government, take an interest in evidence from the police and their partners about the effectiveness of such novel approaches. MoJ officials are in contact with partners in Durham and we look forward to seeing and analysing Durham’s forthcoming peer-reviewed findings of the randomised control trial phase.
That said, we have seen the promising early findings indicated in the media, including an estimated 15% reduction in reoffending compared with a control group, which appears to be a notable achievement in itself. I am also aware of the positive feedback on the role that specialist navigators play in delivering the Checkpoint initiative. It is encouraging to see offenders being supported in so many ways to identify and comply with meaningful steps to tackle the issues that sit beneath their offending and, therefore, to help to address reoffending.
To maintain public confidence, it is important that such schemes are operated effectively. It follows that only suitable cases should be identified as falling within such schemes. There is accountability required on the part of offenders, if they fail to meet the terms of such a scheme. But we recognise that early intervention provides an opportunity to address an offender’s issues, before they escalate into more serious offending.
We should be clear that police out-of-court disposals, including any local variants, should be for lower-level offences. They are not considered appropriate alternatives to prosecution for individuals who would be likely to receive a custodial sentence in court for the offence in question. Out-of-court disposals are therefore available to deal with lower-level or first-time offending, but in a swift and efficient manner. They can certainly maximise the use of police officer time and achieve a satisfactory outcome for the public, while allowing officers to tackle more serious crime issues.
The Government support the policy set out in the 2017-21 strategy of the National Police Chiefs’ Council for charging and out-of-court disposals, which favours a simpler set of options for the police, with only conditional disposals in use. By “conditional disposals”, I mean that the offender needs to comply with one or more conditions, which may be rehabilitative, reparative, restrictive or punitive. The conditions provide the opportunity to address the underlying causes of offending and to intervene early, before a potentially more serious future offence occurs.
Conditional out-of-court disposals allow victims to be involved in decision-making as well. Out-of-court disposals with rehabilitative conditions are an opportunity for early intervention and prevention. This is particularly important for vulnerable groups, such as offenders with drug or alcohol issues. In addition, the Government’s strategy for female offenders and accompanying police guidance promotes the opportunity for police to direct women into appropriate services, such as women’s centres, as part of a disposal. I note the interest of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester on these issues, which are of direct interest to the department.
Durham’s Checkpoint initiative is one example of various models that have been termed deferred prosecution. Not all police areas are carrying out rigorous trials, but we are of course interested in any other meaningful evidence about the impact of different approaches. In fact, and I note this in the context of the observations of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, we are trialling a Chance to Change scheme in north-west London and West Yorkshire in partnership with local police and the police and crime commissioners. Obviously, results on reoffending and other outcomes will take time to come through, but we will share those findings in due course.
One key difference between what is termed a conditional caution—the statutory disposal that is a formal structure to set enforceable conditions to offenders—and a deferred prosecution is the impact on an individual’s criminal record. Where a caution is a criminal record, a deferred prosecution may offer the opportunity to avoid that. Clearly that may have beneficial effects and implications—for example, for the future employability of an individual who is directed away early on from criminal activity. We take an active role in understanding what seems to work in reducing reoffending and we will continue to do so.
Reducing reoffending is of course a complex issue and it needs to be combined with efforts across government and local partners. I fully accept the observations that have been made, most recently by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the need for collaboration in order to achieve results in this area. We work alongside a wide range of partners, including other departments, to ensure that support for offenders is given on what is as far as possible a joined-up basis.
I shall address some of the questions that were directed at me. My noble friend Lord Bates asked four questions. He asked how we are able to recognise the costs and complex benefits of such schemes. I can only go so far as to say that the Treasury considers flows of cost and benefit when reaching allocations, but I cannot give further detail of that at this time. On his second question about where we are with regard to the analysis of these schemes, I have to remind noble Lords that this is not our scheme; they are individual schemes. We await the report on the Checkpoint scheme and we will give consideration to it.
On the matter of short sentences that my noble friend raised, we consider that they should be an option, but of course custody is a last resort. In the Queen’s Speech, we announced plans for sentencing legislation that will include tougher community sentences, which we hope will take the place of shorter terms of imprisonment. My noble friend also referred to the matter of the royal commission. I can say that we are in the process of considering the scope of that commission and we will update the House with progress. However, at this stage I cannot say that it will embrace the matter of sentencing.
The noble Lord, Lord Blair, asked a series of questions about my knowledge of and interest in the Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing. I am not going to claim detailed knowledge of that scheme at all, but clearly we are interested in such initiatives and I would be pleased to meet representatives from the centre and the noble Lord himself to discuss those initiatives. I cannot seek to bind a Home Office Minister with regard to that matter, but I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the Ministry of Justice would be interested in engaging on that topic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about taking people out of a life of crime. Clearly that has to be one of our objectives, but over and above that it appears to me that one of the real objectives of Checkpoint is to prevent people from entering a life of crime in the first place. If we can employ this sort of methodology, we can prevent someone from beginning with a criminal record by diverting them away from the acquisition of such a record, so it has additional benefits of that kind as well.
I hope that I have addressed the points raised by noble Lords. I repeat my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bates for securing this debate and for his questions.
Israel and Palestine: United States’ Proposals for Peace
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tonge
To move that this House takes note of the United States’ proposals for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, announced on 28 January.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very pleased that we have the opportunity to air our views on this matter. I am sorry that it is in what I call the graveyard slot of the week but there it is. That is not my fault; I suspect it is down to the Government Whips but, anyway, I am very grateful that we are having this debate.
Many have dismissed the proposals as yet another plan in the decades-old series of talks which have never produced any benefit for the indigenous people of Palestine but have served as a smokescreen for the relentless expansion of Israel into Palestinian lands, against international law and against United Nations Security Council resolutions. But we have to take the plan seriously so let us look at it, while remembering that years ago, the PLO had already accepted a state on only 22% of the land designated by the original United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.
This plan consolidates a string of land islands, with more to come—many call them Bantustans—which have been created by the relentless expansion of Israeli settlements into the West Bank, cutting off Palestinian communities from each other. As compensation for the land taken, Israel proposes that the Palestinians should have a patch of desert land near the Egyptian border—a hugely generous gesture. They are promised that roads and bridges, underground and overground, will link these Bantustans and make sure that Israelis do not ever have to come into contact with Palestinians. Many people have described that as apartheid.
I do not apologise for mentioning the two words Bantustans and apartheid because today, as anyone who is a Guardian reader may have seen, there is a letter in it from 50 ex-Ministers and leaders in Europe and across the world, describing the plan as similar to South African apartheid. It is not just me but those people, who include Douglas Alexander, who used to be the Secretary of State for International Development, Ben Bradshaw and Alan Duncan, who are both still in Parliament, the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Patten, who are in this House. I recommend that your Lordships all look at this letter because they have more authority than I will ever have. Who else? There is Jack Straw, our former Foreign Secretary, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, another Member of this House. They are all past Ministers; looking now at the Minister sitting in his place, I hope that he will have similar sentiments when he is a past Minister, even if he cannot have them now. I am only teasing.
East Jerusalem will stay in the hands of Israel, and the Palestinians are told to make their capital in Abu Dis. That is a village just outside the barrier wall, of course, with no access whatever to East Jerusalem or the mosque. Nothing really has changed from the present situation and in case some of your Lordships are happy for the Palestinians to have their own defined borders at last—never mind it looking like a Swiss cheese, as someone once described it—we must add that the most important part of this derogatory offer is that Israel will control all security, all Palestinian territorial waters, all airspace and all the crossings between Palestine and Israel. Palestinians will have no sovereignty.
Hamas, of course, is blamed for almost everything. Last night it was pointed out to me by a colleague that in the 181 pages of the so-called plan for peace and prosperity, Hamas is mentioned 181 times. There is an obsession with Hamas. Nothing is suggested to stop the suffering of the people of Gaza—the slow starvation, deaths, mutilations and misery of the people there, who are mostly refugees themselves—until Gaza is, in the plan’s words, “demilitarised” of the few weapons it manages to smuggle in or make. We know that cannot happen until the blockade is lifted, and the Israeli Government know that.
There is no return for refugees—ever—and no compensation. Many of them have been living in camps on the West Bank, in Gaza and all over the Middle East, including in Syria, where I visited them on one occasion, and Lebanon. All over the Middle East, there are millions of people who have been living in camps for decades, waiting to go home. The plan, in effect, dissolves refugees as a problem; they are not to be considered. UNRWA is to be abolished—it is already starved of funds by the USA—and the Palestinian state, such as it is, and surrounding Arab states will have to find a solution for refugees and their camps. Over 7 million people are, in effect, being ignored; they do not exist, they do not matter. If this plan were ever implemented, there would still be—and the Israeli people need to realise this—a majority of Palestinian people living between the River Jordan and the sea. I shudder to think what will follow. I wonder what other plans Netanyahu has for the future.
The heralded economic plan, which is given much space in the document—I think more than half the document is devoted to it—and its assumed investment from other countries cannot work while Palestine is under occupation. This plan is for continuing occupation; whatever else can be said about it, the people will not have any freedom of movement or freedom for goods. However its promoters try to dress it up, an economic plan cannot work in this situation.
Is it yet another plan that will gather dust, with its failure no doubt blamed on the Palestinians? I am sure that someone in this Chamber—I am not looking at anyone in particular—is planning to say that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity but neither does Israel miss an opportunity to betray an agreement. It has done it many times. It simply cannot be trusted. The Palestinian leaders were not consulted about this before its publication, and neither was anyone else for that matter—we were not consulted in this country. It is just like the Balfour Declaration, in fact: we did that 100 years ago without consulting anybody. No doubt the Palestinians were rather put off by the eviction of the Palestinian delegation from Washington a couple of years ago and the relocation of the US embassy to East Jerusalem. It is not a very encouraging start to a peace and prosperity plan for the country.
There is still no recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state, and yet we are all expected to recognise Israel as a state even though we do not know what that country’s borders are. Let me be clear: I recognise the statehood and the right to exist of Israel and Palestine within agreed borders for both countries—as I have always hoped, on the 1967 peace line. When will our Government recognise the state of Palestine? It is such an important thing for them to do. What is their reaction to the publicised letter from some noble Lords that Palestine cannot refer Israel to the International Criminal Court because it is not a state? Where are the noble Lords, Lord Pickles and Lord Polak, by the way? They are not present, which is a bit disappointing because I was hoping to hear from them. Are they not interested? Do the Government subscribe to this view? Is the Minister acquainted with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which has long been accepted in international law and under which Palestine certainly qualifies as a state?
