House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business of the House
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I welcome Thangam Debbonaire to the Front Bench as shadow Leader of the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
The business of the House will include:
Monday 17 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on safe streets for all.
Tuesday 18 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on affordable and safe housing for all.
Wednesday 19 May—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on a rescue plan for the NHS and social care.
Thursday 20 May—General debate on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
Friday 21 May—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 24 May will include:
Monday 24 May—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday 25 May—Remaining stages of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill.
Wednesday 26 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Environment Bill (day 2).
Thursday 27 May—General debate on dementia action week, followed by general debate on implementing the 2020 obesity strategy.
Both debates were previously recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.
Hon. and right hon. Members will also wish to be reminded that the House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for that, and, in this role, I look forward to working with him and with you, Mr Speaker, especially on making this world heritage site the most accessible it can be, and in particular autism-accessible in tribute to our late colleague, Cheryl Gillan.
The news and images from the middle east this morning are truly horrifying. We join the Government in urging calm. We ask them to do all they can to halt the terrifying attacks and loss of life and to work with allies to help restore a peace process.
My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), has a remarkable work ethic, championing colleagues and staff in this place and showing calmness in a crisis, and I thank her. She is a hard act to follow.
I was also pleased to see in recent elections the high regard that the people of North East Somerset—the Leader of the House’s constituents—have for their previous MP, his predecessor. They voted in large numbers for Labour’s Dan Norris as our metro mayor. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Dan on his successful election as the Mayor of the West of England? Will he support Dan’s call for a better deal for his own constituents from this Government?
I know that the Leader of the House prizes democracy, one of this country’s greatest exports, so will he agree that it does not deserve the treatment it was given in the Queen’s Speech? The Government propose to restrict the right to vote by requiring photo identification, yet a mere 0.000002%—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for that figure—of the votes cast in 2019 were found to be fraudulent. The reason given for this attack on democracy is one conviction, out of more than 47 million votes. Ministers have said that as we have to ID to pick up a package, we should need it for voting, but 3.5 million people do not have photo ID. In any case, these Ministers are clearly not picking up their own parcels, as they would know that many forms of ID without photos are accepted. Will the Leader of the House please explain to his own constituents why they cannot vote by giving their name to a clerk and being counted by a teller, when that is how their own MP votes in this place—in normal times, at least? Will he join me in saluting the respect the British public have for democracy and reconsider the Government’s reckless, expensive and anti-democratic decision?
The Queen’s Speech was astonishing for the lack of understanding of the problems that we had before the pandemic—problems made worse by it—and for the lack of ambition to tackle them. We need urgency and boldness to create those decent, secure jobs, to halt climate change, to build truly affordable homes and to boost productivity.
We also need to know what has happened to the Prime Minister’s much-hyped plan to fix social care. After a truly terrible year in which the need for this plan could not have been any clearer, there is barely a whisper of it in the Queen’s Speech—a paltry nine words. Meanwhile, there have been £8 billion of cuts from social care budgets by successive Tory Governments since 2010, and we have a welfare state for the 2020s built on the life expectancy of the 1940s. It is 659 days since the Prime Minister promised us a plan, but, nearly 10 years after the Dilnot commission published its recommendations, which could be that plan, older people who made this country what it is have had to spend their own hard-earned money on a care system that is urgently in need of such a plan. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to come to this House and explain this dereliction of duty?
The Government fail to appreciate the strength of feeling across Parliament and the country about the cladding and fire safety crisis, exposed so tragically and cruelly by the Grenfell Tower fire. Members of all parties know the struggles of their own constituents. They have repeatedly tried to get the Government to stick to their promise—oft made—that residents would not be made to pay for dangers they did not cause, so will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to lift the burdens from residents in buildings both above and below 18 metres and place those burdens firmly on the industry that caused them? Will the Leader of the House urge him also not to wait until the Building Safety Bill, but to act now and vote with Her Majesty’s Opposition next week on our building safety motion?
Finally, the Leader of the Opposition has, of course, welcomed on our behalf the Government’s announcement of a public inquiry into covid and the Government response, but the Prime Minister needs to heed the cry of bereaved families, who have been calling for this inquiry for over a year and want lessons to be learned urgently, not next year—they want them in time to inform any further waves, which are still, sadly, a risk because of the variants. Will the Leader of the House ask the Government to publish the lessons learned review urgently and to heed the words of survivors and bereaved people?
The covid memorial wall, with its thousands of red hearts facing us across the Thames, bears witness to the loss and pain of the last year. We owe it to those people who died, to their relatives and to the country to make sure that the Government are openly and speedily transparent. They deserve no less, and we in the Opposition will, on their behalf, hold the Government to that.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. We have been neighbours or near neighbours in Somerset and Bristol for some years. I think we started debating together on “Points West”, and now we face each other across the Dispatch Box, and I am sure it will continue to be as friendly but as forceful a debate as we had all those years ago. The hon. Lady is known across the House for her good nature and kindliness but also her clarity of thinking and forcefulness, so I look forward to these sessions as a source of a bit of heat but also some light too.
I want to pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who was an absolute pleasure to work with. Mr Speaker, I am sure that you found the same on the Commission, where she was committed to making things work for the whole House in a bipartisan spirit. She raised every week at the Dispatch Box important issues, particularly relating to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other people held improperly by a regime that does not respect the rights of individuals. Her campaigning was forceful, her questions were usually quite tricky and she was a delight to be a counterparty to.
I feel that the poor old right hon. Lady has become the Admiral Byng of the socialist party. As you may remember, Mr Speaker, Admiral Byng was ultimately disposed of because he was sent out with ships that were not good enough. HQ failed and blundered, but it had to look around and find some scapegoat, and the most senior scapegoat of Hartlepool seems to be the right hon. Lady, which seems a little bit harsh. She is the Admiral Byng memorial former shadow Leader of the House of Commons.
I turn to the important questions that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) asked. Absolutely, trying to restore a peace process is important, and the Government have called on both sides to show restraint; that is of fundamental sense. We hope that peace will be re-established, and we are working with our allies.
Of course I congratulate Dan Norris on being elected as the Mayor of WECA—the West of England Combined Authority—much though I do not think WECA should exist, because I think it is a means of taking money out of North East Somerset and giving it to Bristol, which is not something I have ever been much in favour of, but I wish him well in his new role.
It is important that elections are fair and proper. The hon. Lady mentioned that we do not have to prove who we are when voting in the Division Lobby in normal circumstances, but she is forgetting that we are not allowed to wear overcoats in the Division Lobby, just in case we send somebody through to vote in our place.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Or, indeed, as Mr Speaker helpfully says, hats. Therefore, there are requirements in this place to prevent personation, and surely what is good enough for the House of Commons to prevent personation is right. [Interruption.] Although that was a wonderful heckle, at the moment we are using our identity cards to vote, so the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not right on this occasion; that is a most unusual lapse in his normal attention to the detail of the procedures of the House.
Having photographic identification ensures that a problem does not arise. This country has an electoral system of which people can be proud and in which people have confidence. We must not allow that confidence to slip. We do not want hanging chads and then to deal with it afterwards. We want to stop hanging chads happening before that becomes an issue and personation becomes at risk. It is only reasonable to ask people to turn up with their photographic identification or get it from their local council, so that they can vote. I fear that it is absolutely classic of the socialists—they do not have any confidence in their own voters. We have confidence in our voters, because we think our voters will not find it unduly onerous or taxing to turn up with an identity document of some kind.
As regards the ambition of the Queen’s Speech, it actually delivers on all the things that the hon. Lady seemed to be asking for—there is major planning reform, there are freeports to help boost the economy and COP26 is coming this year. I thought her comments were rather more in favour of the Queen’s Speech than hostile to it. I am grateful for that; I will take what I can in these circumstances.
Social care has been a long-standing issue. The last Labour Government—happily, a long time ago now—had two Green Papers and one royal commission, and still could not come up with any solution, but this Government are committed to coming forward with our solution by the end of this year. That is absolutely clear, and it was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech—the Gracious Speech. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been the most assiduous attender in this House, updating this House on every aspect of his responsibility. He is very good at doing that, and he does it more often than almost any other Secretary of State.
As regards cladding, and of course we come to the anniversary of Grenfell in June, that is a serious issue, and the building safety Bill will deal with it. It is proper to deal with these things in the appropriate legislation. That is what Her Majesty’s Government said as the Fire Safety Bill was going through, and it will be dealt with in the building safety Bill, which will be coming forward shortly. The hon. Lady should wait for the exciting announcements that come from this Dispatch Box.
Finally, as regards the inquiry, it is surely better to do it when the pandemic has come to an end. It is still being dealt with. The vaccine roll-out is an enormous achievement, but it is still being rolled out. An enormous administrative effort is still required to make sure that it is taking place effectively. I think that to distract from the good work that is being done with an inquiry now would be a mistake, but the time will come and it will come relatively soon.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on special educational needs support to not only ensure that we level up equality of opportunity for everyone, but consider the establishment of SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—hubs throughout the country, including in Bury, to provide health, emotional, educational and employment assistance to some of the most vulnerable in our communities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Department for Education has launched a major review of the special educational needs system, which is planned to be published before the summer of 2021. Based on discussions with children, young people, families and partners across education and healthcare, it will consult on proposals to deliver a system that is clearly focused on preparing for fulfilled adulthood through every stage, and to identify and address issues earlier within mainstream education. The Government believe these measures will not only improve children’s and young people’s outcomes and put them and their families at the heart of the SEND system, but deliver a SEND system fit for the future, with high-quality support delivered affordably and sustainably for the long term. I am glad to say that my hon. Friend is going to be speaking in the Queen’s Speech debate later, so I hope he will raise this issue further then.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Can I also welcome the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) to her place? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—remember the Perthshire One—will also be very much looking forward to working with her. I would add my own tributes to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). She was certainly a great support to me as I stood in in this role—and I continue to stand in in this role—over the past weeks. Obviously, my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire is very keen to make a return to this role, but we shall have to hold our anticipation for a little longer until we can see that happening.
I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will want to join me in congratulating the new Scottish Government on a record-breaking election success in last week’s Scottish Parliament elections—more votes than any other party in the history of devolution—and it is certainly great to see them returned in such great numbers. From a personal point of view, I note that the Members for Midlothian North and Musselburgh, Colin Beattie, and for Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, Christine Grahame, both returned with an increased vote share and increased majorities.
I share the concerns of other Members about the ongoing situation in Israel and Palestine. I think that is of great concern to us all. Would the Leader of the House perhaps make time available for the Secretary of State for International Trade to give a statement to the House on the impact of arms export licences and how this has such an impact on conflicts around the globe?
Over recent weeks, I have often raised the issues of openness and transparency. We still see these issues ongoing and allegations still do not go away. Investigations are now ongoing, but concern still remains that the Prime Minister can let himself off the hook on any conclusions the adviser on ministerial interests might come to, just as happened with the Home Secretary previously. Surely this is evidence that the enforcement of the ministerial code is not nearly strong enough. In the words of Transparency International, the
“guiding principles alone are not sufficient when it comes to guaranteeing integrity in public office.”
So can we have a statement from the Minister for the Cabinet Office on strengthening the code, perhaps even by making it by law?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, of course we miss the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but the hon. Gentleman is an excellent stand-in and, as I understand it, he is standing in in almost every role within the Scottish National party at the moment; I wonder whether he might have to take over as First Minister in due course and be seconded. Of course I congratulate the First Minister and the SNP on their election success, and Her Majesty’s Government look forward to working very closely with all the devolved Administrations in a spirit of good will and cohesiveness. I am delighted that the First Minister has decided to join the United Kingdom Government in the inquiry into covid, showing the strength of the United Kingdom. I am beginning to hope—although this may be excessive hope—that there is the prospect of one sinner repenting, which would give great joy to the others who do not need to, as the First Minister becomes more Unionist in her outlook.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the question of arms export licences. They are extremely carefully controlled and Her Majesty’s Government work closely with our allies to ensure that we sell arms only to those countries with which we have the closest relationship, as of course we do with the state of Israel.
On openness and transparency, the great openness is a majority of 80. The Prime Minister has the mandate from the British people. The ministerial code is the Prime Minister’s code. It would be a ridiculous state of affairs to think that the will of the British people could in some bureaucratic way be superseded. It cannot be; the Prime Minister has the support of the British people, shown again last week in an enormously successful vote. So while I am congratulating the SNP and the Mayor of WECA, let me also congratulate our own Prime Minister on being able to connect with the British people in a way that few other politicians have ever achieved.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The residents of the Carsic estate in Ashfield are fed up with a handful of local idiots who are the source of the vast majority of antisocial behaviour and this is happening all over the country. The majority of these nuisances are social housing tenants who show no respect to the vast majority of decent, hard-working tenants who are being let down by a system that makes it very difficult to evict nuisance tenants. Would my right hon. Friend welcome a debate in this House to discuss how we can give our police, our councils and our courts greater powers to allow decent people, like the decent people of Carsic, the right to a peaceful life?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question because I think all of us as constituency MPs deal with this issue. Some social landlords, such as Curo, are very good and responsive. Others, and I have found in my experience the Guinness trust, are very much less responsive in helping. Social landlords are required by the Regulator of Social Housing to work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour in the neighbourhoods where they own homes. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides the police, local authorities and other local agencies with a range of tools and powers that they can use to respond quickly and effectively to antisocial behaviour, and these include civil injunctions that can impose restrictions or positive requirements on individuals whose behaviour is causing or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this in the Chamber of the House, because sometimes the best way to get action is by putting pressure on, as the Member of Parliament, to get the various agencies to work together.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
The planning Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech will ring loud alarm bells for many residents in my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, not least those in Sydenham, Whitnash and Bishop’s Tachbrook, given that it would allow applications to automatically gain approval in certain areas, stripping residents of their right to have a say. For those in Sydenham, the news this week that the council planning committee has recommended approval of the application for 500 homes in east Whitnash will come as a shock, given that it was turned down previously and that the planning inspector recommended that it should not be built due to the limited capacity of the Sydenham road network. The site is, after all, a cul-de-sac at the end of a cul-de-sac on a cul-de-sac on a cul-de-sac; the roads cannot cope. Will the Leader of the House grant me a debate on the proposed development, which is totally unnecessary, as concluded by independent Office for National Statistics data?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman’s constituency issue is ideally suited for an Adjournment debate, but the planning Bill is essential. Her Majesty’s Government believe in helping people to own their own home. This is about home ownership and having a planning system that actually makes it easier for people to own their own homes and to build the houses that people need—something that we have been failing to do over many years, based on a system established in the late 1940s that thought that central Government always knew best. Central Government do not always know best. There is a significant demand out there. The supply needs to meet that demand, and we need to strengthen and reinvigorate our home-owning democracy.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the numbers allowed at life events such as weddings and funerals in the road map out of lockdown? While I welcome the Government’s research programme, which saw an audience of 4,000 people at the O2 earlier this week for the Brit awards—I used to be invited when I was younger—many constituents are frustrated that they are having to wait until 21 June to have more than 30 friends and family at their wedding. Following the success of our vaccination programme, I do hope that that guidance can be reviewed.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am sure they are. My hon. Friend’s words are heard across the nation. They reverberate around the land. They go out from this great hall to be heard in every corner of the United Kingdom.
I am glad to say that this week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed a further easing of restrictions from 17 May, as the latest data confirm the four tests have been met. That includes weddings, receptions and other life events taking place with up to 30 people and, I think importantly—I think this was the right priority—increasing the cap on the numbers attending funerals in line with how many people can be safely accommodated in venues. It is crucial that we push on with our vaccination programme, and that people follow the rules and take advantage of lateral flow tests, so that we can make this road map to freedom a one-way road.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
Last month in my constituency, a 17-year-old boy, Levi Ernest-Morrison, was stabbed to death metres from his front door. Despite the Government saying they are committed to a public health approach to youth violence, over the last 10 years, we have seen youth centres and Sure Start centres closed, and education and children’s mental health budgets slashed. Can we please have a debate, in Government time, about tackling youth violence once and for all?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There has clearly been a problem with rising levels of crime in London. The Government are committed to doing everything they can to tackle that, partly through the employment of more police, with over 6,000 more police officers already recruited and a target for 20,000 more, and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is currently before this House. It is really important that, across all parties, we support the efforts that are being made to back up the police and to have more police. I feel so sorry for the families affected. The hon. Lady, I am sure, is giving support to her constituent at this very sad time.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I was delighted to see former Labour leader Tony Blair show that he is concerned, as I am, with the woke left wanting to cancel anyone who disagrees with them. I am delighted that the Government are coming forward with legislation to protect freedom of speech at universities, but Dudley does not have a university, so does my right hon. Friend agree that that legislation should also be applicable to colleges, online, and to other areas of our lives?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to raise his concerns about the charge of the woke brigade, though I seem to remember that the charge of the Light Brigade was ultimately not an enormously successful venture. I think the charge of the woke brigade will be similarly thwarted in the end.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, which was announced in the Queen’s Speech, will protect the fundamental principle of freedom of speech by strengthening existing freedoms of speech and addressing gaps in the current framework. There must be consequences for breaches of freedom of speech duties, and these legislative changes will ensure the significance and compliance that freedom of speech deserves.
This issue is of fundamental importance. If our places of education are not bastions of freedom of speech, what purpose do they serve? The whole point of a university is the clash of ideas, as we have a clash of ideas back and forth in this House. Freedom of speech in this House is protected by the Bill of Rights. We should protect, encourage and enhance freedom of speech across the land.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
The Scottish Parliament has extended the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and most recently to all new Scots with leave to remain and refugee status. Last Thursday saw a record turnout, which was a victory for democracy as well as for the Scottish National party. The Leader of the House says that his voters might be able to afford ID, but many across the country will not, so can we have an urgent statement on exactly why the UK Government are seeking to suppress and restrict electoral participation with their offensive, unevidenced and exclusionary voter ID rules?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady may want to consult Hansard because I pointed out that councils will make ID available for free to people who do not have suitable identification documents, and I believe 98% of people already do. The franchise will be extended in the Bill that we bring forward to ensure that people living overseas do not lose their votes after 15 years, so I hope that she will support that further extension of democracy.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
I speak as the chairman of the all-party group on 22q11 syndrome, which is a genetic disorder best described as the most common syndrome not heard of unless you have it, with many children having, among other things, learning difficulties. With that in mind, I believe that for many children who require specialist education support, such as those with 22q, the educational catch-up from covid-19 may not be as straightforward as for those without. Our recovery from covid-19 must be as equal as possible for all, so may we have a debate in Government time to raise awareness of the lesser known but equally prevalent genetic disorders, such as 22q, and the impact that covid-19 has had on learning and educational recovery post-pandemic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking over the all-party group that looks at these issues? The point she raises is one of great importance. We must value everybody in our society equally—that must be a fundamental principle of how the society of the United Kingdom works—and, therefore, support those with special educational needs and disabilities and help them to make up for time lost during the pandemic. Sir Kevan Collins has been appointed as the education recovery commissioner and is considering how schools and the system can more effectively target resources and support the pupils in the greatest need. Special schools and alternative provision will be available to access funding to provide summer schools and the national tutoring programme. We have also prioritised children who attend specialist settings by providing additional uplift both in the 2020 catch-up premium and in the 2021 recovery premium. It so happens that today’s Queen’s Speech debate on a brighter future for the next generation is an opportunity to raise this matter further.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I send my congratulations to Pam Duncan-Glancy, the first permanent wheelchair user elected to the Scottish Parliament, but not all wheelchair users in public office have a good story to tell. Harriet Clough, the second wheelchair-using councillor ever elected to Bristol City Council could not stand this time because of the closure of the EnAble fund—a temporary fund designed to cover the cost for reasonable adjustments for candidates with a disability. Does the Leader of the House agree that having a disability should never stand in the way of running for public office, and will he outline when the Government will bring forward a permanent fund as a first step towards removing barriers for candidates with a disability?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is absolutely right that people with disabilities should face no barrier to engaging in public life. They should be helped, supported and encouraged, but in the selection of candidates, the primary responsibility is with political parties.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
A recent report, which included input from the Department for Transport, looked at the rail services in and around Manchester and suggested that one option should be a change in the pattern of services on the Hope Valley line, which includes services between Cleethorpes and Manchester airport, which is regarded as absolutely essential as it provides connections to the rest of the network. Concerns have also been expressed by Sheffield Members. Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Rail Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)— to come to the House and make a statement to reassure Members and passengers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend, as always, is a great champion for his constituency. I can assure him that the Government take the matter seriously. We are set to spend £137 million of taxpayers’ money to deliver more capacity and improve connectivity between Sheffield and Manchester. The Hope valley capacity scheme is designed to remove bottlenecks on the line by creating places for fast passenger services to overtake slower-moving freight trains, allowing more trains to run and increasing the reliability of services. When it is finished, I think that the Hope valley line should be renamed the Martin Vickers line, as a proper tribute to my hon. Friend for all he does for his constituents.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Many of my constituents tell me that they are finding it difficult to get face-to-face appointments with GPs. While I appreciate that telephone and video consultations will remain a factor, will my right hon. Friend give a statement to the House to say that face-to-face appointments should be available within a reasonable timeframe if they are needed?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The question is obviously important, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. General practice is open and has been throughout the pandemic, and people should be able to receive services in the way that is most suitable for them. The way in which people can get general practice services during covid-19 has changed; practices are offering more triage and remote consultations —video and online—to see as many patients as possible, while protecting staff and patients from the avoidable risk of infection. NHS England and NHS Improvement have issued guidance on the importance of continuing to offer face-to-face appointments, utilising remote triage and making use of online and telephone consultations where suitable.
General practice appointment levels are, I am glad to say, now close to pre-pandemic numbers. In February 2021, an estimated 23.5 million appointments—an average of 1.19 million per working day—were booked in general practice in England, of which 13 million were face-to-face, which is 55.3%. People who need face-to-face appointments ought to be able to get them.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
If we are congratulating people, could we congratulate Buffy Williams on winning her seat in the Senedd for the Rhondda last week? At the same time, could we also pay tribute to Leanne Wood? She was a Plaid Cymru Assembly and then Senedd Member for 18 years, which shows phenomenal dedication. We should pay tribute to those who are our opponents, not our enemies.
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he attended the Brit awards the other night, or watched them perhaps—or whether he knows what the Brit awards are? In particular, did he listen to Dua Lipa’s very important contribution about our health workers in this country? She said:
“It’s very good to clap for them, but we need to pay them.”
I say that because it is not just the people who have been doing the vaccinating and those who have kept us safe over the past 15 months, but the people who will have to get the NHS back into shape to deal with all the other conditions that could not be dealt with for the past year. We need to give them a boost in the arm—and that is money, isn’t it? Can we have a debate on it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Buffy Williams on her victory in the Rhondda? He is most gracious in paying tribute to Leanne Wood; he is right to do so, because 18 years of public service is a long time and losing elections is never fun, even for our political opponents. It is worth recognising that.
Unfortunately, I did not pay much attention to the British awards.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am not as trendy, fashionable or à la mode as the hon. Gentleman—if only we could all be such models of modernity as he is. To come to his fundamental point, nurses will receive a 1% pay rise and have received some additional funding as well, but we must recognise that the public finances are under great strain after the hundreds of billions—over £400 billion—that have been spent to protect the economy and deal with covid. There are constraints on what can be spent, but there is an independent review. The Government’s proposal has been made, and we will see what the review says.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The Spode works in Stoke-on-Trent Central is a complex and exciting regeneration project where new creative businesses are breathing life back into a much-loved historic site, bringing new cultural recovery to a historically underfunded area. Will my right hon. Friend make parliamentary time to discuss the impact that small businesses in the cultural sector will have on reviving towns and cities post pandemic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern. It is a top priority that small businesses are the engine of our recovery. They are as much a part of our cultural heritage, especially in industrial cities such as Stoke, as any museum or concert hall. We have to date spent over £1.2 billion in financial support to more than 5,000 individual organisations and sites both large and small across the United Kingdom, including, I am glad to say, the Spode Museum Trust. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer also announced in the 2021 Budget an additional £300 million of taxpayers’ money to support theatres, museums and other cultural organisations in England through the cultural recovery fund, together with other cultural support, such as funding for our national museums. This means that the total tax- payer package for culture during the pandemic is now approaching £2 billion, which is really an unprecedented sum.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Over recent weeks, many constituents have contacted me with huge concern about the removal of hedgerows at the start of a housing development, in what most of us think of as the close season for cutting or removing hedgerows. I have looked into the individual incident, but my constituents and I would like to see further protection of our hedgerows and wildlife in the context of development, so can we have a debate in Government time on how we can strengthen that protection for our hedgerows, birds and wildlife?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think that the hon. Lady is really calling for the agricultural reforms that are being put forward to ensure support for farmers who support the environment. Certainly, talking to farmers in North East Somerset, I know that they are well aware of their obligations to protect hedgerows, but this is not an obligation that they resent. They feel it is a natural part of their farming duty.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I am afraid that Parliament is not working. It is not properly holding the Government to account. It strikes me that Parliament should lead, so could we have a statement from the Leader of the House telling us when Parliament, and particularly the House of Commons, is going to be restored to its normal process? When will we end virtual proceedings, so that we can have proper voting and not have hundreds of votes in the Deputy Chief Whip’s pocket, and when will we end social distancing in the Chamber? We really need to lead and get Parliament back doing its job properly.
Mr Rees-Mogg
A voice cryeth in the wilderness! I am tempted to say, “Physician, heal thyself.” Where is my hon. Friend? Why is he not in this Chamber holding me to account and leading by the example he wants? I entirely agree with him. I am waiting with joy for that day when we are back to normal, which I hope will be 21 June, when everybody will be back here and it will be safe, and we will not have to wear masks and the Dispatch Box will not be covered in perspex, and we will be back to a full and flourishing Chamber. I agree with my hon. Friend that scrutiny is good for the nation, good for the Government and good for our constituents, but I would encourage him to come to London, come to Westminster, and take his seat.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
On this holy day of Eid, a day of salvation for Muslims across the world, many including in my own constituency are watching with horror as an abhorrent humanitarian crisis escalates against the Palestinian people in that region. It may well be an uncomfortable truth for the UK Government that they have fuelled, and continue to fuel, deadly conflicts such as the one we are seeing in Gaza through the reckless sale of arms to right-wing coalition Governments, but it is a truth none the less. Given the continued intransigence of this UK Government and their willingness to turn a blind eye, will the Leader of the House allow a full and frank debate on such matters, and allow us, the Members of this House, the opportunity to work to stop such atrocities being committed at the hands of our perceived allies?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned Eid, and this is an opportunity to wish people a joyous Eid. It is also, of course, the feast of the Ascension, so it is an important religious day for many communities. I mentioned earlier the issue of the sale of arms, which is covered very carefully by regulations that ensure that arms are sold only to regimes that we have close relationships with, that are our key allies, and that behave in a humane and proper way. The Government have called for restraint on both sides and pointed out that the killing of unarmed civilians is always wrong in the conflict that is currently going on, but Israel is a very important ally to the United Kingdom.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
In the past two weeks, in my constituency, there have been four attempted abductions of children. This is causing huge alarm among families, and of course I am shocked by it. The police have increased their patrols in the areas where this has happened, but may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would be possible for us to have a debate about how we can alert the public and highlight the fact that each one of us should help the police by being their eyes and ears, in order to try to prevent further abductions of children? Thankfully, these people did not succeed, but there is a real worry here and we should highlight this to the general public.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is doing so very effectively. It is deeply troubling that what he reports is going on. I reiterate that the Government are recruiting more police, with 6,620 so far. It was Sir Robert Peel who said, “We are the police and the police are us.” In his call for us to support the police, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right; we are a society that is policed with civilians, not by a military, and therefore everything we can do to support the police in their difficult task is worth doing. I am glad to hear that there are more patrols in response to the worrying circumstances that he reports to the House.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
The Leader of the House said earlier that he does not think the West of England Combined Authority should exist because it unduly benefits Bristol, but Bristol is not getting the support it needs for Temple Quarter regeneration, for example, or for improving transport infrastructure, such as the A4, which many of his constituents use to drive through my constituency and into Bristol city centre. May we have a statement on what the Government’s levelling up agenda means for the West of England? To me and to many of the people who voted for Dan Norris last week it looks very much as though we have been written off.
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is a socialist Mayor of Bristol and a socialist Mayor of WECA, and they have responsibility for a lot of these development areas. Levelling up is something for the whole country, as I know very well in my own constituency. I am very much looking forward to things such as the introduction of the lifelong learning loan, which will help people who may have been left behind in education previously and who will be able to get a second chance. Levelling up is for everybody, but I fear it is true that money leaks out of North East Somerset into Bristol under WECA, and that is not something I am broadly in favour of.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) [V]
I believe I represent the largest population from St Vincent and the Grenadines outside the islands. In the aftermath of the eruption of the volcano La Soufrière, I of course share my constituents’ acute concerns for their family, friends and property. May we please have an oral statement on the situation on the islands and the British Government’s response?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents and is right to bring this important issue to the attention of the House. I assure him that Her Majesty’s Government are monitoring the situation in St Vincent and the Grenadines closely, and our thoughts are very much with those affected by the eruption. The Minister of State for South Asia and the Commonwealth, Lord Ahmad, spoke to the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines and his high commissioner to the UK on 14 April. They discussed initial and continuing UK support for the recovery following the volcanic eruption. Our resident British commissioner in St Vincent and the Grenadines has also been in contact with the Prime Minister and other officials there. I encourage my hon. Friend, in the first instance, to apply for an Adjournment debate, so that this matter may be aired more fully.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I support the Government’s work to do all they can to stop any variants of the virus coming into the UK, but may I raise an issue with the Leader of the House relating to the support that disabled constituents receive when they have to quarantine? My constituent Mr Davies raised with the hotel staff the fact that he would need additional support, but he received none during his 10-day quarantine. His wife was not able to support him. This situation led to several visits from paramedics to offer additional medical support. He did not receive the right type of food and his care during the 10 days was truly shocking.
I understand that the Health Secretary made a statement on 5 May to qualify the exemption process for constituents with disabilities, but the system is not working. It is almost impossible to gain the exemptions from Ministers in time for constituents who may then not have to quarantine or could quarantine at home. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister of State or the Health Secretary to make a statement to set out how the exemption system works, so that Members can do their jobs in supporting disabled constituents and so that, crucially, if a disabled constituent does have to quarantine, the hotel staff are aware of their needs?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises a constituency case of great importance, and I am very sorry to hear about what happened to Mr Davies. I will take up the issue with the Secretary of State for Health immediately after this session, because, clearly, disabled people who do need additional support ought to receive it.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
One of the recurring themes that emerged when I was back out on the doorsteps in Warrington during the local election campaign was the level of antisocial behaviour being inflicted on some of my constituents. Police often refer to it as “low-level” antisocial behaviour, but people who suffer it experience really high levels of annoyance. Can we have a debate in Government time on the value of community policing and the importance of freeing up police officers from unnecessary paperwork, so that they can get out on the streets and deal with antisocial behaviour?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, although I was concerned by the fact that he said that antisocial behaviour rose once he got back on the streets—I am sure that the two were not directly connected. None the less, it is remarkable how unpleasant and fretful low-level antisocial behaviour is for constituents, particularly for elderly constituents. I am sure that adding 20,000 police officers will help, but community policing is of fundamental importance. I have often found in my own constituency that a quiet word from a police community support officer can nip this type of antisocial behaviour in the bud. We all have to work with our police forces across the country to encourage them in the right direction and to get back to “Dixon of Dock Green” policing, which I think does stop low-level criminality.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Retail workers have been covid heroes, but this pandemic has exacerbated the already growing levels of violence and abuse that they face at work. This is, of course, unacceptable, and Parliament has an obligation to act in this Session to protect them. Will the Leader of the House facilitate that by giving over Government time for a debate on this crucial matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter again. Concern about crime affecting retail workers is shared across the House. He pays tribute to the retail workers who stayed at work throughout the pandemic—the service that they gave to the nation was second to none. Like NHS workers, they made huge sacrifices and took risks—initially, they were unaware of the level of risk that they were taking—to ensure that the rest of us could have access to essential supplies. When it comes to time for debate, it is rather easy for me this week. The Queen’s Speech debate is going on, and that is an opportunity of several days’ length for people to raise any and all issues that they think are important. This is definitely an important issue.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
As the MP for North Devon, I am proud to represent some of the best beaches in the country, and I have pledged 10 hours of my time to join volunteers in cleaning them up during Keep Britain Tidy’s great British spring clean. Microplastics and nurdles are too small to be picked up by our wonderful volunteers, but they still cause great harm to nature and are finding their way into our food chain. Will my right hon. Friend consider allocating Government time to discussing how we can fix that problem at source, perhaps with new legislation in the Government’s Environment Bill?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It is obviously important to protect the marine environment from litter and it is one of the Government’s priorities, which is why we introduced our robust ban on microbeads in rinse-off personal care products in 2018, preventing billions of tiny pieces of harmful plastic from entering the ocean.