Whenever I am asked to talk about Palestine—it happens an awful lot—the word “humiliation” always comes to mind. For decades, the Palestinian people have been humiliated by the actions of Israel and its forces occupying their land. They have been humiliated by the inaction of the international community and the total disregard of UN resolutions. The Balfour Declaration, which was our country’s responsibility, said that
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
This whole terrible injustice is the responsibility of this country. We started it; we are responsible; they are our people and we should be looking after them. We have denied them any protection and we have also humiliated them by our neglect.
I am told every week by Ministers in answer to my Questions that the Government do not approve of this or that atrocity, they have made representations and had discussions with representatives of the Israeli Government and they thoroughly decry what is going on, et cetera. So why can we not set right a wrong that has caused such misery for over 100 years? The people of Palestine are not going to surrender. They are still there, waiting for justice, and there are very many of them.
On a brighter note, does the Minister agree that now we have our freedom, our country can resume its historic place in the world? We have heard it often enough in the last few weeks: we are free; we can implement our history again; Great Britain can be great again. We hear so much about it from the Prime Minister. If we are set free, we can now have our very own foreign policy, independent of anyone else, and with that we can bring justice to Palestine. Can the Minister assure us that we will do just that and not allow our country to fall under the shadow of the United States of America and its puppet master, Israel?
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity for this timely debate. I declare an interest: I have been involved in the region for much of my life—during my ministerial days at the Foreign Office, obviously, but also I can never forget my first visit to Israel. I arrived one evening and the 1967 war started the next morning. I was there for the duration of the war and it was an extremely interesting experience in which I had some very deep conversations with Israelis. I should also mention, perhaps, that in more recent times I have been chairman of the Middle East committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
The first salient point in any consideration is that the formal recognition of the State of Palestine is long overdue, because, without that status, how on earth can the Palestinians feel that they have an equal place in any discussions? Secondly, our deep historical responsibilities always come home to me; we played a key part in the creation of the State of Israel. Another point is that, in international friendships, between states as well as between people, candour is absolutely indispensable. I take my friendship with many people in Israel extremely seriously, but that means that we must speak honestly and candidly, very often with them, to the Government of Israel. It also means that in our relationship with the United States, from which I have also gained a great deal in my life—a nation towards which I feel very warmly—candour is indispensable.
At the moment, that candour demands of us that we emphasise the indispensability of justice and respect. No people paid a higher price for the creation of the State of Israel than the Palestinian people. It has therefore been a grinding experience for them over the years to be humiliated, dismissed and denied an opportunity to play a positive and creative part in building their own future and the future of the region.
This present plan brought by President Trump was a disaster. I cannot understand why our Prime Minister felt it incumbent on him to say that it was a stepping stone from which we could build. It was a disaster, and if ever candour demanded that we should say so clearly, this was the time. In the formalisation of the creation of, in effect, Bantustans—the situation is very similar to South Africa, in which I have taken a deep interest over many years—what about the status of Jerusalem as the capital for the Palestinian people? What about the vast issue of refugees? Where were these in the proposals?
In a long life working in the sphere of humanitarian work, international relations and the rest, I have come to certain firm conclusions. One is that we must remember that an enduring peace is a peace-building process; it is not a matter of imposing solutions or of short-cuts. Building peace is a patient, persistent task. If you are to build peace, that means that all parties to that peace feel a deep sense of ownership. We had better face that quickly, because otherwise we are in for a long, disturbing future in the Middle East.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, if today’s Times is correct, I should start by wishing the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, a happy birthday, although I cannot help wondering what sin he must have committed to have to spend his birthday debating the intractable subject of the Middle East peace process. None the less, I wish him a happy birthday.
I read the Trump plan with disbelief and despair. If it were ever to be implemented, it would represent not only a disaster for the Palestinian people and a threat to world peace far beyond the Middle East, giving as it does the green light to annexation and dispossession, but above all an unmitigated and unparalleled catastrophe for the people of Israel.
The safety and security of Israel is, in my view, critical not only for the Israeli people but for the world at large. After the horrors of the Holocaust and the centuries of prejudice, pogroms and expulsions, the ability of the people of Israel to live in security in their own democratic state is essential to the values of a liberal international order. It is something that we must defend to the end.
We have heard some references to Israel and apartheid South Africa. I have always resisted those comparisons; anybody who has had the misfortune, as I did, of spending time in apartheid South Africa knows that the democratic State of Israel is a million miles away from the vile and poisonous ideology of apartheid. The Trump plan, however, resembles nothing so much as a map of the Bantustans. In any event, as I have said in previous debates in this House, there is no escaping the fact that while the State of Israel is a very different place from apartheid South Africa, the situation that prevails in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is very similar to that which operated in apartheid South Africa: the occupation and settlement of land; the checkpoints; the separate laws; the night raids; the destruction of homes and property; the closed roads; the ongoing humiliations; the deepening anger; the loss of hope; the spread of violence; and the steady dehumanisation of one side by the other. None of this should be the least bit surprising. Whenever one people seeks to dominate another through occupation and settlement, it is inevitable that similar methods are used and similar reactions engendered.
That is why the Trump plan represents such an unmitigated catastrophe for Israel. It is not a peace plan: it is a plan for the permanent national humiliation of the Palestinian people. It would make Israel de facto ruler over millions of people who do not wish to be ruled by it. As a consequence, it guarantees insecurity and instability for Israel, Palestine and the whole region for decades if not centuries to come.
I have always supported the cause of a Palestinian state, not only because it is a just outcome for the Palestinian people but also because it is the only just outcome for the people of Israel. Throughout the time of the coalition, I urged the Government to recognise a Palestinian state. Each time I was told that this was not the right time. As every year passed, more settlements were built, more positions became entrenched and more intractability was introduced. Unless we act soon, there will be no viable state to recognise and no viable peace to achieve.
The only long-term resolution of this conflict will come from an understanding that the aspirations of the Palestinian people are little different from those of the Israeli people and that a just peace can be achieved only on the basis of international law. I have heard some Israelis say, “We have tried trading land for peace and it has not worked” but that is not right. There is only one occasion on which Israel has traded land for peace, when it made its historic peace with Egypt and returned the Sinai. It has lived in peace with Egypt ever since, but in Menachem Begin, it found a Prime Minister with courage. Today the Prime Minister’s office is dripping with self-interest and cowardice. Wise men make peace from positions of strength. Fools believe that strength inevitably lasts for ever.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has sadly deceived many of the people of Israel into embracing the fantasy that it is possible to live in security alongside millions of people who are indefinitely denied their national aspirations and daily subjected to humiliation. The renowned Israeli writer Amos Oz has used this analogy:
“the drowning man clinging to this plank is allowed, by all the rules of natural, objective, universal justice, to make room for himself on the plank, even if in doing so he must push the others aside a little. Even if the others, sitting on that plank, leave him no alternative to force. But he has no natural right to push the others on that plank into the sea.”
The Trump plan would push the Palestinians into the sea. As the founder of the State of Israel, David Ben- Gurion, said in a speech to the Knesset:
“our standing in the world will be determined not by our so-called material riches, and not by our military’s bravery, but by the moral virtue of our undertaking.”
It was the wisdom and humility of Ben-Gurion on which the State of Israel was founded. Let us pray that it is not on the foolishness and arrogance of Netanyahu and Trump that it will founder.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for securing this important debate. I also express my gratitude to the Minister and to his officials for the careful but clear Answers to my Parliamentary Written Questions relevant to this debate that he gave on 11 and 13 February.
Your Lordships’ House will be aware from my interventions in earlier debates that I am the only Anglican bishop who is a member of the Vatican-mandated Holy Land Co-ordination group, which visits Christian communities in Israel and Palestine every January. I also make at least one other visit to the region each year and will be on ecumenical pilgrimage there next week. Last year, I was also in Egypt with His Eminence Archbishop Angaelos, Coptic Archbishop of London, and other church leaders.
In his Answers to me of 13 February, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said that Her Majesty’s Government want to see
“a contiguous West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as part of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders”,
and I wholly share the Government’s aspiration. However, in describing the plan published by the United States Government, Her Majesty’s Government’s statement that
“All serious proposals for peace deserve a fair hearing”
does, I believe, two things. The chairman of the Vatican Holy Land Co-ordination group, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clifton, and I, wrote to the Minister of State for the Middle East and North Africa on 7 February contending that the analysis of the local churches in the Holy Land is that these are not a serious basis for peace but amount to a codification of the Government of Israel’s positions. Given that previous, serious attempts at peace, when they did not succeed, were followed by prolonged periods of bitter disillusionment, it can bring us no confidence when a plan such as this is published. I have to say that the manner of publication undermined any attempt to bring the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating table as an equal partner.
A second and related point is that, even if such arrangements as those proposed by the United States were begun to be enacted, including annexation of territory, I ask the House what peace—if peace it be—can be sustained on injustice? What agreement can there be when one party is not only absent but was not consulted substantively or proportionately in the first place?
My most recent visit to the West Bank, which included Gaza, Ramallah and East Jerusalem, brought home to me the worsening living conditions of the people. There is among the Christian communities a resilient faith and hope for a better tomorrow. But the initial imperative of security, which has created a narrative to justify intervention in more than 50 years of occupation, delivers—as all such unwanted rule does —barriers, confiscation, diversion of resources, curfews, and violence. It is hard not to conclude, as we would in any parallel scenario, that such occupation serves no good purpose.
There is much else one might say, including on what might legitimately offer the State of Israel security on its 1967 borders and its other concerns. One might lament the disappearance of the ancient Jewish communities from across the Middle East and the reasons why. One too might speak of the pressure on, indeed persecution of, the ancient Christian communities of the region. But today I ask again—in some sense I echo other contributors to this debate—whether it is now time for Her Majesty’s Government to heed the views of Parliament and extend full recognition to the Palestinian state?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am Jewish and have relations who had to flee Europe as refugees or were, sadly, killed for their religion. I understand that the Palestinians are angry. They are confined and suppressed and have no country. I am sure the Palestinian people want a civilised, democratic country, but unless and until their leadership—both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas—accept and recognise Israel’s right to exist, the Palestinian people are in limbo.
I support peace. I support a two-state solution. As anti-Semitism rears its ugly head again across the West, I absolutely support the need for a Jewish homeland. But the Palestinian people are languishing—their children fed hate and incitement against their Jewish neighbours—and continually reject offers of peace. They name their schools after terrorists. Their curriculum and school textbooks glorify suicide bombing and incite children to hate their neighbours.
Does my noble friend agree with me that, unless and until we can create an environment of acceptance, the prospects for peace—from whichever plan or quarter they may come—are vanishingly small? Israel has shown itself willing to withdraw from settlements in the hope of peace, but the evacuation of Gaza led to an intensification of violence, incitement, rocket attacks and terror tunnels.