My hon. Friend is fantastic in her war against litter. I say to her that we will fight litter on the beaches; we will fight litter on the landing grounds; we will fight litter in the fields and in the hills; we will never surrender to litter.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
The loss of a baby at any stage of pregnancy can be an extremely traumatic experience for parents. However, if a baby is stillborn before the end of the 24th week, it is treated as a miscarriage, and, under current rules, bereaved parents receive no formal support or paid leave from their employment. Does the Leader of the House agree that we must do more to support families suffering baby loss, and will he agree to have a debate in Government time on providing paid leave to those who experience miscarriage?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have the greatest sympathy for the issue that the hon. Lady raises. The loss of a baby is such a terrible and traumatic blow for families who are looking forward to bringing a new life into the world, and they deserve all possible support. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but there is cross-party support for ensuring that people who suffer in this way receive help and assistance. Her point is very well made. Perhaps an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate would find a lot of support from other Members.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Harrow Council spent £250,000 putting in dangerous cycle lanes and a series of deeply unpopular low-traffic neighbourhoods. It is now spending £85,000 to remove them, after the public outcry. In addition, it proposed to sell off the very popular Belmont community centre to be redeveloped for flats. Then, of course, after the public outcry, it made a screeching U-turn and claimed to have saved the Belmont community centre for the public. Could we have a debate in Government time on the waste of money that takes place in certain places in local government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The council would seem to be rather remarkable in its skills if it was able to do a screeching U-turn in the midst of all those cycle lanes. The waste of taxpayers’ money is scandalous. We have to hold socialist councils to account when they waste public funds doing things that do not work and waging war on the motorist. We all know that it is only the Conservatives who back the motorist. The socialists and the Liberal Democrats—if there are any left—do not like the motorist and do everything they can to make the motorist’s life more difficult, whereas we aim to make it easier with a huge road-building plan that will make motoring the pleasure that it has always historically been.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
The Dunston staiths are a large timber structure on the south bank of the River Tyne in Gateshead that were used to load coal on to ships for transport to London and the south of England. The staiths were extensively renovated for their use in Gateshead’s garden festival in 1990, and they are an important symbol of our industrial heritage and a monument to the coal industry. At over 600 metres long, they are also a feat of engineering and construction in themselves.
Sadly, in recent years the staiths have been subject to several very damaging arson attacks, and the Tyne & Wear Building Preservation Trust simply does not have the resources to repair them properly. Could we have a debate about sustaining our industrial heritage, and would the Leader of the House please assist me in securing a meeting with a Minister from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to explore a solution to our ongoing repair and maintenance problems on one of the country’s most important industrial heritage landmarks?
Mr Rees-Mogg
What the hon. Gentleman asks for is something of importance, because our industrial heritage is important to the nation as a whole. May I commend him on his diffidence? I have brought forward in my name, on behalf of the recommendations made by the Backbench Business Committee, two debates on 27 May, and the hon. Gentleman did not lobby, prod or push to have a debate on his pet subject. I think that shows considerable restraint and honourability—as, of course, all hon. Members show at all times.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
The Leader of the House knows that the road map is going along slowly but steadily, and that restrictions are being removed. In fact the nightclubs will be open in the foreseeable future, and I look forward to attending with him.
In the House of Commons we are supposed to be leaders. But we are not leaders—if we look at the House today, we can see how few people are sitting in the Chamber, because they cannot. I am at home today because I had to come home for a personal reason. I have been in the Chamber all week, and I will be there next week. Also, six people can be entertained outside, in the fresh air, in most places in the country, but not in the House of Commons—only two people. Next week, six people will be able to enjoy hospitality inside, but not in the House of Commons—only four people, I understand, in the Dining Room; I do not know how many in the Tea Room or in any other rooms. Why are we so far behind the rest of the country, when it is legal to meet people in groups of six outside this week and inside next week, but we do not do it? When will we be up with the rest of the people of England—when will we be the same?
Mr Speaker
May I say, to help the Leader of the House, that there is a meeting on Monday? We will be looking at the road map; everything is being reviewed. Now, to say that these things are not going to happen— I would not want to disappoint the hon. Lady, and I think she ought to wait till Monday and let us see what we come up with. We are exactly in line with Public Health England advice and the way the rest of the country is looking.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady may shake her head, but the reality is that if she waits till Monday she may well be happy and surprised, and I am sure that is what we would all wish for her.
Mr Rees-Mogg
These are really matters for the Commission and its spokesman to answer. The issues that affect the Leader of the House are the bringing forward of motions, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the motions fall away on 21 June, at which point we will be back to normal. But I would say to her what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—that there are seats here, and that if people want to lead by example, the example is on the seats here.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Ballymurphy Inquest Findings
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the findings of the Ballymurphy inquest. I want to put on the record the Government’s acknowledgment of the terrible hurt that has been caused to the families of Francis Quinn, Father Hugh Mullan, Noel Phillips, Joan Connolly, Daniel Teggart, Joseph Murphy, Edward Doherty, John Laverty, Joseph Corr and John McKerr.
I also want to pay tribute to the great patience with which the families have conducted themselves during their determined campaign, which has lasted almost 50 years. The Prime Minister is writing personally to the families, having yesterday expressed his deep regret to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and apologised unreservedly on behalf of the state.
The findings of the coroner are clear: those who died were entirely innocent of wrongdoing. The events at Ballymurphy should never have happened. The families of those who were killed should never have had to experience the grief and trauma of that loss. They should not have had to wait nearly five decades for the judgment this week, nor should they have been compelled to relive that terrible time in August 1971 again and again in their long and distressing quest for truth.
Over the course of the troubles, more than 3,500 people were killed, and tens of thousands injured, with families torn apart forever. The majority of those killed were innocent civilians, such as those on the streets of Ballymurphy.
The vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland did so with great dignity and professionalism, but it is clear that in some cases the security forces and the Army made terrible errors too. The duty of the state is to hold itself to the highest standards at all times. When we fail to meet these high standards, we must recognise the hurt and agony caused.
There is no doubt that what happened in Ballymurphy in those awful few days also fuelled further violence and escalation, particularly in the early years of the troubles. The Government profoundly regret and are truly sorry for these events, for how investigations after these terrible events were handled, and for the additional pain that the families have had to endure in their fight to clear the names of their loved ones since they began their campaign almost five decades ago.
In order to make lasting change, actions are required as well. The Belfast Good Friday agreement was the defining action that allowed Northern Ireland to begin to move away from violence, but the events of the past continue to cast a long shadow, as we have seen. Those who were killed or injured during the troubles came from all communities, and they included many members of the security forces and armed forces. Immense and difficult compromises have since been made on all sides, including the early release of prisoners, which was so difficult for many people to accept.
To a very large extent, Northern Ireland has moved away from violence, so we stand by those compromises and the progress made towards a more peaceful society. Yet the desire of the families of victims to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones is strong, legitimate and right. The campaign for justice in Ballymurphy has reminded us all of that—if we needed to be reminded at all.
Twenty-three years after the signing of the Belfast Good Friday agreement, thousands of murders remain unresolved and many families still yearn for answers. With each passing year, the integrity of evidence and the prospects of prosecution diminish, and the Government are not shrinking away from those challenges. We are determined to address them in a way that reflects the time that has passed, the complexity of Northern Ireland’s troubled history and the reality of the compromises that have already been made. But above all, we are determined to address them in a way that enables victims and survivors to get to the truth that they deserve. We must never ignore or dismiss the past; learning what we can, we must find a way to move beyond it. The coroner’s findings this week are part of that often very painful process.
The Government want to deliver a way forward in addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland; one that will allow all individuals or families who want information to seek and receive answers about what happened during the troubles, with far less delay and distress. We want a path forward that will also pave the way for wider societal reconciliation for all communities, allowing all the people of Northern Ireland to focus on building a shared, stable, peaceful and prosperous future. I commend this statement to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
As the Secretary of State has outlined, in five separate shootings across three days in August 1971 in the Ballymurphy estate in west Belfast, 10 innocent civilians were short dead, nine by the armed forces, with evidence unable conclusively to determine in the tenth case. Among them were a priest, a mother of eight and a former soldier who had fought and was injured in world war two. Fifty-seven children were left without a parent—their lives for ever changed. Yet the trauma of the murders was undoubtedly compounded by what followed: families prevented from finding comfort by lies told about their loved ones that have haunted them down the decades, and a fight for the truth hampered by entirely inadequate investigations and wholly unjustifiable obstacles. Who cannot be struck by the dignity and tenacity of those families who, in the face of those obstacles, have fought for the truth and finally, this week, have been vindicated?
The conclusions of Justice Keegan are clear and irrefutable: those who lost their lives were posing no threat; their deaths were without justification. They were Francis Quinn, Father Hugh Mullan, Noel Phillips, Joan Connolly, Daniel Teggart, Joseph Murphy, Eddie Doherty, John Laverty, Joseph Corr and John McKerr. An eleventh man, Paddy McCarthy, a youth worker, died from a heart attack. That families have had to wait for so long to clear their name is a profound failure of justice and one we must learn from, because, as the Secretary of State said, many more families are still fighting for answers. They include Cathy McCann, who in 1990 was the sole survivor of a Provisional IRA bomb in Armagh in which a nun and three policemen were killed. Twenty-one years earlier, her father had been killed by the auxiliary police force, the B Specials.
This ongoing failure to find the truth is an open wound that ties Northern Ireland perpetually to the past. Burying the truth and refusing to prosecute or investigate crimes has not worked in the 23 years since the signing of the Belfast Good Friday agreement, so how can anyone in this House look victims like Cathy in the eye and tell her she must move on? The Government gave victims such as Cathy McCann their word. Through the Stormont House agreement, they promised to establish a comprehensive system to look at all outstanding legacy cases through effective investigations and a process that would, where possible, deliver the truth and the prospect of justice. Yet last Wednesday night, victims found out on Twitter that the Government intend to tear up that plan and provide an effective amnesty to those who took lives. The statement today brings us no closer to understanding the Government’s policy to deal with the legacy of the past.
The lessons of the past are clear: addressing the legacy through the unilateral imposition of an amnesty from Westminster, without the faintest hint of consultation with victims or the support of communities or any political party in Northern Ireland or the Irish Government, would be impossible to deliver. It would make reconciliation harder, and it would not achieve what the Government claim they want. Any process that remains open to legal challenge will invite test cases and bring more veterans back through the courts.
I will finish with a comment on the Prime Minister’s actions—or lack of them—over the past two days. In the aftermath of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, David Cameron came to this House and apologised in a statement. He did not brief apologies from disputed calls with politicians. He took full responsibility. Where is the Prime Minister today, and why has he not publicly apologised to the Ballymurphy families and to this House? Will he take responsibility as Prime Minister and show the victims the respect they so obviously deserve? Victims like those who lost loved ones at Ballymurphy have been let down for far too long. Ministers should bear in mind the words of one victim I spoke with yesterday, as they worked through the next steps of legacy:
“I just want to know what happened. I want to know my dad’s life meant something. I just want the truth.”
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady and I are overwhelmingly united in our thoughts for the Ballymurphy families and for all families who have suffered so much, and so unnecessarily, during and since the troubles. I believe we are also united in our determination to do what we can to put a stop to this suffering and to ensure that people get the information and get to the truth.
My apology and the Prime Minister’s apology yesterday to the Ballymurphy families cannot change what they have endured, but I can promise that it will be followed by action to prevent others from all communities who have lost loved ones or been injured, whether civilians, paramilitaries or soldiers, from continuing to go through the same lengthy and traumatic experiences that have taken too long to get to the truth. Our approach will have at its heart a clear focus on doing what is right: what is right for all those who have been directly affected by Ballymurphy and the many other terrible events and incidents of the troubles; and also what is right for wider Northern Ireland society, including the new generation—a younger generation—who did not live through the troubles. We need to ensure that we are not leaving this for them to deal with. This generation must be looking to the future while always understanding and being aware of the past, with its tragedies as well as its opportunities.
The Government will not baulk from those challenges. The challenges involved in confronting the past are complex and sensitive, and we appreciate that. We recognise that we will not baulk from confronting the past, including our own state actions. That is necessary to ensure that we do get answers for individuals, but also as a critical step towards the reconciliation we all want to see continue and deliver in Northern Ireland for its shared and prosperous future.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
This is clearly a tremendously emotional moment. I thank the Secretary of State for prior notice of his statement and for its tone and its contents. For many, the events of which we are speaking happened a lifetime ago, but for the victims’ families and their communities they happened yesterday and every day since they occurred. It was clearly an abuse of security power. The Government are right to apologise and to make that loud and well known, because these events are as painful today as they were on the day they happened.
As my right hon. Friend tries to resolve the legacy of the troubles, focusing, as I know he will, on truth and reconciliation, will he assure me that he will do so with the emotional sensitivity he has demonstrated today, with compassion and understanding, and with a view to build a cross-community coalition as we help Northern Ireland to turn the page to a better present and future as we resolve the issues of the past?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee makes a really important point. He is absolutely right. In looking at how we move forward, we have to work, and I am determined that we will work, to do everything we can with our partners not just in Irish Government but across the parties, victims’ groups and civic society in Northern Ireland to ensure reconciliation and for an opportunity to recognise the accountability of the fact that Northern Ireland has suffered for far too long from the traumas of the past. Working together, I am sure that we can find a way to help Northern Ireland move forward and ensure that Northern Ireland can deliver on the phenomenal opportunities, expertise and excitement that is there to deliver for people and have that shared prosperous and stable society.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The pain that the loved ones of the victims of the Ballymurphy killings have gone through over the past half century is unimaginable. I pay tribute to their courage, their fortitude, their dignity and their unswerving determination to seek the truth—however difficult that was—about how their loved ones died. The First Minister of Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster, put it extremely well when she said:
“Lots of lessons to be learned. Grief is grief. Justice must be blind. Too many empty chairs across NI and unanswered questions.”
The path to truth, justice and reconciliation, as we know, is an imperfect one. While the past cannot be changed, its truth can be acknowledged and reconciliations made easier. In that vein, the Prime Minister should come to the House to offer that apology in person on behalf of the citizens in whose names these actions were taken, and apologise not only for the length of time it has taken to bring truth to the families but for the unjustified and unjustifiable deaths of their entirely innocent loved ones. Does the Secretary of State agree more generally that justice delayed is justice denied and that the best interests of truth, reconciliation and the wider public interest are not best served by seeking to put a time bar on the pursuit of justice?
Brandon Lewis
As I have already said, both I and the Prime Minister have apologised, actually, and the Prime Minister, as I said in my statement, is writing directly to the families as well. As I said, no apology can make up for the loss and the pain that the families have been through. I share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments and appreciate the tone that he has used. We are in full agreement. My view is that we need to get to the truth and we need to allow the families of the victims who want that information—the knowledge of what happened —to able to get to it much, much quicker. That is certainly something I am focused on. He is also quite right that this is not about having time bars on anything but having a process that means that the families do not have to wait decades to get to the bottom of what happened—to understand the truth of what happened.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s apology today. This tragic case lays bare again the horrors of the troubles for victims and families from all parts of Northern Ireland. I am concerned that when I and the Government signed the New Decade, New Approach agreement over a year ago we committed to intensive discussions with victims’ groups, but for a variety of reasons that has not happened. Will the Secretary of State commit today to undertaking comprehensive discussions with victims’ groups and victims directly, and give us a timeline for that? Will he also confirm that he will not bring legislation back to this House until that engagement has happened and victims and families have been able to shape and be part of what the Government are proposing to resolve the issues of legacy?
Brandon Lewis
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Obviously we understand that the legacy issues are complex, as he knows well; that is why they remain unresolved for so many decades. As I have been clear before, the principles of Stormont House are strong, powerful principles that we all want to see delivered on. We want to work together to find a way to be able to put them into practice and deliver them in a way that means that families are not waiting decades, as sadly the Ballymurphy families have had to do, to get to the bottom of the truth and understand of what has happened. We have been engaging across civic society with victims’ groups and representatives, as well as the Irish Government. We will be looking to engage very directly and very deeply over the period ahead to see if we can find a way for everybody to come together to find a way forward that can deliver on that promise and deliver on ensuring that we get to the bottom of information in an efficient way that works for the victims and for the families, and that can help Northern Ireland to move forward with reconciliation in a positive way.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) [V]
I am sure that the entire House would like to join me in offering our heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families of Ballymurphy. But we also want to congratulate them and their community on the fortitude and resilience they have shown over decades in their pursuit of truth, and to congratulate their legal teams, who have not always been treated with the respect and decency they deserve. I am glad to hear that the Prime Minister is writing to the families personally, because the families do deserve a personal apology. The Secretary of State will be aware that these events are widely known in Ireland and internationally as the Ballymurphy massacre. That seems an accurate description to many of us, as we are talking about the murder of unarmed civilians over the course of three days, and, as the House knows, the coroner has found that they were all innocent, they were all unarmed, and their killings were without justification. We are still awaiting official admission of many other deaths in former colonies, including Kenya. It is good to hear the truth about these events after all these decades, but sadly some of the relatives will have passed away. May I ask the Secretary of State: is anyone ever to be prosecuted for these crimes?
Brandon Lewis
I think the outline of the right hon. Lady’s question goes to the core point that a number of Members and I have already made: that Ballymurphy is a clear, tragic example of how it has taken far too long to get information for those families. We need to find a process that ensures that families can get information much more quickly, while people are still with us as well, as she outlined. As regards prosecutions, that is a matter for the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, and we have seen the outcome of some prosecutions it had just the other week. It is not a matter for the Government but for the independent prosecution service.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the tone he struck in his statement. These families have endured an exceptionally long campaign in their search for answers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows that the current system to deal with the legacy of the troubles on all sides in Northern Ireland has failed and that the drawn-out, expensive court proceedings for veterans, victims and families are flawed and need to be reviewed?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As we have seen, tragically, in the recent past as well as this week, the current system has simply not been working for anybody. It is failing to bring satisfactory, speedy or timely outcomes for families, leaving Northern Ireland with unanswered questions for families within it. That leaves society hamstrung, effectively, by its past. That is why, as a Government, we are committed to finding a way forward that will allow individuals and families who want information to seek and receive those answers about what happened during the troubles with far less delay and distress. We have a duty to the victims and the families in Northern Ireland as a whole to deliver on that.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) [V]
The Ballymurphy families have waited for 50 years to get even this limited form of closure. To compound matters, one of the victims also had a young teenage son brutally murdered by the IRA just two years afterwards. Will the Secretary of State ensure that, whether it is the families of innocent victims in Ballymurphy or shortly afterwards—for example, the Claudy bomb carried out by the IRA in 1972 in my constituency, about which they have received no closure, no justice and no apology—they do not suffer the ignominy of hearing about an amnesty in the next few months?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman highlights the complexity and sensitivity of the issues and reinforces the point that it has been far too long for people to have to wait to get to the bottom of the truth. Part of reconciliation is the ability to understand what happened—that is hugely important—but it is also about accountability. That is why it is important that the state takes accountability, as we are doing, for what happened in the Ballymurphy case. Others should do the same, where there is relevance for them and actions were taken by them. It is important that we get to the heart of what happened, so that people can have that understanding, accountability and truth.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I declare an interest, as one of a number of Members of Parliament who served in Northern Ireland prior to the Good Friday agreement. I very much welcome the statement and the apology today. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to our armed forces, whom we place in harm’s way, where they face incredibly difficult circumstances, often at great personal risk. The majority of service personnel follow the law of armed conflict, but if standards ever fall, they must be swiftly and fairly investigated.
I welcome the Government’s fresh approach to securing lasting change by fairly drawing a line under the pre-Good Friday troubles. There is a real danger of fuelling current tensions and potentially creating new victims because we have not reconciled past events. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Good Friday agreement proved that the troubles require a political, not military, solution, but it hesitated in mopping up a series of difficult, unresolved incidents, for which those on all sides still seek closure? Will he consider introducing a wider statute of limitations, along with a truth recovery mechanism that applies not just to veterans but on all sides, so that Northern Ireland can finally draw a line and look forwards, not backwards?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point about the complexity of the issues and the dreadful range of situations in the troubles, with a number of unresolved injuries, murders and deaths. We need to get to the bottom of that. He is also right that we need to find a way forward that can be delivered on and that works for families. The current situation is simply not working for anybody. It is not working for Northern Ireland, and it is not delivering in a timely fashion and getting to the heart of the truth for families.
It is right that we respect our commitments to our veterans as well. As I said in my statement, obviously the vast majority acted with honour and probity throughout the troubles, but we must have a system that gets to the heart of things. We are open to looking at a wide range of options. I have made commitments to the House about bringing forward legislation, which I still have the ambition to deliver on, but we want to do that by working with our partners across Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government to find a solution that will work, cause stability and have sustainability.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State says that the British Army made terrible errors in Northern Ireland. Joan Connolly was a mother of eight. She was shot four times by the British Army and was left lying on the ground for hours to die. That is not an error; that is sheer bloody murder. Will the Secretary of State ask the Prime Minister to come out of hiding, come with me to meet the Ballymurphy families and tell them to their faces why he wants to protect their killers?
Brandon Lewis
As I have outlined already today, the Prime Minister is contacting the families directly. There is his public apology on behalf of the state and he has had conversations with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, in which I joined him yesterday. Obviously, Members and colleagues will be aware that the report was published on Tuesday, which was the first full sight we had of it. We received it on Tuesday, and we put out a statement on the same day. Having had an opportunity for us to reflect on that report, I am now making a statement to the House of Commons. But, obviously, we will be considering it in more detail in the period ahead in order to ensure that we are able to reflect properly on it. As I said in my statement, it is right that we take accountability for the actions that were unacceptable, as the coroner’s court highlighted, but also that we are taking the time and opportunity to make sure we learn from the experiences of the past and also, coming back to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) a few moments ago, take account of what we have learned since 2014 about how we can move forward in a more efficient and effective manner that delivers for families and victims so that we get to the truth.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I served in Northern Ireland from the early 1970s onwards. I did not serve in Ballymurphy but all I can say is that those of us who were serving in Northern Ireland when incidents such as Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday were happening—and the vast majority of the Army—were in deep shock about what happened. It did not reflect what we felt; we were in deep shock. In order to try to help the families, if they so wish it, may I ask my right hon. Friend that a full and frank report about what happened to their loved ones be sent to them in each individual case—if, of course, they wish to receive it?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. Again, it goes to the heart of making sure that people have the information. My understanding, but I will confirm it, is that the coroner’s report does give details of the individual deaths, and that obviously will be fed back to the families, who have been waiting, as I say, for far too long. However, I will write to my right hon. Friend to confirm that point.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I want to focus on the courage and dignity of the Ballymurphy families and their long fight for justice, rather than the wider legacy issue, except to say that the Government’s plans do not have the support of the Ballymurphy families, other victims groups, political parties in Northern Ireland and, indeed, many veterans themselves. Can I ask the Secretary of State to confirm the scope of this apology? Specifically, does it also include how the British Army libelled many of the victims by calling them IRA gunmen, and also how the Ministry of Defence and indeed some individual soldiers frustrated the process of justice over many years?
Brandon Lewis
Yes. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that, as I said in my opening statement actually, the apology is for not just the dreadful incident—the tragedy that we saw at Ballymurphy in 1971—but the period since and what those families and the victims have had to go through. Absolutely.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I welcome the statement and the apology, and I commend the coroner for coming to a definitive decision in the inquest. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to acknowledge the hurt and pain felt by all sides of the community, and that we need a spirit of reconciliation so that we can move on in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I repeat what I said in my statement: we must never forget. As I said, “We must never dismiss or ignore the past”, but we must learn from it—we must find a way to move forward.
Going to the heart of what my hon. Friend said, my experience of dealing with and talking to people across Northern Ireland—across the whole community of Northern Ireland in civic society—shows that there is a determined desire to have proper reconciliation, stability and sustainability. There is a determination to have a Northern Ireland that is a prosperous and an exciting place to live and work, which it is, so that we can all continue to be proud of it and continue to live with the amazing success we have seen there since the delivery of what was, at the time, a very difficult series of decisions that led to the Good Friday agreement.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State is right to recognise that reconciliation depends on the truth, but the problem with the whole horrendous saga around the murders at Ballymurphy is that a cloud of corruption has hung over it now for nearly five decades. What the Secretary of State describes as serious errors was murder by agents of our state covered up by our state, and we must now recognise the damage that has done. So will the Secretary of State commit to making sure that every effort will now be made to reveal what happened not simply at the time but in the years since to cover this up? That must include access to the records of the security services, because, frankly, if he will not give that commitment, he will be letting down the Ballymurphy families.
Brandon Lewis
As I have said, the Ballymurphy families have waited for far too long, through successive Governments and over too many decades, to get an understanding of what actually happened. We need to find a way forward that can make sure that families such as the Ballymurphy families are able to get that information—that understanding, recognition and truth—much more quickly. That will mean ensuring that they have access to all the information that is available both across Northern Ireland and from the British and UK state.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Queen’s Speech to bring forward measures that will address the legacy of the troubles—troubles I remember all too well. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that these measures will be focused on getting answers for victims and their loved ones in a way that allows Northern Ireland to heal and come together, rather than further deepening divisions?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the ability to heal and the ability to look forward while always being accountable for and recognising and understanding our past. I can confirm that I am absolutely committed to working to find a way forward that will provide certainty for those who have been directly affected by the events of the troubles and deliver wider reconciliation for Northern Ireland, recognising that Northern Ireland itself suffered during the troubles.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s apology, but, although I mean no disrespect to him, I do feel that something of such gravity really does require the Prime Minister to apologise directly, not by proxy, to the families of those killed, and I hope that he will urge that.
The findings of the inquest into the Ballymurphy killings clearly show that the state was not an observer, but was a participant in the troubles. Does that not surely mean that the Government cannot unilaterally impose a plan to address that conflict legacy, and will he now return to what he previously agreed and ensure that, in dealing with the past, we put victims and their loved ones first?
Brandon Lewis
If the hon. Gentleman looks back to my opening statement, he will see that the Prime Minister is and has been apologising directly to the families as well as more publicly and widely, so I will just correct him on that point. More widely, we have got to find a way to ensure that we have a system that works and delivers for people. The Stormont House agreement has been referred to, but the reality is that that was in 2014. We have learned things since then; there has been consultation since then, and it is right that the Government take that into account and we take forward the Stormont House principles in a way that can be delivered and can work for families and for Northern Ireland.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I welcome my right hon Friend’s statement and the fact that the Ballymurphy families have finally been served their long overdue justice. However, I also wish to urge my right hon. Friend to outline as soon as he can a timeline for when we can bring forward the new measures in this parliamentary Session that will deliver answers for all those affected by the legacy of the troubles and put an end to the cycle of investigations and prosecutions, allowing Northern Ireland to move forward with a brighter future.
Brandon Lewis
As set out in the Queen’s Speech, we will bring forward legislation in this Session to address the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. I am committed to bringing forward legislation that focuses on reconciliation, and if we get that right, it will deliver for victims, for veterans and for all the people of Northern Ireland. That is the work we will be doing in the period ahead.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
The humility of Tory Members today is to be welcomed, but three years ago in a Westminster Hall debate, I was shouted down by some of the same Tory Members when I mentioned the actions of the Parachute Regiment in Ballymurphy. Members will of course take their lead from the Prime Minister, and it is disappointing that he is not making the statement here today. Following the publication of the Saville report, Prime Minister David Cameron made a statement and an apology to those families. The Ballymurphy families have been through a similar hell for nearly 50 years, so when will the Prime Minister meet those families, look them in the eye and apologise for the unlawful killing of their loved ones?
Brandon Lewis
As I have said a few times this morning, the Prime Minister is apologising directly to the families.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his heartfelt apology. This is a most heartbreaking affair. It cuts right to the quick of a divided city, a divided country and a divided people. As a Protestant man, as a Unionist and as a loyalist, I stretch out my hand of love, of forbearance, of common grief and of compassion to my neighbour who has suffered, and I say to them that their tears and the sting of their tears are the same as the sting of our tears. There is no difference in the colour or feeling of that grief, and we share that grief with them today in a heartfelt and compassionate way. I hope that they accept the sincerity of those remarks and those feelings, which are across our country.
This verdict does lift, Denning-like, the curtain on the appalling vista of what has happened in Northern Ireland. No doubt more and more will follow. That is not something we look forward to, but know that more will come. The Secretary of State is correct when he says that the pitch has been somewhat queered by the release of terrorists from our jails and by the on-the-runs and letters of comfort to them, because their victims will never see any justice in our country. We therefore cannot have scapegoating of our soldiers or our police officers or a perverse exhibiting and rewriting of what happened in Northern Ireland, in an “Alice in Wonderland” like way, where the peacekeepers become accused of being the peace-breakers. This is a most difficult and tragic situation, and all we can say is that we have to wish the Secretary of State well in what he does now.
Brandon Lewis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which I know will be genuine and hopefully well received across Northern Ireland in terms of the need for people to come together. It is right that this week and at this moment in time we are focused on the pain, loss and suffering that the families and the victims of Ballymurphy have experienced for far, far too long. He is right that we must also remember that more than 3,500 people were killed and tens of thousands of people were injured, with families affected across Northern Ireland and beyond, the majority of whom were innocent civilians.
By far the majority of our armed forces acted with honour and focus, and Ballymurphy just highlights what a tragic period in the history of this country the troubles were and why it is so important that we work together, recognising some of the very difficult, painful compromises that have been made over the past few decades to deliver the Good Friday agreement and the peace and prosperity that Northern Ireland has seen since. That should be treasured, and it is something we need to build on and deliver on in the future.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
When I speak to people about Northern Ireland, I apply a simple test, which is, “What if this happened in Bristol, and not Belfast?” Much like the people of Belfast, the people of Bristol sometimes wish they had a different Prime Minister, but he is their Prime Minister, for those of all faiths and none and those of all persuasions and none. As their Prime Minister, it is a disgrace that he is not here to make this statement from that Dispatch Box. He should have done that earlier this week. We all know the symbolism of these Benches and that Dispatch Box.
The Prime Minister has said that he wants to learn from the experience of the past, so I say gently to him that the experience of the past 100 years is that when a British Prime Minister ignores what is going on in Northern Ireland, we see a difficult situation that does not improve. Some of the things he has now said are deeply problematic, such as unilaterally pulling away the Stormont House agreement. If that is the case, he very quickly needs to come here with the Irish Government and all the political parties involved and tell us what will be in its place. That is the true apology that would be right for those poor families from Ballymurphy and across this whole tragedy.
Brandon Lewis
I am afraid that what the hon. Lady has just outlined is wrong on a number of points. Apart from the things that I have outlined, the Prime Minister is in contact with the Ballymurphy families directly, and there is the statement he made yesterday and the conversation he had with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister yesterday.
My point has actually been that I think the principles of Stormont House are hugely important. There is a range of things there that we need to deliver on. The reality is that since 2014 that has not happened, for a range of reasons. There have been learnings, and things have changed since then. There has been a consultation that we need to reflect on and deliver on. We need to make sure that we can deliver on those principles and get on with it, rather than being another seven years down the line with people still talking about something at a time when we are losing people and families are not getting the information that they deserve. At the heart of what we want to do is making sure that we are leading to delivering for victims and that we have reconciliation for people across Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
The chaos and impunity of the Ballymurphy killings contributed to the near-collapse of the rule of law in Northern Ireland and a sickeningly casual attitude to human life. For years after those killings, thousands more people had their lives needlessly and cruelly taken by killers in and out of uniform.
To justify an amnesty, some say that no good can come from delving into dire events in the past. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that good did come this week because lies were confounded, the truth was affirmed and the innocence of victims was vindicated? Does he acknowledge that, precisely because state actors and paramilitaries since the agreement have failed to bring forward information, victims feel that the only way that they can get to truth and justice is through the judicial process? Does he agree that those who run from truth and accountability are those in state agencies and those in the militias who know the most and who inflicted the worst?
Brandon Lewis
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I agree that there is no doubt, and we do need to acknowledge, that the actions and the particular incidents at Ballymurphy did fuel further reactions and retaliations that drove the troubles, particularly in those early years. We need to take accountability; that is why I referenced that in my statement.
The hon. Lady is also right that it is right that the state takes accountability and apologises, exactly as we are doing today, when there is clear acknowledgment that things were done that were wrong. That is what we are doing today. I fundamentally agree with her that it is important that, whoever the actors were, there is a huge majority of unsolved deaths, injuries and murders across Northern Ireland that people are looking for information about. They have a right to get that information, and we need to do everything we can to get that information, to get that accountability and to get to the truth.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
I take the Secretary of State back to 8.30 am on this day, 13 May, in 1994 in Hill Street, Lurgan in my constituency of Upper Bann. Fred Anthony, 38, a Protestant, was a cleaner in the town’s Royal Ulster Constabulary station. As he travelled in his car along Hill Street with his wife and two children, an IRA booby-trap bomb exploded. Fred Anthony died; his three-year-old daughter spent a week in a coma, both her legs were broken and shrapnel lodged close to her brain—a life lost and a family destroyed.
No one has ever been charged in relation to this cold-blooded, ruthless murder. The Anthony family, who I spoke with this morning—like so many families of victims of the Provisional IRA—desire truth and justice. They look at the Ballymurphy findings and wish that they, too, had been given the same resource to find truth as the Ballymurphy families, who have fought hard and learned so much. What is the Secretary of State’s message to the Anthony family today, and what support can he give them to find truth and justice?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady has again highlighted the very sad reality of too many families not yet having an understanding of the information that they need to be able to know what happened and the truth, which gives an ability to move forward. We are very clear that our objective of addressing the legacy of the troubles and delivering on our commitments means that we want to deal with the past in a way that helps people in Northern Ireland, such as the families that the hon. Lady just outlined, to look forward. That means that this is something we need to deliver on. We need to find a system that can get that information and get to the truth. It is clear that this week’s case—let alone other cases that we have seen recently—shows fundamentally that the current system has not been, and is not, delivering for victims and the people of Northern Ireland. When it takes 50 years to get the truth, something is wrong and we need to find a different way forward.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
Taking 50 years for the truth to be established about the killing of the 10 innocent Ballymurphy civilians is truly shameful, and the truth uncovered is due to the tireless efforts of the families of the victims. Why has it taken so very long to get to the truth and why has the Prime Minister refused to meet the families of those killed? Can the Secretary of State tell us, in reference to the previous question, what specific action his Government will take to reassure the people of Northern Ireland that they are unequivocally committed to discovering the truth about all unsolved killings and to deal appropriately with legacy issues, as set out in the Stormont agreement?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady is not correct to say that the Prime Minister has refused anything. As I say, he is contacting the families directly. There has been a lengthy delay in delivering even the findings of the Ballymurphy inquest. That is obviously not directly a matter for the Government in the latter part, but I know that covid has had a significant impact on the legacy inquest timetable. However, the hon. Lady highlights the point that I have been making consistently: this has taken far too long. It should not take 50 years to get to the truth. We must make sure that it does not take 50 years for people in the future. That is why we are working—I have been talking to the Irish Government; we want to work with the Irish Government—but we do need to find a way forward. Stormont House was 2014. The principles of it are absolutely right. They are core to delivering for the families in Northern Ireland. We need to do that in a way that reflects what has happened and what we have learned since 2014—in a way we can deliver on to make sure that these families get to the truth. We have committed to doing that through legislation. We want to work across our partners and the people of Northern Ireland to find a way to do that that works for everybody in Northern Ireland.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Prime Minister’s predecessor came to this House to report on the findings of the Bloody Sunday inquiry. His presence helped build reconciliation. Families in Ballymurphy have served a half-century sentence waiting for justice. It should therefore have been the Prime Minister addressing Parliament today. Peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland can never be taken for granted. It has to be won, and that starts by showing a commitment to finding truth and justice, so does the Secretary of State agree that, from this point, it must be the families of this injustice in Ballymurphy who are put first, and that the Government must listen to them as to how reparation processes have to change to expedite justice?