These United States plans are a catalyst for restarting discussions, not a final version. They are aimed at promoting peaceful coexistence, but trust has broken down. Trust in a partnership for peace needs to be rebuilt, but we also need a home for the Jewish people after millennia of prejudice, oppression and death. As we recall the liberation of concentration camp prisoners just 75 years ago—still within the lifetime of survivors who had nowhere to run to, no country they could call home—the Jewish state is absolutely vital. Every piece of this land has been fought for with huge sacrifices.
Israel’s Palestinian neighbours have not shown that they want a smaller Israel; they seem to want no Israel. There were no settlements in 1948, 1967 or 1973. The problem was not where its borders lie but that it has any borders. As so often in our history, it feels as if the aim is erasing the Jewish state and its people. Yes, criticisms can be levelled at the Israeli Government, as at any country’s Government—I am not by any means claiming that the Israeli Government are perfect—but rewarding Palestinian intransigence has not brought peace. The Palestinians keep falling further behind. Are we really serving them well by encouraging unrealistic positions such as the right of return or even a return to exactly the pre-1967 borders, which proved so impossible to defend?
Israel was built by refugees. Many of those Jews were thrown out of neighbouring lands because of their religion—these were not just refugees from Europe—but they had somewhere to go. I therefore implore the Palestinians to be a partner for peace in the Middle East. The Israeli people want to live in peace. They do not want to dominate the Palestinians. They, and I, respect a Palestinian right to a state, but it must be in peaceful coexistence with an Israeli state.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, a leading German social democrat declared to his countrymen at the time of the Treaty of Versailles that the hand that signed the treaty would be signing its own death warrant. Such would surely be the fate of any Palestinian leader who dared to sign what Trump called the “deal of the century” or “peace vision”. This bird will not fly.
The initiative was not an unexpected bolt from the blue but the culmination of a series of one-sided initiatives, all taken without any consultation with the Palestinians, brought down like tablets of stone from the mountain. All such initiatives were highly partisan and were greeted enthusiastically by the Israeli Government. These included the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem; the recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of Israel over Jerusalem and the Golan Heights; the withdrawal of US aid for Palestinian refugee camps; the closure of the PLO office in Washington; and, of course, the abandonment of US support for the Iran nuclear accord.
Cumulatively, these completely changed the parameters of US policy and distanced the US from Europe, which has become a mere bystander in the region. They were part of Trump’s obsession to reverse all of Obama’s policies. Can we now seriously expect any Palestinian leader to sit at the negotiating table over this deal? They receive only 70% of the West Bank, and land swops of arid land in the Negev. Yitzhak Rabin, a great leader, stressed that it takes two to tango, and was assassinated for his efforts at peace.
We in the UK boast that we understand the Middle East and its history. Therefore, I was surprised at the warm welcome and support given by Foreign Secretary Raab. I suspect, as a former diplomat, that this was not the position of the regional experts in the FCO but rather the wish of the PM not to have too many fights with the US when he is seeking a post-Brexit trade deal. The highest that can be said in favour of this proposal is that, by shattering all the old assumptions, the conflict might then be reconfigured in preparation for a new start on a new track.
My own background is clear. I joined Labour Friends of Israel in 1966 and had the privilege of chairing the Anglo-Israel Association for four years. I, like my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, wish to be a candid friend. I admire enormously the vibrancy of Israel’s democracy, the rule of law, the scientific achievements that rival Silicon Valley. I well understand the force of their arguments about the lack of a credible negotiating partner who can deliver, the Palestinians’ peddling of illusions about the possibility of a right of return, their fomenting of hatred against Israel among the younger generation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, by textbooks and other means, the existential threat to Israel and their concentration on security which follows.
However, Israel has never been in such a dominant position militarily in the region nor perhaps internationally, given their warm relations with Russia and the USA and with several Arab states, particularly in the Gulf. As Israel faces the long-term problems of demography and water supply, now may be the time for some calibrated concessions. Is there no hope of progress? Must we await some cataclysmic event to clear minds? Surely there are some signs of hope in the change of view by Arab states. Who can forget, in 1967, the Khartoum agreement of the “three noes”, and the way in which several Arab states now respond fairly warmly to Israel—Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states—a sea change of considerable importance?
Trump appears to believe that money—some might say bribes—can be decisive. Of course, money can help, but more fundamental are questions of identity. Solomon would surely have avoided a big bang and sought to enlarge islands of co-operation, as my noble friend Lord Stone and his colleagues tried to do. Such might, indeed, happen when a new US Administration takes a more balanced approach, with the emergence of a more realistic generation of Palestinians discarding the unrealistic rhetoric of their fathers, or when this dynamic Israeli society of 9 million people is prepared to look long and seek partnerships, not a humiliating domination of the Palestinians.
The Marquess of Lothian (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having secured this debate. For many years, I have been both a friend of Israel and a friend of Palestine—not always an easy balance to achieve in the ebbing and flowing of the two-state solution arguments—but President Trump’s so-called “deal of the century” has totally upset that balance. I have long championed Israel’s right to security within its legal borders, but when those borders are unilaterally changed by illegal acquisition or settlement —or even worse, as now, by American presidential diktat—that right to security is questionable, probably meaningless and arguably forfeited.
This deal would effectively mark the end of any acceptable two-state solution. The proposed illegal land grab and the quasi-Bantustan configuration of what would be left would hardly meet the concept of a genuine Palestinian state. The proposed swap of fertile land in the Jordan Valley for dusty land east of Gaza would understandably exacerbate—and it has—Palestinian resentment. With the Palestinians sidelined into the extremities of Jerusalem, gone too would be the possibility of a genuinely shared capital.
Over the years, I have spoken to Palestinians of all walks and politics, and I have no reason to doubt the universal intensity of their feeling. I fear violent consequences if these proposals are acted upon. This purported peace plan will strengthen the so-called resistance, and the spread of Israeli jurisdiction into Palestinian land will further stoke the flames of hatred and despair. I cannot understand how a United States Administration, who so frequently preach the importance of the rule of law, can propose a plan that so patently promotes illegality. The current occupation of the West Bank and the settlements within it are already illegal. Now, as well as entrenching these illegalities, they propose further illegal annexations.
United States presidential diktat cannot make what is illegal legal, whether it is in Jerusalem, on the Golan heights or, more widely, under the new proposals. Nor can the eerie silence of Arab neighbours make it any more acceptable. Currently our Government seem at best ambivalent and, at worst, quietly supportive of these proposals—although I still hope not. Since Sykes-Picot our involvement in this region has been somewhat less than honourable. The Balfour Declaration, and that which followed, undertook to respect the interests and rights of the Palestinians. If I may so: have we heck.
Backing the present Trump proposals would be one further betrayal. They are not about peace; they are about politics—the politics of the United States and the politics of Israel. The consequences could well be frightening. Violence in that part of the Middle East is never very far beneath the surface, and violence stoked by genuine grievances is a dangerous concoction. Before it is too late, we need to find our way back to a genuine two-state solution, opening up the possibility of genuine negotiations and, once again, the chance to be a friend of both Israel and Palestine. For that reason, I hope that the Palestinians continue to reject these dishonourable proposals and that, at the same time, we find the courage to do so too.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. I thank my friend of a long time, the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for many, if not all, of the things she said, and in particular her support for a two-state solution, which I pray for.
However, the Trump plan must be looked at in context. The United States and Israel are both in the midst of election campaigns, as noble Lords might have noticed, even in our newspapers. Both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu clearly believe that they are playing to their respective electorates: Trump sees votes in producing a so-called peace agreement; Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is just about to come before the criminal courts in Israel, sees it as a vote winner in the Israeli election in a few days’ time. He bases this on justified Israeli fears about its very continuing existence.
President Trump is known as a deal maker, although the deals have generally been about pieces of United States real estate. What is the principle of a deal? It is not to offer your final deal until after your original proposals have been rejected. For any deal to be successful in negotiations, it has to be fathered or sponsored by a body or country that is considered reasonably balanced. I do not think that that can be said of the current United States Administration.
There is a role for the UK, Europe and Arab countries to set out what they see as the road to a two-state solution. I do not think that many in your Lordships’ House will think this is the Trump plan. Yes, the border between the two states needs to be defined. There have long been plans for a land swap. When I say “land swap”, it cannot be of pieces of desert; it has to be of suitable land. That was always the understanding of that land swap agreement. However, the main fault in the Trump plan is keeping so many isolated Israeli settlements. These towns and villages will be surrounded by a Palestinian entity. An Israel Defense Forces presence would thus be required to defend each settlement. Sadly, they would be defending them from a belligerent Palestinian entity.
It is time for the Palestinians and their supporters to accept that the international community will not deliver all that they want. Likewise, supporters of Israel will not get all that they want and desire. It is time for the Palestinians to move on from—I will not disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, by not quoting this—the dogma of Yasser Arafat, who, as a former Israeli Foreign Minister said and as the noble Baroness reminded us, never lost an opportunity to lose an opportunity.
It is time also for supporters of the Palestinians to accept that the Jewish populations of the Arab states have fled, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, referred to. Can anyone name Arab states where Jews can live freely, if at all? I will give just one example among many in the short time that we are allowed. A century ago when the British—yes, we British again—invaded the country then known as Mesopotamia, one-third of Baghdad’s 200,000-strong population was Jewish. That city has recently recorded only five Jewish people remaining, and I think that they have probably gone as well by now. This is the picture across the region. More than 800,000 Jews fled from Arab lands, mostly ending up as citizens of Israel, while in the West the Holocaust and the growth of anti-Semitism led to much-increased immigration from countries such as France. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, recently asked Her Majesty’s Government in a Written Question
“what assessment they have made of any correlation between the actions of the government of Israel and antisemitic incidents in the UK.”
The truth is that anti-Semitism in the UK and elsewhere existed long before the emergence of the state of Israel. The lies about Jews and their supposed control is not new. You can go back to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a tsarist forgery published before Israel was even a tear in Theodor Herzl’s eye.
So linking the two or saying that the victim is responsible is absolutely wrong. But let us all agree, hopefully, in this House, that what we aim for is a two-state solution with Israel having secure borders, not impossible borders, and the Palestinians having control over their own destiny in their own state, so that they and Israel can live as two states within the nations of the world.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. As the Prime Minister has rightly said, no peace plan is perfect, but I believe that this plan recognises the reality of the existential security threats that Israel faces, while proposing an optimistic future for the Palestinian people. It is, of course, disappointing that the Palestinian leadership failed to engage meaningfully with the US during the drafting process, so it came as no surprise that it rejected the proposals last month. Yet it was encouraging to see that Israel’s Arab neighbours cautiously welcomed the plan after its publication, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE, which remain under some pressure within the Arab League.