Brandon Lewis
As I said, there were big, bold, difficult and complex steps taken that led to the Good Friday agreement—decisions that were difficult for people at the time, but they have delivered peace and prosperity over the last few decades. Northern Ireland has predominantly moved away from violence. We need to make sure that we continue to respect the principles that led to the Good Friday agreement and continue to look at how we develop that to ensure that Northern Ireland can continue to prosper.
Within that, it is absolutely right that we want to make sure that families are able to get to the truth and the information without not just the delay, but the pain and difficulty that families are having at the moment. Obviously, the Ballymurphy families have been through a completely unacceptable experience over the last 50 years, but there are also other families out there, other unsolved murders, and other injuries that have been caused, where nobody has yet got to the bottom of what happened. It is important that we find a way forward that ensures that those families and victims who want that information can get it in a timely fashion. There is a real risk, if we do not do this in a way that works, that we will have people passing away without ever knowing the truth. That is not acceptable and we have a duty to deliver for them and for the future of Northern Ireland.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
Given the gravity of this report, I think that the Prime Minister should be at the Dispatch Box making this statement. In five separate incidents, over the weekend of Operation Demetrius, 10 people, who posed no threat and bore no arms, were shot dead. That must raise questions about the preparation for Operation Demetrius—what was said to those soldiers about the yellow card that each of them should have been carrying. What can the Government do, and particularly the MOD, to shed light on what was said and done in preparation for Operation Demetrius?
Brandon Lewis
As the hon. Gentleman said, and as others have rightly said and I have said, the families should never have had to wait 50 long years to hear Justice Keegan’s findings this week. Obviously, I convey my thanks to her for the work that she and the team have done. I can promise, as I said earlier, that that will be followed by action to prevent others who have lost loved ones—from all communities, including the armed forces—from going through the same continual, lengthy and traumatic experience to get to the heart of the truth of what happened.
It is an awkward truth for us all that the prospect of prosecutions resulting from criminal investigations is vanishingly small, but we have seen that a sense of justice can be provided through truth, acknowledgment and information. We want to deal with the past in a way that not only helps society in Northern Ireland to be able to look forward rather than back, but also gets to the truth, and therefore accountability and an understanding of what has happened in a whole range of cases—Ballymurphy and others—that are still unsolved.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that Ballymurphy should not have happened, and of course we all agree, but it did happen; and it happened again six months later, in the city of Derry. The Prime Minister now needs to come to that Dispatch Box and apologise properly, on behalf of us all, to the people of Ballymurphy.
“Entirely innocent”, Mr Speaker: “entirely innocent”. Does the Secretary of State accept then, given the time it can take, and has taken, for the families of the innocents to get the truth of events, that it must mean that justice does have no limitation? If so, will his Government pause now and reconsider their recent moves to create such a limit for justice?
Brandon Lewis
Look, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister has given an unreserved public apology for what happened in Ballymurphy. I am here, the Government are here today, not just apologising but taking accountability for what happened and what should not have happened, not just at the time of Ballymurphy—obviously that was unacceptable—but for what was also unacceptable: what has happened since, in that 50 years that we have had to wait. But in answer to the hon. Gentleman I will be very clear to the House, as I have been, I hope, through the course of this morning: we are determined that families need to get to the truth. They need to be able to know what happened. There are too many cases out there unresolved, where families do not have the information of what happened, and therefore it is impossible for them to be able to have an opportunity not only to know about their past but to really look forward to their future. We are determined to do that. There should not be a time limit on getting to the truth. We need to find a way—based on the fact that the current system is failing everybody—to have a system that can work, that gets to the truth and gets information, for the benefit of reconciliation in Northern Ireland and for those families.
Point of Order
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I would appreciate your guidance. As you may be aware, yesterday the Minister for Universities, speaking on Radio 4, said that it is the Government’s policy to protect and promote the free speech of controversial and offensive advocates at universities. She explicitly confirmed that this would include holocaust deniers, who would be supported in law against people protesting against them. There are few more serious crimes in history than the Nazi holocaust—the murder of 6 million Jews, as well as hundreds of thousands of Roma and Sinti, disabled and LGBT people, political opponents and other minority groups—and to hear a Minister say that the Government plan to change the law to take the side of those who would deny that genocide is truly appalling.
As a proudly Jewish parliamentarian, my blood ran cold listening to the interview. There is no merit to any assertion that either academic rigour or the university experience is improved by exposure to such ideology. Holocaust denial cannot and should not be protected speech under the law. How can you assist in ensuring that the Universities Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to explain what she has said, apologise, and recant this chilling policy?
Mr Speaker
May I first thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order? I want to set out on record that I find the idea of holocaust denial completely abhorrent; let me make sure that people are aware of that. The hon. Member will have the opportunity to clarify this matter when the relevant legislation is before the House. I hope that she will take it up with the Minister at the appropriate time when that legislation comes forward. In the meantime, I am sure that it would also be worth asking for a meeting with the Minister for clarification.
I am now going to suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Debate on the Address
A Brighter Future for the Next Generation
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
This country has faced unprecedented challenges over the past year as we have tackled the global coronavirus pandemic. The impact on education has been considerable. I would like once more to put on record the enormous debt of gratitude the country owes to everyone who has played their part in keeping our children safe and learning, and to the young people themselves, for their resilience at this incredibly difficult time.
We are beginning our national recovery, and as part of that we aim to, and we will, build back better. As Her Majesty the Queen set out in her Gracious Speech on Tuesday, this means a full and far-reaching legislative agenda. Our programme of ambitious reforms to level up this country will continue apace, alongside an overarching mission to make sure the country’s recovery has a solid and sure foundation. We are committed to making sure that everyone in the country has the education and training that is right for them, as well as to lifelong upskilling, so that better-paid jobs are within local reach and not down to a postcode lottery.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree with Dame Louise Casey, who said today that we cannot be a levelled-up country if we have got food banks?
Gavin Williamson
This party is committed to delivering right across the country. This party is committed to making sure that we make a real difference to every child’s life by raising standards in education and making sure that all the way through their lives, people have the opportunity to train and better themselves in order to succeed and deliver for their communities and families. Of course we will always take action to support families. That is why we increased universal credit; that is why we have taken the action we have all the way through this pandemic; and that is why we have invested billions of pounds in the furlough scheme, to make sure that in these difficult and challenging times, people can provide for their family.
One of our main priorities is to make sure that children whose education has been held back during the pandemic are given the means to catch up and that their long-term prospects do not suffer. We have put a package of measures in place to make sure that children who are behind get extra support. We are working with the Education Recovery Commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, to develop an ambitious long-term plan for recovery and have already provided more than £2 billion to enable schools, colleges and early years settings to support pupils’ academic and wider progress. We know that disadvantaged children and young people have been affected more than others, and we will target support for these pupils.
I have said that we have a packed legislative agenda, and this is an historic moment for radical reform in post-16 education—radical reform that has been too long needed. This is the most significant reform we have seen in this country not just for the past 10 years, but for two generations.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
In our mission to upskill, re-skill and retrain people as we work towards a better Britain—building back better—will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the measures announced in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech will ensure that people, particularly those from left-behind communities such as Stoke-on-Trent and left-behind regions, get the skills and training they need to get well-paid, good-quality jobs?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend has championed this issue in Stoke-on-Trent Central ever since she got elected, recognising the importance of delivering for Stoke-on-Trent. Far too often, the Labour party did not deliver at all for Stoke-on-Trent, but we are seeing things change. It is not just about skills, but about driving up education standards right across the city, and that is what my hon. Friend and her colleagues who represent Stoke-on-Trent are doing, along with Councillor Abi Brown, who leads the city council. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other colleagues to deliver on this issue.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his commitment to invest in further education in my constituency. Does he agree that, as we emerge from the pandemic, it has never been more important to invest in further education, particularly in some of the most disadvantaged communities across our country?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend has been an enormous champion of further education in his constituency, and he has done a fair bit of lobbying—in a very proper manner, it should be added—on behalf of Cornwall College. It is good to see that there will be investment in his constituency to deliver better prospects not just for his constituents, but for constituents right across Cornwall, making a true difference.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Gavin Williamson
I will always give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Alan Brown
I will hold the Secretary of State to that.
When it comes to reshaping education, climate change should be an important part of the curriculum. At the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, we heard from young activists from Teach the Future, who said that the Scottish Government have been willing to engage with them about the merits of including climate change in education. The Secretary of State has refused 18 requests to meet the organisation. Why is he so arrogant and out of touch that he will not even engage with the young?
Gavin Williamson
I perhaps exaggerated my enthusiasm to give way to the hon. Gentleman. We recognise how important it is that young people have a good understanding of climate change. That is why we are looking at bringing forward a natural history GCSE, which will be very important in both learning the subject and teaching it. The Government lead the world in this area: we are hosting COP26 in the amazing city of Glasgow, the Prime Minister is leading on this agenda at the G7 in Cornwall and we are setting the pace. We do not just talk about it, as the SNP does; we deliver on it.
The Prime Minister set out his vision for a skilled and resilient workforce when he announced the lifelong loan entitlement as part of the lifetime skills guarantee. That will transform opportunities for everyone, at any stage in their life, by providing people with a loan entitlement for the equivalent of four years of post-18 education to use over their lifetime.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
To talk about levelling up is truly to talk about education. I thank the Secretary of State for the investment in secondary education that he has made in my constituency with the Radcliffe high school. When it comes to further education and the skills agenda that he has mentioned, the institutes of technology are a fine example of how we can achieve in that area. Will he meet me again to discuss the University of Salford?
Gavin Williamson
It is fair to say that despite the fact that my hon. Friend’s constituency was represented for many years by a Labour Member of Parliament, the free school in Radcliffe that was wanted so much was never delivered. My hon. Friend gets elected, however, and what does he do? He delivers for his constituents with a much-needed new secondary school. Of course, we all know how important institutes of technology are for driving the revolution in skills that we need to be able to meet the demands of the economy. I will be more than delighted to meet him to discuss the institutes of technology and how we roll them out across the country.
Our agenda will mean more choice and better prospects for all. This is levelling up in action, and it will turbocharge our economy by getting people back into jobs and getting Britain working again. It is a truly transformational investment in local communities, not an exit route out of those communities.
Our White Paper on skills for jobs sets out a blueprint for providing our young people with better choices within our further education system. New legislation will put employers at the heart of our skills reforms. They will join forces with further education colleges to deliver a skills accelerator programme. We are going to make sure that there is a better balance between the skills that local employers want from their workforce and those being taught by colleges and other providers, so that young people have a valuable and top-quality alternative to university.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
If the Secretary of State wants to speak about opportunities for young people, why will this Government not give the young people of these four nations the opportunity to have their say in the democracy that we are all taking part in? Also, this Government have slammed the door closed on the opportunities for our young people to work and thrive in 27 nations. There is no opportunity coming from the Tory Government, which is why the young people of these nations reject Tory policies.
Gavin Williamson
I think the hon. Gentleman is warming up for what will no doubt be a long speech later in the day. He obviously needs to come and see the brilliant progress that we are making in maths in England, unlike the sad reversals that we have seen in Scotland, with the failed education system that the SNP has presided over and the damage it has done to the education system in Scotland. If he had the benefit of sitting in some of the schools that are delivering such brilliant maths education right across England, he would understand that the Turing scheme opens up opportunities in many more countries than just 27. In fact, it will be a global scheme that looks beyond the European Union, to countries right across the world, making sure that young people have more and greater opportunities, not less. His horizons might reach only as far as the European Union, but we recognise that young people want opportunities on a global scale, in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, China—emerging great economies as well as old friends and allies.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an important point about the opportunities that we give young people. Will he join me in welcoming the opening of a new special school in Basingstoke under the Government’s academy programme, the Austen Academy, to ensure that children with special needs get the sorts of opportunities that he is talking about?
Gavin Williamson
I know that my right hon. Friend has been a real champion of the Austen Academy, recognising the important role that academies can play in delivering not just mainstream education but more specialist support for some pupils. It is an important step forward, ensuring that we get high-quality education across all our schools. We have seen some amazing work being done in our special schools, and I look forward to seeing that school grow and prosper into the future.
We want to encourage people to stay part of their community. Rather than encouraging them to leave home to find a rewarding career, we intend to empower them to find fulfilling and rewarding work wherever they live, invigorating communities and driving economic growth up and down the country. They do not need to leave their home towns in order to succeed.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be well aware that in Keighley we are progressing nicely with our towns fund application. One of the projects that we are hoping to deliver is a skills hub, bringing together businesses and education providers, such as Keighley College, to deliver the skills we need for manufacturing, engineering and tech. Does he agree that a skills hub in Keighley is exactly what we need for levelling up?
Gavin Williamson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—that is vital for the reinvigoration and regeneration of Keighley, and driving it forward. We know that Keighley has a great and proud tradition of manufacturing, leading the world in the engineering and the work that is done there, but that has to be supported, and it can only be sustained with the right skills in that community, supporting those businesses to be able to grow and prosper into the future.
All that we are doing is a natural progression of the groundbreaking reforms we have already been rolling out, such as our T-level and apprenticeship programmes, which will deliver the skilled individuals to boost the post-pandemic economy and bring down unemployment. Starting this year, the Government are investing £3 billion in the national skills fund. That is a significant investment and has the potential to deliver new opportunities to generations of adults who may have been previously left behind. Any adult who does not have an A-level or equivalent will be able to access around 400 fully funded courses as part of the lifetime skills guarantee. That offer is a long-term commitment, backed by £95 million of funding from the national skills fund in its first year. We have temporarily extended the time for universal credit claimants to undertake training to develop work-related skills and qualifications, and we will review this in six months.
There is a golden thread running through all our reforms: everyone should have access to the same enriching opportunities to broaden their horizons and make the most of their potential wherever they live, whether it is London, Leeds, Leigh or Loftus. I am proud to have announced the Turing scheme, which will enable students to study and do work placements overseas. It will start in September and will focus on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is backed by significant investment of £110 million and will provide funding for around 35,000 students to go abroad.
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to speak; I am sure he will contribute later on.
The Turing scheme is genuinely global in reach and will connect our young people with a whole world, rich and varied in its cultural experiences, giving them the opportunity to learn from the very best institutions on a global scale.
This is a Government who deliver on their promises. We are fulfilling our manifesto commitment by introducing a Bill to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom in universities. Free speech is the lifeblood of democracy. Our world-class universities have a long and proud history of being spaces in which differing views or beliefs can be expressed without fear or censure. However, there have been increasing concerns about a chilling effect on campus and that not all students and staff feel able to share their views. That is why we will strengthen existing duties on universities, extending those duties to students’ unions and establishing a director in the Office for Students to protect and promote these rights.
We have always been determined that every child, regardless of background, should have access to high-quality education, and that is just as true for our youngest children as it is for those who are on the cusp of adulthood. The early years are a crucial time in a child’s development, and we know that the pandemic has had a significant impact on many young children. Earlier this year, we announced £18 million to support language development, which includes £10 million for an early language programme to help nursery children who have been affected by the pandemic. We are introducing the early years foundation stage reforms, which will be statutory for all early years providers from September this year.
When it comes to the most vulnerable children, there is no such thing as being too bold. We have launched our children’s social care review of systems and services, so that vulnerable youngsters can experience the benefits of a stable and loving home, many of them for the first time. The review will take place alongside ongoing reforms to raise standards in local authorities, boost adoption, improve support for care leavers and improve quality and placement practice in unregulated accommodation, including banning the placement of under-16s in unregulated homes and introducing national standards for provision.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State look again at placing a ceiling of the age of 16 on the requirement not to place young people in unregulated accommodation? I am sure he will agree that there are very many vulnerable 17, 18 and 19-year-olds for whom that would also be an important measure.
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady will know about my commitment and passion in this area and how important it is to look at how we can improve things for these children. Certainly, as part of looking at how we continuously improve, we will make sure that we get these regulations in place initially, but we will then be looking at how we can continue to improve on that work.
Our country, like many others, faces a number of social and economic challenges as we recover from the pandemic. I am confident that, thanks to this ambitious legislative programme and our unwavering mission to level up every inch of our country, we will all have a chance to play our part in that recovery. In Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, a fairer, better Britain is emerging, and future generations, as well as this one, will feel the benefit.
Mr Speaker
Just to advise Members, it is looking like around six minutes each for speeches.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, because nothing can be more important than our obligation to create a bright future for the next generation. On the Opposition Benches—indeed, I am sure, across the House—we believe that every child, whatever their background, must be able to make the most of their childhood and reach their full potential. As politicians, we have a solemn responsibility to ensure that the next generation enjoys greater opportunities than we have had, and that Britain is the best country in the world to grow up in.
Regrettably, this Queen’s Speech is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity that comes hard on the heels of a decade of Conservative failures that have betrayed our young people: 1,000 children’s centres closed since 2010 by Conservative Governments; schools funding 9% lower in real terms in 2019-20 than in 2009-10; Labour’s proud track record in lifting a million children out of poverty wholly wiped out by Conservative austerity policies, with more than 5 million children expected to be in poverty by 2024; FE funding cut almost in half, and apprenticeship starts among under-25-year-olds down by 40% since 2016. The problems were there even before the pandemic.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Of course we all want to do our best for the most vulnerable children in our society, but will the hon. Lady acknowledge that, rather than the picture she has just painted of the past 10 years, the improvement in the delivery of children’s social care services, for example, with more good and outstanding local authorities delivering children’s social care and the number of inadequate services dropping considerably, is a testament not only to the people on the frontline working hard for those children, but to the Government policies put in place to ensure that that could happen?
Kate Green
I pay tribute to everyone working in local authorities and in the children’s social care sector for the hard work that has led to improvement in children’s services—vital services for the most vulnerable children in our country—but, frankly, the Government could have made it a great deal more straightforward for local authorities if they had not gone round trashing local authority funding. Our local councils have seen cuts of around 40% in their funding over the last 10 years, and that has put huge pressure on social care professionals, especially children’s social care professionals. It is very much to the credit of social care workers that we have seen improvements around the country, but I hope that the Government will use the children’s social care review that the Secretary of State referenced, which we are eager to engage with, to ensure that we put adequate, sustainable funding in place for these most vulnerable children.
Alan Brown
The hon. Lady is talking about opportunities for the future and reshaping things. She will be well aware that in the Scottish elections last week, a majority in favour of an independence referendum was returned. Does she think it is right that the young of Scotland should get their say in a referendum or does she think the Labour party should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories and try to block them from having their democratic say?
Kate Green
As a Scot myself, I feel pretty confident in saying that I do not think the priority for Scotland and for people in Scotland right now is a constitutional referendum. I do not think that it is the most pressing concern for young people when there are worries that they are struggling to achieve the same standards in school as we are seeing in the rest of the United Kingdom and when we see young people struggling to get—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) needs to hear what he does not like to hear. The Scottish Government are failing young people. Educational attainment is declining. We see no sign of their having taken on the seriousness of how the SNP Government have let down young people. Let us concentrate on the priorities that really matter for the future of young people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.
Despite facing soaring unemployment and the toughest jobs market for a generation, young people in desperate need of new opportunities have been overlooked by the Government. The 16-to-19 funding for catch-up has been woefully insufficient, and careers advice and guidance will be crucial after David Cameron’s Government brutally slashed it. The Government’s proposals are too little, too late. Apprentices, and BTEC and vocational students, have been repeatedly treated as an afterthought. Unemployment is forecast to rise over the course of this year, and the consequences of the pandemic will be with us for years to come as huge parts of our economy and labour market experience profound change.
Christian Wakeford
Children’s attainment in literacy is going backwards, as is children’s mental health, and children are needing to go through potty training again. There are fears over people’s prospects and the jobs market. Which of the above does the hon. Lady think is a “good crisis” for people to take advantage of? Will she apologise for the comments that she made previously?
Kate Green
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for enabling me to be able to put on record in this House my regret for those remarks. They were inappropriate and insensitive and will have been offensive to people who have suffered terribly in this pandemic, including those who have been bereaved and lost those that they loved and will be missing terribly. I should not to have used those remarks, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to put that on record in this Chamber.
If we are to seize this generational moment and deliver the fair, low-carbon recovery that we need to tackle the climate crisis, which is imperative if we are truly to pass on a bright future to the next generation, many people will need to retrain in new industries as old jobs disappear, as the Secretary of State said. But in the Queen’s Speech and in his remarks just a few moments ago, all that the Secretary of State could announce was a months-old commitment to a lifetime skills guarantee that simply is not guaranteed for everyone. It is not guaranteed because people cannot use it if they are already qualified to level 3; they cannot use it unless they are getting a qualification that the Secretary of State has decided he thinks is valuable; and they cannot use it if they need maintenance support while they are learning. If they are already qualified to level 3 in their existing field but need to retrain for a new industry, there is nothing on offer for them. Ministers have chosen to close the door on millions of people who need to retrain, and who need to do so now. I am at a loss to understand the Secretary of State’s position on this. Can he tell the House why a promised guarantee will not in fact be available to some of those who will need it most?
On maintenance funding, we are awaiting Ministers’ response to the Government’s Augar review, which is now over two years old. Augar said that those in further education should receive the same maintenance support as those in higher education. Does the Secretary of State agree with that proposal? If he does, why is it absent from the Queen’s Speech? While everyone will agree that employers have a central role in creating jobs and training opportunities for young people, they do so in the context of local economic and regeneration strategies driven by metro Mayors and local leaders, who seem to have been sidelined in the creation of the local skills plans and with the Government having abandoned a national industrial strategy.
After a decade of Conservative damage to the sector, I desperately want the Government to get skills policy right. Labour believes in a high-skill, high-wage economy that offers fulfilling, rewarding work and jobs in which people will take great pride. That is why, for years, I and my colleagues in the Labour party, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his speech opening the debate on the Loyal Address on Tuesday and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) during her time as Shadow Secretary of State for Education, have championed lifelong learning, further education and all those who learn and teach in this sector.
In contrast, in a startling, if only partial, conversion in the Conservative party after a decade spent in power, including times when the Education Secretary and the Prime Minister sat around the Cabinet table and nodded through cuts to further education and a loan-based funding model that, by the Government’s own admission, directly reduced the number of adults in education, we have reforms that offer, at best, a mere reversal of some of the worst excesses of Conservative ideology over the past decade. It is a desperate attempt to polish the windows, having taken a sledgehammer to the foundations.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The hon. Lady will know that I was a school teacher who started in 2011, just after the Conservatives took power. I want to remind her of the situation that I, as a teacher, inherited on the frontline. Between 2000 and 2009, England fell from seventh to 25th in reading, eighth to 28th in maths and fourth to 16th in science in international league tables. In addition, we had 350,000 young people aged 16 to 19 who, according to the independent Wolf review, received little to no benefit from the post-16 education system, which provided students with a diet of low-level vocational qualifications—[Interruption.] It is interesting that the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) is angry that a former teacher is speaking about education; I am interested to hear what he knows better than I. Is the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) proud of the record of the Labour party in that decade?
Kate Green
We should never accept less than the highest standards for young people in this country. I will compromise with nobody on being ambitious to deliver a world-class education and achieve world-class standards for our young people, but let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the progress that we made under Labour between 1997 and 2010. In London, for example, we massively narrowed the gap in attainment. Will he acknowledge that what we are seeing now, under his party’s Government, is the attainment gap once again widening? Our young people deserve better than that.
There are so many measures that I believe the Government could and should have included in the Queen’s Speech. Ministers could have gone beyond the platitudes on early years that we heard a few minutes ago and set out a plan to reverse the damage their decade of cuts has produced and to ensure affordable, accessible, high-quality early years education and childcare for all children. They could have set out how they will transform the national tutoring programme, creating the space for children to socialise and recover the time they need to develop and grow, and ensuring that no child loses out because of the damage that Ministers’ failure to manage the pandemic has created. They could have addressed the horrifying rise in child poverty—not mentioned once in the Queen’s Speech, although it is the driving cause of the widening attainment gap. They could have ensured that education professionals’ and school and college leaders’ expertise and hard work during the pandemic were recognised with a fair pay rise.
Instead, the Secretary of State has decided that it is more important to focus on free speech on university campuses. Free speech and academic freedom are important, but suggesting that we should use up valuable legislative time while the employment Bill has been quietly dropped and while, nearly two years after the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street telling us that he had plans for social care ready to go, nothing has appeared, will make people up and down the country think that this is the wrong priority.
Kate Green
I will not at the moment, if the right hon. Member will forgive me. I wish to make some progress.
We need to get this in perspective. Only six out of 10,000 events on campus—I repeat: 10,000—were cancelled, four of them simply because of lack of paperwork. One was a pyramid scheme. Now, I do understand that Conservatives responsible for a decade of economic mismanagement may struggle to recognise a pyramid scheme when they see one, but I am surprised that the Secretary of State wants to protect the ability to promote such schemes on our university campuses.
Much more concerning, though, is that the Minister for Universities was forced to admit on radio yesterday that this flawed legislation could have dangerous and troubling consequences, including potentially protecting holocaust deniers.
Gavin Williamson
The Universities Minister never said that this would protect holocaust deniers, and it would not protect holocaust deniers because this party does not stand for antisemitism, unlike the Labour party. This party recognises that we need to eradicate antisemitism and racism of all kinds, and this legislation will never, never, never protect holocaust deniers, because that is something that should never, and will never, be tolerated.
Kate Green
Antisemitism is intolerable in my party, and in any organisation and any part of this country, but I am very sorry to tell the Secretary of State that the legislation does appear to offer protection, potentially, to antisemites and holocaust deniers; and the Universities Minister yesterday was not able to gainsay that.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware, having listened to the interview on Radio 4 yesterday, that the Universities Minister was explicitly asked whether this legislation would cover holocaust denial and she explicitly said that it would. This is appalling. There is no academic merit whatever in debate, distortion or denial of the holocaust. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the Secretary of State should correct the record, because what he said just then has misled the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sure that the hon. Lady would say “inadvertently misled the House”.
Kate Green
Let me read a transcript of the broadcast yesterday. The Universities Minister says:
“What this bill is designed to do is to protect and promote free speech which is lawful so any free speech which is lawful”.
The interviewer, Evan Davis, says:
“It is lawful isn’t it? Holocaust denial in this country is lawful isn’t it?”
The Minister says:
“So what I’m saying, yeah, so that’s”
Evan Davis asks:
“So holocaust denial is okay, you’d defend a holocaust denier being invited to campus because that is part of the free speech argument?”
The Minister responds:
“Obviously it would depend on exactly what they were saying”.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it never depends on what a holocaust denier is saying.
Gavin Williamson
Let us be absolutely clear that this legislation will never protect holocaust deniers. It protects free speech within the law. It protects the fact that—we know that antisemitic activity and antisemitism are not to be tolerated. It is clear in the Equality Act 2010. We will never tolerate it, and this legislation will not allow holocaust deniers to be able to spread their hate and misinformation on our campuses.
Kate Green
I am grateful for that assurance on the Floor of the House from the Secretary of State. I hope when we are able to debate the Bill again on the Floor of the House and in Committee that we can work together to make sure that we have absolutely watertight provisions to ensure that there is no place for antisemitism anywhere on campus.
I also say very gently to Government Members, many of whom have a proud record of defending free speech, that handing over the power to determine whether free speech complaints on campus are justified to the Office for Students—a Government regulator, with an unqualified former Conservative MP appointed as its chair—smacks of the kind of thought control that we would rightly condemn in authoritarian Governments around the world. But it is not the way we do things in this country. I hope the Secretary of State will also think better of those proposals.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about the Queen’s Speech was the absence of anything meaningful for one of our most precious assets—our children—and their learning and wellbeing in school. Although we know that the Secretary of State is determined to send more schools down the path of academisation, he says that there will be a “try before you buy” model for schools contemplating this route. I have no idea how that will work, so perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to enlighten us.
Most parents do not care that much about the structure of their children’s school, and they are quite right. It is not structure that determines a school’s performance, but high-quality teaching and excellent school leadership, and we see that in both the maintained and academy sectors. Prioritising favoured structures at a time when the role of schools in helping children to bounce back from the pandemic could not be more important once again shows that the Secretary of State has the wrong priorities, especially when schools are struggling with a stealth cut to their budgets because of changes to the pupil premium, while it is rumoured that the national tutoring programme is being taken out of the hands of experts and given to Randstad, a multinational outsourcing company. Can the Secretary of State confirm the media reports that Randstad will be running the national tutoring programme next year, and if so, can he tell the House what expertise in education, teaching and learning it will bring? In fact, can he tell us why it was able to win this tender at all? Was it because his Department decided to lower the quality of provision required to cut corners on price?
Those are questions that the Secretary of State should answer, but let me conclude by addressing the perfectly reasonable question: what would Labour do to guarantee a bright future for children and young people? Let me tell the House what would have been in a Labour Queen’s Speech this week. We would have started with a credible, radical plan to enable children and young people to bounce back from the pandemic—a plan that created time for children to play, learn and develop, that gave the teaching profession the recognition and support it needs to guarantee a world-class education for every child and that ensured the national tutoring programme reached all children who need it. We would have detailed proposals for children’s wellbeing, catch-up breakfast clubs guaranteeing every child a healthy breakfast and creating more time in the school day for children to recover lost learning and time lost with their friends and teachers.
We would have delivered a credible plan to support young people into work. We would have implemented policies outlined earlier this year by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) that would have guaranteed every young person not in education or employment a job or training opportunity to end long-term youth unemployment. We would have ensured the apprenticeship levy was used to create opportunities for our young people, as we suggested with our proposal to use the underspend from the apprenticeship levy last year to create 85,000 youth apprenticeship opportunities. Most importantly, we would be working right across a Labour Cabinet to end the scourge of rising child poverty, which is scarring the lives of millions of children. Tackling child poverty will always be a priority for Labour, and I am proud that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) will be leading our programme of work on this within the shadow Cabinet.
Before I came into Parliament, I spent a decade of my life working for and championing a brighter future for young people, because while children make up 20% of the population of this country, they are 100% of our future. They are ambitious, optimistic, imaginative, creative and excited about the world they will grow up to. They have so much to offer, and our job as adults is to give them every opportunity to make the most of their childhoods and their future, so let us not let them down with empty rhetoric and hollow promises. Today, let us commit to truly deliver a programme of change that transforms children’s lives, fulfils the promise that this will be best place to grow up and, in creating a brighter future for young people, gives the promise of a better future for every one of us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am now going to put a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions, which will be on the screens and on the clock in the Chamber. We now go to the Chair of the Education Committee, Robert Halfon.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I am excited by this Queen’s Speech—excited that, for the first time in many years, skills and further education are a core part. My maiden speech in 2010 was about apprenticeships, and I have yearned for the skills agenda to be embedded within Government. If the heart of levelling up is about education and skills, then we are truly in a good place. If levelling up means providing a ladder of opportunity for millions of our countrymen and women to learn, train and reskill, providing job security and prosperity for themselves and their families, then we will both meet the skills need of our nation and equip ourselves for the coming fourth industrial revolution. As the skills and FE Bill passes through Parliament, we will of course examine the finer details, but the vision of a lifetime skills guarantee providing all adults with the opportunity to retrain and skill for a lifelong learning entitlement is a huge step forward. The offer of free level 3 courses for those without A-levels could do much to retrain those who do not have the right qualifications to advance in key professions. My only wish is that this would come much sooner than 2025. I hope that in time the Government can build on this by providing an adult community learning centre in every town and by giving businesses a skills tax credit for every worker they retrain in vital skills.
We need to address the huge fall in part-time learners for higher education with maintenance support and greater financial muscle for institutions such as the Open University that do so much for disadvantaged students. The Open University is one of the great education inventions of the 20th century and an institution that puts levelling up first and foremost. For too long further education was denied the opportunities given to higher education, both in terms of funding and prestige. Over many years, there has been a culture of snobbery about FE. This has been all the more astonishing given that further education colleges meet our skills needs, provide a ladder of opportunity for thousands of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and are places of social capital. I have seen this myself in over 70 visits to Harlow College in my constituency. I have urged the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), or the Secretary of State to visit our wonderful college to see the work that it does as a showcase for the importance of FE to our country. The proposals look to build the prestige of further education and create more employer-led qualifications. As the Secretary of State, who has demonstrated a real passion for FE, has acknowledged, this must be backed up by a real-terms increase in funding. Further education has often been described as the Cinderella of our education system, but we should be reminded that Cinderella became a senior member of the royal family and could banish the two ugly sisters of snobbery and underfunding once and for all.
In the longer term, the Government should, alongside the remarkable kickstart programme of financial support for businesses that hire apprentices and young people, look at reform of the apprenticeship levy to ensure that more disadvantaged would-be apprentices can climb the skills ladder. Degree apprenticeships should be rocket-boosted with the ambition of having at least half of all students completing degree apprenticeships over the next 10 years.
Alongside FE, I would like the Government to do more to support university technical colleges. They have some superb outcomes and our ambition should be to have a UTC in every town across the country. Sixty-one per cent. of UTCs were rated good or outstanding in the past year compared with a national average of 50%, while in 2020 55% of students went on to university in contrast to 50% nationally, and 13% went on to do an apprenticeship whereas the national average is just 6%.
The White Paper mentions careers guidance. We will not transform skills unless we change careers guidance fundamentally. There is too much replication, duplication and overlap with the Department for Work and Pensions. Department for Education careers advice must be about skills, skills, skills. It must ensure that all the way through schooling pupils are taught about apprenticeships and FE and given more opportunities for work experience. Ofsted should focus on this kind of careers guidance, in short implementing the Baker clause—a much stricter criterion of inspection. Our curriculum should be changed to embed work and skills all the way through children’s, pupils’ and students’ learning.
The Government have put out the levelling-up skills ladder of opportunity. I am really optimistic that this Queen’s Speech will bring people to that ladder and help them climb to the top.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now go to the SNP spokesperson, Clare Monaghan.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but Clare is my big sister.
There are no surprises in this Queen’s Speech but there is much repetition of many of the Prime Minister’s favourite phrases. While Parliament was prorogued, the SNP campaigned in and comprehensively won an election on a manifesto that included, as well as the obvious clear commitment to holding a referendum on independence, a commitment to our young people—to their education, their health and wellbeing, and their routes to work. In Scotland we already have the highest number of school leavers going on to positive destinations anywhere in the UK. To invest in the next generation the SNP Government will invest £1 billion over the course of this Parliament to work on narrowing the school attainment gap and recruit 3,500 additional teachers and classroom assistants.
The Secretary of State earlier boasted of maths success, but maybe he should take the time to read what has been said by Professor John Jerrim of University College London, who wrote England’s official 2015 country report for PISA—the programme for international student assessment. Professor Jerrim said that some low-achieving students in England have been “systematically excluded” from the PISA data for England, which undermines England’s global rankings. It is suggested that if the data were adjusted on the basis of a more representative sample, England could plummet 11 placings in the maths ratings. Perhaps the Secretary of State should be aware of that.
While this Tory Government have to be forced into providing some school lunches for children, the Scottish Government will provide free school breakfasts and lunches to every primary school pupil throughout the year. Why have we not seen a similar commitment for children in England? For all their talk of levelling up, this Government ignore the fact that children cannot learn effectively when hungry.
The Tories threaten to rip away the lifeline of the £20 a week uplift to universal credit. The new SNP Government will double the game-changing Scottish child payment over the lifetime of this Parliament. The most needy families in Scotland are already receiving an additional £10 per week for every eligible child; doubling this to £20 will make a real difference to these families. That is a Scottish Government delivering on the people’s priorities —what a contrast to what we see from the Tory Government, who are content to continue imposing poverty on the most disadvantaged.
The context of the covid crisis makes choices such as these all the more critical, because in seeking to build economic recovery in the aftermath of the pandemic it is vital that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. The Budget in March and this Queen’s Speech are clearly laying the grounds for more austerity and Tory cuts.
It is also important to point out that no party and no Government who forced through a devastating Brexit in the middle of a pandemic can credibly claim to be focused on recovery. With the powers we have, the Scottish Government are doing everything they can to mitigate the damage and protect our businesses. A fair recovery must be investment-led, so at the centre of our recovery plans is an economic transformation with fair work and the climate emergency at its heart. It includes an investment of £500 million to support new jobs and to retrain people for the jobs of the future, as well as funding the young person’s guarantee of a free university, college, apprenticeship or training place for every young person who wants one.
What a contrast that is to what the Prime Minister has announced in the Queen’s Speech. Colleges in England have been severely underfunded for a decade, leading to a £1.1 billion gap in real-terms funding for 16-to-19 education, and this Tory Government have done very little to address that. The announcement on lifetime access to education cannot be truly considered access; all it does is pave the way for increased financial liability. No longer will educational debt, which is on average £50,000 on graduation for students in England, be reserved to the young; now the Tories want people of all ages to be saddled with debt for their education. This Tory Government need a different approach to post-16 education funding, providing long-term security and putting the interests of learners at its heart. Education is a public good and as such must be publicly funded to provide real lifelong access for all.
The Prime Minister continues his talk of the UK as a science superpower and makes impressive promises regarding research and development funding, but the story on the ground is much less rosy. Researchers are finding themselves in an eternal circle of grant applications, trying to get scraps of funding from various different bodies—one here, another there.
If the Prime Minister makes good on his announcement on additional funding for this sector, many will be relieved, but over the past six months, we have seen much that casts doubt on his promises and, as we have come to expect of this Prime Minister, absolutely no detail. There have been questions and delays over the funding of Horizon Europe, and cuts of £120 million from the ODA budget. The UK’s status as a science superpower is underpinned by international research collaboration. A while back, the UK Government announced, with much fanfare, 12 flagship hubs that were to run projects of five to 10 years for the achievement of the UK’s sustainable development goals. As a result of the ODA cuts, projects halfway through clinical trials cannot continue unless funds are found. That is jeopardising both jobs and research. Is that the action of a science superpower: withdrawing funding in the middle of human trials, in violation of medical ethics?
Also as a result of ODA cuts, universities have reported that research contracts have been terminated, in some cases with just hours’ notice. That has fundamentally undermined trust between universities, researchers and UK Research and Innovation. The system of research commissioning is now one where the first risk assessment that must be done is on the UK Government’s ability to honour their own contracts. Do the UK Government’s promises mean so little that they must now be risk assessed?
I am delighted that the Secretary of State was so enthusiastic in his praise for my home city of Glasgow and he is welcome to join me here in Glasgow at any point. I wonder whether he would also be enthusiastic about meeting the researchers who as a result of the ODA cuts are now struggling to continue with their research. Nothing in this Queen’s Speech provides any certainty for international collaboration. Instead, we have seen that young people’s ability to travel freely to 27 other countries has been curtailed. Opportunities have been lost. Despite his praise of the Turing scheme, it is a poor relative of the Erasmus scheme and our young people can see right through this.
Scotland is a confident nation, one that celebrates diversity. Although the electorate in England might buy the Prime Minister’s promises, young people in Scotland can see through them. They want a different path, one with opportunity, and they want to choose their own future as an independent nation. The Scottish Parliament elections have shown that the young people of Scotland are clear: they know that the SNP Government have their interests at heart and they look forward to re-joining the independent nations of the EU.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I do apologise to the hon. Lady for the slip-up at the beginning with her name.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker:
“When we’re born, our mothers show us compassion. This is a natural response without which we wouldn’t survive.”
Those are the words of the Dalai Lama in celebrating Mother’s Day, and he is absolutely right. Babies who experience the compassion and love of their care giver, be it mum, dad or another caring adult, have already won first prize in the lottery of life, because it is someone’s earliest experiences in the period from conception to the age of two that can shape their entire lifelong physical and emotional health.
To understand that point better we need look no further than the great Harry Potter. When he was born, his parents loved and cared for him. His mother gave her own life to save his. When evil Lord Voldemort killed Harry’s parents, Harry was only just over a year old. He was taken to live with his abusive aunt and uncle, and forced to grow up in a cupboard under the stairs, yet not only did his secure early beginning enable him to survive and thrive through all those early traumas, but his secure sense of self enabled him to go on to become the greatest wizard the world has ever known. So, to me, the stand-out part of the Queen’s Speech that really will ensure a bright future for the next generation was when the Queen confirmed that
“Measures will be brought forward to ensure that children have the best start in life, prioritising their early years.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 2021; Vol. 812, c. 2.]
Ensuring that every baby has a chance at the best start for life has been my passion for 25 years, from experiencing post-natal depression myself with my first born, to chairing a number of charities that provide mental health support for families who are struggling to form a secure bond with their new babies, to now being the Government’s early years healthy development adviser. The work carried out by so many over all those decades has been hugely rewarded by those few words in the Queen’s Speech.
I thank the Prime Minister for his personal commitment to the best start for every baby when he and I launched the Government’s vision for the 1,001 critical days together at the Monkey Puzzle Day Nursery in his constituency. The agreed actions in our vision will address inequalities across England, contribute hugely to the Government’s levelling-up agenda and can, in a generation, transform our society for the better. I fully intend to collaborate closely with colleagues in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations to share learning and best practice, to make this a positive story for our whole United Kingdom.
Why does support in the early years change lives for the better? Humans are unique in the animal kingdom in the extent of our underdevelopment at birth. What other offspring cannot fend for itself at all until it is at least a year old? But the physical underdevelopment is only a tiny part of the human story. At birth, the brain is only partially formed, and the way in which it develops is profoundly affected by an infant’s earliest experiences. Mental ill health, drug and substance misuse and domestic violence in the home can all create trauma in a developing brain that can have a permanent impact on both physical and emotional health, with not only long-term consequences for the total well of human happiness but the financial cost to society of poor early relationships. Depression, homelessness, drug taking, violence, self-harming, knife crime—too many of these costly problems can be laid at the door of poor early relationships.
The vision for the 1,001 critical days includes a joined-up start for life offer for every family in England; the development of multidisciplinary family hub networks that are open-access, universal and include both physical and virtual support; a digital version of the red book; a newly empowered workforce; improved outcomes measurement and evaluation; and strong leadership at both the local and national levels. It is an incredibly ambitious programme of measures, and I am so proud to be leading their implementation on behalf of the Government.
The commitment of the Government should be music to all our ears. I thank the many Members right across the House who have been so supportive of this agenda for so long. A focus on the 1,001 critical days may just be the most important thing we will ever do to ensure a bright future for the next generation.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). It has been a true pleasure to work with her for over a decade on early years policy and, most recently, on the Government’s early years review, which she kindly invited me to sit on. I am pleased that she has once again raised this very important issue today and at the commitment she has secured in the Queen’s Speech, which I hope, as she does, delivers all the recommendations in her review. It has also been a pleasure to co-chair with the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), who I shadowed when he was the Children and Families Minister, the Early Years Commission, which is set to publish its findings soon.
As we know, the first 1,001 critical days are so crucial to a child’s development, and I will continue as long as I have breath in my body to campaign for the early years to be prioritised and properly funded, as I am sure the right hon. Lady will. However, I want to focus the bulk of my remarks on another very important issue. While the pandemic has been more than a challenge for all policy areas, nowhere has it impacted harder than in our health services. I want to raise this today because the legacy of any legislation now will have a lasting impact on our recovery towards the brighter future we all want to see. We have the opportunity now to rebuild our NHS after this devastating blow, so that generations to come have world-class healthcare there for them when they need it. Yet sadly, there was no mention of cancer services in particular in the Queen’s Speech, which is a terrible omission.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ovarian cancer, I work closely with other cancer APPG chairs to raise the devastating issues facing our cancer services. Never has that work been of greater importance than across this last year, yet, sadly, BBC statistics shared today suggest there are 45,000 missing cancer patients, meaning fewer people are going to their GP to be checked out or seek referrals. They are also missing vital screening services. Of that number, almost 10,000 are missing breast cancer patients. People need to know that it is safe to go to get checked. Not only is it safe; it is encouraged.
Despite fewer people presenting to their GPs in the first place as a result of the pandemic, worrying trends have appeared along the treatment chain. Macmillan’s research demonstrates that, as of February this year, the number of people being seen by a specialist after an urgent referral had dropped by 8% from February 2020. The disruption to services across the last 14 months has created a backlog of people receiving their first treatment for cancer, which currently stands at 38,500 people. That is despite the strongest efforts of our tremendously hard-working NHS staff.
Despite the urgent nature of the 62-day period from diagnosis to treatment, thousands of patients have had to wait longer. The lowest number of people missing that waiting time period was 16,111, and that was in November last year, but that was still 44% higher than pre-pandemic numbers. We all know that NHS staff have worked their hardest and could not have done more, but even if cancer services could now operate at 110% of pre-pandemic capacity, we are looking at more than 15 months to clear that backlog, and that is without the 45,000 missing cancer patients all turning up all of a sudden. So this just is not possible or sustainable with the extensive challenges that lie ahead. The Government must do everything they can to put patients first, clear that backlog, find those missing patients and bring down the growing waiting lists. But how?
Concerns have been raised by the Royal College of Radiologists that delays to scans have been worsened by a 33% shortfall in that workforce. It is unfortunately growing clearer that our cancer workforce are suffering and need immediate attention from the Government. Alongside other cancer APPG chairs, I was happy to sign a funding statement in March which called on the Government to recognise that NHS services need resources to super-boost capacity above pre-pandemic levels. The Government really must act now to make sure that this does not spiral into a greater health crisis and to protect lives. The way to achieve that is with a plan that ensures the long-term resuscitation of the cancer workforce—a plan that will recruit and train, bring jobs and maintain the standards of care that people deserve nationwide.
Cancer was left out of the Chancellor’s Budget in March. The backlog was not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. I ask the Government to make sure that the other c-word is not forgotten once more.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
I welcome the breadth of measures in the Queen’s Speech, which are necessary and welcome. We are talking today about the plans for further education, which right an anomaly that has been there for too long. Someone can go to university and receive subsidised loan support from the Government, but someone pursuing a vocational course in the FE sector is all too often largely left to fend for themselves. That reform is really important.
I also single out the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill, which I hope will put an end to the anomaly of house builders selling properties that should be freehold with a long-term lease that they then use to exploit their buyers to get more money. I have many constituents who have experienced that, and the behaviour of companies such as Persimmon has brought discredit on the sector.
I want to focus my remarks not on a new Bill but on an old one, but one that is vital to the future of the generations we are talking about today. The Environment Bill has already passed through most of its stages in this House, but carrying it over into this Session provides an opportunity to make further improvements to what is already a good and important Bill. I really welcome the steps taken to address deforestation and the use of deforested land to grow products that might end up on sale here. The loss of forested areas around the world in recent decades has been disastrous for our planet, impacting on habitats, biodiversity and climate change.
The Environment Bill will make it much more difficult to use illegally deforested areas to produce products for sale in the UK, but that leaves a big challenge where the deforestation is not illegal. We have seen in Brazil, only in the past few weeks, moves to introduce new laws that would permit greater exploitation of the Amazon rainforest, which our planet simply cannot afford. This country cannot and should not stand idly by while that happens. The Amazon rainforest is a global asset of vital importance to all our futures. I pay tribute to the retailers who last week sent a clear message to the Brazilian Government that they will not source products from a country that behaves in that way. I ask the Secretary of State to talk to the Foreign Secretary to make sure that his Department also makes clear our Government’s disapproval of what is proposed in Brazil, to ensure that these damaging laws are withdrawn by Ministers there.
Many environmental groups have rightly raised concerns about the fact that the Environment Bill takes action on illegal deforestation but not on legal deforestation—given what is proposed in Brazil, they have a real point. Of course, it is difficult to criminalise products in the UK that have been produced legally in other countries, and it is often very difficult to prove that this has happened, even in a court of law. We must take every possible step to prevent damaging legal and illegal deforestation where it does serious damage to ecosystems. Where countries need deforestation for economic reasons, we should help them where necessary and provide aid to help them find alternative ways.
There are two steps that I want to see taken in the Environment Bill or by Ministers in the coming months, to a clear timetable and with a clear commitment. First, I hope that the Government will accept amendments, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), that would prevent UK-based financiers from supporting investments in businesses that exploit forest risk products. I think that is absolutely essential. Secondly, I want to see the introduction of a clear system of sustainable food labelling in this country. I have tabled an amendment that would mandate the Government to do that. If it is difficult to make agricultural products coming from areas of legal deforestation illegal, let us at least give consumers the power to reject those products themselves. If we do so, retailers will inevitably also reject those products.
Another change that I would like to see in the Environment Bill relates to something rather closer to home. I am the parliamentary species champion for one of our favourite, but sadly now dwindling, species: the hedgehog. Some of the measures in the Agriculture Act 2020, and now in the Environment Bill, can make a real difference. I want to see greater protection for the hedgehog against the wanton destruction of habitats. We still have to conduct newt surveys, and small creatures such as the lagoon sand worm are protected, but a developer can simply rip up a hedge without even checking whether there are hedgehogs or other endangered species in it, and that needs to change. When the time comes for that debate, I will be pushing Ministers either to provide that protection immediately or, perhaps more realistically, to move rapidly to create a new framework that provides proper protections—updated, modern protections —for hedgehogs and other species with dwindling numbers.
This Government are already providing more wildlife and animal protection than almost any of their predecessors, and this Queen’s Speech contains a range of very welcome measures to improve the legal protection we offer, and I commend Ministers for that. The Environment Bill takes us further than virtually any other country in taking responsibility for our planet and our ecology. There is more to come from this Government as they look at some of the issues, such as live animal transport, that must be addressed for animal welfare in this country. These are very welcome, overdue and necessary. I hope that Members on both sides will agree that, based on these measures alone, the Queen’s Speech should have—I fear that it probably will not—the unanimous support of the House.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) [V]
The last year has been one of tragedy for the tens of thousands of relatives of those who died from covid, such as Jane Roche of Castle Vale in my constituency. Her dad, Vince, died, and five days later her sister Jocelyn died. She has campaigned fiercely for an independent inquiry into why tens of thousands died who should never have died. Yesterday she once again wept tears when the inquiry was announced. She said three things. First, she and the relatives from Birmingham will meet the Secretary of State shortly, and they want their voice to be heard in the drawing up of the terms of reference. Secondly, they want to be able to give evidence on behalf of the families from Birmingham—Britain’s second city—which saw such a terrible price paid. Thirdly, 2022 is simply too late for the inquiry to start if painful lessons are to be learned.
I want to focus my remarks on manufacturing, which matters to the success of the United Kingdom. The genius of manufacturing, science and the national health service was responsible for the development and roll-out of the vaccine, and 30 million people have already been vaccinated. That success teaches us two lessons, which I fear the Government have not sufficiently learned. First, it was the coming together of the state, businesses and workers that delivered one of the greatest feats that this country has achieved in recent times. Secondly, British manufacturing, having shown its worth to the country in its hour of need, deserves and requires a Government who think strategically about how to support the sector to reap the rewards of our world-class manufacturing. However, the Queen’s Speech and the events of recent months demonstrate that the Government are failing to learn these lessons. The scrapping of the Industrial Strategy Council, the ending of the industrial strategy policy and the Treasury land grab of industrial strategy have been received with dismay by many in the world of manufacturing—employer and trade union alike.
Time after time, we have seen the Government shirk their responsibility to support British industry. All the while, our international competitors are making strides forward. Last year, the French invested £15 billion in the aerospace industry and £8 billion in the automotive industry to put them at the forefront of the next generation of green planes and cars. The German Government have invested £4 billion in German automotive production to ease the transition to electric vehicles. In America, President Biden has secured a $1.9 trillion stimulus package to kickstart the economy. The failure in our country to do likewise on the necessary scale means that we run the risk of Britain falling behind, and that must change.
The Government need to act now on three fronts. First, they need to recognise that it is absolutely key to our economic recovery that we invest in manufacturing, which is central to our economy, creating good, well-paid and stable jobs when too many people are now in insecure and low-paid employment.
Secondly, on the challenges of net zero, this is the year of Glasgow, with the immense potential that that brings. However, if we are to rise to that challenge, demanding —rightly so—that we end the scandal of global warming, and then take advantage of that, it means investment in our world-class manufacturing and research and development. One example of where the Government simply fall behind continental Europe is investment in gigafactories, and another is investment in infrastructure.
Thirdly, if the Government mean what they say about the levelling-up agenda, it is crucial that much of manufacturing is located in seats of high deprivation, such as Erdington. I always describe Erdington as being rich in talent, but it is one of the poorest constituencies in the country. At its heart we have the jewels in the crown of manufacturing, such as Jaguar Land Rover and the GKN factory—we are battling right now to save that from closure. Manufacturing is key if the Government are to come anywhere near achieving their objective of levelling up.
In conclusion, let me return to the success of the vaccine roll-out. It has demonstrated the enormous and endless potential of the state, businesses and workers coming together to deliver, in our hour of need, one of this country’s greatest achievements. It also demonstrates just how important manufacturing is to Britain. The Government need to learn those lessons, but I fear that they will not. They are proceeding with nowhere near the ambition that is necessary. Is it true that some welcome initiatives have been taken? Yes, it is, but not at the scale demanded. If France, Germany and America can do it, Britain demands and deserves better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have been told that some Members have withdrawn from this debate, so, unusually, I will put the time limit up for a bit to seven minutes.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
After 12 months of challenge, this Queen’s Speech needed to do two things: tackle the aftermath of the pandemic and lay firm foundations for a brighter future. It does exactly that. Bills tackling investment in our health service and social care sit alongside town deals, the higher education Bill and the Environment Bill. This clear vision for optimism is based on the Government’s levelling up agenda for the whole country. It is really about unleashing the full potential of the whole country. That was the message that ignited the electorate in the elections last week. From Hartlepool to the west midlands and to Basingstoke, voters profoundly rejected negative campaigning and embraced the positive message that we, as a Conservative party, had to give—nowhere more so than in my own constituency of Basingstoke, where we took back control of the council with a resounding majority.
This Queen’s Speech is all about levelling up and unleashing that potential, and it is an optimistic message for the country. It is about investing in our towns and in the infrastructure in the midlands, the north-east, the north-west and, indeed, around the whole of the United Kingdom. It means that reaching one’s full potential does not mean moving away from one’s home town. That has a personal resonance for me, because in the late 1960s, when my family left the Black Country where I had been born and bred, they did so to seek a better job and to be able to move from council accommodation to a private house. I would like to see a change in the need to do that, and I welcome the focus of this Queen’s Speech in allowing that to happen. That message is also important for places such as my own constituency of Basingstoke, because growth has been concentrated in the south-east for too long at the expense of other parts of the United Kingdom, causing extraordinary pressure on housing, transport and the local environment. Making sure that we level up across the country is important for every single citizen in the United Kingdom.
The Queen’s Speech is also about levelling up for those groups everywhere who are still not achieving their full potential, particularly through education and work opportunities. The education and skills Bill will be an essential ingredient in this, as lifelong training is the reality for all of us wherever we work.
When it comes to work, the past 12 months have been an enormous challenge for employers. They have been tested more than ever before, and the overwhelming majority have worked with their employees to find new ways to work and support their families, and to support staff suffering from the mental health challenges of the pandemic. If we are to enable everyone in this country to reach their full potential, we need to be actively levelling up in the workplace, too. Within the Government’s legislative programme, we need to tackle some of the issues that we encountered with working practices during the pandemic. We must be optimistic about ensuring that everybody—every woman, in particular, and every parent—in this country can reach their potential.
Since 2010, this Government have made it an important priority to help women to level up in the workplace. There has been progress in recording and cutting the gender pay gap for women under 35, in increasing childcare and in extending the right to request flexible working, but a truly bright future for the next generation will take these steps further. Ensuring that everyone in this country can reach their full potential in work is important not only because it is fair, but because it is essential for the prosperity of our entire nation. Making all jobs flexible by default has become the reality for the past 12 months, so let us not slip back into the old ways of working. Let us use the challenges of the past 12 months as a platform for a more positive, flexible way to work from now on. And let us level up for pregnant women at work, too, because too many of them have suffered from their employers’ lack of understanding of the law during the pandemic, being put on sick leave when they should not have been.
The Government already know that 50,000 women a year leave their jobs when they are pregnant because of discrimination, often covered up by the use of non-disclosure agreements, many forced out of work at a time when they cannot get another job. Too many women still see a lack of a level playing field at work, so let us level up for them too, and let us have within the Government legislative programme plans to stop pregnant women being made redundant and stop the use of non-disclosure agreements covering up unlawful activity, particularly sexual harassment and discrimination at work. Let us have proper shared care for dads, too, because it is better for everyone. All jobs as flexible by default unless there is a good reason not to—that is what levelling up has to look like for everyone in the future.
Finally, I welcome the online harms Bill included in the Gracious Speech, published yesterday for scrutiny before being formally debated in this place. A ground- breaking piece of legislation—the UK truly leading the world in tackling online harms. An important part of a bright future for the next generation needs to be an internet that benefits, not detracts from, our lives. As well as regulating that industry to ensure that it does not create harm, we need laws to give victims protections, too. So either within or alongside the Online Safety Bill, the Government need to tackle the deficits in the law, especially on sharing intimate sexual images without consent. The Law Commission review is now finished and will be complete before the Bill comes to the House, and I hope the Government will undertake to insert into the Online Safety Bill important changes in criminal law to protect victims of that heinous crime of intimate image abuse.
The Bills in the Queen’s Speech start to rebuild our country after the challenges of the pandemic. Its optimism and vision to level up are exactly what our country needs.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
In the local elections last week, Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats campaigned with a positive focus on the environment, improving the lives of our young people and supporting health and social care. It was a vision that resonated with people in Oxfordshire, and resulted in record gains against the Conservatives and our largest ever group on the county council. For the first time in 16 years, we are hoping for a leading role on an administration that will make that agenda a reality.
We believe that investing in our country is not just about physical infrastructure, but is also about investing in our people, especially our children. By contrast, in Oxfordshire under the Tories, youth services and children’s centres had been cut to the bone. In fact, most of our children’s centres closed in 2017 and they disbanded the Oxfordshire youth service in its entirety. Liberal Democrats want to bring youth services back, because we believe that there is no better way to create a bright future for the next generation than to help them engage with all the amazing opportunities available to them in our area, and we want to see real investment in children’s centres and early years support.
Two years ago, Lib Dem Abingdon councillor Neil Fawcett managed to persuade the council to reopen South Abingdon’s children’s centre. Despite Oxfordshire’s relative affluence, Caldecott is in the 10% most deprived wards in education, skills and training in the country and the 20% most deprived in income. Children’s centres change lives, but especially so in such places as South Abingdon. He should not have needed to campaign so hard for that, but I am pleased to report that with the support of the local community, that centre is now thriving.
It is that focus on fairness and long-term investment that completely exemplifies the approach that Liberal Democrats will take, should we help to form the new county council administration. To do that even better, however, we do need more central Government funding. Budgets for all councils were stretched before the pandemic, but it is even worse now. Add in the £1.6 million lost because of the former administration’s incompetence over a botched car park contract and £8 million lost from the social care budget because of short-sighted decisions, and it is fair to say that times are tough.
It is the non-statutory services that have suffered, but that is surely a false economy. Our children’s social care budget is in crisis. For every child who ends up in the system, we must remember the anguish and the enduring damage that getting to that point can cause, but it is also bad value for money. Investing in our children and their families early is not just the right thing to do morally, but the right thing to do for our taxpayers, too. We have only to look at the example of charities such as the Abingdon Bridge or Wolvercote Young People’s Club to see what an incredible difference these youth services make to the lives of our young people, but we need to be able to help everyone, and there are far too many gaps. When the Vibe youth club in Didcot was closed, the young people who relied on it just did not know where to go.
I welcome the aims set out in the education recovery plan, but I hope that in developing these plans, the Government will not overlook the role that local government and youth services can play. The Liberal Democrats have proposed devolving money away from the National Citizen Service and the youth investment fund to local authorities so that they can expand youth service provision and provide educational recovery programmes. That would make such a difference to my constituents; I ask the Minister what thought has been given to doing it.
For many young people, apprenticeships provide that practical bridge between education and work, and towards fulfilling independent futures where they are masters of their own destiny. In Oxfordshire, we want to do even better. We have incredible local providers such as Abingdon & Witney College and Activate Learning, but the Government do not make it easy.
In her answer last month to a question that I tabled in March, the apprenticeships Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan)—revealed that more than £1 billion in apprenticeship levy funding paid by employers had expired unused between May 2020 and February 2021. That was a 22% increase on the year before, which just shows that there is far too much bureaucracy and too little flexibility in the system. It has disadvantaged young people, who are missing out. Nationally, the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for the apprenticeship levy to be expanded into a wider skills and training levy to help to prepare the UK’s workforce for the economic challenges ahead.
Finally, there is great appetite to engage with the kickstart scheme, but I was deeply concerned to hear, in a business roundtable organised by our local enterprise partnership, that data on the kickstart scheme is gathered only at a regional level by the Department for Work and Pensions. If the Government want it to succeed, I plead with Ministers: give us the data at a county level—let us help you.
Our children and young people deserve a brighter future. As we emerge from this pandemic, it is the impact on the next generation that really concerns me the most. We need serious investment in them—in early years, children’s centres and youth services, as well as schools, colleges and universities. Only if we do that will the dream of a brighter future become a reality.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on the passion with which she speaks on behalf of early learning.
I feel a bit bereft by this Government, because normally I like to make constructive criticism of my own side, but I have to say that there is very little in this Queen’s Speech that I disagree with—perhaps I had better sit down straight away, but you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I say a few words.
To compare that with previous Governments, I found it very difficult to agree with a single thing that the Government of David Cameron were doing. He took the view—some in the Labour party may take it now—that his party was unelectable and he had to veer towards a kind of liberal agenda. He did do one thing right, which was calling a referendum on Europe, although of course he never thought for a moment that it would ever happen. He thought that he would still be in coalition with the Liberals and that if it did happen, there would be just a few right wingers, as he would have termed them, arguing for Brexit and he would win easily—but Brexit has changed everything. That is now the problem for the Labour party in reconnecting with its voters in northern and midlands seats such as Gainsborough, which I represent.
The Government are in a strong position, but I counsel against hubris. If we are to hold on to our gains in areas such as I represent, we must not just talk the talk but walk the walk and take the action. That applies particularly to immigration and housing. Brexit was won not because people like me were wittering on about parliamentary sovereignty for many years, but on the issue of immigration, and people in the midlands and the north of England feeling that their Government were out of touch on immigration.
I welcome the new Bill that is being promoted. The fact is, though, that there are perhaps a million people in this country whom we do not know about who are here illegally. That is a real issue and of real concern. What really angers people is seeing these daily pictures of illegal crossings on the channel. I believe that the only way to stop that is to make it a criminal offence to try to enter this country illegally—one that, if proven, would entail a custodial sentence and deportation. If we do not take action, this trade will continue; it will get worse and worse, and sooner or later there will be a horrible tragedy in the channel and people will drown and they will die. The Bill is welcome, but we have to be robust on this. We cannot protect ourselves simply by creating a wall around the country.
Why do people come here? These are not bad people; they are good people. They just want a better future. They come here because their own countries are in chaos. Therefore, we have to commit ourselves to international aid and overseas development. I will not labour the point, but I have been critical of the way the budget has been cut. We have promised to restore it, but we have to concentrate aid in a practical way, on the poverty that is motivating this mass migration. Immigration is a vital issue.
The next issue is housing. Some of my colleagues who represent prosperous seats in the south-east are rightly worried about the planning Bill. Personally, I see no point in encouraging developers to build on green-belt land. They always want to build executive housing on green land; we want to build housing in the cities, the towns, the north of England and the midlands. I think we should reconnect with people by committing ourselves to a Macmillan Government-type programme of building 300,000 houses a year. His mistake, perhaps, was to build council houses. I want to build housing for young people that they can afford so that they can convert rent into purchase. That will really connect with young people, who, in places such as the south-east, simply cannot get on the property ladder. That is how this Government will be a success—by giving people a stake in their own society, so that they are not just renters. That is a true levelling-up agenda.
I am also grateful to the Government for taking on the issue of free speech in universities. It is none of my business, really, but if the Labour party is to reconnect with so many of its natural supporters in the north, it has to turn its back on this woke, politically correct agenda of denigrating our past. The past is the past. I understand that, on my mother’s side, my grandfather was born in Barbados—he was the son of a missionary—but it is quite probable that his grandfather and great-grandfather were involved in the slave trade and may even have owned slaves. Am I to denounce my own family? The fact is that the slave trade was so endemic in the 18th century that there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are descended from slave owners. Slavery is wrong. It was wrong; it is wrong. We led the world in abolishing it, but the history is as it is.
Similarly, when I go up to the Committee corridor, I see a picture of Queen Elizabeth I—a glorious picture of Gloriana. She ensured that my ancestor Richard Leigh was hung, drawn and quartered for no other reason than that he was a Catholic priest. But do I condemn Elizabeth I? No; it is part of our history. We have to be proud of Britain. We have to stop tearing down statues, stop denigrating our past, and accept that the past is the past, with all its benefits and regrettable occurrences.
Charlotte Nichols
I agree with the right hon. Member on some level about the need to protect our nation’s history. If he is so concerned about ensuring that the nation’s history is protected, will he condemn the comments made by the Minister for Universities on Radio 4 yesterday about holocaust deniers and people who wish to debate the facts of the holocaust being protected under the new free speech in universities legislation that his Government are bringing forward?
Sir Edward Leigh
I did not hear the interview. All I can say is that antisemitism, like Islamophobia and all the isms, is completely wrong, regrettable and horrible. I would have hoped that it would not have not been necessary to bring in such a Bill because there will be all sorts of unintended consequences. I heard a university vice-chancellor say yesterday, “How are we going to police it?” I understand all this. Therefore, it is down to the leadership of the universities and the schools to ensure free speech, within reason.
Free speech should be governed by good manners. It should not be governed by laws. We should therefore protect free speech, and it is down to headteachers and vice-chancellors to ensure that this ridiculous no-platforming stops. I do not want to get into the whole transgender issue, but a well-known feminist writer should not be barred from speaking in a university just because she has made a few comments on transgender issues.
Finally, I want to talk about the Union, which is the single most important issue we have to deal with—even more important than immigration and housing. We have to fight for the Union. I counsel the Government in saying that it is just an economic issue. Of course, we have to take on the SNP on the economic issues, but we must not make the mistake of the remainers in the EU referendum by saying it is all about money. We must not play Project Fear. We must say, “We love being together with Scotland. We love the Scottish people. We love the Union. We have achieved so much together. Let’s keep it going.”