During the 1967 war, Israel gained control of the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, as well as additional territory. Days after the conclusion of the war, Israel said it was prepared to return most of the territory in exchange for peace treaties with its Arab neighbours. The three noes brought an end to this hope: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. I hope that noble Lords will indulge this brief historical recap, which I believe demonstrates that the greatest obstacle to peace is the continued refusal of Israel’s neighbours to recognise its right to exist and flourish as a Jewish state in any part of the land.
This is an opportunity for the Minister to urge our Arab allies to encourage the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table and finally accept that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination that the Palestinians themselves demand. I mentioned that the likes of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain initially welcomed the US proposals before being pressurised. This is no doubt due to a gradual warming of ties between Israel and its Gulf neighbours, caused by growing mutual interests, particularly the increasing threat posed by Iran. Iran has not only breached the nuclear deal; it continues to fund regional terrorist proxy groups including Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, fostering instability and violence. On Tehran’s orders, Palestinian Islamic Jihad has targeted Israeli soldiers with sniper fire and explosive devices in recent weeks and fired dozens of rockets towards Israeli communities. The motive is most likely an obvious one—to derail any long-term agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, meaning that the rejection of President Trump’s proposals is exactly what the Iranian leadership craves. I welcome this Government’s firm response to Iran’s latest breaches of the nuclear deal.
This firm response has been lacking, however, when considering the threat posed to the Middle East peace process by officially sanctioned Palestinian incitement to violence. The practice of honouring terrorists and glorifying them as martyrs is widespread in the Palestinian Authority, with even Palestinian Authority officials praising those who have killed Israelis. The Hamas terror group, which rules Gaza, seeks Israel’s destruction and subjects Gazans to endless rounds of violence. We must confront this anti-Semitism as strongly as we do here at home.
It is also crucial to note that £65.5 million of UK taxpayers’ money annually goes towards the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees, which carries out important humanitarian work, including the provision of education and healthcare to Palestinians. However, Palestinian refugee status is inherited in perpetuity, including for those living in internationally designated Palestinian territories, and current beneficiaries of the UN Relief and Works Agency’s aid are evaluated on problematic criteria based on entitlement, not need. The number of Palestinians alive who were personally displaced during the 1948 war between Israel and its Arab neighbours is estimated to be around 30,000, yet today the UN Relief and Works Agency defines 5 million people as Palestinian refugees, split between the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Palestinian children at UN schools in the West Bank and Gaza are taught that they are refugees, giving credence to the political position that more than 5 million Palestinians have a right of return, which would lead to the end of the Jewish state as we know it. These schools use official Palestinian Authority textbooks, which are currently under review due to their troubling content, including the promotion of martyrdom and the elimination of Israel. Can the Minister provide an update on this review, which should surely be expedited?
There is more we can do to promote peace in the region, starting with the consideration of the best mechanisms for delivering aid to those Palestinians most in need and ensuring that UK taxpayers’ money reduces conflict rather than perpetuating it. Let us give the US proposals an opportunity and hope for their success, as it is ultimately in the best interests of all sides to resolve this conflict.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I disagree with this document on at least three principles. First, it is not at all even-handed. It is quite clear that the Palestinians are intended to have to earn certain concessions over four years whereas the benefits for Israel are available immediately. Part of it reads like a proposed diktat to the Palestinians, and I do not think that is very helpful if we want to restart the process of peace negotiations in the Middle East, which we all do.
The second thing I have against this document is the proposal on land. The proposal is to take away large areas of land from the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley, and give them to Israel and in exchange, as has already been said, to give the Palestinians an equivalent amount of territory in the Negev Desert. That really is absurd and insulting. It is quite wrong to consider extending Israel’s borders in the West Bank beyond the green line. The green line is the line which the Israeli Supreme Court decided should be the limit of Jewish settlement and Israeli jurisdiction and control, and I do not think we should go beyond that. It would be crazy to suggest doing so, in my view, in the circumstances. Equally, I do not think we should push back the green line or the border further back, because over the past 53 years established communities have been growing and have been very successful. People have been living in that area and have had children and grandchildren and, as always happens in these cases, people are attached to their homes and if we pushed them out of them and said they had to go back to Israel, we would cause just one more problem of displaced persons in the Middle East, one more injustice and one more grievance, and I do not think that would be a good way to go either. The green line is the natural border and should be part of any discussions we take forward at this juncture.
Thirdly, I was very struck by the fact that nothing is said about the great injustice done to the Palestinian refugees, which was not their fault. That is very unfortunate. Most of the refugees left in 1948 in terror, particularly after the massacre of Deir Yassin, which was a hideous war crime. I recognise that there were quite different incidents in other parts of Israel in 1948. The Jews of Haifa tried to persuade their Arab neighbours not to leave, but most of them left because they were terrified. Some of them remained and their descendants are happily living there today, but nevertheless those refugees left in fear of their lives and we have to recognise that.
Equally, it is not at all sensible to think in terms of a right of return. Of course that would be impossible, as has already been said by my namesake the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who preceded me. That would be very disruptive for Israel, but economically it would simply not be realistic. Anyway, it would cause enormous bitterness between the two parties if 2 million new refugees arrived in Israel. It is absurd. What I think ought to be done is that individuals who left in 1948—they are all by definition in their 70s, 80s or 90s—should be given a right of return. That should be recognised as a matter of law and principle. It is most unlikely that most of them would take it up because it would not apply to the younger members of their families. In return, those who do not want to take up that right could cash it in, as it were, and receive a decent amount of monetary compensation. I am thinking $50,000 a head or something of that sort. Much smaller amounts of money would go to the second generation and smaller amounts still to the third generation. That would be a fair way of recognising the principle of the right of return. It would be regarded as worth talking about, at the very least, in Palestine. Clearly, money would be paid only when there had been a referendum in Palestine that resulted in a majority in favour of a settlement with all the details there. That is my view of the sort of document that we ought to be talking about now. I hope that we can get back to discussing how to solve this problem. It should not be allowed to fester indefinitely; that would be very dangerous.
I fear I must make the final point that we have this problem now very largely because of the extraordinarily bad Palestinian leadership over the last 100 years. Right from the 1930s and 1940s, the then leader of the Palestinian cause, the Grand Mufti, rejected any negotiations and any recognition of Israel and the Jewish settlements in the area. He preferred to go for violence and war. He had his war in 1948. He lost it dramatically and the Palestinians were worse off. He could probably have done a much better deal with the Jewish Agency in the 1930s than the Palestinians got from the United Nations partition resolution. It was another major miscalculation. His successor, al-Shukeiri, also put the emphasis on violence, with terrorist attacks on Israel and by encouraging the Egyptians to prepare a war against Israel. All that ended in disaster for the Palestinians in 1967. We then had Yasser Arafat, who famously turned down Ehud Barak’s offer of 98% of the territories. That is a terrible record. The Palestinians have been betrayed. They have been betrayed, more than anything else by their own leaders, and we now must hope that somebody comes to the fore among the Palestinians with a slightly greater deal of realism and honesty in the message he delivers to his people.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I gently remind noble Lords of the five-minute advisory limit.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, we witness daily on our televisions, in our newspapers and on social media the dereliction of lives and property across the Middle East—from Syria, with families wiped out as they flee the bombs of Assad and the Russians, to the plight of innocent children caught up in the civil war in Yemen and the atrocities of ISIS in Iraq. In the middle of all that misery it is easy to suppose that the question of Palestine is no longer a main priority for the region.
It may not be the most pressing, but we must not forget those who day in, day out live lives which no one in your Lordships’ House would consider to be normal. The occupation of the Palestinian territories and the associated hardships and humiliation that brings is now the longest occupation in modern history. But this intractable problem, while not being headline news, still captures, as it has over the years, the minds of leading statesmen in their quest to solve the never-ending conundrum of the Middle East peace process.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for bringing this debate to your Lordships’ House and for giving us the opportunity to discuss the latest proposals for peace. I declare my interests as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to the Palestinian territories, president of the Palestine British Business Council and president of Medical Aid for Palestinians.
All efforts to promote peace should be welcomed. It is not in anyone’s best interests that this question remains unresolved, but any proposal must be rooted in reality and must always have international law as its compass. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his robust reiteration, earlier this month, of the United Kingdom’s long-held position of two states, based on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the shared capital.
I was particularly pleased by the sentiment expressed by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa in his Statement on the United States proposal, when he said:
“Only the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian territories can determine whether the proposals can meet the needs and aspirations of the people they represent.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/20; col. 927.]
This sentiment is amplified by the respected Israeli NGO Gisha, which has said of the latest peace proposals:
“A real solution to the conflict cannot be reached by coercion; it will only come by recognizing the rights of all residents of the region.”
The irony is that for the past 18 years such a solution has been available. The Arab peace initiative put forward in March 2002 by His Royal Highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, the then Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, offered comprehensive peace between the Arab world and Israel in return for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. This peace initiative was again proposed earlier this month, at a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Arab countries at the Arab League, as the basis for any deal between Israel and Palestine.
This region is brimming with potential and it is criminal that much of it languishes unused. As I said in the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley last year—which was a forerunner to this debate—the first, not last, step to unleashing this potential, and to lasting peace and prosperity, is the end of occupation and the recognition of the state of Palestine, alongside the State of Israel, of which my noble friend Lady Altmann spoke so passionately.
I am sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say that I long for the day when we have no more need for debates such as this. However, I fear that the latest proposals for peace, with all the hard work that has gone into them, and however well-intentioned they may be, will not meet the test of answering the needs and aspirations of the Palestinian people because they leave them with no hope of self-determination. As Norman Cousins, the late American political journalist, said:
“The capacity for hope is the most significant fact of life.”
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for securing this important debate. The Balfour Declaration for the creation of a Jewish homeland stated, as we have been reminded, that the rights of existing inhabitants would be fully protected. Over the years, we have seen these rights systematically eroded. The declaration, although politically understandable, was based on a conflict-perpetuating fallacy that people of different faiths are so different that they have to have separate countries to survive. It is a fallacy that perpetuates prejudice and lasting hostility, as seen in the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and partitions in many parts of the Middle East and—closer to home—in Ireland. This fallacy is inherent in the continuing conflict between two sister faiths in Israel-Palestine. Sikh teachings, put forward at the time of horrendous religious conflict between India’s Hindus and Muslims, emphasised that we should look beyond superficial differences, to commonalities that unite us; that for peace and harmony between people, we must recognise our common humanity.