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Right on cue. I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for that love bombing, but I assure him that that in itself will not be enough to save his Union. When it comes to young people, their choices, their rights and their futures, once again we have a tale of two Governments, with one here who refuse to give 16 to 18-year-olds the vote and are trying to suppress voting with the electoral register Bill. We should note that when the SNP first extended the voting franchise for the 2014 referendum, both Labour and the Tories were opposed to young people getting their chance to vote. Why was that? They feared that the young would vote for independence. However, it was a long-standing SNP policy and a principle of ours, and we extended it to parliamentary elections. We believe in democracy and maximum participation. That is why EU citizens also have the vote and why we have now extended it to refugees.
We live in a parliamentary democracy. Pro-referendum and pro-indy parties have 72 seats to the Unionists’ 57 seats, and the SNP achieved the highest constituency vote share of any party ever at a Holyrood election on a record turnout. The Tories made it clear at the election that the referendum was a key voting issue, yet they secured only 23% in the list vote, with pro-indy parties achieving over 50%. Why does Westminster therefore think they should have a veto on our democratic choices? What message does that send to young voters? Young people have had to face the brunt of Brexit. Surely they deserve a chance to choose their own path, with a different future: a chance to consider the merits of an independent Scotland within the EU and a Government that people voted for, with the full economic levers of independence and able to make their own decisions. That is a normal country. It could, for example, choose to implement a new green deal. It is therefore no wonder that 70% of 16 to 24-year-olds favour Scottish independence.
When it comes to climate change, we know that young people are more engaged and recognise it as the biggest threat to their future. They know that the Scottish Government have declared a climate emergency, but so far the UK Government have not followed suit. The young want to see a green recovery, which is only possible with Scottish independence. Why should Scotland remain in a Union where energy policy is reserved to Westminster? It means that in effect we do everything with one hand tied behind our back. While we were forging ahead with ambitious renewable energy targets, down here David Cameron was trying to “cut the green crap”. That led to the blocking of onshore wind development in Scotland, which is also stuck with a grid charging system in which operators in Scotland pay the highest connection fees in Europe. Despite that, in 2020 Scotland still managed to produce over 97% of its electricity demand from renewable energy—truly leading the way.
Why should we be stuck with an energy policy that is wedded to new nuclear power stations and is piling costs on to our electricity bills? The £20 billion Hinkley Point C project is 45 times more expensive than the current offshore wind prices. We do not need nuclear for base-load—the National Grid chief executive officer debunked that myth in 2015. It is utter madness to commit further billions to new nuclear power stations or small water reactors and nuclear fusion. It is just creating another nuclear waste legacy, when the existing one is already costing us over £130 billion.
It is obvious that renewable energy is the future. We need to grasp the opportunities to create green jobs and the potential to provide rewarding careers that offer people opportunities to travel around the world. But there was nothing—absolutely nothing—in the Queen’s Speech on renewable energy policy. For base-load, in our energy policy we need to go ahead and price the mechanism for pumped hydro storage. For just around £1.5 billion, we could get the Cruachan dam extension and the new Coire Glas scheme constructed, which would create much-needed high-quality job opportunities in rural Scotland. Even better, analysis by Imperial College suggests that investment in pumped hydro storage could save us £700 million a year in system costs by 2050, so let us get that done.
When will the UK Government do something to get the Peterhead carbon capture and storage project over the finishing line? Equinor and SSE Thermal say it could be operational by 2026, so it could be part of the just transition and provide vital job opportunities for our young people. The same is true for hydrogen. Agree a contract for difference mechanism and get the St Fergus project up and running.
Why, oh why, are the UK Government not doing more to get wave and tidal projects to a stage where they can be scaled up? This really is the way that Scotland can lead the world. Instead, we are constrained by UK Government policy and procurement processes. We have already missed out on green jobs in manufacturing and fabrication hubs because of flaws in the CfD process for offshore wind procurement. This is further proof that Westminster does not work for Scotland.
Where is Westminster’s policy for scaling up heat pump production and installation to the 600,000 installations a year that the 10-point plan tells us are going to happen? There are only 20,000 installations a year at the moment. When will Westminster get a grip of energy efficiency policy? They need to treat it like a national infrastructure project, the way the Scottish Government do. The Scottish Government spend four times what Westminster does per capita, creating jobs and the required long-term investments.
In tree planting, Scotland by far leads the way: 85% of the trees planted in the UK in the past decade are in Scotland. In the Queen’s Speech Bill document, the UK Government brag about planting 13,500 hectares of trees last year. What they do not say is that over 85% of the trees were planted in Scotland under the Scottish Government. It was nothing to do with Westminster. That is greenwashing of the highest order.
Westminster cannot con us with greenwashing. They cannot con an electorate who knew full well what they were voting for in the Scottish elections last week. They knew that voting in the SNP and the Greens was a clear indication that they want an independent Scotland, leading the way to net zero and creating a bright and optimistic future. Westminster should not stand in their way, and I suggest that Labour should not back the Tories on that, either.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is fair to say that the pandemic has made many of us re-evaluate our real priorities in our own lives at home, in our communities and across the country. What do we truly value? How can we nurture all that is needed for future generations to thrive and not falter? It could well be a crowded field, but I am in no doubt that providing every child with the best possible start in life should sit at the very top of that priority list.
That is why I was delighted to be involved in the seminal early years healthy development review carried out by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), to whom I pay tribute, and I understand that it is her birthday today. The review was published in March this year and, pleasingly, forms a key part of the Government’s legislative and policy programme set out in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech.
I very much support many of the key action areas that came out of the review through a lot of work, deliberation and evidence gathering, in particular the start for life offer, which mirrors in some ways the local offer that we introduced in relation to special educational needs and disability when I was children’s Minister; the formulation and growth of family hubs—again, I welcome the Government’s commitment and investment to date, but there is plenty more that we can do to realise the huge potential of the family hubs model; the development of a more modern and skilled workforce to meet the changing needs of children and families, ensuring that it is relentlessly child-focused, so that we can build the proper support around children and their families that we know works; and, crucially, improving accountability and data and understanding the impact of the interventions and the interactions that we have with families, particularly in those very early years, when we know we can make the biggest difference.
If we do not get it right in the critical early weeks, months and years, we are simply storing up deep-rooted difficulties for decades to come. That is why I have also, alongside the always sunny hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), been co-chairing the Early Years Commission, which is looking at the nought to five age group. We will soon publish a cross-party manifesto, in recognition of the fact that we need to come together to seek to address the long-term challenges associated with the early years and to set out a long-term plan that has the capacity to endure beyond the changing faces of Government.
Many of those findings and conclusions—with some relief, on my part—chime with and complement the early years healthy development review, while at the same time stretching some of the core offer to children up to the age of five. The review is unequivocal in its recommendations that, when it comes to the levelling-up agenda, which we have heard so much about, particularly for those children living in households with high levels of deprivation, the education, health and development of young people must be society’s top priority, as must community and professional support for parents to help them make their homes a nurturing, safe environment where babies and toddlers can take their first steps towards a healthy, happy and productive life. By putting children at the centre of their community and public services and by prudently and effectively investing in early years education, we can together start to transform the life chances of many more children in our country, wherever they happen to live.
I very much support the education recovery plan being led by the commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, who I know is working hard to find the right formula to help bridge the gaps and build a system that gives better and fairer opportunities for children as we come out of the pandemic. That is against an important backdrop of £1.7 billion of support through the education recovery plan, the catch-up package, the tutoring programme and the recovery premium, as well as the £400 million to improve access to remote learning, given the digital divide that we saw play out in the last year, including in Eddisbury. The increase in support for schools needs to be replicated in the early years.
I want to touch quickly on two other aspects of school life on which we need to continue to do more and have better focus. The first is school exclusions. I led an independent review of school exclusion two years ago, and there has been some progress—for instance, the £10 million on behaviour hubs—but there is still much to do, including a practice improvement fund, ensuring that schools are responsible for children they exclude and moving alternative provision into the mainstream as a centre of excellence. I hope to meet Ministers soon to discuss the progress of all my recommendations, so that we can make further, important progress.
Since finding myself on the Back Benches, I have also found time to chair a taskforce on the future of physical education, with support from the Association for Physical Education and others, including Jason Robinson, the England rugby union star and world cup winner who saw PE as the thing that changed his life from a road of failure to one of success.
One consequence of the pandemic has been a deeply concerning drop-off in physical exercise and activity among children of all ages. Now that schools are back and sports and activities are reopening there are signs of improvement, but I am afraid that evidence is also emerging that some schools are reducing physical education time in order to focus on catching up in other subject areas. So we need to look specifically at physical education, and one key life skill in that is swimming—we saw 150,000 children leaving primary school without being able to swim 25 metres. That situation clearly needs to be addressed urgently, both as part of the welcome catch-up programme and more systematically through physical education by ensuring that all of its irrefutable and lifelong impact on physical, social, emotional and cognitive development is at the very heart of school life. In doing that we can take another step forward in our shared ambition of giving every child the best possible start in life.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
I am very pleased to be able to respond to Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech and to highlight the issues facing my constituency of Wansbeck, and of course, the north-east as a whole.
Nothing is more important than this nation’s young people—our children—but, sadly, millions of them are being left behind as we speak. I want to focus on the real world of child poverty, not some rose-tinted parallel universe that many people appear to be living in. This issue needs to be addressed as a major Government imperative; for any Government, child poverty should be of extreme importance, if not top of the agenda.
The Queen’s Speech proclaims
“Measures will be brought forward to ensure that children have the best start in life, prioritising their early years.”
It also says that the Government
“will address lost learning during the pandemic and ensure every child has a high quality education and is able to fulfil their potential.”
Those are noble aims, but the Government could do a lot worse than look to reverse their own dismal record over the past 11 years.
The Government cannot dare talk of levelling up unless they tackle the gross inequalities in opportunity affecting our young people right across the length and breadth of this country. A decade of brutal austerity and cuts has taken its toll. When children in my constituency look around at communities that are spoken about with such pride and nostalgia by their parents and grandparents they can be forgiven for scratching their heads and wondering why. The schools are overcrowded, underfunded and in many cases absolutely falling apart. The high streets are ghost towns, and the traditional industries that once fostered such a strong sense of community are ghosts of the past, leaving these young people with no clear idea of what to do with their futures. We also lack reliable systems of support and these young people often look around and find they simply have nothing to do.
These are serious issues. In part of Wansbeck, in my constituency, almost half the children grow up in poverty. That is not acceptable—it really isn’t. In 2019 we decided with the National Education Union to produce a child poverty report including the testimonies of teachers and others on the frontline. It found that teachers were routinely providing food and basic supplies to children, and their testimonies were heartbreaking. There were tales of children without winter coats, without proper shoes, with holes in their shoes, with different sized shoes, with different shoes and of course issues with school uniform. What does that actually mean? What does it mean for child poverty? It means that kids are going to school without any food in their bellies, and that really is not fair, and politicians of all colours and of all political persuasions need to push this to the top of the agenda. I am sure in my mind that, despite the fact that some people decided to vote against free school meals, there is not one Member of Parliament who wishes to see any kid going to school hungry—starving, in fact. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the teaching profession and everyone in the education system who has worked tirelessly to help the kids.
We live in the fifth richest economy in the world, and our children should not be forced to live like this. Rickets is on the increase. In the north-east area, over one in four—35,000—children are living below the UK poverty line and are not eligible for free school meals under the current criteria. More than one in 10—about 13,000—north-east children who are currently eligible for free school meals do not take up the offer, and another 4,000 schoolchildren in the north-east are not covered by universal infant free school meals. There are families with no recourse to public funds, many of whom will be living well below the poverty line, but they are not usually eligible for means-tested free school meals.
To make things worse, this Government have changed the way funding is allocated to schools, which is leaving them thousands of pounds worse off in missing pupil premium funding, while those same schools are unable to take advantage of the Government’s catch-up funding. In the north-east alone, this amounts to a cut of between £5.16 million and £7.26 million—all this after a decade of cuts to our schools that has really hammered our schools and the school infrastructure. School funding in the north-east is down 2.6% in real terms since 2013-14, and class sizes have greatly increased.
To turn the tide, we need bold Government intervention and initiatives to breathe life into our schools, communities and industry to give our children a fighting chance and a fair chance to move on to honest work so that they can build a life for their families and break the cycle in the next generation. Our asks are modest: a fair chance for our children to find good, decent, dignified work that they can build a life and a family around. We should accept nothing less in a country as rich as ours in the 21st century. Levelling up will mean nothing if our kids continue to go to school hungry. Everyone has a right to food: it is a human right.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), and to speak in this debate to welcome the measures outlined in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech.
I want to put on record my thanks to everyone here, everyone in West Worcestershire and everyone across the land who has helped us get through such a difficult year. It has been a truly testing time, and it is wonderful at this moment that we can look forward to seeing an end in sight. I thank everyone who has worked so hard to get us here.
In the local election results last week, we saw support across the land for so many Conservative candidates. In the Queen’s Speech as well, we saw that we have a Government nationally who really listen to what people want, pledge to deliver what people want and then get on with the task of delivering it. I think the measures in the Queen’s Speech cover a wide range of those pledges, and the job is now to deliver on them.
I want to cover three disparate topics in today’s debate, all of which are related to a brighter future for the next generation. The first is to do with further education in my constituency of West Worcestershire, and specifically the situation with Malvern Hills College, which was taken over in a merger by Warwickshire College back in 2016. Unfortunately, during the last year Warwickshire College has announced that it is going to close the site at Malvern and start delivering the courses elsewhere, sometimes as far as 40 miles away. I back the local initiative to take over Malvern Hills College with a community-backed offer. We could use the college, for example, to deliver some of the courses under the lifetime skills guarantee and the important training that we are going to need for our flexible economy. The board of Warwickshire College is meeting next week, and I urge its members to engage very seriously with this community bid. Malvern really wants to keep this college in our community. It has been there for over 100 years and performs an incredibly important function. Now is surely not the time to be closing that college.
The second topic I want to talk about is the important commitment to the world’s poorest that we made in our manifesto. The Whips know my views on this subject; they know that I am sad that we are breaking our promise to the very poorest in the world. However, I welcome today’s announcement about a plan for girls’ education, and the leadership that the UK Government are showing to ensure that every child in the world can get 12 years of quality education. Surely there is nothing better that we can do for our world than to ensure that every child, wherever they are born in this world, is able to have an education. Doing so will make our world so much more prosperous, so much healthier and so much safer. It will also tackle so many of the issues that we are facing in this country.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) alluded to, so many desperate people are fleeing parts of the world. If they can get a good education where they are born, surely that would be the better way forward for the world. I welcome the leadership that the UK Government are showing on this issue, as they co-host with Kenya in July the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education, which is asking for $5 billion of funding over five years. I hope that the UK—albeit with the reduced amount of UK aid—will be able to contribute very significantly to that sum. We are asking the UK Government for $600 million of that $5 billion over five years.
There is a third, rather disparate, topic that I want to touch on as we talk about a brighter future for the next generation. I will just play the role that I am afraid I played in the Budget debates: a bit of a Cassandra regarding the bond markets. As someone who traded the bond markets—I do not even like to mention how long ago that was, but it was a long time ago, when we had bear markets in bonds—I know that the bond markets can turn on a dime. With the amount of fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus that we have in this country, I think there is quite a strong risk that we might spark inflation. We saw inflation in America in the statistics that came out this week, and we saw the way in which the markets react to it. We are running quite a large risk in terms of our deficit, with the potential for interest rates to go only one way from here: upwards. That could really damage the brighter future for the next generation.
I urge those who are looking at the leading indicators for our economy, and the Chancellor, as he thinks about some of the fiscal choices that he is going to make, to remember that often a stitch in time saves nine when it comes to fiscal decisions. To ensure a brighter future for everyone and for future generations, I want to see us bring our deficit back to being a manageable one that gives bond markets confidence that the UK gilt market is one of the best places in the world to invest.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
Often, parents or guardians of new children re-evaluate their priorities and dedicate themselves more fully to creating a better future for those children—a better world for their children to grow up in. It is clear, though, that this is not always the case. What parent would stop their children living and working in other European nations? What parent would not act on the climate crisis? What parent would make elections less fair? What parent would keep nuclear weapons? No amount of interior decoration can make up for a future blighted by unfairness, inequality and restricted freedoms. This Queen’s Speech could have set a direction for a better future; it turned out, sadly, to be anything but.
Food and drink exporters have borne the brunt of the Brexit burden as their European markets become inaccessible to them, as customs hold-ups saw their produce rotting away in the backs of lorries, and as rules that have been in place for decades turned out to be a surprise to the UK Government. Where, in this mess before us, is the supposed help for them? Where is the boost to help their families plan for a financially secure future? It is not there. These businesses, employees and communities have been left swinging in the wind. The future is being failed for these communities, and that means that children are being failed.
That is not the only way that children are being failed by this Government. Today in Glasgow, immigration officials raided the peace of asylum seekers, restarting the horror of dawn raids—the state acting to blight a bairn’s life. The neighbours stood up for the asylum seekers. Scots in other parts headed in to support them. Scotland and her people have shown time and again that care for your fellow human beings can trump suspicion and ill-feeling. The UK Government, meanwhile, reinforce the hostile environment. Where in this Queen’s Speech are the measures to reverse that hostile environment and to restore some humanity to the immigration system? There are none.
Last week, Scotland and Wales exercised an extended franchise that let refugees and young adults vote; this week the Government want to limit the franchise to those who have photo ID—something the poor are less likely to have and the young poor even less so. Top that all off with a sour dose of the Government’s favoured few communications companies twisting misdirection into politics through their social media tricks, and it is a bit of a steaming great mess. That does not build a better world.
Of course building a better world only works if the world is still habitable. I can think of no issue that engages young folk today more than the climate crisis. In a year when the UK is hosting COP26, it took the US President to arrange a summit to agree some action—not enough action, to be sure, but some. Contrast the UK efforts with the global diplomatic effort France put in back in the day that resulted in the Paris agreement. UK Government Ministers should be embarrassed—ashamed—about the pitiful efforts towards finding solutions. It is not even greenwashing; it is just a faint suggestion of pistachio. It would not have been too hard to look at the example set just across the channel and seek to at least match it, but ambition has been posted missing.
We are told again that the Environment Bill is coming. A little like the tooth fairy, though, it comes in the night and is gone again. After three years in the legislative process, and promised for much longer than that, I get the impression that it is more about keeping the window dressed than addressing the issues. It is more important for England than the rest of us and it puzzles me that the Opposition parties in England cannot find it in themselves to demand that it moves faster, for the sake of the children breathing the dirty air, if nothing else.
I welcome the measures to enhance animal welfare. I wish they had been matched by measures to enhance human welfare, but I welcome them for what they are. Live exports for fattening should be banned. Proper welfare policies for animals in the wild should also be introduced. I assume that the intention, then, is to ban the shooting of game birds and deer for sport. I look forward to seeing the content of those Bills and checking whether the truth lives up to the spin. Always check the receipts, I say, even when the donors are paying.
As I cast one last look at this Queen’s Speech, five years after the Brexit referendum, I wonder, is this all that taking back control amounts to? Is this it: all that upheaval, all that bitterness, all the failures of Brexit so that we can have this insipid, uninspired stuff? Taking back control—aye, right.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It will not surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to hear that I will be taking a rather more positive outlook on the Queen’s Speech than the one we have just heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). After the difficult events of last year, of course it should be true that across the House we all want to guarantee a brighter future for everyone. We must think particularly about the children—and about the university students, for that matter—who have had massive disruption to their schooling, not only because the pandemic has damaged their education and potentially their life chances but because they are going to be paying much higher taxes for the rest of their lives to deal with the consequences of it.
I want to reflect on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). She is absolutely right to say that we can spend only the money that we collect from taxpayers, whether it is the taxpayers of today or the taxpayers of tomorrow. There is a risk, if confidence in our economy falls, that there will be consequences for the markets. We all need to be conscious of that, particularly when, in the wake of the pandemic, it is very easy for us to ask the Government for more money for this and for that. It is not without consequence, and I think we have to be very careful. I want to make a plea not just for the taxpayers today and tomorrow, but for everyone, because if we end up in the situation that my hon. Friend described, interest rates can only go one way, everyone will feel impoverished, everyone with a mortgage, and we really need to be careful about that. It is a number of decades since we have had that experience in this country, but that does not mean it will never return. We must always be vigilant about protecting our money and having a sensible monetary and fiscal policy.
It is also fair to say that the quality of our public services should not be measured by what we spend on them; it should be measured by what they actually deliver. I have huge confidence in all our public services and all the workers in them. They are as determined as we all are to get us out of the position that we are in, and I am sure that there will be great amounts of innovation, imagination and leadership to get us back to a new normal.
It is also worth saying that the impact of the pandemic has not been borne equally, and our focus on building back better must be inclusive. It needs to be fair to all generations and all communities. We need to govern as one nation where everyone has a stake. I have to say, having been an MP for 11 years, that I am now happier than ever that we are doing just that. There are communities out there who thought that the political classes were not speaking for them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred to the issue of immigration as having influenced Brexit, but that was just one issue. There was a general feeling among the public that all politicians really were not talking about the world they lived in.
We know that we live in the greatest country in the world, but every time we switch on the news, we hear how terrible everything is. That is neither true nor what people want to hear. Communities do not want to be told they are being left behind. Our citizens are proud of the communities they live in. They do not want to be talked down to. They want hope, they want to be able to realise their ambitions and they want their communities to be the best they can be, but they want to lead that. They do not want to just take what has been given to them and be grateful. They want to be assured that their Government are working for them, and that is why I am so pleased with this Queen’s Speech, because those communities will be very pleased to see the investment that is being delivered by this Government.
In Thurrock, we are hugely excited to be delivering the Thames freeport. Tilbury, in my constituency, is the poorest of the 100 poorest towns in this country. I am proud that it is a one nation Conservative Government who are showing their confidence in Tilbury through the freeport and through the towns fund. It has been a long time coming. After years of neglect from a Labour Government and a Labour council, I am proud that it is a Conservative Government and a Conservative council that are investing in Tilbury and making sure that we realise that ambition. Generally, it feels very much that the Labour party has historically neglected its core voters in its traditional communities, taking the view that those voters would have nowhere else to go. Well, they do, and the results of the last week prove that they are now voting Conservative because we are giving them hope, and we are talking about the things that matter to them.
Turning again to how we build a better future for all our young people, we absolutely must grip this issue of building more homes. I know that will not be welcomed by everybody on these Benches, but this is something where we must show responsibility and leadership, because for too many young people the ambition of owning their own home seems to be a pipe dream. We need to properly invest, with imagination, in the ability to deliver housing solutions, to which they can then respond.
I really welcome the strategy on tackling violence against women and girls. We have had a moment of revelation in this House about the issues women face today, although it was not a revelation to women Members of this House. We must make sure that we are able to take action that enables women to feel empowered and not threatened as they go about their lives.
Similarly, I welcome the online safety Bill. It is fair to say that the legislative environment has not kept pace with the development of social media and the internet, which has become weaponised as a tool for abuse and bad behaviour. Sadly, that abuse and bad behaviour are now spilling out into the real world. We must take advantage of that Bill.
In the short time left available to me, I wish to mention one of the things the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in approaching this pandemic, which was that the NHS would have all the money it needed to deal with it. Largely, that has been true—in fact, in some respects it has had too much; Track and Trace has a huge budget for perhaps not being as effective as we would like it to be. I just want again to give a shout out for our pharmacists, who stepped up to the plate during this pandemic. They were open when GPs were not. But we know that the financial costs of that are leading a third of them to face potential closure. I do not think we can afford to lose that valuable part of our NHS and I hope the Government do something to address it.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I concur with the last point that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) made about community pharmacies.
When I listen to the rhetoric about levelling up, increasing opportunities and improving life chances, I agree: that is what many families and communities all over this country now yearn for. They want a future for their children, a home, a job and hope for the future. So I do not challenge the Government in what they say, but the question is whether the programme matches the rhetoric. There are Bills in the Queen’s Speech where we could go further if want to address the levelling-up agenda. I hope that we will see a willingness, which has been absent in the past, for Ministers to accept amendments to their plans in this Parliament: amendments designed to improve legislation and address the real concerns and worries of our constituents.
If we really aspire to a bright future for the next generation, we need to start with the early years, so I welcome proposals for family hubs and the 1,001 critical days plan; it has taken 10 years for the Government to get here, but I welcome this none the less. We need to identify children with difficulties or disabilities at an early age and give them the help they need. We need to reduce the spiralling costs and numbers of children being taken into care, increasingly because of family poverty. Our custodial settings are full of people with speech, language and communication difficulties which have gone undiagnosed for years. We have to address this. If we want to improve life chances, we need early intervention, structured support and vastly improved provision for those with speech, language and communication difficulties. I acknowledge recent support for children’s hospices, but I urge the Government to look again at core funding for palliative care for children with life-limiting conditions. We need to do more for carers, both through paid leave and through respite care provision.
I am glad to hear the Government address the question of the skills gap, which is a big problem in the west midlands, and I welcome the idea of the skills accelerator programme. I hope that we will take advantage of employer involvement to look again at a more flexible and imaginative use of the apprenticeship levy, which is in danger of becoming a jobs tax. I am afraid that I am sceptical about the idea that a man or woman who is made redundant in their mid-40s will be motivated by the prospect of a £10,000-plus loan. We should be using the National Insurance Contributions Bill to see whether there is a way in which people who have a long record of contributions and are facing such choices can be entitled to an advance to help with retraining. We also need more local commissioning for job programmes in areas of high and stubborn unemployment, especially to help disabled people back into work.
The planning Bill may improve the supply of housing—I welcome that, but where are the measures to address the illegal conversion of family homes into houses in multiple occupation? When coupled with the current exempt accommodation market, it is creating a gravy train for crooks, spivs and, in some cases, organised crime. How have we ended up in a situation where women and children who are fleeing domestic abuse find themselves housed alongside ex-prisoners with a history of violence or people with major substance abuse issues? We have the victims Bill, the draft Building Safety Bill and the planning Bill. We could halt the dangerous and dodgy conversions that turn family homes into HMOs, we could guarantee safe, decent and reserved accommodation for victims of domestic violence, and we could ensure that supported accommodation means exactly that.
Although I welcome proposals for the online harms Bill, I wonder whether we need to address the situation in which paedophile porn is legal if the actress—dressed as a child, looking prepubescent and filmed in a child’s bedroom—is actually over 18. What market are these films aimed at? They glorify incest, rape and abuse of minors. How can a man who openly acknowledges his appetite for this legal material be regarded as safe to work with children and have unsupervised access to his own young daughters? What bright future is there for the children who fall prey to perverts fuelled by this legal filth?
I will back the Government when they bring in measures to offer people a brighter future. I hope that Ministers will back my constituents by allowing us to amend legislation to address the issues happening right now that are destroying the future prospects of far too many people.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Queen’s Speech. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has yet again said that he will back 12 years of quality education for girls, which will affect millions of girls around the world. It is a very important and ambitious pledge, and I would love to think that it will all be achieved. Sadly, because developing countries have faced such savage cuts by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to the official development assistance budget, it is unlikely to happen. The cut from 0.7% to 0.5% has been a double whammy as our economy has gone down.
The same ambition is very important in this country, too, but unless marrying under the age of 18 is banned, it is highly unlikely to be achieved. The law by which children can marry at the age of 16 or 17 with their parents’ consent dates back to 1929, and I think that should stop. The law was appropriate for a time when marriages could be as much about family dynasties as about being in love, but today it is responsible for the misery of hundreds of girls across the UK every year who are coerced into child marriage by their parents. The Bill that I tried to introduce in the last Session would have removed that exception, but, sadly, it fell.
The scale of the problem is very difficult to estimate, because many such marriages are clandestine. While fewer than 100 marriages involving children aged 16 and 17 are recorded in official statistics, the volume of calls received by charities such as Karma Nirvana and the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, which support victims of honour-based abuse and forced marriage, suggests that the true number is much greater. The majority of these girls do not consent to the marriage into which they are being pressured, but they cannot articulate that to their parents or access help. I have been informed that the problem has been exacerbated by the coronavirus, because the closure of schools has meant that teachers and trusted people cannot be, or have not been, accessed.
The harms of child marriage are significant. Victims of child marriage can expect to suffer from rape, domestic abuse, and controlling and coercive behaviour. They are frequently taken out of education early and isolated from their wider community. Those who are extricated from this situation experience considerable difficulty in improving their employment and earning prospects because of the lack of education. By contrast, the only cost of the proposition to stop this from happening would be to ask a small number of young lovebirds to wait a year or two before they commit the rest of their lives to each other. Compared with preventing years of exploitation and abuse of the most vulnerable girls, this is not a weighty consideration.
The benefits of our criminalising marriage under the age of 18 will be felt internationally. The UK is a leading country in women’s rights issues, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s very strong personal commitment to ensuring 12 years of quality education for girls across the world. In that global context, the exemption that allows girls aged 16 and 17 to marry with their parents’ consent appears curious. Following the first Girl summit in 2014, the Department for International Development allocated up to £39 million to support global efforts to prevent child marriages. The UK also signed two international human rights conventions, which demand that signatories end child marriage in their jurisdictions, yet we in the UK permit child marriage, and that undermines those international efforts. Furthermore, proposals to stop that happening would strengthen the Government’s existing provisions on honour-based abuse and domestic violence.
Forced marriage was criminalised in 2014 and the Forced Marriage Unit established to protect those at risk. However, I have become aware through conversations with charities that the Forced Marriage Unit often feels unable to act in cases involving children, because the victims have been groomed to appear to be willing. A clear statement in law that children aged 16 and 17 can never consent to marriage would strengthen the hand of the Forced Marriage Unit and lead to the vulnerable being protected and criminals being punished.
Removing the child marriage exception in UK law would send a clear message to other countries, including Bangladesh, which look to our leadership on child marriage and the fact that it should not be tolerated. With the international aid budget cut, it would also be an efficient way for the UK to show global leadership on children’s rights and girls’ education. I am very disappointed that that opportunity was missed in the Queen’s Speech, but there is a chance to do this with a Bill that is going into Committee, and I will be tabling amendments to it. If that fails, I shall table amendments on Report. I feel passionately that girls in this day and age need to be given the opportunity of education, of living a life and of getting married when they can choose at the age of 18 or later.
Although there are some very good things in the Queen’s Speech and I look forward to supporting them through the House of Commons, I do believe that this is a wasted opportunity. I hope that the Government will look at a way to incorporate my embryonic Bill into another Bill so that it becomes law without any further delay.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
If I may, I will take this opportunity to get something off my chest. One of the most consistent and intriguing aspects of my tenure as the Member of Parliament for St Helens North is having constituents and communities such as mine endlessly analysed and labelled, and sometimes even—God forbid—patronised, by politicians and commentators alike. Those designated and much-vaunted working-class northern communities, such as the one I live in and represent, are en vogue at the moment. There is what I call a single transferable speech—or pamphlet or article—doing the rounds about why the Conservative party has made gains in those sorts of places, and what Labour needs to do to win them back.
The problem for both parties, actually, is that the debate we are having and the terms we use have completely passed the people who live in those communities by. No one in St Helens thinks that they live in a wall—red, blue or otherwise—and they do not go about their daily lives feeling “left behind”. They do not understand what “levelling up” means—something I suspect they have in common with most Government Ministers—and they certainly are not the homogenous, lumpen proletariat that is their caricature. Most importantly, they are not stupid. They know that the rhetoric of what the Government say and do does not match the reality of their lives, with promises undelivered and their lot getting worse, not better, over the last 10 years. Thankfully, from the Government’s perspective, I suspect there are not even that many promises to break in this Queen’s Speech. But neither are people in these communities turned on by rose-tinted nostalgia from those who patronise their past instead of offering anything for their future.
The last year has tested every citizen and community in our country. The impact on older people, who are more susceptible to the ravages of the virus, more isolated and often lonelier, has been tragic and obvious. But the impact on children and young people, and their families, has also been profound. Here is what we know. A fifth of children in my constituency now live in poverty, up by 25% on the figure recorded five years ago. The number of apprenticeship starts in St Helens has halved over the last five years. Disadvantaged pupils are now the following number of months of learning behind their peers: in early years, almost six; for primary school pupils, nine; and for secondary school pupils, a shocking 21. We have also had an 80% rise in unemployment for 16 to 24-year-olds in St Helens in the last year. Behind all those figures—this is a point I have made before —is a person, a family and a wider community.
That is a shameful record for the Conservative party after over a decade in power, but me just making another speech attacking the Government, however justified, will not change things, and it does not cut the mustard for the people I represent. Instead, what I, and political, community and business leaders in the St Helens borough and across the Liverpool city region, have done is to work together to support the ambition, creativity, resilience and vibrancy of our young people, by protecting the most vulnerable, ensuring opportunities for all and encouraging excellence while giving hope for the future.
That approach was endorsed last week when the Labour party in St Helens increased its vote by 15% and retained control of the council. It is why we have directly invested in young people now but are also planning for the longer term, from £750,000 on free school meals and record support for children’s services this year, to a £200 million partnership with the English cities fund to radically regenerate our borough over the next 20 years. We have said that ensuring that children and young people have a positive start in life is the top priority for us. We have also said that we want to make St Helens the best place to live, work and visit in the north-west of England. Those are complementary and, I would argue, co-dependent aims.
The next generation need and want to know about our past—our proud traditions and heritage—but we have a responsibility to ensure that they realise that they, and we, have a future too, and it is theirs to build and shape.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). He talks with great experience about his community, and I hope that I can do likewise for the community that I am proud to have represented since 2015. It is really important that we are opening this debate about young people and what we must do to ensure that we deliver a brighter future for the next generation. Although the pandemic has impacted all generations, it has had a huge impact on the youngest, and it is absolutely right that we look at how we can give them the opportunity to get some of the lost year back.
People tend to forget that for those around my age, this has been a difficult time but we will get that time back—it has almost been a time of hibernation—but for young people, a year of their life is a year when they develop, they are nurtured and they grow, and that cannot be given back. That is why we must do everything—we must put all the resources in—to ensure that we invest in young people to give them the skills that they may have lost in the past year. That is why I really welcome the Queen’s Speech and its commitment to education, skills, and a lifelong requirement for people to be given that skill base.