A few years ago, I visited Israel with the then Chief Rabbi, my noble friend Lord Sacks. We met Jews and Arabs from all walks of life in a beautiful country packed with history; a country that in more peaceful times could live on tourism alone—and a country holy to three of the world’s great faiths. In all the people we met, there was a common yearning for peace, security, food and a decent standard of living. The American so-called peace plan seeks to perpetuate existing injustices against the Palestinian people by legitimising Israeli occupation of illegally seized Palestinian land and by giving Jerusalem to Israel. It is doomed to failure. For true peace, it is essential to recognise and respect common interests.
A viable peace plan should begin with a need to recognise that the involvement of outside powers, on one side or another, inevitably exacerbates conflict. Outside involvement is rarely in pursuit of justice, but in pursuit of so-called strategic interests—trade and political dominance. Such interventions widen conflict and suffering. Can any noble Lord in this Chamber deny that the involvement of Russia and the West in the Middle East has added to the suffering of innocent men, women and children, and the desperate plight of refugees fleeing bullets, bombs and rockets, and the destruction of their homes?
A better way forward would be for the UN to appoint a senior judicial figure, remote from political involvement and acceptable to both sides, to start from small beginnings and look to common issues and concerns. With extensive Israeli settlements all over Palestinian territory, a two-state solution—never a good idea in itself—is also not viable. Instead, both sides should look to easing travel restrictions and developing common social and economic initiatives to break down misunderstanding, leading to greater peace, security and trust. This is not easy but I believe it is the only way forward.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is always an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, on securing this debate. I refer your Lordships to my non-financial interests, as disclosed in the register. The noble Baroness certainly has an interest in the Jewish state; I notice that she has asked some 197 parliamentary Written Questions of the Government on Israel in the last 12 months. I am not sure if that is a record. It might be.
We meet for this important debate just a few weeks after Auschwitz remembrance and Holocaust Day, with “never again” ringing in our ears. There are now some 6 million Jewish people living in Israel, of whom 172,000 are survivors and witnesses to those terrible events, so I believe we have a moral duty to protect them from the existential threat that they face from some who, to this day, still call for the Jews to be driven into the sea.
The Washington Institute polled West Bankers last month, and two-thirds said that the top Palestinian priority, in the next five years, is to regain control of all historical Palestine, from the river to the sea, rather than permanent peace with Israel. At the same time, it cannot be acceptable to witness the suffering that happens daily in the West Bank, and in particular in Gaza. Political leaders there suppress their own people, inflicting on them a lifetime of misery, depriving them of basic human needs and devoting valuable resources to war, rather than to the peace that the decent people of that region yearn to see and deserve.
It is only one conflict in the world but, if we were to believe the United Nations and the ill-informed press, it is the only one. This unfortunate and incorrect assessment permeates global politics. Even Bill Clinton said that solving the conflict will
“take about half the impetus in the whole world for terror away”.
I doubt it. The atrocities in Syria, Libya, Yemen and even against the Muslim community in China are sidelined as the Middle East and Israel in particular are criticised. Since 2013, Israel has been condemned in 45 resolutions by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Since the creation of the council in 2006, it has almost resolved more resolutions condemning Israel than it has the rest of the world combined. Is Israel really that guilty or is it just an easy target for what Ben-Dror Yemini calls the “red-green alliance”? The green is not environmentalists but those ostensibly fighting for human rights, but actually supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and even the Taliban. By fighting what they see as western imperialism, they end up supporting a terrible form of fascism.
So it falls on someone else to come up with a proposal, as President Trump has done. It is not perfect, as Members of this House have observed. It suffers from not having Palestinian input, but then everyone knew that, whatever was proposed, their leaders would reject it. Such was the case with the Peel plan, the Woodhead Plan, the Bevin plan, the partition plan—which was opposed, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, by the Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini—right through to Camp David, without even offering a counterproposal. Of course, Ehud Olmert’s peace plan and now the current US proposal have all been rejected, this one before they have even seen it. The consistent lack of leadership from the leaders of the Palestinian people—who, by the way, have no mandate for that title as they were elected 16 years ago on a four-year mandate—is disappointing.
Arabs living in Israel, however, are afraid of becoming Palestinian citizens because they see how those living in the West Bank are subject to human rights violations on a daily basis. In Israel, Arab citizens participate in general elections and enjoy freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom in academia, which are unimaginable in the West Bank and Gaza. A recent poll showed that 68% of Israel’s Arab citizens said that they prefer to live in Israel rather than in any other country. It is of course worth mentioning that the concept of an Israeli living in nearly any other Arab country is nil, particularly as some 800,000 Jews were summarily expelled from Arab countries, where they had lived for generations and indeed millennia, just for being Jewish.
For any peace plan to have a chance, it will need a dramatic change in the leadership of the Palestinian people. The incitement to hatred that still exists—despicably fuelled by textbooks that we, the British taxpayer, helped to finance, particularly in Gaza, denying the thousands of years of Jewish heritage to the land —has to be addressed by our Government and others in the West who care about the region. In Jerusalem, a city that I know well as chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation in the UK, the plan indicates that all of Jerusalem’s holy sites should remain under Israeli responsibility, particularly with regard to Temple Mount. This represents a significant acknowledgement of Israel’s sensitivity in guarding Jerusalem’s holy sites, as I am sure, if he were in his usual seat, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark would testify; they are open to people of all beliefs and tourists of all faiths.
In summary, we have seen that Israeli Arabs will not welcome this proposal and that the Palestinian leadership refuses to reassure Israeli Jews that a sovereign Palestinian state would not want to threaten Israel’s very existence. So it behoves us, the international community, to engage with the Palestinians to facilitate serious negotiations, using this or any other blueprint as a basis. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister whether such plans are currently being formulated by Her Majesty’s Government.
I know noble Lords will indulge me a final 10 seconds to wish the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, a happy 88th birthday.
Lord Mitchell (CB)
My Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, is to be thanked for introducing this debate.
My wife Hannah and I have just returned from an amazing holiday. We went to Colombia for a momentous family reunion—momentous because until last year none of us really knew that the other members existed. This was an unusually happy ending to a classic Jewish story of death, tragedy, separation and family loss. The original family lived in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, and comprised 51 individuals, of whom only 15 survived the Second World War. Hannah was vaguely aware that there were other branches of the depleted family, but she had no idea who or indeed where. They had been lost for years. Then, suddenly, out of the blue, she received an email from a second cousin living in Atlanta, Georgia: “Are you the granddaughter of Hugo and Matilda Lowy?” Well, she is, and we agreed to meet up in New York. That was a joyous meeting.
Then the subject was raised of the one remaining brother, Isidor, who had survived Auschwitz and who it was rumoured had gone to live in Colombia. The internet went into overdrive and, lo and behold, the missing family was discovered living in Bogotá. In the chaos of the post-war period they had moved from pillar to post, trying to find a new home. Most countries put up barriers to Jewish refugees but, to its credit, Colombia admitted 750 in 1948, and that is how they arrived there.
This was the first family reunion since the one in Vienna in 1927, and what a happy event it was. But what of the others? What of the other family members? What of the millions who perished or were denied entry to other countries? When the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, sees the passion that we Jews have for Israel, it is because so many more of us would have been saved had Israel existed before the war. That is why for us Israel’s safety is paramount.
But there is another side to my family; for we Mitchells, life is always complicated. I have a daughter-in-law who is half-Palestinian. I have been to the West Bank several times and am under no illusion that the Palestinian people are oppressed. The checkpoints are humiliating and the desire for statehood burns brightly. I understand the Nakba—the catastrophe, as the Palestinians call it in Arabic. It is why I have always supported a two-state solution. In 1947, the United Nations agreed that British Palestine was to be partitioned between the Jews and the Palestinians. The Jews were to be offered 55% and the Palestinians 45%. To the Palestinians, that was the first Nakba and they rejected it. When Israel was founded a year later, five Arab countries attacked it with overwhelming armies, but they were defeated. Instead of 55% of the land, Israel ended up with 75%; that was the second Nakba. In 1967, the Arab states again attacked Israel. They lost again and Israel occupied the entire land of British Palestine—yet another Nakba.
Since the Oslo accords in 1993, there have been three intense peace negotiations, and each time the sides have come within touching distance. But each time, at the last moment, the Palestinians withdrew from the negotiations. They have had Nakba after Nakba; disaster after disaster. Now we have Donald’s “deal of the century”, where the Palestinians are being offered 20% of British Palestine—20%, when they could have had 45% in 1948. Barely a peep has been heard from the other Arab states. The Palestinians have become friendless even within the Middle East, and that is the biggest Nakba of all. How has that happened? It is because they have the most terrible, awful leadership, and have had since before Israel was formed.
Now we see Donald Trump on course to win his second term. He will continue to back Netanyahu, no matter how outlandish his demands, and—irony of ironies—the only chance of reversing American policy is held in the hands of a Jewish man born in Brooklyn. His name is Bernie Sanders.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for organising this timely debate on the US Administration’s recently announced proposals for a final status agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, based on a two-state solution. I will offer some comments based on my own experience, having visited Israel in recent years, and from the perspective of a lifelong businessperson.
I believe fundamentally that economic growth and prosperity for all sectors of society, in particular the youth, are essential for establishing a lasting peace for Israel and Palestine. I respectfully remind your Lordships’ House that this proposal is one of two parts. Last summer in Bahrain the US Administration, along with regional partners, released their Peace to Prosperity economic plan for Palestine. The plan consisted of three initiatives aimed at supporting distinct pillars of Palestinian society: the economy, the people, and the Government. The principal aims of the plan are: to more than double Palestinian gross domestic product; to create over 1 million Palestinian jobs; to reduce the Palestinian unemployment rate to nearly single digits; and to reduce the Palestinian poverty rate by 50%. This plan is only the most recent effort to stimulate Palestine’s economy and governance in advance of statehood. This approach was core to the endeavours by the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, during his tenure as the head of the international quartet for peace.
Whatever we may make of the US President himself, of this proposal, or of any of the many proposals offered down the years, it remains true that Palestinians will not and should not be satisfied with a stalemate that has stymied economic growth and prosperity for decades. According to the World Bank’s 2019 economic update for the West Bank and Gaza, the unemployment rate in the Palestinian territories continues to be unacceptably high. It reached 26% in the second quarter of 2019, almost the same level as it was in 2018. The most recent data agrees that around 24% of Palestinians live below the poverty line. Without a permanent status arrangement, forecasts predict that the Palestinian economy will witness contraction in the coming years— a prospect its already vulnerable population can ill afford.