I also want to touch on the reference in the Queen’s Speech to the need to fix our housing problem, because that relates to younger people, and it always has done. For so many young people now, getting on the housing ladder is not something they aspire to; they think that generations before them had that opportunity and it will not be there for them. To me, that is a tragedy, not least since we on the Conservative Benches have always given people the dream, the aspiration and the incentive to work hard because we will reduce their taxes and give them a home that they can afford to own for themselves. Many feel that is out of reach, so I absolutely welcome the target to deliver more homes.
The target of 300,000 homes per year is absolutely right. That does means that more homes will have to be built in areas of the country where people perhaps would rather not have them, but let me say this. I have pointed out on the doorstep, and I have had doors in my face as a result, that the house that is going to be built on the field adjoining the property whose owner I am talking to must be built because a young person needs the same opportunity as the person for whom their property was built on what was previously a field, so that every generation has the opportunity to own a home of their own. But with the housing must come the infrastructure, so that not just those moving to the area but those already in it have all the schools, the medical facilities and the roads that they require in order for productivity gains to be delivered across the entire community.
Again, I will reference my corner of the country, the south-east. It is notable that there has been a 19% increase in the population of the south-east, whereas in the corresponding period the population of the north-west has dropped by 6%, yet the spending per head on transport is exactly the same in both regions, at £370. That is evidence that there has been more house building in the south-east, but there has not been the spend on infrastructure. It is also notable that of all the major transport projects that are part of the Government’s welcome £640 billion of investment in infrastructure over the next five years, only one is in the south-east.
My message to those on the Front Bench is that if we want to see more houses—and I absolutely do—in the south-east, including in my constituency, we need hundreds of them per year, to give young people in my constituency the chance of a home of their home. Can we also ensure that the infrastructure spend is focused on those areas that will deliver the houses, not the other parts of the country that might be a little more fashionable than Bexhill and Battle when it comes to politics these days?
In the two minutes I have remaining, I want to focus on another issue that has a huge impact on young people’s lives: violence. The shocking increase in knife crime over the last five years is something that we in this House have not spent enough time talking about. It is outrageous. There has been an 84% increase in knife crime since 2014, with almost 50,000 offences caused by a knife or bladed instrument in the last year. It has gone down a little in the last year, but we do not know whether that is a result of greater Government focus, which I have welcomed, or the lockdown. It is essential that the legislation promised targets those offenders who ruin people’s lives, families’ lives and, indeed, their own lives by the use of a bladed weapon. I want to see the Government come down hard on those perpetrators but also look at this from a health and a community perspective, to ensure that people know that they cannot continue to do this.
I also want to focus on the other end of the spectrum. We talk about the younger population, and social care reform will impact on the young who need social care, but I represent a population that is ageing. Their numbers continue to increase, and those people need more than just a few words and a commitment that proposals to reform social care “will be brought forward.” They need the reform of social care to start this year. In the six years I have been in this place, we have talked a great deal about it, but we are not seeing the action. Successive Governments have not delivered the reform that is badly needed. I hope that this is the year when we find out what those proposals are and the Government start to legislate for it, because it is essential that older people are given dignity and care in their advancing years.
Finally, I will always implore the Government to remember that it is a question not just of legislating but of good legislation, given the unforeseen consequences that can come from good intentions but bad legislation. Let us ensure that we use the brains of this place and the other place to make legislation better and deliver a proper period of reform.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Gracious Speech, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). I pay tribute to all those across my constituency who have worked throughout the covid-19 pandemic to provide support to our children and young people. Early years staff, teachers and youth workers all kept working throughout the pandemic with such dedication in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, often fearful for their own health. Our local councils, Lambeth and Southwark, stepped in at key times to provide free school meals when the Government refused to fund them, and laptops and broadband access as month after month the Government dragged their feet.
Our children and young people have borne the brunt of the pandemic, missing out on learning, extracurricular activities and time with their friends. Their mental health has suffered, and the disadvantage gap in education has widened. Last year’s exam scandal heaped yet more entirely avoidable misery on an already difficult year, with thousands of young people plunged into weeks of turmoil, with their dreams at risk, because of the Government’s botched algorithm. This year’s exam students have also been put through months of anxiety due to dithering and uncertainty about how they would be assessed. I met this morning with year 10 students at the Norwood School in my constituency, who asked for urgent clarity on how they will be assessed in their GCSE and BTEC exams next year and how the Government will take account of the two years of disrupted education they have suffered.
Children and young people have been an afterthought for the Government throughout the pandemic. They must be the first priority for the recovery. We cannot allow the disadvantage and inequality exacerbated by the pandemic to define the future of this generation of children and young people, and that is not inevitable. With political will and resources, we can get our children and young people back on track, yet this Gracious Speech is simply not good enough.
In London, the vacuous phrase “levelling up” means no such thing. We have seen, time and again, the Government cutting the funding for our schools to make politically expedient funding choices elsewhere in the country. The full additional costs of the pandemic have not been covered for London schools and they now face a stealth cut in the pupil premium—a cynical change in the calculation date, which the Government hoped no one would notice. This will cost schools in Southwark £1.2 million, and it is a similar sum in Lambeth. It is utterly reprehensible to cut essential funding from the most disadvantaged children, wherever they live in the country. That is not levelling up; it is deliberately dragging our children down.
It is not only schoolchildren in London who are at the mercy of this Government’s cynicism. There are no proposals at all for the desperately underfunded early years sector, and the Tories are scrapping the London weighting component of the teaching grant for higher education, too. This funding recognises the increased costs of delivering higher education in London. It improves access to higher education for lower-income students in London, wherever they come from in the country. This cut of £64 million will have devastating consequences for London’s universities and those who choose to study at them. Once again, the Tories are levelling down London to the detriment of the whole country.
Children and young people in my constituency care passionately about our planet and about their peers elsewhere in the world. They know the importance of the UK’s contribution through international aid to tackling climate change, global poverty and supporting women and girls across the globe. The children and young people in my constituency do not understand why the Government would choose to make swingeing cuts to aid during a global pandemic and a climate emergency, the consequences of which are being most severely felt by the world’s poorest nations.
The commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international aid was enshrined in law as the democratic will of the House of Commons, on the basis of a manifesto commitment that the British people voted for and have voted for time and again. Reneging on that commitment is not a matter for the Chancellor alone. It is a matter for this Parliament, so I ask the Minister to confirm whether the Government will bring forward legislation so that the many Members in this place who believe slashing UK aid to be profoundly wrong can vote against it.
Each one of our precious children and young people deserves a brighter future, but the meanness and poverty of ambition in the Gracious Speech will only let them down. They deserve a bolder and more ambitious plan for our country than this meagre offering. I call on the Government to reconsider their cynical cuts to our schools, universities and councils in London and to international aid, and instead to equip, fund and empower our local communities to deliver for everyone.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in the Queen’s Speech debate, and I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to protect the environment and invest in our new green industries to help us to reach net zero by 2050. I am very fortunate to represent a very green constituency. My constituency starts in Exmoor, goes down through the Blackdown hills, and down at Seaton we reach the sea on the south coast of Devon. It is a very beautiful constituency, which relies on a lot of farming, a lot of growing and a lot of tourism, so a green recovery is so important, and as we come out of covid, I look forward to the Government pursuing that.
In particular, I look forward to the return of the Environment Bill to Parliament. It will set a range of binding targets to be enforced by a new world-class Office for Environmental Protection. An interim OEP is expected to be operational by July. It is essential that we get that up and running as soon as possible so that it can lay the groundwork for the full body to be established.
The Bill also sets out ambitious targets for tree planting, which I welcome. I am keen to see what I describe as smart tree planting, which means planting the trees in the right places to maximise the benefits. For example, trees can not only capture and store carbon, but they also keep soil from eroding, and in the right places can form natural flood defences. We can achieve this by making sure we properly reward farmers for tree planting. It has to be financially attractive to them to ensure that take-up is strong and that we can deliver the trees we want to plant in this country. If we can properly join up agriculture and environmental protection, we will be able to protect and enhance biodiversity while maintaining a good level of food production.
It is not just action here in the UK that we need to take; we must look at our global footprint. It is right that the Environment Bill includes measures to protect the world’s forests and to hold companies accountable for illegal deforestation they cause. The measure can be even stronger in two key ways. First, it must ensure that financial companies are also held to account and are not excluded from carrying out due diligence. The UK global deforestation footprint is coming not only from the products we buy as consumers, but from UK banks providing money to companies driving illegal deforestation in places such as Brazil and Malaysia. Secondly, indigenous peoples are often being exploited by corporations and in many cases are seeing their lands and livelihoods destroyed. I want us to protect these people by ensuring that their consent is obtained before any development takes place. Taken together, these measures will ensure that the UK has robust deforestation laws that we can be proud of and that set a high bar for the rest of the world to follow.
The final point I want to make is on air quality. Tackling climate change and cutting our carbon emissions is rightly a Government priority, but poor air quality is affecting people’s day-to-day lives and has serious impacts on their health. Poorer air quality is linked to an estimated 64,000 premature deaths a year. It was earlier this year named in a coroner’s report as directly contributing to the loss of life for the first time. We need to improve air quality across the country, but it is a particular issue in our cities and big towns. I know that the Government have laid out targets for air quality in the Environment Bill, but I would like to see that go further. I would set more stringent targets, including, for example, bringing limits to the pollutant PM2.5 into line with World Health Organisation standards.
Overall, the Government are taking great steps to protect the environment and ensure a greener recovery from the pandemic. In hosting COP26, we have a prime opportunity to show global leadership on these issues. We can also move forward with ensuring that we have a good agriculture sector and a good horticulture sector and that we are producing high-quality, environmentally sound and animal welfare-friendly food. We can balance that with producing a very clean and green environment. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to make our environmental laws as robust as possible.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this hugely important debate and to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), who led the debate for the Scottish National party earlier. She was absolutely right to frame her contribution against the backdrop of the SNP’s stunning victory in last week’s Scottish parliamentary elections—a victory that saw the SNP re-elected for the fourth consecutive term, with the most votes ever received by a party in a Scottish parliamentary election.
It was also a remarkable election, because it saw the Government party, after 14 years in power, increase its share of the vote and take seats from both main Opposition parties. It was an election in which parties standing unambiguously on a platform of allowing the Scottish people to decide their constitutional future in a referendum won a clear majority of seats in our Parliament. I hope and I expect that, having received just 22% of the vote for their ill-conceived “Vote Conservative to stop another referendum” campaign and now having had time to reflect on the scale of their defeat, the Tories will accept that there is no legitimate or democratic reason for them now to stand in the way of the will of the Scottish people when it is expressed by our Parliament.
Apart from the remarkable result, what was striking in last week’s poll was the level of public engagement, with a record number of people turning out to cast their vote in those elections. These things do not happen by accident. It was the Scottish Government in 2014 who led the way by extending the franchise to include all 16 and 17-year-olds. More recently, I am proud to say, all refugees living in Scotland and foreign nationals with leave to remain were also added to the voters roll. As a result of extending the franchise and actively encouraging as many people who live in Scotland to have a say in the future direction of their country, we now enjoy a thriving, healthy and robust democracy.
It is telling, and indeed very worrying, that while Scotland builds that thriving, healthy and robust democracy, here this Government are trying to introduce the electoral integrity Bill—legislation which they will try to pass off as nothing sinister but a benign attempt to eliminate voter fraud by getting people to turn up to polling stations and produce photo ID, but which we know is nothing more than a crude and transparent attempt to cleanse the register and disenfranchise millions of people, mainly from minority, disadvantaged or already marginalised communities. This is a shameful proposal—one that comes straight out of the Donald Trump alt-right playbook. First, conjure up a demon. Then, convince people that the demon poses a threat to them and that something has to be done. Finally, introduce draconian and totally disproportionate legislation to slay the demon that you have just invented. Before you know it, millions of people who you know would rather eat their own toenails than vote Conservative are removed from the electoral register.
What is most chilling about this is the transparency of it all—the fact that the Government do not even feel a particular need to hide what they are doing or why they are doing it. They know that it will not be the well-heeled, affluent middle classes who will struggle to produce a passport or a driving licence at the polling station. They know that disproportionately it will be the young, the poor, the marginalised and members of the minority communities who do not have a passport, or who do not drive, or who have not managed to pick up or register for their voter ID card who will be affected by the legislation. They know that in the UK between 2.5 million and 3.5 million people do not have photo ID, and they know that many of them will be added to the list of the 9 million UK citizens who are already missing from the electoral register.
Let me be clear: no one is saying that voter fraud is not a serious crime. Of course it is, and it has to be treated as such. No one is saying that those who commit such a crime should not be punished for it. Of course they should. But the fact is that voter fraud, particularly personation at polling stations, is such a rare occurrence that to have the Government legislate for it should set alarm bells ringing among those of us who believe that all Governments should be trying to remove barriers rather than to raise them.
Quite simply, there is no evidence whatsoever that voter fraud is a widespread problem in the United Kingdom, so why are the Government pursuing this venture to tackle a problem that even Ruth Davidson, of all people, admitted on “Peston” last night was virtually non-existent? Why would they seek to introduce legislation to make voting more difficult at a time when more and more people are electing to vote by post? The only conclusion one can draw is that this is not about protecting the integrity of elections at all—this is an exercise in voter suppression. The voter-suppressing electoral integrity Bill is something we would expect to see from the right-wing Republicans in the state of Georgia, not from this Parliament. Indeed, this anti-democratic piece of legislation has not gone unnoticed among civil rights groups in America: the Southern Poverty Law Center, Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union have all expressed concern that such measures are being imported into the UK. They can see that the Bill is nothing more than a crude tool of voter suppression. We can see it too. We know it is being introduced to slay a demon that the Tories invented, and to provide them with a fig leaf that they can hide behind while they cleanse the register. It is wrong, it is fundamentally anti-democratic, and if they pursue it, we will oppose it at every stage in this House.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to be speaking in this debate on the Gracious Speech, and I absolutely welcome the agenda for national recovery that the Government have set, but in that recovery we must not forget the south-west. Clearly the north needs help, but levels of deprivation are as severe in the south-west as they are in many parts of the north, and that needs to be taken account of. The rural areas need support, especially support on infrastructure and broadband, which should be focused on those areas currently most exposed in the rural heartlands of the south-west.
Two key planks of the Gracious Speech have been education, and health and care and our NHS. The proposed suite of legislation to deliver that world-class health and care is extremely welcome, but I believe that a number of issues have been missed. First, mental health clearly must have parity of esteem with physical health, but nowhere on the face of the health and care Bill is that clear. There is no provision for representation on the new integrated care system boards for those providing mental health services. That is a must. There are no provisions for measuring outcomes for mental health measures.
Secondly, covid has demonstrated beyond doubt that medicines and devices are as much a key part of delivering good health and care as doctors, nurses and hospitals, and yet they too are absent from this legislation. If we are talking about integration, it cannot be just about integrating health and care; it must be about integrating health, care and the provision of medicines and devices. We know that access to medicine and devices has been one of the most challenging issues generally, not just during covid, and unless we look at the commissioning arrangements in the new legislation and ensure that they relate to all four parts of the system—health, care, medicines and devices—we will sub-optimise, and will not deliver the health and care that people need and deserve.
Thirdly, the inclusion of social care in the Gracious Speech is very welcome, but we need to remember that it is not just about money, but about the system itself; and again it is about parity of esteem. Social care has for too long been the Cinderella service. That must change. We must see proper recognition. We must see a proper career structure. We must see training for those entering social care, alongside those entering our health system. Nurses must be able to transfer across and between those two systems; and the pay of both must be equal, transparent and fair.
We also have a very sensible focus on public health. I am delighted by the focus on obesity, which is clearly a key issue of our time, but I would suggest that there is more than obesity. We need to recognise the increasing interest that individuals have in purchasing all sorts of substances across the counter and from beauticians, pharmacists and other professionals, which at the moment are not regulated to the same level as a medicine would be. There is a committee under the auspices of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency—the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances. Between that Committee and the Food Standards Agency these sorts of substances are evaluated for their efficacy and also their safety, and in light of the Cumberlege report I suggest that the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances and the FSA be reviewed to establish whether the systems they have in place are adequate for the increasing demand for these new substances, nutritional and otherwise. This is important and urgently needed.
Finally, I turn to the legislation proposed for victims of abuse, and again in the health context. These victims need all the support we can give them. At the moment their first port of call is very often the police, but the reality is that they would deliver far more valuable information and would get far better support in the context of general practice within our NHS system, yet at the moment no training is provided for GPs and there is no expectation that they should deal with this as a front and centre concern coming through their doors on a day-to-day basis. I am delighted that Devon has the only clinical commissioning group pilot with a lead officer on domestic abuse and sexual violence, but that should be rolled out. Such offences are best detected and treated within our general practice and within our NHS. That needs to be looked at urgently if we are serious.
The issues I have raised are crucial if we are to deliver a best-in-class health and care system. These issues need to be covered not in secondary legislation, but on the face of the upcoming series of legislative provisions, because what is legislated for will be done.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We all want a brighter future for the next generation, but the experience of this Government over the last 10 years —although they try to kid us that they are brand-new—shows an abject failure in support for our young, which the contents of this Queen’s Speech do little to fix.
Levelling up should encompass intergenerational readjustment rather than simply reward gerrymandered Tory-voting territories. Coronavirus has been cruel to all of us, but its effects have been no more acutely felt than by the young. They are already reeling from the effects of an imbalanced housing market and stuck in precarious employment—generation rent now forced back into the bosom of the parental home; boomerang generation. With rocketing youth unemployment, an education system in disarray and a mental health crisis, all those natural expectations of youth in the carefree phrases, “You’re only young once” and “Your lot will always be better than your parents’”, have been shattered. And in the middle of all this we have a Queen’s Speech of missed opportunities and broken promises, viewed with disbelief by young people for whom, for instance, a flat of their own costing £200,000 might be something they dream of but who then see refurbishment by a Prime Minister in very questionable circumstances for the same price.
There is no renters’ rights legislation here and no new cladding protections: so much for no one losing their home to covid—another discarded assurance from a Prime Minister “never knowingly undersold”. We all remember him lying down in front of the bulldozers to stop Heathrow expansion, but there is nothing here to combat climate change. It is the most important issue of our generation and everyone’s generation, and is particularly championed by the young, as we have seen with Greta Thunberg and the school strikers—although all schools have been away for the last year.
We have no employment Bill here to tackle zero-hours contracts that the young are so familiar with from the gig economy, and nothing to tackle the repugnant, immoral practice of fire and rehire that companies exploiting the crisis have been up to while we have all been distracted by the virus. There is nothing on child poverty. The sectors and working ways of the young have been hardest hit, such as hospitality and start-ups; they have been shafted and punished for their courageous forays into self-employment and freelancing. Some 3 million people have had no Government support for over a year because they fall between the cracks. At every turn of coronavirus, it feels as though the young have been an afterthought, forgotten or even sacrificed, as seen in the exams shambles of last year or the unhappy situation of undergraduates hoodwinked into paying full fees for a barely functioning student experience compounded by their usual lifeline of casual work being gone, too.
The artificial situation of millions of the young on furlough is another bubble soon set to burst when that is withdrawn as we lurch from cliff edge to cliff edge. Where is the commitment to the jobs of the future that Labour’s green new deal would deliver or any kind of jobs guarantee? Instead, people are paying more and more to be less and less secure.
I must be getting old, because I am looking fondly at my own youth—I think we were called generation X in those days. We were able to benefit from Erasmus, which is no longer open to generation Y—now called the millennials—and generation Z, who instead have the inferior, more monoglot, distinctly Anglophile Turing scheme. It is a startling fact that nobody born after the year 2000—21-year-olds and everyone younger, which is a sector set to grow and grow—has had any say on Brexit, and they are the most opposed to it.
What do we get instead in this Gracious Speech? An imagined war on the woke, with solutions to non-existent problems. It is funny how the usual parroted line we get about casework on universities—they are autonomous institutions—is ignored for this so-called academic freedom legislation when figures show that the number of speaker events that it would apply to is less than 1%. In other words, it is more than 99% not needed. However, there is no action on student hardship, mental health support or education cuts.
I actually agree with the Scottish high Tory Ruth Davidson on a second non-existent problem, also mentioned by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), which I wish to identify—the Trumpian tactics of voter suppression via the need for photo ID. I believe the adjective she used on TV last night rhymes with Jackson Pollocks. We had an electorate of 47 million at the last general election. How many cases were there of personation—the thing this measure is meant to tackle? One solitary case. This is a youth issue, because they are the people less likely to have a driving licence. It is also an equalities issue, because black people and non-binary trans individuals are the kinds of people who will fall foul of it, and they are already over-represented in the 3.5 million voters who currently have no photo ID. Cut-to-the-bone councils already have enough on their plates to be dealing with that as well. We have seen how they have had to axe low-hanging fruit such as libraries and youth services. It is another wrong priority, and there is nothing at all for the biggest item of local government expenditure everywhere: social care. We were promised a clear plan—oven ready, I think it was. We have a demographic time bomb coming down the track, but there was nothing on that specifically. Life cycle means new generations. People my age are talked about as being the sandwich generation, caring at one end for offspring and, at the other, for parents.
Look, I want to end positively, so I will quote Dua Lipa from the Brit awards. Things are opening up and the vaccination programme is rolling out, but she identified another thing missing from the speech: an NHS pay rise. There is still time for that, and the Government could do it if they wanted. To really level up, we should look at intergenerational rebalancing and not just pitting people and regions against each other. The other thing that was missing was Dennis Skinner.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), although I take a much more optimistic view of our country and this Queen’s Speech. If there is one thing that the Labour party should consider from the results of the election last week and of the last general election, perhaps it is that the people of this country want their representatives actually to believe in their country and have a positive view of the future of their country. I think the voters have had enough of all this negativity and continual talking down of our country.
I count myself doubly lucky—if you will excuse the pun, Madam Deputy Speaker. First I consider myself lucky because I was born in Cornwall. If to be born British is to win the lottery, then as far as I am concerned to be born Cornish is to win the EuroMillions. Secondly, not only was I born Cornish, but I have managed to stay in Cornwall for all my life and to build a reasonable life for myself and my family while remaining there. Sadly, too many of my contemporaries did not have that choice; they had to leave Cornwall to fulfil their ambitions, and too many who chose to stay had to make compromises, reduce their ambition and miss many opportunities that other parts of the country take for granted.
One of the key reasons I got involved in politics in the first place was that I wanted future generations, such as my children and my grandchildren—I will reveal to the House that I will become a grandfather in just a few weeks’ time—to have the opportunity to have a good job and a career, and to be able to stay in Cornwall. That is why I welcome many of the measures contained in the Queen’s Speech. The Government’s commitment to level up and strive for equality of opportunity across our country is at the heart of the legislative programme for this parliamentary Session, and I absolutely welcome that.
I want to mention three particular things. First, I am delighted to see the emphasis being placed on further education, which is so important to ensure that our young people and adults can gain the skills they need for the future jobs market. I welcome the lifelong skills guarantee, which will enable those who have sadly lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic to obtain the new skills that they are going to need so that they can take advantage of the new jobs that are coming. That is a very positive step.
Secondly, job opportunities are essential for Cornwall. We need to create the well-paid jobs of the future. For too long, average wages and productivity in Cornwall have been among the lowest in the country. Average salaries in Cornwall are more than £10,000 a year below the UK average. I gently say to Ministers on the Front Bench and to the Government—no, in fact, I strongly say to them—that any plan to level up our country must have Cornwall at front and centre. It cannot just be about the north. I welcome the commitment to bring forward the UK shared prosperity fund, and remind the Government of clear commitments to Cornwall made by the Prime Minister and others—that we will receive a dedicated fund of similar quantum to that which we previously received through EU funding.
The new opportunities exist in Cornwall: the emerging space sector with Spaceport Cornwall; the development of lithium extraction; our ambition to have a gigafactory in Cornwall to manufacture batteries for our future electric vehicles; and renewable energy, particularly geothermal. Cornwall can become a real powerhouse of the future jobs in this Government’s green growth ambition and contribute to our nation’s prosperity, but we need the Government to back us in order to realise those opportunities.
The third point I want to mention is an issue that really needs urgent attention, and that is the growing housing crisis in Cornwall. It has been difficult for Cornish young people to be able to buy their own home for decades. The gap between our low wages and high house prices has been increasing for many years, but one of the results of the past year has been that it is now more difficult than ever; we have seen a staggering 140% increase in demand to buy property in Cornwall. In the first quarter of this year alone, there have been 15.2 million online searches for purchasing property in Cornwall.
I fully appreciate why so many people want to move to the most amazing part of the country to live in, but it is not a sustainable position for local people. Average house prices in Cornwall are now £311,000—an increase of £38,000, or 14%, over the past year. It is simply putting buying a house even more out of the reach of local young people.
I recognise the Government’s desire to reform planning to make it easier to provide homes for the future, but we need to be cautious. There is great concern in Cornwall that making it easier for developers to build new homes will see vast swaths of Cornwall built over, changing the unique character and nature of Cornwall, and that these new homes will still be out of the reach of local people and will simply continue to fuel the second homes and buy- to-rent markets.
I am well aware that this is a complex challenge, but I would say to the Government that a one-size-fits-all national approach is not going to work for every part of the country. We need to find tailored solutions for places such as Cornwall, where demand far outstrips supply. Simply building thousands of new homes that only people from outside Cornwall can afford is not going to be the answer. Schemes such as Help to Buy, the new homes discount, the 95% mortgages and community housing trusts can all play an important part.
I want Cornish young people to have a bright future in Cornwall, to have a great education and a well-paid job, and to be able to buy their own home. Last week, the people of Cornwall put their trust in our party like never before. In a historic election, they elected a Conservative majority council for the very first time. The Queen’s Speech contains many measures that will help us together to address these challenges. Cornwall is ready to level up. What we must now do is repay that trust and deliver the funding, support, investment and economic growth that the people of Cornwall need so that our young people can enjoy a prosperous future in the place that they love.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) in this important Queen’s Speech debate. A brighter future for the next generation—what better gift can we give to our young persons than the gift of determining their own future? Of course, in Scotland, we already offer the young adults in our country the right to vote, having extended the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. In the recent Scottish general election, and that across England and Wales, we saw parliamentary democracy in action. The people we on these SNP Benches represent in greater numbers than ever before made their views known. Scotland has spoken and our democratic will has been made abundantly clear. I am in no doubt that the strong voice of the Scottish people has echoed right through the heart of these Chambers and into the Government offices.
Scotland has had enough of being disrespected. Brexit was and is the final straw. While the recent election was different in many ways, the results in Scotland were once again the same. The UK Government’s programme was roundly rejected, Tory ideology was rejected, and once again the good people of Scotland put their faith in us, the SNP, and returned Nicola Sturgeon as our First Minister. The SNP has been re-elected for a historic fourth consecutive term of Government in Scotland. The Scottish people have chosen to ensure that Scotland’s future is firmly in Scotland’s hands. The Tories must not, cannot and will not stand in the way of our democracy.
The last time Scotland let the UK Government take our sovereignty hostage, we were ripped from the European Union against our will. With that came uncertainty for the lives and livelihoods of everyone across these nations, but particularly for our next generation and their chance of that brighter future. Is it any wonder that our next generation in Scotland are completely fed up of Tory regimes and their overlords that they did not ask for, and certainly did not vote for? They are a generation fed up with the lack of accountability and lack of integrity of successive, continual Tory Governments, a generation who grew up hearing from the supposed Opposition that they were going to stop the Tories and going to win, in the hope that it might be less bad for Scotland, and a generation fed up with hearing their representatives who are sent here to these Benches being roundly ignored time and again and our democratic views and constructive suggestions to safeguard Scotland being utterly rejected. They are a generation who are fed up with a Prime Minister who simply bumbles from one ill-considered strategy to the next, leaving only a trail of woe in his path.
It is no wonder that recent polls from Ipsos MORI Scottish Political Monitor show huge support for independence among the young people of Scotland, with 79% of 16 to 24-year-olds and 68% of 25 to 34-year-olds now saying that they would support leaving this Union, for it is only a Union in name. They know that we are not on a two-way street but on an endless path of right-wing destruction.
The question therefore must be: why are the UK Government looking for any which way to block the wishes of Scotland’s electorate and of new generations to have their say on Scottish independence? If the Government really wanted to reform the voting franchise that this place uses, why not empower young persons across the United Kingdom by extending the vote to them? Instead the Queen’s Speech proposals in this area will lead only to further disenfranchising of the young people across these nations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) said.
With 16 and 17-year-olds now able to vote in Scottish elections, seeing many of our young people engaged and energised truly inspires real hope for our future. In the recent Holyrood elections, for the very first time, foreign nationals and refugees also had the right to vote and take part in our democracy. That is a tangible symbol of the inclusive country that Scotland is.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could confirm that the majority of voters last week voted for parties opposed to a second independence referendum, and that therefore, if the Scottish Government respected Scottish democracy, they would realise that there was no such appetite.
Steven Bonnar
I thank the Minister for his contribution. It is worth noting that the SNP winning 62 first-past-the-post constituency seats is comparable to one of the UK parties—the Conservatives, Labour or the Lib Dems—winning 552 seats in this place. Would that be a mandate for a Government? Yes. I think I have answered the question.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically excellent speech. Does he agree that it is a remarkable achievement in our proportional electoral system to achieve the result that the Scottish National party did last week? In that proportional representation outcome, the proportion of Conservative and Unionist MSPs to Scottish National party MSPs was 1:2. The SNP achieved over twice the number of MSPs that the Conservatives did.
Steven Bonnar
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I think everybody in Scotland sees the results for what they are, everybody sees democracy in action in Scotland, and everybody sees the actions of this Conservative Government.
In this Queen’s Speech, the Tory Government intend to introduce voter ID at Westminster elections. As has been said, that is a Trump-like action against the rights of refugees and others, and an utterly blatant form of voter suppression of those whose voices matter most, yet who are continually suppressed.
The Tories are repeating the same mistakes that they made after the last economic crisis, blighting young people’s futures by forcing through damaging cuts and damaging policies that are threatening Scotland’s recovery. Instead of building us all a fairer society to live in and to allow our youth to flourish, this Government are entrenching inequality and pushing people deeper into poverty by imposing a public sector pay freeze, cuts to universal credit and an efficiency review in the public services. Young people in Scotland want the opportunity to have their say on their own future, and the UK Government cannot and will not justify blocking them.
With that independence, Scotland would have the ability to become a more prosperous nation, holding the power to create bespoke and sustainable economic growth strategies. The SNP is already leading the way and showing us exactly what a progressive society in Scotland can look like. The Conservative Government do not offer free tuition; the Scottish SNP Government do. The Tories do not offer any child payment; the Scottish SNP Government do. The Tories do not offer a real living wage; the Scottish SNP Government do.
The Prime Minister and the Government he leads must respect the will of the Scottish people, who voted overwhelmingly to re-elect the SNP with a cast-iron mandate for a post-pandemic independence referendum. The Prime Minister must come to accept that the people of Scotland know that their constitutional status does not depend on the decisions of a supposedly sovereign Parliament here in Westminster, but lies on the wishes and the sovereignty of the Scottish people. This country cannot afford any more dithering and dodging by the Prime Minister.
We in Scotland were forced out, or dragged out of the European Union against our will, in direct contradiction, as I say, to the majority in our country. We in Scotland were totally neglected, of course, in the negotiations, with no regard to our interests or our future prosperity during the negotiations with our European counterparts, yet it is we in Scotland and it is our next generation of young people who will pay the price for the storm that is brewing. That is why the choice of the young people in Scotland has been made clear: the young people of Scotland, the electorate of Scotland, have chosen the SNP to represent them, they have chosen to take their future into their own hands, and they have chosen to be asked a question on Scottish independence.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar). I am sure he is much more fun over a beer than he is in the Chamber right now, and I look forward to enjoying one with him next week, as we reopen.
Areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke had been forgotten, but this Queen’s Speech reaffirms that, under this Prime Minister, we are delivering on the people’s priorities and levelling up our United Kingdom. Like the geothermal potential that lies beneath the Potteries waiting to be unleashed in the green industrial revolution, Stoke-on-Trent is a hotbed of potential and talent. For levelling up to mean something in Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke, we need to make sure that people can get access to the skills they need and the opportunities to use them.
As a teacher, I saw the impact a good education can have, but, sadly, Stoke-on-Trent currently has one the lowest take-up rates of level 3 and 4 qualifications in the country, with too many children not reaching their full potential. So the introduction of the skills and post-16 education Bill and the new lifetime skills guarantee is transformative, offering access to skills across the country that will allow people to reskill or upskill for the jobs of the future.
While education is crucial to levelling up, so too is the opportunity to access high-skilled and well-paid jobs in our local area. That is why I continue to campaign for the Home Office to make its second home in Stoke-on-Trent as part of the Places for Growth programme. I hope my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, a Keele University graduate and former Stoke-on-Trent resident, will hear my calls once again this afternoon and deliver for her adopted city.
We can also deliver jobs through the fantastic Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill in this Queen’s Speech. The new agency ties in neatly with the campaign of Lucideon’s chief executive, Tony Kinsella, whose global headquarters is based in Stoke-on-Trent, for £36 million of Government investment in an advanced ceramics campus, which would unlock £150 million of private investment and create up to 4,200 jobs. This campaign is being led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), with the full support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and me.
This Government are also investing millions in previously forgotten towns through the levelling-up fund and the towns deal fund, creating new jobs—all in the name of levelling up. Under a Conservative Staffordshire County Council, Conservative-led Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council and a Conservative Chancellor, we have managed to secure £7 million of funding collectively, which will see this important community asset revived in 2022. In total, the £17.6 million towns deal fund for Kidsgrove is unlocking the opportunity to regenerate our high street, upgrade our railway station, create up to 2,000 new jobs at the Chatterley Valley site and invest in activities for young people, such as the 3G astro pitches at the King’s School or the soon-to-be completed pump track at Chinky Park. That is in comparison with when Labour ran Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council from 2012 to 2018, when it spent the grand sum of £15,000 over six years. It is a Conservative Government, a Conservative county council and a Conservative borough council—all of them are blue—that are delivering for local people.
In the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, again we have legislation that delivers on what the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want—tougher sentences for child murderers, tougher sentences for the sex offenders, tougher sentences for the killer drivers, tougher sentences for drug dealers and tougher sentences for knife carriers. It also adopts the private Member’s Bill brought forward by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), introduced almost 12 months ago, which creates a distinct offence and punishment for anyone who desecrates war memorials and war graves to our glorious dead. How anyone can object to this baffles me, and I hope Opposition Members will have seen the recent local elections as a wake-up call and will now back the Home Secretary in passing this vital piece of legislation. I also hope that they will recognise that people want us to sort out the immigration system, and that they will back my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as she brings forward the new sovereign borders Bill. This legislation is positive, long overdue and important to the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.
What I have mentioned today is only a snapshot of a bold and ambitious domestic agenda. It is therefore a shame that the Labour party has adopted such a negative attitude to this Queen’s Speech, but it is not a surprise. The Labour party is simply a party that represents the views and opinions of the few, not the many. In jest, I described it on BBC Radio Stoke as having become the party for the avocado-eating, chai latte-drinking elites, but I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) was much more succinct when he tweeted that the Labour party had become a
“London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors”.
That is no better evidenced than by the former Labour leader of Amber Valley Borough Council, Chris Emmas-Williams, who said after his electoral loss:
“The voters have let us down.”
That mentality shows that the Labour party has adopted a master and servant complex. The champagne socialists of north Islington carry on tweeting their ideology, violently denouncing anyone who does not agree with them, while Government Members proudly listen to and serve the hard-working men and women of this country—the silent majority who make our United Kingdom the best country in the world.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis).
This year has been like no other for young people in Luton North. Last summer, when the Government nearly snatched away offers from the brightest kids in Luton, I met 16, 17 and 18-year-olds who felt that the Government were holding them back because they were seen as coming from the wrong town—because this Government saw them as coming from the wrong background. They felt as if they were a total blind spot for a Conservative Government who do not speak for them. I know what it feels like to be judged by what my parents did and what school I went to, and I do not want that for Luton’s future, because we should take pride in our roots and pride in our town. I am optimistic about Luton’s future, but I ask Ministers: when they talk about levelling up, why are they not talking about kids in Luton North?
Schools and parents have done everything they can over the past year. Challney High School for Boys reached out to provide digital support for parents. Chiltern Learning Trust continued its fantastic professional development of teaching staff. Lea Manor High School made sure that no child went without, and it purchased digital equipment when the Education Secretary fell short again. Lealands High School fiercely advocated on behalf of its students when there were mental health impacts from the exam chaos. Cardinal Newman Catholic School kept its pupils’ minds and bodies active with a combined walk of over 11,000 km. Luton Sixth Form College provided additional support for its staff and students throughout.
Schools and parents work their socks off to provide the best future for Luton’s children, and it is time the Education Secretary did the same. Our primary schools and early years providers went above and beyond to ensure that life was as normal as possible for young ones, but it breaks my heart that they are forced to do as much to tackle the impacts of child poverty as to educate our children. They now provide the very basics, because this Government have failed. If a child is hungry, they are not learning. What kind of society is this, where a food bank in a school is now the norm? Where in this Queen’s Speech was the plan to lift 4.5 million children out of poverty?
It is a shame that these children are not a priority for this Government, because they are for the rest of us. Every child deserves a bright start, and I will unashamedly fight for the ambitions of young people in Luton North to be met. In this Gracious Address, the Government seemed more obsessed with attacking students and student unions than with improving access to higher education for young people.
The postcode of where someone is born should never determine the opportunities that they get in life—if we are for anything as a Labour party, it is that. Why should a child in Luton North not have the same opportunities as a child who goes to Eton or Harrow? Contextual university offers and skills training offer a genuine chance to level the playing field. It is about who the student is, what they are capable of and what they know, rather than who they know. We need this to equalise the life chances of children between Luton and other parts of the country, or even between one end of Luton and the other.
Is any of us genuinely shocked that an arguably talentless Education Secretary wants to cut by half funding for teaching for those with real talent? Cutting support to the arts is economically, culturally and in so many other ways complete and utter nonsense. Before covid, UK creatives contributed almost £13 million to the UK economy every hour. Our artists’ talents should be valued for their input to our culture, as well as to our economy.
Fantastic people at the Youth Network in Luton told me loudly and clearly that our arts and cultural sectors deserve to thrive, and they are absolutely right. If the Conservative party really thinks that our musicians, artists and performers should face 50% cuts to teaching, I say to any bands, artists, actors or DJs who are listening that I will back any campaign to charge Tory MPs 50% more when they try to get into concerts, theatres, galleries, festivals or even clubs.
This very thin Queen’s Speech showed a Government failing to match the ambition of young people in Luton North, who want good, secure jobs with better rights at work; decent training and improved access to higher education; an end to inequality; and the ability to live happier, healthier lives in a place in which they can take pride. That is what we needed in this Queen’s Speech. I am optimistic about Luton’s future and I will be standing alongside young people, parents, charities and schools as we fight for a bright future for every child in Luton North. I hope that one day, we will get a Government who do the same.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for affording me a few minutes to contribute to this Gracious Speech debate on a bright future for the next generation. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). This Queen’s Speech very firmly laid the foundations for the next generation to build our country back better from the challenges of the covid-19 pandemic.
I start by welcoming the legislation to support our NHS and to make sure that it is the most innovative health service in the world, using the most up-to-date technology. When it comes to the future of education for our young people, and, indeed, for people of all ages, I welcome the announcement of the skills and post-16 Bill in the Queen’s Speech. Just this week, I welcomed the fact that Crawley College, working with the Universities of Sussex and Brighton, had got to the next stage of introducing an institute of technology on its site.
I very much welcome the “building back safer” announcement in the Gracious Speech. As right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, the worrying rise in knife crime—particularly here in the capital—needs to be addressed, as does the scourge of county lines drug dealing, which is affecting my constituency and many others. I welcome the Government’s commitment to increasing support and resources for law and order so that those issues are tackled, because young people are all too often the victims of criminal behaviour.
I greatly welcome the announcement of an Environment Bill, as it will secure the UK’s place in the world as a global leader in the new green industrial revolution as we recover from the pandemic in a sustainable way. As chair of the all-party group for the future of aviation, I welcome the fact that British airlines last year committed to net zero carbon by 2050, and the Government have committed to the Jet Zero Council to ensure that we are at the forefront of technology to deliver on that.
I also wanted to mention the animal welfare legislation that was announced in the Gracious Speech. Again, I declare an interest, as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare and a patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. It was wonderful news when a fortnight ago, in the last Session of Parliament, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill went on to the statute book. A whole raft of measures have now been announced in the Queen’s Speech to deliver further on that animal welfare pledge.
The introduction of sentience into UK law is very important. Anyone who has grown up with animals or works with them knows that they are sentient beings, and it is vital that that will be enshrined in our legal system, with an animal sentience committee to ensure that the legislation is delivered in the best way.
I have campaigned for many years on ending live animal exports for fattening and slaughter. This incredibly cruel practice has been going on for far too long. Now that we have left the European Union and the European single market, it is possible for us to end this cruel trade, and I am delighted that that announcement has been made. This is a two-way process, and the Government need to do more to prevent cruelly produced products from being imported into this country. In the last Parliament, I spoke about the cruel practices involved in foie gras, including the force-feeding of ducks and geese to produce a fatty liver, which some people believe is a delicacy. The importation of that product should be banned, as should the importation of fur.
I welcome the announcement in the Gracious Speech of an international animal welfare Bill, which will strengthen measures against the importing of trophy hunting products into this country. In the last Parliament, I was pleased to sit on the Ivory Bill Committee. That Bill is now law, and we are going further still.
Domestically, I welcome the legislation announced in the Queen’s Speech to ban puppy smuggling. That practice causes great distress and ill health to many animals, and it is a fraud often perpetrated on people who want to provide a loving home to a pet. It is important that that matter is addressed. I welcome the establishment of the pet theft taskforce, which the Government announced the other day. Pet theft is a horrible crime whereby pets who are much-loved members of families are taken, causing great distress. I also welcome the introduction of mandatory microchipping for cats, as is the case with dogs, so that lost pets have a much better chance of being reunited with their owners. This Queen’s Speech represents a solid foundation for future generations, and I commend it to the House.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important topic. The Queen’s Speech is an important date in our calendar, but, sadly, this Queen’s Speech was another missed opportunity to deliver the transformational change needed to enable every young person to reach their potential. It lacks ambition and is hardly the radical change we need to build back better or level up.
The proposed legislation laid out in the Queen’s Speech does little to address the issues that threaten future generations: poverty, inequality, unemployment, debt, poor education, low skills, mental health strains, high costs of living and, crucially, an impending climate and ecological crisis. The returning Environment Bill is insufficient to tackle the climate emergency. I have concerns that it will not prevent regression on environmental standards as we leave the EU, especially with regard to air quality, waste management and the use of pesticides.
The proposed introduction of voter ID will disenfranchise and marginalise young people, alongside black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, by creating additional barriers to voting. The Government’s failure to include the much-anticipated employment Bill will mean that when future generations enter the workforce, they will continue to be exposed to poor pay, insecurity, inequality and damaging and immoral fire and rehire practices. In Wales, we have done better and there is a lot the UK Government can learn from us. We are the only country in the UK to have a wellbeing of future generations Act, which places a legal obligation on all public authorities to improve our social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 includes seven wellbeing goals, which all policies should work towards. They are prosperity, resilience, health, equality, building cohesive communities, being responsible globally, and encouraging the vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language. Therefore, the need to protect future generations is in Wales embedded in law, and that has made sustainable development the organising principle of government. That means that the needs of the present should be met without compromising the needs of future generations, and the UN has described the Act as “world-leading”.
The legislation is cross-cutting and underpins all the work of the Welsh Government. It has contributed to the introduction of bold, progressive and radical initiatives in Wales, such as the declaration of a climate emergency; the retention of the education maintenance allowance; a new, innovative school curriculum; free school meal provision for all school holidays up to and including Easter 2022, and a Bill that enables 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in Welsh elections, which they did for the first time last week. Under the leadership of Mark Drakeford, the newly elected Labour Government in Wales have committed to continuing this good work, which seeks to secure a brighter future for the next generation, including through a guarantee of an offer of work, education, training or self-employment for young people; a new framework for youth services in Wales; 125,000 all-age apprenticeships; a real living wage for social care staff; the enactment of the social partnership Bill; and the abolition of the use of single-use plastics.
Despite our progress, decades of underfunding and austerity imposed by successive UK Tory Governments continue to impact negatively on that good work. The Welsh Government budget set by the Treasury here is still lower per head in real terms than it was in 2010. The UK Government’s attempts to bypass the Senedd with levelling-up and community renewal funding exposes their contempt for devolution and their lack of understanding of the real priorities for us here in Wales. The process is a complete shambles. Funding is limited and not properly targeted, and it excludes some deprived areas. To quote Jeremy Miles, the Counsel General,
“this UK Government has an appalling record on providing Wales with even a fair share of UK spending, let alone the kind of funding needed to ‘level up’”.
This Government could have gone a lot further and followed the lead given in the alternative Queen’s Speech by introducing a wellbeing of future generations Bill, a real living wage Bill, a climate and ecology Bill and the social security Bill. So it will come as no surprise that I am supporting amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), which calls on the Government to bring forward a climate and ecological emergency Bill; amendment (c), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), which calls for a people’s green new deal Bill to provide a state-led programme of economic transformation with a green jobs revolution; and amendment (f), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), which calls on the Government to bring forward a Bill to introduce a progressive tax system, taxing the wealthy, and a windfall tax on companies making super-profits. The late Dr Imtiaz, once mayor of my constituency, Cynon Valley, sent me a Christmas card some years ago and it said, “We do not inherit the world. We only borrowed it from our children.” We need to be sure that we leave it in a better place, for my children and yours.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, the time limit will reduce to five minutes, but it remains the same for Flick Drummond.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I do not think that I have ever talked for more than five minutes in the Chamber, but I will see what I can do.
I am delighted to contribute to this debate on the Queen’s Gracious Speech. The next generation is crucial for the future of our country, so I am very pleased that the Government have made it a major focus. It is such a pleasure to be part of this dynamic Government, with far-reaching policies that are changing the country for the better. The skills and post-16 education Bill is a great chance to upskill our country, as is the lifetime skills guarantee, so I look forward to working with further education colleges and local employers in Meon Valley on providing opportunities. The kickstart scheme, which is another great policy that we have introduced to help young people into work, has already been taken up by many organisations and is a success.
I am particularly interested in education, having worked as an Ofsted lay inspector, having been a school governor for many years, and of course as a parent. It is one of the reasons I pursued a political career, because, sadly, politics comes into education. I first want to praise all our school staff, who have worked so hard during the covid pandemic, and pay tribute to the leadership of every headteacher. They have had to work very hard in difficult circumstances, and I have listened carefully to all their views in Meon Valley.
Headteachers are now focused on helping every pupil catch up, and I am pleased that this is also a focus of the Government. We are rightly considering extending the school day to help young people catch up, but we must ensure that the additional time is used to broaden their education in the long term, and retain a longer day after the immediate challenge of covid recovery. I know that teachers welcome that as an opportunity to bring in outside specialists in areas such as the arts, music and sport, to name but a few.
Covid has also given us a chance to relook at our educational assessment system. I do not believe that we have the right assessment system in England for the modern day. The Secretary of State has kindly listened to my views, which I set out in a One Nation Conservatives paper, “The Future of Education”, which I wrote alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory)—she wrote about early years education. I cannot say that the Secretary of State agreed with everything I wrote, but I hope that he might listen in future.
Our educational assessment system in no longer fit for purpose. It is not helping young people who want to succeed through vocational courses. Many vocational courses, such as apprenticeships and T-levels, are not seen as being as important as academic ones. But if they were all put into a different assessment system, such as an all-encompassing national baccalaureate at 18—although I hope we would call it something else—parents, teachers and young people themselves would be more likely to push for qualifications that fit the person, rather than pushing them in directions they might not be keen on. I welcome the work that the National Baccalaureate Trust is doing on this, and I hope that everyone with an interest in the matter will engage with its consultation.
We must ensure that this is seen as an opportunity to level up vocational and academic subjects, and help end the negative perceptions about vocational and technical education. For instance, on GCSEs, why are we still spending valuable education time on doing exams at 16 when young people stay in education or training until 18? We need an education system that provides a wide-ranging curriculum from 14 to 18, and that enables young people to achieve their goals with recognition that their achievement is on the same path as others.
One issue that really struck me when visiting a further education college was the high percentage of young people doing maths and English GCSEs over and over again, failing each time but unable to move on until they passed them. We do need qualifications and examinations, but there are much better ways to assess people than allowing them to fail in an area that is not suited to them. We all know that education is the way out of poverty, but it does not have to be an academic education; it should be an education that is seen as valuable to employers and, more importantly, life chances.
My request to the Minister is to please listen to the many educators working in this field. Our levelling-up agenda is going to transform this country, and education will be part of that. I am incredibly excited about the future of this country. It is very clear from the Queen’s Speech that this Government have the right policies, and I am looking forward to delivering on our promises.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This Queen’s Speech could have been an opportunity for the Government to show real leadership on the challenges that face not only current generations but the generations to come. Instead, it has been a lost opportunity. This Government are good at making promises, but they are poor on delivery. They scrapped the green homes grant and cut grants available for people to buy electric vehicles. Currently, it is predicted that we will not meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets and that the UK will fail on 14 out of 20 biodiversity targets. Unquestionably, the Environment Bill, which has been delayed without explanation, must be brought back to Parliament as a matter of urgency, and it needs to be much stronger. The Bill needs to include a strong Office for Environmental Protection that has the powers and the resources needed to hold the Government to account on their climate promises, and legally binding interim targets so that the Government cannot continue to delay.
The climate and ecological emergency has the potential to be even more devastating than covid-19. In just under 30 years, we need to cut our carbon emissions worldwide to net zero. It may already be too late to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5° C. Given the promise that the Prime Minister made only a few weeks ago to bring forward the 2050 target for curbing emissions by 78% to 2035, why does the Queen’s Speech propose no Bill to reflect that promise? Adopting a Bill specifically designed to cut most emissions by 2035, thereby mitigating the worst effects of climate change in the next decade, would set the UK up as a trailblazer at COP26. It would make the UK the first UN country to have such legislation, but it is not there—a missed opportunity.
While the Government should not lose focus on our national targets, we need to recognise that climate action begins at local level. Many local authorities, including my council of Bath and North East Somerset, were quick off the mark in declaring a climate emergency. Government must work with local authorities to ensure that net zero development frameworks are included in the net zero strategy, and that should be enshrined in law. We should empower local authorities so that they can deliver green transport, homes, energy, infrastructure and waste management. Local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their community, and they will be critical in delivering effective, coherent change on the ground.
Climate change is not tomorrow’s problem, but consecutive Governments have failed to take meaningful action because its worst impacts stretch beyond the average election cycle. Issues that will have widespread consequences are too often neglected and matters that seem more immediate and are easier to see are favoured.
If the Government were serious about a brighter future for the next generation, they would support a wellbeing of future generations Bill. From climate change to nuclear proliferation, from risks from future technologies to future pandemics, we need to foresee and plan for growing risks so that we are properly equipped to tackle them. That would ensure that future Governments publish a long-term vision for a better UK, as well as a national risk assessment looking forward over the next 25 years, after every general election. An Act dedicated to safe- guarding the wellbeing of future generations would set a gold standard for ensuring that preventive safeguards are in place before it is too late. After all, the experience of the covid pandemic has taught us that crisis prevention is even more important than crisis management.
This Queen’s Speech is more than disappointing. We need a bold vision for this country that is long term and radical. We need a Government who are honest with the people—who stop making empty promises and instead deliver.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Like many in this place, the last couple of weeks have given me the opportunity to speak to and listen to the views of my constituents. It is clear that levelling up and achieving a one nation recovery to the past year’s events is on people’s mind. In Keighley and Ilkley, and right across the country, people have yet again put their faith in the Conservatives to deliver that. I am pleased to welcome Julie Glentworth, Mohammed Nazam and Peter Clarke to our local team of Conservative district councillors, and to see Russell Brown re-elected to represent Worth Valley.
This Government have delivered a Queen’s Speech that puts levelling up communities such as Keighley and Ilkley at its very heart. Levelling up is not just about pitting the north against the south or moving jobs from one city to another; it is about delivering solutions that will rebalance the economy towards communities such as Keighley and Ilkley, and bringing change that everyone in the United Kingdom will be able to see positively—a range of opportunities, a fair chance, and the ability to grow and thrive in a direction of their choosing.
Levelling up has been one of my key priorities since I entered this place. That is why I am proud to be parliamentary co-chair of the Levelling Up Goals campaign, alongside the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). Levelling Up Goals is a cross-party campaign that has identified 14 goals, ranging from strong foundations in early years to closing the digital divide. The goals will make levelling up a reality, not just a slogan, and will provide measurables for how policy will have a direct impact on making places such as Keighley—those classic forgotten-about locations—better places to live, work and thrive. I am delighted that the Government have shown, through the Queen’s Speech, that we are passionate and keen to deliver that.
Building the right infrastructure is key to expanding opportunities for my constituency. No matter how big or small the project, they are all very important. Take the footbridge between Silsden and Steeton. For far too long, there has been no pedestrian link between those two places; instead, people must cross a four-lane dual carriageway, with traffic coming in both directions. To many in this place, delivering a footbridge may seem a small project, but it is not small to those two communities, which want better access to their local train station in Steeton.
I am determined that the Government will also deliver on bigger schemes, such as the Skipton to Colne line, getting better connectivity from Silsden and Keighley to the west of the country. The national infrastructure plan outlined in the Queen’s Speech will make such projects a reality.
Good health and wellbeing for residents in places such as Keighley and Ilkley is also a key part of the levelling-up agenda. Airedale Hospital is a community asset in our constituency. It has served the people of Keighley for many years—in fact, this year it has its 51st birthday—yet it was built with a life expectancy of 30 years. Three quarters of the hospital is built from aerated concrete, which is known for its structural deficiencies. Airedale Hospital needs and deserves a rebuild. That will ensure that my constituents get the best-quality healthcare that they deserve and will level up the whole community. It will be a great construction project that delivers jobs for my community.
In the past few months, the pandemic has been extremely tough for my constituents—on top of the three national lockdowns, they have been living with enhanced local restrictions since July—yet we in this place owe it to the entire next generation to ensure that their life chances are not defined by the pandemic. Levelling up and ensuring that young people have the right advice, open recruitment and fair career progression is crucial to ensuring that, and I am absolutely keen on delivering that. I commend the hard-working efforts of all the headteachers right across my constituency, and I must congratulate Jon Skurr, the headteacher of University Academy Keighley, who was recently recognised as headteacher of the year in our community.
I am proud that this Government have levelling up at the heart of their agenda, and I am pleased that the Queen’s Speech was able to deliver that.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). I share many of his sentiments about the Gracious Speech. There is much to welcome in the measures outlined, from those relating to our armed forces to those on refugees and our youngest children, but time requires us all to focus on a few key points. Today’s theme is very much thinking about future generations, so my points will be specifically in that area.
First, there is a need to provide certainty for the future about a plan for social care. Although I have heard a good deal of criticism of the Government in recent days, all of us who are familiar with the social care system will recognise that the solutions are not necessarily ones that require new laws. For example, the way in which we approach the funding and structure of the sector and the work between the NHS and local authorities do not require new laws.
However, what we do know—I am very pleased that the Government recognise this—is that our local authorities have consistently, in the work that we have already done on reforming the social care sector, been the most efficient at using the resources available, because they know their communities best. As we think about the future of social care in our country, it is absolutely vital—given that only a small part of the sector’s work relates directly to what happens in the NHS—that we make that resource go as far as possible, so we need a council-led system that places people and communities at its heart, and I look forward to hearing the proposal that the Government are working on in that area.
The second area in which I am thinking very much about future generations is securing homes—home ownership and access to social housing and rented homes—for the generations that are to come. I very much welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that one size does not fit all across our country in this respect. It is important that we reduce the burden of national guidance, which leads to developers seeing sites as investments to sell on, rather than serving the interests of the community by building new homes. It remains my view that making the local authority decision final and ending the cycle of appeals and lobbying would see those homes delivered much more swiftly. However, it is really important that the freedoms and provisions that have been outlined in respect of forward planning and zoning are used by our local authorities, and that we focus not just on absolute numbers of units, but on the types of units, so that in communities such as Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, we see the development of more downsizer units so that communities can remain intact while we improve the supply of family-sized homes in a local area.
Moving on to the skills and post-16 education Bill, as someone who has spent much of my life in and around the education sector, I enormously welcome the provisions that have been outlined, and in particular, the flexibility to move away from a situation where it could feel like all or nothing at school-leaving age to one where, throughout their lives, people can continue to access the support they require to retrain and develop. The early years health development review, which I have been involved in, is again a fantastic opportunity to build on the work done by local authorities and local NHS providers to transform the life chances of young children and ensure that they get the start in life that sets them up for a bright future.
Finally, preserving nature and wildlife is close to my heart and to the hearts of many of my constituents in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which is a key part of the green lungs of our capital city and an important destination for leisure. I particularly welcome the proposals in the Bill on animal welfare. My constituents have expressed significant concerns that some of the elements would reduce the ability of conservation projects abroad to raise funds through charging people for hunting as part of their herd welfare and management activities. I am pleased to see that the proposal seems to strike a better balance between ensuring that hunting continues to make an economic contribution to conservation—transforming the resources available to support animals that would otherwise be risk—and enhancing the protection afforded to endangered species, which my constituents and I very much want to see.
There is a huge amount to commend in this Queen’s Speech, and I associate myself with the support expressed for it across the Conservative Benches. I look forward to seeing the proposals implemented and making a difference to the lives of the people I am here to serve.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), a fellow member of the Education Committee. It is also a pleasure to speak again in a Gracious Speech debate. The last time I did so was for my maiden speech, so at least it is slightly less nerve-wracking this time around. I spent 16 years running organisations for young people before I became an MP in December 2019, so today felt like the right day for me to speak, on a brighter future for the next generation.
I start by welcoming what the Queen’s Speech says about the importance of early years. It is right that we try to give children the best possible start to their lives. I do not think that is enough by itself, and I am reminded of what Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone says: “What is it you need to create escape velocity for a child that propels them through the rest of their lives?” I think early years is very important; I do not think that they take care of everything by themselves, but I welcome the Government’s recognition of their central importance.
Secondly, I welcome the Government’s focus on catch-up, because the closure of schools has had a profound impact on educational progress and mental health, which will take years to repair. I suspect that public debate will focus much more on how the economy is doing and what is happening to NHS waiting lists—both are vital—but I hope that we keep a focus on what has happened to children and young people and how we can repair the damage done through the closure of schools.
I very much welcome the commitment to a lifetime schools guarantee in this Gracious Speech. Countries that succeed tend to invest in skills and the policy will benefit potentially 11 million adults. That is welcome, and the further education White Paper is a recognition by this Government of the effects of the last Labour Government’s focus on 50% of young people going to university. I supported many young people to go to university in my previous life and understand why it is so important and valuable for young people, but it led to a neglect of the more than 50% who did not go and suggested to them that if they were not part of that target being achieved they had somehow not succeeded. It is right that the Government are now devoting more time to those who do not go to university.
Here I would also bring in race and ethnic disparities. Two thirds of the young people that I worked with in my last job were from ethnic minorities because we focused on low-income households, and we saw those disparities across education and employment. Different ethnic groups performed very differently at GCSE and A-level and in rates of university attendance—particularly at the most selective universities—and the groups that did well in education might not do anywhere near as well in the labour market. The unfairly maligned report from Dr Tony Sewell and the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities is full of data outlining this position and good recommendations that we should be focusing on to try and close some of those gaps.
That brings me on to my final point. These issues are, of course, very important for Government, and Government have a key role to play in what happens to the next generation, but this is not just a job for Government. What parents do, and what schools and colleges do, matters. We need universities to stop charging high fees for low contact time and poor graduate outcomes. We need our employers to invest in skills, and not just leave that to Government; we need them to provide work experience and internships and traineeships and apprenticeships and good jobs for young people, not work experience that only goes to the relatives of employees and clients, or unpaid internships, or focusing on recruiting people who are polished rather than those who have the most potential. If it was just a job for Government, then one well-designed Bill that we passed in this House would solve the problem, but it would have happened by now if that was the case. We need everybody who can play a role—individuals, charities, social enterprises, businesses, universities, schools and so on—trying to create a better future for the next generation, but I am hugely pleased that Government are committed to doing everything they can.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in this Queen’s Speech debate on the theme of a bright future for the next generation, and I am particularly delighted as parliamentary patron of the YMCA. North Staffordshire YMCA in my constituency has recently received the Queen’s Award for Enterprise for its outstanding work in promoting opportunities for young people from all backgrounds to aspire to and access, and I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in offering our congratulations.
I have spoken often in this place about Stoke-on-Trent as a city with a big heart and a vision for the future, and this is captured in our love of STEAM—that is to say STEM, or science, technology, engineering and maths, plus art. It dates back to our very own Josiah Wedgwood, who in the 18th century performed the ultimate alchemy—a blend of science and art—to produce world-class ceramics.
More recently, the city was birthplace to the man whose planes won the battle of Britain, typifying STEAM. We all know how beautiful the Spitfire looks, as well as being a remarkable feat of engineering of its time. When he left Hanley High School, designer Reginald Mitchell worked as an apprentice at a local locomotive engineering works while also studying engineering and mathematics at night. With our lifetime skills guarantee, we will be encouraging a new generation of learners to grow their knowledge as the world of work and the job market changes.
From the heavy industries of the past to the advanced technologies and digital innovations of the future, Stoke-on-Trent is evolving, and the investment in our city-wide full-fibre network has paved the way for the next chapter of STEAM opportunities for future generations. A local entrepreneur said to me that when he went to school careers advice, they simply focused on getting a job—any job. The main thing was finding work to pay the bills. Now the choices are far greater and more accessible to those who may not have flourished in the more traditional educational environment.
Many new industries and creative businesses are built on intuitive digital and media skills and aptitude, rather than formal qualifications. Parents who have worked in traditional industries may find it difficult to appreciate the exciting new career paths in the digital industries and their transferable skills. Some of the most successful businesses in the past year have been online businesses. We know that gaming is not just a hobby, but a pathway to great careers.
STEAM is important because it blends our heritage with our future—our heritage and creativity maintained today as the world’s capital of ceramics; and our future, which develops the limitless possibilities with ceramics as an advanced material and our ambition to be the most digitally advanced city in the UK, enabling a new generation of creative innovators to start and grow their businesses close to home. We have an advanced ceramics campus in the university quarter, as well as the roll-out of the “Silicon Stoke” strategy, which has been championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and will deliver great opportunities for the next generation. I will continue to ask for Government support for these projects.
STEAM acts as the glue cohesively to bring together infrastructure, education, skills and jobs with a vision for the future as Stoke-on-Trent continues to grow in ambition and capability. The city council’s recently published prospectus articulates the vision clearly, and through the STEAM agenda we will be powering up the city and steaming ahead with the delivery of our vision, which will position Stoke-on-Trent as the hub for new infra- structure, new skills and new jobs, and the new future.
The city’s history is as a transport hub through our canals and railway networks. Our plans reintroduce railway links, improve bus services and reconfigure routes citywide, which will future-proof Stoke-on-Trent as a great place in which to invest, to work and to enjoy a better quality of life, underpinned by our ambitious plans for digital connectivity and to be a gigabit connected city.
Stoke-on-Trent has experienced the third-fastest job recovery of any UK city, with pre-pandemic levels increased by 17%. We need to ensure that our young people have the right skills to fill vacancies in this new world of remote and flexible working. Those leaving full-time education should be able to stay in our city—a city full of enterprise, innovation and culture, where house prices mean they can aspire to owning a new first home.
Stoke-on-Trent is on the up and is levelling up. It is a vibrant, creative city that is experiencing a renaissance thanks to the investment of this Government, which will ensure a brighter future for the next generation.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon). This week’s Queen’s Speech sets out a bold agenda to deliver on the vision to level up across our country with an ambitious programme to unlock the pent-up potential and talent lying within all our constituents as we emerge from the covid-19 pandemic.
I wholeheartedly support the Queen’s Speech, and in particular I support the Bills within it that will help to support some of those who have suffered most from the pandemic, including students who have missed out on education and individuals who have lost jobs and need to find work. The agenda on levelling up the education and skills offer available to our constituents is possibly one of the most important aspects of this Government’s programme. The skills and post-16 education Bill, which I welcome, will bring in the new lifetime skills guarantee, which will give everyone the chance to acquire new expertise at any stage of their life, so that they have the skills that employers need. The Bill will transform access to skills across the country, to ensure that people can train and retrain at any stage in their life, supporting them to move into higher-quality, higher-skilled jobs and equipping the workforce with the skills that employers need.
The focus on education and skills is hugely welcome, especially for my constituents in beautiful Hastings and Rye. This amazing constituency, my home, is located in the affluent south-east but suffers from some of the deepest deprivation in the country. Hastings is slipping further down the levels of deprivation, and is now the 13th most deprived out of 317 local authorities, based on the 2019 indices of multiple deprivation. In East Sussex, nine out of the 10 most deprived neighbourhoods are located in Hastings and St Leonards. Baird ward, for example, is still among the most deprived half a per cent. in the whole country. It makes me angry to see these levels of deprivation becoming increasingly worse, after years of a Labour-controlled borough council. I am utterly delighted that in last week’s local elections the residents of Baird elected Conservatives at both borough and county elections. Our residents deserve better, so we will give them better, because we believe in levelling up, not driving down.
This Conservative Government are committed to developing opportunities for everyone at every place across the country, to fulfil their potential, to excel. As such, I was proud to stand on a manifesto commitment to level up, boosting jobs, driving growth and innovation, increasing opportunity for everyone, and ensuring that everyone has access to excellent public services, regardless of where they live.
I would like to take this stand for parts of the south- east such as Hastings and Rye, which must not be overlooked when it comes to levelling up. Yes, it is absolutely right that those in parts of our country neglected by Labour politicians and taken for granted for generations are given the opportunities and investment, but we cannot overlook parts of the south-east that are also in desperate need of investment in education and skills, transport infrastructure, connectivity and job opportunities. We simply must not neglect nor take for granted our core support; if we do, we are no better than the Labour party.
Turbocharging our economic recovery in every part of our country, increasing and spreading opportunity is vital, and I therefore welcome the landmark levelling up White Paper, which will set out bold new policy interventions to improve livelihoods and opportunity in all parts of the UK as we recover from the pandemic, grasping the opportunities of Brexit. The Government are right: a one-size-fits-all approach does not work, and nurturing different types of economic growth and building on the different strengths that different places and different towns have is vital.
At a recent meeting with my local Federation of Small Businesses, its members were delighted, as am I, to find out that employers are being placed, and utilised, at the heart of the post-16 skills system, through the skills accelerator, enabling employers and providers to collaborate to develop skills plans aimed at ensuring that local skills provision meets local needs.
I welcome the investment in road and rail, and again would harp on about HS1: we really need that for connectivity. With this Queen’s Speech, and the ambition, aims and legislation of this Government, we have much to look forward to and a bright blue future.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the Gracious Speech and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart).
As a new MP, I have seen at first hand just how committed this Government are to uniting and levelling up across the country. Here in Burton, since my election we have already received £750,000 pounds towards regenerating our high street, and are just about to start public consultation on our £22 million town investment plan. In Uttoxeter, discussions are under way regarding what we want see for the future of the town. We are also looking at how we might make best use of the £20 million levelling-up fund to invest in our community. These huge investments from the Government will help us to build back better after the difficulties we have faced throughout the last 12 months.