I have been delighted to see trade increase between Israel and the United Kingdom by nearly 300% over the last decade. However, the political stalemate is limiting the expansion of our economic ties with Palestine, which has a similarly entrepreneurial and dynamic population. Yet, as of 2017, UK trade with the West Bank and Gaza was a mere £17 million. Put simply, we cannot have growth without peace. Despite the stalemate, others are, admirably, trying. I note the initiative announced last year by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development alongside the Palestine Investment Fund and a Dutch development company to finance impact bonds to address youth unemployment. The scheme trains up 1,000 young Palestinians and has raised $1.8 million in investment and $5 million in outcome funds to date.
The private sector seems to be stepping into a vacuum left by the Governments mired in political inertia. I know that British organisations, such as the Portland Trust, have worked tirelessly to stimulate the Palestinian economy. In this respect, can the Minister say what recent efforts the British Government have made to stimulate the Palestinian economy, create jobs for the youth in Palestine and enhance UK trade with the West Bank and Gaza?
Others have pointed to the flaws in this proposal, not least the person and the process behind him, but surely the time has come for Palestinians and Israelis to come together and agree a solution that will revive the Palestinian economy and secure a prosperous future for both people—and for British businesses, which I have no doubt would welcome the opportunity to expand ties with a new, dynamic state of Palestine.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I will focus on the so-called Trump peace plan, which is of course nothing of the kind. It abandons prior US policy in the region. It has nothing whatever to do with fairness to the two sides. It is constructed to reflect Israeli power on the ground and abandons the norms of international law about the non-acquisition of territory through military force. The proposals would give US approval for Israel to annex the Jordan Valley and most of Area C, amounting to about 30% to 40% of the occupied West Bank. This contrasts with the 95% or so Palestinian control of the West Bank proposed by Bill Clinton in 2000.
This plan says it will retain existing Israeli settlements in the West Bank, not reduce them as international law requires. The new Palestinian state would have at least 600,000 Israeli settlers in it, all protected by the Israeli military. The involvement of the Palestinians in this plan was zero. The plan itself imposes on the Palestinians a large number of unrealistic obligations before they obtain a very small state with very little sovereignty. Israel would have “overriding security control”, with all entry and exit from the new state controlled by Israel. This Palestinian state would have no airport, Gaza would not have an independent port and Israel would control water and the electro-magnetosphere. The plan rules out any Palestinian capital in Jerusalem.
Unsurprisingly, the Palestinian leadership has totally rejected the Trump plan, seeking negotiations on a viable two-state solution based on 1967 borders, in accordance with international resolutions. The Arab League unanimously rejected the Trump proposals at its summit on 1 February and supported the Palestinian approach. Trump’s plan has been rejected by the African Union and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Cyril Ramaphosa, the South African President, has likened the Trump proposals to his country’s apartheid experience.
Many Israelis have distanced themselves from Netanyahu, and the Trump plan is not in Israel’s best long-term interests. I shall quote from an email sent to me by Breaking the Silence, an organisation of courageous former members of the Israel Defense Forces:
“We were the ones who entered Palestinian houses in the dead of night and patrolled their villages in order to create a constant ‘sense of persecution’, as we were ordered to do. We were the ones who limited their freedom of movement. We were the ones who stopped and searched children whose only crime was to live their lives. All of these things were justified for ‘security reasons’. Now that the idea of annexation is on the table, the Netanyahu Government isn’t even trying to disguise its expansionist aspirations. Now it is clear to everyone: this plan has nothing to do with security, but rather its purpose is to perpetuate Apartheid.”
This strand of Israeli opinion gets little coverage in our UK media; nor does it get much attention from the UK Government. The Government’s response to the Trump plan at the end of January was somewhat muddled, to put it kindly. They have shown little understanding that if the international community allows Israel to proceed with the Trump plan without sanctions, it undermines the Government’s own position on sanctioning Russia over the invasion of Ukraine or any other future illegal actions. When will we see a more muscular response to the Trump proposals and their lack of regard for international law? Perhaps the Minister could draw some comfort from the letter published in the Guardian today from 50 former European leaders and Foreign Ministers expressing their serious concerns about the Trump plan.
Lord Young of Graffham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for securing this debate, but I have to say that there is an elephant in the room. I am about to speak of things from my own direct personal experience over the years.
By the early 1990s most of the Arab states were tiring of war. This did not necessarily include the PLO but, gradually, prospects for peace began to improve, until there were talks in Oslo directly between the Palestinians and the Israelis and President Clinton presided over the famous handshake on the White House lawn. By that time I had left government and was the executive chairman of Cable & Wireless, a 100 year-old Arabist company with extensive links in the region. In the improving atmosphere—I had been invited to Saudi and had sat at the right hand of Crown Prince Abdullah discussing Jerusalem, something I would have thought inconceivable a few years before—I had a dream that the nexus between Tel Aviv and Beirut could be an off-Europe Hong Kong. They had all the skills and all the enterprise existed there. So Cable & Wireless bought 10% of Bezeq, the Israeli telephone company, we agreed to buy 49% of the Jordanian telephone company, and we were in a contract for about 1.4 million lines in Lebanon when the Lebanese Parliament brought a boycott resolution against Cable & Wireless and sent it to Damascus. Some 36 hours later, a most unexpected reply came: they would refuse the boycott and shortly invite me to discuss the proposal in Damascus. My proposal did not include the Palestinians. These were the early years of mobile telephones, so I decided that we could create a Palestine mobile phone company to be owned and operated by the Palestinians. We had agreed roaming rights throughout the region.
In December 1994, Yasser Arafat came to London and stayed at the Dorchester. I spent an hour with him. I offered Chairman Arafat a Palestinian mobile telephone company which could be set up within 90 days, with roaming rights all over the region. I told him I believed it would be popular with Israeli Arabs as well as Palestinians and would be the first fruits of the new state. He was interested and said he would invite me to Tripoli. The weeks passed, but no invitation came. Then I read that they had granted a licence to the son of the Lebanese Prime Minister. A few weeks later, I read that they had granted a licence to AT&T. Finally, they phoned me and proposed a 60:40 company; we would have 40% and finance the operation. I agreed and negotiations started. Right at the end my people found out that of the Palestinians’ 60% shareholding, 80% would be held by Mrs Arafat in her own name. That was unsustainable.
At the same time, I was working with a group of Palestinians in London. During my time in London I was involved in employment and was trying to get things going there. They told me that they needed a technical school. I had recently retired as chairman of the World ORT union, a Jewish charity which is the largest of the vocational and training schools, with hundreds of thousands of students and good relationships with the World Bank. I came back within a week and said to them, “I’ve got £20 million for you from the World Bank, just give me the site.” They hummed and hawed for months and eventually rang to say, “Can we increase the £20 million to £24 million, as we’ve got people to look after?” That was equally unsustainable. Then the wind changed, Arafat refused to sign and the al-Aqsa intifada started; we were back to where we were and the days of hope had gone.
The biggest cause of poverty in the entire world is the corruption of rulers. If 87% of the Palestinian people believe that the Palestinian Authority is rife with corruption, who am I to doubt it? Until there is more open and transparent government for the Palestinians, I am fearful for their future. Look back over the long decades of war after war, peace offer after peace offer: every offer that they rejected was in time followed by a worse one, time after time. I am certainly not saying that this is a good offer, but I believe it will be better than the next.
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in 1967 I was a volunteer in the June Six Day War in Israel. I went there to help the war and then to work to help repair the country the following year. Just after the war in that same June, the eloquent Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, spoke at the UN. He said:
“In the institutions of scientific research and higher education of both sides of the frontiers, young Israelis and Arabs could join in a mutual discourse of learning. The old prejudices could be replaced by a new comprehension and respect born of a reciprocal dialogue in the intellectual domain. In such a Middle East, military budgets would spontaneously find a less exacting point of equilibrium. Excessive sums devoted to security could be diverted to development projects. Thus, in full respect of the region’s diversity, an entirely new story, never known or told before, would unfold across the Eastern Mediterranean … The challenge now is to use this freedom for creative growth. There is only one road to that end. It is the road of recognition, of direct contact, of true cooperation. It is the road of peaceful co-existence.”
He went on to say, “Let us be an active part in the constructive solution of peaceful and economic prosperity for all people in the region.” I was 25 then, and this has inspired me ever since to try to bring the people there together in peace.
It is self-evident that peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is only possible if the basic aspirations of both peoples are met. Both peoples aspire to self-determination in their own sovereign, independent state. Nothing in the past 50 years has altered this, regardless of other changes. In 1993, under the Oslo accords, the Palestinians finally dropped their demand for 100% of the land and agreed to accept a state alongside Israel in 22% of the land, meaning the West Bank and Gaza, subject to land swaps. There is an overwhelming international consensus on this framework. Any proposal that significantly deviates from it cannot be taken seriously, however powerful the proponents.
This Trump plan, as a strategy to firm up right-wing domestic support in an election year in both the US and Israel, makes a lot of sense. However, as a strategy to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians, it falls short in its current form. It is time now to recognise a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem alongside the Israeli state with its capital in West Jerusalem in the hope that the two neighbouring states will eventually form some sort of confederation. Then, something good could come out of the Trump plan.
Since 1967, I have worked to build bridges: through my work at Marks & Spencer with its suppliers in the region; as the chairman of the British Overseas Trade Group for Israel; with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Egypt; with Palestinian and Jordanian farmers, textile workers, high-tech incubators—the noble Lord, Lord Young was a mentor to me all the way through that—and universities and educationalists; and with sensitive, dedicated NGOs across the divide. I have worked to build bridges and show what could be a better future life for the 125 million citizens of Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Palestine if they spent the same time, effort, money and resources on building peace and co-operation with compassion rather than squandering all that on war and enmity.
As we heard in today’s Statement, we in the UK will soon be separated from the EU and will begin to develop a new chapter in our international relations. With our historic association with Egypt, Israel, Palestine and Jordan, which are in key positions in the Mediterranean, Africa and, of course, the Middle East, I suggest to the Minister that we form a group here in the United Kingdom that brings together the many experts that we have in this country to discuss how we might help. It would not be seeking to argue the rights or wrongs of either side but to suggest how, perhaps after a long, thoughtful, positive discussion, we might then invite the parties in the region to come here and discuss a workable plan that might be attractive to all sides. Britain was, after all, the mandatory power and the issuer of the Balfour Declaration. We have an historical responsibility that no European country—or any other country for that matter—has. We were instrumental at the start of the separation and thence discord; now, with our new place in the world, let us try to heal it for the benefit of all peoples.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for securing this extremely important debate. We have heard some very moving accounts, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Mitchell.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, spoke, I retrieved a quote that I saw the other day from Bernie Sanders that is really worth quoting. He draws on his own family background and goes on to say:
“I see Israel as having the capacity to contribute to peace and prosperity for the entire region, yet unable to achieve this in part because of its unresolved conflict with the Palestinians. And I see a Palestinian people yearning to make their contribution … yet crushed beneath a military occupation that is now over a half-century old, creating a daily reality of pain, humiliation and resentment.”
It is quite sad. So we come to his competitor, as it were, President Trump, and the plan of his son-in-law, which has been described as the deal of the century. From what we have heard in this debate, it does not look like it is quite that deal.
President Trump revealed the plan on 28 January 2020, alongside the Prime Minister of Israel. As others have noted, no Palestinian was present—not a good omen. As it turns out, the plan does not affirm that Palestinians have rights. Israelis have rights; Palestinians have obligations. The plan would be for Israel to annex the Jordan Valley and most of Area C, amounting to about 30% to 40% of the occupied West Bank. There would be a Palestinian state but with very limited sovereignty. Israel would have “overriding security control”. All entry and exit points would be controlled by Israel. Jerusalem would not be a shared capital. The state would have no airport, and no independent port. All the 150 settlements and over 100 outposts in the West Bank would be annexed to Israel. Israel would be free to expand in the annexed areas. The World Bank identifies 227 individual Palestinian areas in the West Bank, with “contiguity” given simply through a series of tunnels and corridors that might allow Palestinian transport. All these could be closed down if required by Israel. A similar corridor would connect the West Bank to Gaza—I note what my noble friend Lord Palmer said about defending that territory. Israel would be granted “sovereign” control of Gaza’s territorial waters, including Gaza’s offshore gas. Israel would retain overall control of the water supply.
Once the plan was announced, there were immediate fears that Israel would start annexing lands which the United States, not the UN, had taken it upon itself seemingly to grant it. So how was it that the United Kingdom responded so warmly to this plan? The Foreign Secretary stated:
“We welcome the release of the United States’ proposal for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. This is clearly a serious proposal, reflecting extensive time and effort.”
He encouraged the parties to give it “genuine and fair consideration”. That was on the very same day that he stated:
“Today, the UK and our international partners have collectively sent a message to Russia that we do not and will not accept its illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol. We will impose serious costs through active maintenance of sanctions on those who seek to incorporate Crimea and Sevastopol into Russia.”
Could the Government not see the irony in the two statements they made on 28 January?
The following day, 29 January, when there was an Urgent Question in both Houses, this was added to the Government’s position:
“The United Kingdom’s position has not changed. Our view remains that the best way to achieve peace is through substantive peace talks between parties, leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.”—[Official Report, 30/1/20; col. 1516.]
By 31 January we have:
“The United Kingdom is concerned by reports of possible moves toward annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel. Any such unilateral moves would be damaging to renewed efforts to re-start peace negotiations, and contrary to international law. Any changes to the status quo cannot be taken forward without an agreement negotiated by the parties themselves.”
Any contribution that the noble Lord the Minister played in that shift in the Government’s response to the Trump plan should be welcomed. I noticed that the noble Lord has a bit of a cold, and I hope that coronavirus will not remove him from his current involvement in this and other issues; he has a key position. Like other noble Lords, I seek categoric assurances from him that we will continue to adhere to our support for international law and opposition to the annexation of settlements.
The Arab League has unanimously rejected the Trump proposal. It has stated that there will be no co-operation with any implementation of the plan, which it was expected to fund. However, Israel’s Prime Minister has now said he would reopen a project to build 3,500 homes for settlers in one of the most sensitive areas of the occupied West Bank.
There is talk of realities on the ground, but these must be subject to the rule of law. It is worth thinking about the examples of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which the USSR illegally and unilaterally occupied, then incorporated in 1939. For several decades the reality on the ground was that they were part of the USSR, but international law said otherwise. Britain therefore continued to recognise them as independent, sovereign states, even though they had been forced to become Soviet republics. When the USSR collapsed, these states resumed their independence. Stalin could not unilaterally change international law—nor can Trump.
The international consensus for decades, rooted in international law, is that a proper, workable and sustainable basis for negotiations is a two-state solution, with a shared capital of Jerusalem, based on the 1967 lines. We cannot allow President Trump to rip up a cardinal principle of international law, the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through war. If we turn a blind eye to that, how will Russia interpret this in relation to Crimea, or Turkey in northern Syria, or China in its region?
As my noble friend Lord Oates so brilliantly expressed, it is essential—absolutely vital—that it is recognised that this plan is simply not in Israel’s interests. It would surely mean the end of the two-state solution, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and others have said. A one-state solution has major implications for Israel, which rightly points to its history of democracy. That democracy must be based on equal rights for all its citizens. It is worth thinking through the implications for Israel.
It has become urgent that Palestine should be formally recognised as a state, as others have said. Almost 140 countries have now done that; it is time the United Kingdom did so. In the letter to which noble Lords have referred, 50 former European leaders and Foreign Ministers have expressed serious concerns about the Trump plan. They point out:
“Instead of promoting peace, it risks fuelling the conflict – at the expense of Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike, and with grave implications for … the wider region.”
They urge the international community to
“prevent such a scenario from unfolding”
for the future of the Palestinians, the Israelis and the international rules-based order. The EU has already said:
“Steps towards annexation, if implemented, could not pass unchallenged.”
Now that we have left the EU, what position do we take on this? What will we do? What actions will we take with our allies if the Israeli Government take the opportunity, which they may see as time-limited by November’s US election, and annex the lands that Trump’s son-in-law has offered them? How do the Government prove that we are not in a weakened position, out of the EU and needing a trade deal with the United States? What action will we take if the Israeli Government do not adhere to international law?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important issue. Like many of my noble friends, I have had a long association with Labour Friends of Israel. I am proud of that association and of Israel’s stance on many of the human rights issues we have talked about in this debate.
We have also heard in this debate the long-standing policy of successive British Governments, not just this one, to seek a peace plan for the Middle East based on a viable two-state solution. However, as many noble Lords have said, this plan would give the Palestinians a state only after four years, consisting of just 75% of the West Bank, with fragmented bits of land joined by narrow corridors, plus Gaza linked by a tunnel. In place of East Jerusalem as their capital, they are offered the suburban area of Abu Dis. The plan has nothing in common with the Oslo accords and destroys any prospect of an independent, contiguous Palestinian state. It legitimises the illegal annexation of Palestinian land for settlers and puts the whole of Jerusalem under Israeli control.
As Amir Peretz, leader of the Israeli Labor Party, made clear,
“unilateral annexations or steps that undermine the concept of two states living peacefully side by side is a recipe for further trouble and turmoil.”
Can I ask the Minister whether he or the Foreign Secretary made specific representations to their American counterparts on the idea of an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and tell them what a backward step for peace it would be?
As we have heard, the statement by Josep Borrell Fontelles, the EU high representative, stressed the EU’s continued commitment to a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, in accordance with the international parameters. Mention has been made in the debate of today’s Guardian letter on the plan from prominent European politicians. Does the Minister, like them, agree with the EU that Israeli steps
“towards annexation, if implemented, could not pass unchallenged”,
as they would impair the fundamental international norm banning the acquisition of territory by force? The Minister must make clear from the Dispatch Box today that Britain as a country still abides by all the international laws and UN resolutions which rule that the annexation of Palestinian land and the building of settlements is illegal, and that it must be condemned, not legitimised in the form of this plan. Labor Knesset Member Itzik Shmuli argued that it would not,
“contribute to security, negates the important recognition of the two-state solution, rejects any chance to achieve separation and will bring about the fatal demand for a single state, which contradicts our national and security interests”,
as the noble Baroness just highlighted. Even Benny Gantz, Netanyahu’s main challenger in the election on 2 March, has opposed immediate annexation, and, while welcoming Trump’s proposals, suggested that he would not act in the unilateral manner Netanyahu is proposing, and would work,
“in full co-ordination with the Governments of the US, Jordan, Egypt, others in the region and the Palestinians.”
The then Foreign Office Minister Andrew Murrison, in response to an Urgent Question on 30 January from Emily Thornberry, repeated official policy when he said that the UK wanted
“to see a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as a shared capital and a proper settlement for refugees.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/20; col. 933.]
However, despite these words of comfort, he went on to welcome Trump’s proposals as a possible route towards restarting peace talks, with Prime Minister Johnson arguing that it,
“has the merit of a two-state solution”. —[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/20; col. 770.]
How can they suggest that it will break the deadlock? It beggars belief. To impose something on one of the parties cannot be the basis on which negotiations can begin. Simply adding that they do not endorse the plan’s contents will not change what many will see as a “shameful betrayal”, as Emily Thornberry put it, of previous UK support for a viable two-state solution. As we have heard, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, in rejecting Trump’s proposals declared:
“We say one thousand times ‘No, no, no’ to the deal of the century.”
Murrison’s hopes of a positive response from the Arab nations has also suffered a blow, as we have heard in the debate, with the unanimous rejection of the plan by the Arab League and subsequently the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The Arab League said that Trump’s plan did not satisfy
“the minimum rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.”
Instead, the Arab League reiterated its support for the 2002 peace initiative, as the noble Baroness has high- lighted, which endorsed a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital. Does the Minister accept that any peace plan without Palestinian participation is no peace plan at all? A lasting and sustainable peace will be achieved only through direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians, with compromise and concessions on both sides. This plan clearly fails that test and, far from breaking the dead- lock, will entrench opinions. From this side of the House, we will continue to press for an immediate return to meaningful negotiations leading to a diplomatic resolution.
While there is understandable anger in Palestine over this proposed plan, does the Minister agree with me that this must not and cannot be used as an excuse by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups to launch more indiscriminate attacks against innocent Israeli citizens, and will he join me in condemning anyone who takes such action? If the Minister agrees that the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East is through a two-state solution with a secure and viable state of Israel living alongside a secure, viable and contiguous state of Palestine, then—as many other noble Lords have asked tonight—why will this Government not recognise the state of Palestine?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for tabling this debate and for her ongoing interest in the Middle East peace process. I would also like to thank all noble Lords for their insightful and valuable contributions to what has been a very absorbing debate. We have had moments of birthdays being mentioned. I add my own best wishes to my noble friend Lord Young, who is 88 years young today—he lives up to his name—and who shares a birthday with my daughter. I fear she will be extremely disappointed that Daddy is still at your Lordships’ House. Lady Ahmad will be even more displeased because, at this particular time, I should be at a parent-teacher evening—but such is the challenge of debates that are called in the House.
Leaving my personal challenges aside, we have before us a challenge and an issue that has, again, brought very expert contributions. It would be remiss of me not to look again at the personal insights we got, in particular those of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. I am sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we were truly delighted to hear of the family reunion, which, again, shows the strength of our global links and how, notwithstanding the challenges and the tragedy of the Holocaust—which was poignantly mentioned by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Leigh—there is still hope from the tragedy and genocide that took place because, even now, families can still come together.
The UK’s position on the Middle East peace process is clear and, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has not changed. Our view remains, clearly, that the best way to achieve peace, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, stated, is through substantive peace talks between the parties, leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned, need to be fair, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and with a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees. We had some innovative suggestions on that, including from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I am sure that other noble Lords reflected on the issue of refugees. The noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, also talked about the importance of the humanity that brings communities and faiths together in the Holy Land.
However, we have to acknowledge that progress towards meaningful peace has stalled. I totally align myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that, despite the stalling and despite whatever is on the table, at no time should this be used as an excuse by those who seek to cause further division. Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s actions, particularly those that impact on the security of the State of Israel, have to be condemned, and rightly so.
We should not forget that this is not just an issue of one religion over the other. I never see this in the eyes of religion. Many Arabs, as I have seen myself, live very peacefully and lead very prosperous lives in places such as Haifa in the State of Israel. They are integrated into society and, as my noble friend Lord Leigh reminded us, into political society in Israel.
However, it is true that the issue has stalled. Israelis and Palestinians deserve better. They deserve a durable resolution that brings dignity and security for all. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, Palestinians deserve self-determination and freedom from occupation—a point which was well made and poignantly articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. Israelis equally deserve to live free of terrorist rocket fire and to enjoy fruitful co-operation with their neighbours in the region. As I said, I have seen directly how communities can live together. There should be a vision. If there is a Palestinian state and Jewish communities wish to live there, they should have that right, as Arab citizens do today in the State of Israel.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement on 28 January:
“A peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that leads to peaceful coexistence could unlock the potential of the entire region”.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton, who, as a trade envoy, has sought under challenging circumstances to give hope to people on both sides and the opportunity of a brighter future. The noble Lord, Lord Stone, always provides a sense of hope and optimism. I have seen how Israeli and Arab communities in the West Bank are working together for a common good and common prosperity.
However, this will happen only if the parties can find a path back to negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, and secure a settlement that is acceptable to all. That is why our first priority must be to encourage Israelis, Palestinians and international partners, including the United States, to find a way to reopen the necessary and essential dialogue. There is no other path to peace.
I assure my noble friend Lord Lothian that we work closely with the US on matters involving the Middle East—but this was and is an American plan. We were not involved in its formulation. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others that the US is aware that our position on the Middle East peace process has not changed. As my noble friend Lady Altmann said, the US proposals are now on the table. The UK looks to the Palestinian leadership to offer its own vision for a settlement, and to find a way to re-engage with the negotiation process so that its direct concerns and priorities can also be discussed.
We hope that President Abbas will return to the negotiations. However, as several noble Lords said—my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower made the point well—we must stress upon the Palestinians and President Abbas that negotiations are the way forward. However, if he declined to negotiate, I assure noble Lords that that would not justify unilateral action such as the annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark referred to in his contribution.
Also, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said, the UK is concerned about the reports of possible Israeli moves towards annexation. We believe that any such unilateral moves would be damaging to the renewed efforts to restart peace negotiations and contrary to international law. No changes to the status quo can be made without an agreement negotiated by the parties themselves. Therefore, let me assure the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we made it clear in our statement recently at the UN Security Council on 11 February that we remain committed to our long-standing position on the Middle East peace process and to previous UN Security Council resolutions. We strongly advocate for a two-state solution and for a meaningful return to negotiations, both in public and in private, to all concerned parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked a specific question on the UK’s position on Israeli settlements. That is clear; they are illegal under international law and damaging, we believe, to renewed efforts to launch peace negotiations. We also continue to make clear our view that the only way that we can see proper negotiations is if the leaders of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories can determine whether any proposals might be able to meet the needs and aspirations of the people they represent. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that that remains our position. My noble friend Lady Morris also alluded to this.
In parallel, we will continue our efforts to build the components of a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, including through our continued support, through DfID funding and CSSF programmes. I hope that my noble friend Lord Suri is reassured by that. I particularly listened to his remarks on the importance of the private sector, and I am sure I speak for all noble Lords on the contribution in particular of my noble friend Lord Young, who brought great insight into some of the experience he had directly with Mr Arafat and others. Indeed, notwithstanding the lack of traction, I think that that still provides hope that there can be so much that can be achieved together.
Specific questions were raised by my noble friend Lord Leigh on the issue of Palestinian textbooks. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, also alluded to this, as well as my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Davies of Gower. Let me assure noble Lords that the UK does not fund textbooks in the OPTs, but we are deeply concerned about allegations of incitement to violence in some of the newer textbooks. Indeed, it was following the UK’s call for action—my noble friend Lord Davies asked this specific question—that the EU agreed to lead an independent review of the content in Palestinian textbooks, which is currently under way. We know that the Palestinian Authority is currently revising its textbooks, collecting a range of feedback, and will update them before the start of the new school year in September. In the interim, let me assure my noble friend that we will continue to raise any such concerns about incitement, as we do elsewhere, and the former DfID Secretary of State did so during a meeting with the PA Education Minister earlier in February.
To conclude, Israelis and Palestinians alike deserve peace, stability and opportunity. Meaningful dialogue offers the only path towards those long-overdue goals. That is why we are urging the parties to find a way to reopen the necessary dialogue. We hope that leaders on both sides will give the US peace plan genuine and fair consideration. The reasoning behind that, as articulated by my noble friend Lady Altmann, is that it offers, we believe, a first step on the road back to negotiations. At the same time, we will continue to caution against annexation, which would undermine the basis for a sustainable settlement and, in so doing, strip away hope for future generations of Israelis and Palestinians.
My noble friend Lord Young talked about the potential that exists when countries work together. The noble Lord, Lord Stone, talked about communities working together, as did the noble Lord, Lord Singh, and my noble friend Lady Morris, among others. I end my comments with a quote:
“Peace with the Palestinians will open ports of peace all around the Mediterranean. The duty of leaders is to pursue freedom ceaselessly, even in the face of hostility, in the face of doubt and disappointment. Just imagine what could be.”
Those were the words of a distinguished leader of the State of Israel, a visionary who knew that the pathway to peace, no matter how bleak the outlook, should be a flame that is never extinguished—the words of Shimon Peres.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, I would like to comment on every speech that has been made in this fascinating debate, but noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I shall not. I shall just thank all noble Lords. I still think that the British Government have an overwhelming responsibility in this peace process. We really must accept that, do something about it and give it some muscle this time, before more decades of suffering pass for both the Palestinians and the Israelis. I thank all noble Lords for the debate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Young, gets home while there is still some birthday cake left and that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will through his front door without having it hurled at him. I hope he will wish his daughter a happy birthday from all of us.
Motion agreed.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 24 February be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will want to be aware that earlier this week we also laid an order under Section 3(6) of the Terrorism Act 2000, recognising that System Resistance Network or SRN is an alias of the right-wing terrorist organisation National Action, which was proscribed in the UK in December 2016. That order came into effect on Tuesday. We are clear that these groups should not be able to continue their activities by simply operating under alternative names.
The threat level in the UK, which is set by the Independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at substantial. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is likely and could occur without warning. While we can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, we are determined to do all we can to minimise the threat to the UK and our interests abroad and to disrupt those who would engage in it. Recognising that terrorism is a global threat that is best tackled in partnership, it is also important that we demonstrate our support for other members of the international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism wherever it occurs.
The order before the House today adds Sonnenkrieg Division, otherwise known as SKD, to the list of proscribed terrorist organisations; merges the proscriptions of Kurdistan Workers’ Party, otherwise known as Partiya Karkeren Kurdistani or PKK, and Teyrebazene Azadiye Kurdistan, otherwise known as TAK; and recognises Hezen Parastina Gel, otherwise known as HPG, as an alias of PKK by amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
This is the 24th order under that Act. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt terrorist activities, and it sends a strong message that terrorist activity is not tolerated wherever it happens. Under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. She takes into account a number of factors in considering whether to exercise this discretion. They include the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities, the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
The effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, invite or provide support for, or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation and recklessly to express support for a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing or display articles in public, such as flags, which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, or to publish an image of an article of a proscribed organisation, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances.
Proscription sends a strong message to deter fundraising and recruitment for proscribed organisations. The assets of a proscribed organisation can also become subject to seizure as terrorist assets. Proscription can also support other disruptions of terrorist activity, including, for example, immigration powers that allow individuals linked to a proscribed organisation to be excluded from the UK on account of their presence in the UK not being in the public interest.
Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary exercises the power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation. This includes information taken from both open sources and sensitive intelligence, as well as from careful consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
The cross–government Proscription Review Group supports the Home Secretary in this decision-making process. The Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of each case. Given the impact the power can have, it is appropriate that proscriptions must be approved by both Houses.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that SKD is currently concerned in terrorism and that TAK and HPG are aliases of PKK. As noble Lords will appreciate, I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide a summary of each group’s activities in turn.
This order proscribes SKD, a white supremacist group that was established in March 2018 following a splinter of System Resistance Network, which is an alias of the proscribed group National Action. Members of the group were convicted of encouraging terrorism and possession of documents useful to a terrorist in June 2019. The group has encouraged and glorified acts of terrorism via its social media posts and distributed imagery. This includes an image depicting the Duke of Sussex being shot—as part of its campaign against “race traitors”—following his marriage to the Duchess of Sussex, and home-made propaganda using Nazi imagery calling for attacks on minorities. The images can reasonably be taken as implying that these acts should be emulated and therefore amount to the unlawful glorification of terrorism.
This order also amends the proscription of PKK and TAK to recognise TAK and HPG as aliases of PKK. As I am sure noble Lords will be aware, PKK is primarily a separatist movement that seeks an independent Kurdish state in south-east Turkey. The group was formed in 1978 by Abdullah Öcalan. In 1984 the group launched an armed struggle calling for an independent Kurdish state.
PKK has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the UK since March 2001 and is also listed as a terrorist organisation in more than a dozen other countries, as well by the EU. TAK has also been proscribed in the UK since 2006. However, we now assess that it is an alias of PKK. HPG is also assessed to be an alias of PKK.
The Government keep their response to terrorism under review and it is entirely appropriate that we take all available opportunities to strengthen the UK’s response to both domestic and international threats. Amending the PKK proscription to recognise TAK and HPG as aliases of this organisation is part of that response.
In conclusion, I think it is right that we proscribe SKD—and amend the PKK proscription to recognise TAK and HPG as aliases—on the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Subject to the agreement of this House and the other place, the order will come into force on Friday 28 February.
I beg to move.