It is clear that if we want towns such as Burton and Uttoxeter all across the country to prosper and flourish in the long term, we must make sure that the next generation have access to the skills and education they need to help them succeed. Burton is fortunate. We have a low unemployment rate, which is testament to the hard-working nature of my constituents. However, businesses have reported a skills shortage, and a legacy of low skills in Burton means that the resident workforce are under-represented in high-paid, higher-skilled jobs.
We have more schools rated good or outstanding by Ofsted than the national or regional average, but a lower percentage of students attaining good GCSE or A-level results. The lifetime skills guarantee must offer educational options that engage our children and give everyone the chance to train, particularly those who want to look outside of the traditional classroom route. JCB Academy in Rocester is a great example of how we can develop the engineers and business leaders of the future by offering a curriculum that is embedded in real industrial practice.
Burton’s town investment plan recognises the skills gap that currently exists and sets out to address the challenges faced by the town. The creation of new learning facilities through Burton and South Derbyshire College and the University of Wolverhampton will provide: higher educational skills and training that responds to the need for clear progression routes; a health and social care realistic environment that will offer simulated learning for those on health and science pathways; and a digital hub that will offer learning facilities for creative digital learning, games development, mechatronics and cyber-security.
The next generation—our children—are going to be faced with some tough problems to tackle. How do we change manufacturing methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? How do we feed an increasing population with less land available to produce food? We must ensure that the facilities are available for them to learn those skills. To engage them in learning that inspires them to achieve and succeed, we need to offer them the opportunity to broaden their skills horizon and increase the routes to prosperity within our towns. By providing such opportunities, we can ensure that everyone in Burton and Uttoxeter has the chance to realise their potential, regardless of where they are from or their background.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) and several members of the Education Committee, which I am fortunate to sit on.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) in relation to aspiration. For three days, we have heard Labour Members talking down their towns and this country. The Conservative party truly is the party of opportunity and, more importantly, of aspiration, with the view that our best days truly are ahead of us. Let us not forget those great, well-known philosophers, the band Chumbawamba, who, in their hit single “Tubthumping”, said: “We get knocked down, we get back up again, you’ll never keep me down.” This country has been knocked down by the pandemic, but we will never keep this country or this Government down as we level up our regions and build a truly global Britain.
Levelling up, however, cannot be achieved without education, which is what I wish to focus on for the rest of my speech. The skills and post-16 education Bill will allow residents of Prestwich, Radcliffe and Whitefield to retrain later in life, with the lifetime skills guarantee ensuring that everyone will be able to achieve a minimum standard of a level 3 qualification. As we bounce back from covid thanks to the vaccine programme, this Government are delivering a long-term catch-up programme so that all children across Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich can achieve to their fullest potential. However, catch-up cannot only be focused on attainment; it also needs to be focused on our children’s mental health, with a more holistic view, so that they truly are catching up and achieving the most.
I declare an interest in that, having a very young daughter, I want the very best in early years, so that our youngest children can get the best start in life, setting up their education and careers for life. Acting on the early years healthy development review, we are truly able to do that.
The Government’s free school programme is ensuring that the children of Radcliffe will no longer need to travel out of the town or, many times, even out of the borough to receive a world-class education. After many years of failed Labour promises, it is this Conservative Government who are achieving that. It is this Conservative Member of Parliament who has taken just over 12 months in this role to achieve just that.
However, to ensure a bright future, we need to address the elephant in the room: illiteracy. The BBC launched its programme this Monday to get the roughly 9 million people who have difficulties with reading talking about the issue and improving the country’s literacy rates. Not reading holds us all back in terms of health, employment, opportunity and family. If someone cannot help their own child with their homework because they are unable to read, they are holding their child back, too.
It has taken many years to overcome the stigma of mental health. With the help of the National Literacy Trust, which provides the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on literacy that I am fortunate to chair, we will overcome the stigma of illiteracy as well, because it cannot be right that in the 21st century one in six people in Britain, one in four in Scotland and one in eight in Wales are unable to read. My task is to ensure that the Government will continue to focus on that—I hope the Minister will be able to focus on it later, too —because it is a scandal that every single Member of both Chambers should be ashamed of. We will continue to do all the work we can to address that issue.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, particularly given its focus on the next generation and looking to the future. I welcome much of the discussion so far on skills and education, particularly given how important it is for my part of the world and for the region of the east midlands. However, as so much has already been said about skills, I will focus my remarks on another key element of our future success, which is broader than just the acquisition of skills, knowledge or education, and extends into our confidence, both individually and collectively, to use those abilities.
When I talk about confidence, I mean the ability for us as a mature democracy, facing huge opportunities but also some challenge in coming decades, to identify, debate and determine our response to what without doubt will be massive change in the decades ahead. Bluntly, it is about our ability to have difficult conversations, the confidence to create space for robust debates about who we are as a country, where we want to go and who we want to be, and the willingness to engage in debate on—and subject our preconceived notions to—rigour, scrutiny and critique. That is why I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment in the Queen’s Speech to guaranteeing freedom of speech on campuses, not just from the perspective of fixing a growing issue in some parts of academia, but for making a clear statement about how this timeless notion should continue to be upheld across wider civic society as a whole.
That a Bill guaranteeing freedom of speech appears necessary should give us all pause in a free, enlightened and curious society. How has an element of higher education managed to get itself into a place where it argues precisely against notions it is supposed to uphold? Given that it seems to have slowly done exactly that in recent decades, it appears necessary to legislate. I say that as a Conservative who does not want to legislate against things unless it is absolutely necessary, yet one of the reasons I am a Conservative is because I seek to deal with the world as it is, not as I wish it would be. Whether I like it or not, it appears that some time-honoured enlightenment notions of rationality and free speech are being questioned. If that is the case, it appears that the Government will have to be clear and make an unambiguous statement that freedom of speech is a value that is non-negotiable and that, if it cannot be guaranteed by manners, tradition and convention, it will need to be guaranteed in law.
I remain astounded by the extraordinary—and extraordinarily deficient—vapid intellectual architecture that has grown within our universities in recent decades. I saw it starting off 20 years ago with the no platforming debates when I was at university myself; now it is a general lack of intellectual curiosity or an othering of inconvenient viewpoints, which results in the loss of swaths of perfectly reasonable debate, while rendering it almost impossible to draw conclusions across anything. It is the product of an obsession with a postmodern relativism that has created a toxic quagmire of up-ended logic and muddled thinking, where no one really knows what can acceptably be said, who can acceptably speak or what level of debate and discussion can actually be had.
The frames of the very concept of debate have been loosened to such an extent, through the fashions of Foucault, Derrida or their fellow travellers, that objectivity and rationality are discarded by some as if they were some kind of out-of-fashion, transient plaything. What follows is the dystopian reality that there is no real ability to draw any form of conclusion at all—“I have my truth, you have yours, this Bench has its own.” The whole discussion is narrowed and then disparaged to the extent that up becomes down and feelings become king. My, what has it come to when a law—a law!—is now required, not to set reasonable boundaries on freedom of speech, but to ensure that people can go to the extent of using those reasonable boundaries?
People have the right to be heard. Viewpoints have the right to be challenged. Comfort must, by necessity, be discomforted. Our world demands pluralism of thought, deed and action as the price of progress and improvement. I welcome the Government’s intent in this area.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley). Today, we are debating the opportunities for future generations. As the Member for West Dorset, I want to make sure that we are in the best possible position to contribute our part to this considerable Conservative Government effort for our nation. It is also important, though, that the Government hear it loud and clear that we in West Dorset are a strong candidate for levelling up, too.
I am greatly inspired by Alan Turing, the inspiration for the Government’s Turing scheme. He went to school in my home town of Sherborne and went on to crack the Enigma code of the second world war. As a farmer’s son who has grown up on the land and watched my parents feed the nation, I am proud that we have one of the best land-based colleges in the country at Kingston Maurward. It plays a vital role in empowering young people to stay at home in their community, rather than having to leave it for a good job far away, as I had to in my 20s. That is a key priority of this Conservative Government, and one that I wholly support; I ask the Government, though, to ensure that we in Dorset, and particularly Kingston Maurward, can play a much bigger role in providing this opportunity, not just to young people in Dorset, but further afield.
There are two specific Bills that the Government have set out that I commend to the House and support: the Environment Bill and the animals abroad Bill. Because it is in such a beautiful county, people would not think that my constituency of West Dorset has the worst place for air pollution in the entire country, but environmental issues do indeed affect us all. The village of Chideock, between Bridport and Lyme Regis, has the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide in the entire country from traffic on the A35. The pollution is more than double the Government limit. The issue is not new —it has been ongoing for some time—but urgent action is required and progress can be made with the new powers that the Environment Bill will provide.
At the end of the last parliamentary Session, Her Majesty the Queen gave her Royal Assent to my private Member’s Bill, which is now the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021. On Second Reading of the Bill, I outlined to Parliament my continuing mission for animal welfare in this country, and I am delighted that the Government have again responded to my petition for improved animal welfare in the Queen’s Speech.
Our debates on animal welfare in this place have traditionally been about pets, but it is high time that we get a grip of the care of other animals as well. I want us to ban live animal exports, and I see that the Government’s intended Bill will give us that opportunity. It is disgraceful that our well-cared-for farm animals can be loaded on to a lorry and sent thousands of miles by land and sea to destinations in southern Europe or further for hours and hours. As a farmer’s son, I know that no decent, caring farmer wants to see their animals gets shipped abroad for fattening or slaughter.
I also want to see an end to non-stun slaughter of animals in the United Kingdom. I petition the Government that we could find an opportunity in the legislative agenda to stop this practice, which causes unnecessary suffering to our animals. The Food Standards Agency has shown that, in 2018, 94 million cattle, sheep and poultry were slaughtered in England alone in this manner. The Veterinary Policy Research Foundation says that, of those animals non-stunned for ritual slaughter purposes, some 70% are sold on the general market without labelling. We need a full debate on that matter in the House.
Her Majesty the Queen’s Speech is an example of how this Conservative Government look to govern this country and bring opportunity to it, including Dorset and the south-west, and I wholly support the Government in their endeavours.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
It is always a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I do not know why, but I always follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who is the closest thing to a political poet I have ever heard. It was another wonderful speech; I say that every time I listen to him.
The agenda that this Government set is termed in many different ways, but if levelling up is to mean anything, it is about levelling up opportunity. We can have all the buildings, all the concrete and all the stadiums, and we can invest in infrastructure, but if it does not have positive outcomes for our citizens, we will certainly not have a bright future for the next generation.
At this point in the debate, every Bill and part of the Queen’s Speech has been discussed, and I do not intend to read out a list of the bits that I support. It goes without saying that, as a loyal Conservative, I support the Queen’s Speech and what the Government are trying to achieve. When I saw that I was number 48 on the call list, I thought about what I could say. I want to take this opportunity to highlight a group of individuals who are bursting with potential and have all the skills and the things that we value in our fellow citizens: children with special educational needs and disabilities.
When I was preparing this speech, I thought about how we can at least have equality of opportunity for children with special educational needs, to give them the best chance of a bright future. My suggestion—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give this some consideration—is that, as part of the levelling-up agenda, we should seriously consider the necessity of SEND hubs, which would be a one-stop commissioning shop to support children and those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.
As we all know, education, health and care plans are nationally recognised as being predominantly about the education experience that each child receives, but the health part is limited and, on occasion, not adequately underpinned with the required strategies and services; it is the same for social care. Special schools or community special schools are often in a position where they have to commission further bespoke services for a young person, but there is not a regular, unified commissioning body to provide those services. We therefore have a disjointed system, with commissioning beset by delay, which negatively impacts the young person.
For young kids with all the potential in the world who have special educational needs, in my view the answer is the establishment of SEND hubs in every council area in the country; that is one of the best ways to encourage them to have a brighter future. In those hubs, staff from various commissioning bodies would be working under one roof, and professionals and family members could turn to them for help immediately, if necessary, to find the support they need. That would mean that we, as politicians, were doing everything we could to support the potential individual needs of each young person in our country. The SEND hub would have a wider remit, however, in that it would provide tailored support through careers and employment services to ensure that kids, no matter their background, have opportunities to enter the workplace. Sadly, at present, the opportunities are limited for many.
SEND hubs—inclusive, with continuity of provision and tailored to the bespoke needs of each young person at a local level to support the overarching aims of their EHCP—would, in my view, be the very best way of closing the current aching gap, where children with SEND do not have equality of opportunity. We must address this issue as part of the levelling-up agenda and as part of the legislation contained in this Queen’s Speech. I have asked my local authority to make an application by way of the community renewal fund to put together a business case for a SEND hub in Bury, and I hope it will then apply to the UK shared prosperity fund and other revenue streams to make that a reality.
I believe that this is a fine Queen’s Speech. This Government are set on changing each and every part of this country and giving each and every one of our fellow citizens the best opportunity to thrive and succeed. For children with SEND, the proposal of a warm, welcoming and supportive hub is something the Government should strongly consider.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I want to thank Members across the House for contributing to this important debate. In particular, I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for her continued work and the work of her team in fighting for a bright future for all children and young people across the country.
I also thank the following Members for their contributions. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) really tackled the Government’s waiting times for health and cancer treatments. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) talked about wanting the terms of reference for the independent inquiry into covid to be drawn up in consultation with the bereaved relatives, wanting them to be invited to give evidence and wanting get on with this quickly. That was an important message about the inquiry that we have heard strongly from bereaved relatives this week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) gave a moving account of child poverty in his constituency, and he very much made the case for a decent, well-funded statutory youth service. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) is incredibly knowledgeable on this area, and he really held the attention of the House when he spelled out exactly what it means when adults can legally watch pornography that purports to be child pornography —it, is in fact, filmed by adults pretending to be children, and coming across that way—and continue to work with young people. I hope those on the Government Bench took particular note of those remarks, and that there might be an opportunity to work to ensure that people who watch this abhorrent pornography are not allowed to work with children and young people.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said that there were not many promises for the Government to break in this Queen’s Speech. Indeed, he is quite right: it was something of a thin gruel. I congratulate his Labour council on its re-election in St Helens. The council has championed children and young people consistently for a number of years. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) highlighted that children and young people were an afterthought in this pandemic, but they must be a priority in our country’s recovery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), following on from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), spoke about the requirement to show photo ID to vote. I regret that the Minister had, not unreasonably, taken a break at that point, but I urge her to read back those comments in Hansard, because I thought some very good points were made about those who might be excluded from our democracy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) spoke passionately for the children in her constituency and really praised the schools in her community for stepping up and filling the gaps where the Government have dropped the ball, be that with laptops and equipment, the exams chaos, or, shockingly, a food bank inside a school.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) shared with the House the progress made by the Welsh Labour Government. Indeed, they introduced the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which has gone on to ensure that there is a bright future for the next generation in Wales. That means that we have seen voting rights extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, free school meals extended, and a new framework for youth services.
Children and young people have been left behind by this Government since long before the coronavirus crisis. The pandemic is set to have a scarring effect on an entire generation of young people for years to come. Radical action is needed to ensure that the next generation will reach higher, with better opportunities than generations before them. This week’s Queen’s Speech was an opportunity to take stock of the devastating year that we have all experienced and instigate that radical action. The past year has been like no other. Families have given up so much and many have lost loved ones.
Coronavirus has brought into sharp focus the inequalities and insecurities rooted in our society. After a decade of Conservative Governments, it is no wonder that our public services were underfunded and underprepared for the pandemic. But even at this time of crisis, the Conservatives’ Queen’s Speech was uninspired and unambitious. It fell short across the board, but particularly when it came to young people. As shadow Minister for young people, I do not get many chances to speak at this Dispatch Box about my brief, mainly because the Conservatives do not have a Minister dedicated to young people. Their disregard for young people comes so naturally that it is endemic in the way they organise their Government, leading to a disjointed, haphazard approach on many of the issues young people face today. So perhaps I should not be surprised that this Queen’s Speech did not mention young people and that the Government have treated them as little more than an afterthought throughout this crisis.
For example, the Queen’s Speech failed to mention the youth jobs crisis. Across this country, millions of young people needed the Government to announce solutions to their patchy kickstart scheme, which has created jobs for only 3% of all young jobseekers. The Government’s kickstart scheme lacks the scale and ambition needed for a crisis of this latitude. Labour would deliver a guaranteed job or training opportunity to every young person who needed it and work to end long-term unemployment. Young people are the key workers of the future and must be recognised for their importance in our recovery from this crisis.
The Government also missed an opportunity to finally release the long-awaited youth investment fund, which was pledged more than 18 months ago by this Government but not a penny has been spent. Covid-19 has only worsened the crisis in our youth services, and yet over the past decade what we have seen from the Conservatives is a 73% cut to our youth services, leading youth services to be on their knees. Will the Minister confirm whether the youth investment fund will be released in full, as promised in the last Conservative party manifesto?
As hon. Members from across the House have mentioned, the Government could have used the Queen’s Speech to set out how they will support the millions of children who have faced unprecedented disruption to their learning in the past year. Children’s recovery should be at the heart of the Government’s work, and yet the Secretary of State for Education has committed just £43 per pupil per day for catch-up. Does the Minister believe that this is sufficient, or will she be asking the Chancellor, or indeed the Secretary of State, to provide more support? This Government’s scandalous failings on apprenticeships have stifled the prospects of the young people who are most in need. The drop-out rate is soaring and those from disadvantaged backgrounds have been locked out of opportunity. Will the Minister outline what action she is taking to rectify the 40% decline in new apprenticeships for young people since 2015?
As young people emerge from a devastating year, mental health must be a central focus. The relationship between financial security and probable mental health disorders is undeniable. This inequality is well documented, but successive Conservative Governments have failed to address it, and that has left less well-off young people falling through the cracks in the system. Will the Minister outline what steps she is going to take to reduce the waiting lists for access to child and adolescent mental health services?
The Conservatives’ track record on young people has been a series of let-downs and broken promises. After a decade of austerity, young people are facing surging house prices, stagnating wages and rising debts, and all the while the Government have failed to grant 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, silencing their voices. With votes at 16 guaranteed in Wales and Scotland, there is now a fundamental inequality of rights in this country, a situation that is morally and politically unsustainable for the UK Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston outlined in her opening remarks, Labour would have approached the Queen’s Speech very differently to guarantee a bright future for all. Labour is committed to making Britain the best place in which to grow up, and preventing today’s young people from becoming the lost generation. We would ensure that every young person had the opportunity to fulfil their potential; that affordable, accessible, high-quality early years education was available for all; and that childcare was there for parents who needed it. We have a radical plan that would create time for children to play, learn and develop and give the teaching profession the support that it needs to guarantee a world-class education for every child. We would deliver a guaranteed job or training opportunities to every young person who needed them, and we would work to end long-term unemployment.
We have repeatedly heard that this generation of young people is being called a lost generation. It is not inevitable that a whole cohort of young people will be negatively impacted by this crisis. Let us be clear; it is a choice by the Conservatives. It is a political choice, which will be remembered by the current generation of young people. As long as the Government continue to fail our children, the consequences will be felt for a generation.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate. There have been many valuable contributions.
The year 2020 and the early part of 2021 have been a time of enormous difficulty, and our nation’s resolve has been tested by the pandemic. There has been huge disruption to the lives of young people, whose futures we are debating today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) rightly said, a lost year for us cannot be compared with a lost year of learning and development for them.
With the end of the EU transition period in January, the UK began a new chapter in its national story—one of great change and even greater opportunity. This must become the spur to do things differently and better, and, in doing so, create more opportunities for young people. We have to use this shift to shatter the stasis that has led to decades of underproductivity and disconnection between decision makers and communities. With UK politicians now being more accountable for delivery, we will pursue policies that work for young people across the UK, with huge investment in early years, post-16 education, skills, infrastructure and technology. With freedom of intellectual challenge, we hope to create a more outward-looking and dynamic economy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) made a compelling speech on the skills agenda, to which he has committed so much campaigning energy, and he welcomed our lifetime skills guarantee. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has engaged with me on civil service apprenticeships. I see those apprenticeship routes as fundamental to our talent pipeline for the digital and data specialist roles that we are creating across Government to lead our drive to improve online Government services for citizens. I appreciated the excellent suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) on special educational needs and development hubs, and I have just raised it with the Secretary of State for Education.
I was very interested to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) criticise the English education system when Scotland’s performance on the PISA league tables has drastically slipped and the attainment gap has increased. Meanwhile, UCAS data show that just 9.7% of those from Scotland’s most disadvantaged areas have been accepted at university, compared with 17% in England.
I want to wish my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) a very happy birthday and thank her for her tireless commitment to the early years agenda over 25 years. As a relatively new mum myself, I can say that what she said this afternoon, especially on maternal mental health and support, resonated. That has been a real challenge for many new parents during the pandemic, and I wish her the very best on her work on “The 1001 Critical Days”, which has now been recognised and supported by Government.
It is fantastic to hear of the input into that project from my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), who draws on huge experience, and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). I am sure that the wisdom and warmth that the hon. Lady brought to that role was invaluable. She raised an extremely important point about cancer services, and I know that the question of NHS delays caused by the pandemic is an area of great focus for the Cabinet Office in its work on public sector recovery and reform. That will also be tackled in new health legislation.
This afternoon, I learned to my surprise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is the House’s No.1 champion of hedgehogs. I was glad to hear of his support for the ambitious environmental and animal welfare measures in the Gracious Speech. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) raised the potential of COP26 to inspire and provide opportunities in green tech for young people. In our sponsorship of COP, the Cabinet Office agrees; we are tremendously ambitious in this area. The London Gateway freeport—in my region and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price)—will help to spur new green investment and jobs, and our work on new T-levels, apprenticeships and skills will help local young people to take advantage of them.
As others have said, levelling up is not only for the north.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) talked of retaining flexible working from the pandemic to help families. The Cabinet Office is actively exploring that in areas such as public appointments and civil service HR. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) spoke movingly about illiteracy, and I hope that our lifelong learning initiatives will help to address it. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) supported our education plan and our kickstart scheme, and raised the issue of apprenticeships. I hope she engages with our skills for jobs White Paper and recognises the enormous investment we are making in skills, including a £3,000 incentive for firms to take on apprentices.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is absolutely right about the emotional commitment we all feel towards the future of the Union. Our family of nations has faced the great challenge of the pandemic together, through protections to the economy, support from our armed services, the procurement of vaccines and more. This is not the time to tear us apart.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) is right to highlight the futures of young girls beyond our shores, where this Government are investing hugely in their education, as the key to tackling a whole range of global challenges, and the importance of stable public finances to all our finances, which was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. She also made an oft overlooked point that outcomes and not money spent ought to define success in our public services. That is why the Cabinet Office wants to use procurement reforms and digital transformation to improve the performance of our services to all citizens. She also talked of our proposals against violence towards women and girls and to improve online safety in order to protect young people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) raised the important issue of forced marriage, and I really praise her for her campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle talked of not only the importance of new homes and infrastructure to young people’s futures, but the crucial new legislation we are bringing in on fighting knife crime, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) and the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). That issue affects far too many young people. It is with deep sadness that we lost Daniel Laskos to knife violence in my constituency on Friday, and his family have been in our hearts this week. I pay tribute to the work of local police officers on this case, and I hope that new powers will help them to do their vital work so that no more lives are lost to senseless violence.
A number of hon. Members referred to the levelling-up agenda and its importance to young people in their constituencies, and one rather dubious reference was made to Chumbawamba. The Government are committed to boosting funding for communities in all parts of the UK, with the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund and another £220 million to invest in local areas, ahead of launching the UK shared prosperity fund in 2022, and a series of infrastructure initiatives of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) mentioned.
We in the Cabinet Office are also committed to ensuring that the administration of government is less Whitehall-centric, by locating more civil service roles in the regions and nations of the UK, through our ambitious places for growth programme. The civil service needs to be visible in and representative of the entire UK, across all Departments, functions and professions. This will also play an important role in demonstrating our commitment as a Government to maintaining the integrity of the Union. The Cabinet Office has recently announced that our second headquarters will be located in Glasgow, with 500 officials to be located there in the next three years. A number of other Departments have also announced their plans to increase the UK Government presence across the UK. That includes the Department for Transport building on its presence in Leeds and Birmingham, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government establishing a second HQ in Wolverhampton, Leeds becoming home to second HQs for Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions, and new Treasury economic campus in Darlington. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have heard the passionate bid for a Home Office HQ from my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), who have listed the huge investments already made in their city. We want opportunities for young people to go hand in hand with these moves. Again, I am particularly focused on using the tremendous talent in schools and colleges across the UK to get British students into exciting digital and data roles in the heart of government.
Of course the brightest futures can be built only on solid democratic foundations, which is why the Government are bringing forward our elections Bill, as set out in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. This Bill will deliver on multiple manifesto commitments and hopes to ensure that our democracy remains secure, fair, modern and transparent The potential for voter fraud in our current system strikes at a core principle of our democracy: that your vote is yours and yours alone. Any instance of or potential for electoral malpractice damages the public’s faith in our democracy and has to be taken seriously. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and a number of other hon. Members use language outside this place to talk about straightforward proposals to request that voters prove they are who they say they are when they take up their sacred right to vote, calling that simple principle “voter suppression” in typically hyperbolic fashion designed to frighten and scaremonger. I completely agree that the vote is a precious right, which is why this Government believe that we should make it harder for those who seek to interfere with it.
Setting aside the fact that every voter will be able to secure a voter card from their local council for free if they want one, and that many people already have that kind of identification in the form of a passport or driving licence, the demands for evidence that voter fraud is a problem do not show an understanding of what happened in Tower Hamlets when I was a councillor there. In that borough, disinterest and complacency from authorities about electoral corruption and fraud meant that it was left to four ordinary residents, risking legal bills of hundreds of thousands of pounds, to challenge the election of the mayor in 2015. It was not easy, and I pay tribute to them and people such as Councillor Peter Golds, with whom I worked at the time and who raised with the Electoral Commission our serious worries about voter fraud.
The tireless work of those residents and their barrister, Francis Hoar, exposed how easily the system can be exploited when authorities are just too nervous about taking action. Through their courage, they had the mayor’s election overturned. I do not wish to see other communities go through that simply because of reticence on our part to introduce a very simple check that a voter is who they say they are. Indeed, I noticed that Mr Hoar himself tweeted last week that he had been subject to personation at the ballot box, so I regret that the idea that there is nothing to see here is wide of the mark.
The Opposition are not naive and inexperienced on this matter. They will know that in many council elections, the margin of victory at ward level can be exceptionally slim, yet we are electing people who will be stewards of public money and services for some of the most vulnerable in our communities. I know full well that Opposition Front Benchers understand the importance of identification at key votes, because they ask for it to be produced for their own party’s elections and even to attend Labour Live, in so far as there is any demand. Our plans simply bring us into line with Labour’s elections, and with the Labour Government’s introduction in 2003 of voter identification in Northern Ireland, where participation has not been affected.
Cat Smith
We are discussing the importance of voting and democracy in a debate about the bright future for the next generations. Given that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to vote in Scotland and Wales, how does the Minister defend the status quo in England, where 16 and 17-year-olds are not given equal voting rights to their Scottish and Welsh counterparts?
Julia Lopez
That is subject to lively debate, and I know that it is being explored by the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). I will take that point away to discuss with her while she is away.
I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions to this debate on future opportunities for young people. From huge investment in the skills agenda and early years to measures to keep young people safe in the street and online, work on issues of passion to younger generations such as the environment and animal welfare, and giving freedom for vigorous intellectual debate that challenges and hones ideas—our own in-house political poet, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), set that out superbly—Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech sets out an ambitious legislative agenda to put young people at the heart of our national recovery and economic renewal. I commend it to the House.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Debate to be resumed on Monday 17 May.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We look forward to 17 May, so that we can visit pubs and restaurants without fear of getting wet or, indeed, catching hypothermia —the glorious 17th.
Will those leaving the Chamber before we go on to the Adjournment please do so in a covid-friendly manner? I ask that the Dispatch Boxes are sanitised while Alexander Stafford opens the debate. The Minister is not going to touch the Dispatch Box until that has been done. Thank you very much, everybody—and thank you, Minister.
Levelling-up Fund: Rother Valley
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I feel privileged to rise to discuss the levelling-up fund and its crucial role in the regeneration of Rother Valley’s high streets. It offers local authorities the opportunity to bid for up to £20 million of investment in projects that benefit the whole community.
Rother Valley has been identified as a priority 1 area, meaning that a strong bid submitted by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council could be rewarded with a grant of the full £20 million. Additionally, the Government have allocated £125,000 to enable RMBC to put together its bid and have assured the council that if its first bid, in June, is not successful, it can reapply in the future. There is no doubt in my mind that a project to regenerate my constituency’s high streets would have the biggest impacts on the greatest number of people.
I will use this opportunity to discuss the transformative potential of the levelling-up fund and the levelling-up agenda in Rother Valley. I and many Members of this House were swept to victory in December 2019 as a result of the historical neglect of constituencies by a complacent Labour party. People felt left behind, disenfranchised and ignored, and they decided to bring about change. The local elections last week show that this sentiment remains as strong today as it was then. I point to the results in my area of Rotherham, where the Conservative party surged from zero councillors to an incredible 20 councillors, breaking Labour’s decades-long stranglehold on the area in the process.
Why does the Conservative party enjoy such strong support among people in Rother Valley and similar communities across our country? There can be no doubt that a core element of our appeal is our levelling-up agenda. We can no longer allow our areas to decline and fade into obscurity. To remain a great, forward-looking nation, we must build back better and level up in all four corners of our United Kingdom. Levelling up resonates with the residents of Rother Valley because they want to be able to see with their own eyes tangible evidence of progress and real proof that their lives are being improved.
For my part, I am working tirelessly to ensure that Rother Valley collects every single penny of central Government funding. Today’s debate joins a petition presented to Parliament recently as yet another way of doing just that. I am sure the Minister agrees with me that Rother Valley is now known in Parliament and Whitehall in a way that it simply was not before the last general election. My job is to be the cheerleader for my area, and I always want to shout the loudest when it comes to representing my constituents.
I will address first the repeated shortcomings of the Labour-led council in looking after the towns and village of Rother Valley. For years, hundreds of millions of pounds of investment have been funnelled into the centre of Rotherham for white elephant schemes such as the redevelopment of Forge Island, while the rest of the borough has been completely ignored. Another example is the towns fund, which only benefits Rotherham central and not Rother Valley. Often, it seems that the Labour-led RMBC is a council for Rotherham town proper, as opposed to its adjacent hinterlands, and there is a fundamental issue with how RMBC approaches areas such as Rother Valley. It is not just that we do not receive any investment, but that there are few plans in place for these areas. The lack of development plans is particularly extraordinary when one considers that Labour has controlled RMBC since time immemorial. There were no council plans in place for Rother Valley’s high streets, and everyone in Rother Valley has known that for years.
To fill the vacuum left by RMBC, parish and town councils have had to adopt neighbourhood plans to plug the gaps. Dinnington has just adopted its plan, and Maltby and Wickersley are in the process of devising their own. However, as commendable as our town and parish councils’ work has been, individual and disparate neighbourhood plans are no replacement for a joined-up co-ordinated approach across the constituency, and our towns and parish councils recognise that fact. Their efforts cannot begin to match RMBC’s financial resources and capabilities with regard to economic feasibility studies and planning law. Of course neighbourhood plans have their role in the context of the building of new homes in existing communities, but they cannot be expected to imitate an overarching vision and a strategy for our area. We need RMBC to lead on this by adopting an ambitious masterplan for Rother Valley’s high streets and to work with town and parish councils to integrate their neighbourhood plans into a wider, unified scheme for the constituency.
Of course, it is not just RMBC that is responsible for the lack of plans in place for Rother Valley. The Labour-run Sheffield City Region has the power to transform Rother Valley’s transport, to fund large infrastructure projects and to boost businesses and local skills—all with central Government funding. As a key part of the Sheffield metropolitan area, we should be benefitting from devolution, but very little comes our way. Whether it is RMBC’s obsession with Rotherham town or Sheffield City Region’s fixation with Sheffield city, we lose out time and time again.
The impact of this neglect by the Labour-run local authority on Rother Valley’s high streets and our communities is stark. I shall take Maltby as an example, although much the same could be said of Dinnington, Thurcroft and towns across my constituency. In Maltby, a staggering 8% of residents are unemployed, 32% of households do not own a car, and travel time to the nearest town centre via public transport averages 42 minutes. Broadband speeds are almost half the England average, and the community needs score for Maltby is 167, compared with just 68 in England as a whole, indicating reduced community cohesion and civic connectivity.
Those disturbing statistics highlight how the chronic lack of investment in Rother Valley’s high streets means that areas such as Dinnington, Maltby, Thurcroft and Kiveton Park risk withering on the vine under Labour’s watch. That cannot be the fate of our wonderful towns, and I shall not stand for it.
Alexander Stafford
These are towns with immense potential, filled to bursting with warm, friendly, talented people. It is not the case that these are not great places; I can assure the House that they are some of the finest communities in our United Kingdom. However, in order to thrive they must be given a fair chance. That is all we are asking for—nothing more, nothing less. For the people of Rother Valley, this is the true meaning of the levelling-up agenda: ensuring that we have the same chances that are afforded to towns in Surrey and Oxfordshire, or to neighbourhoods in London.
First, it is important that RMBC ensures that money is allocated to rejuvenate all high streets, not just those of Dinnington, Maltby and Thurcroft. We must level up in every corner of Rother Valley, including Kiveton Park, Waverley, Aughton, Whiston, Wickersley, Aston, Todwick, Treeton, Wales, Anston, Swallownest and all our wonderful communities. RMBC must work with these areas and with me to embrace localism and deliver on these communities’ priorities. There cannot be a top- down approach, and RMBC must not decide unilaterally what is needed in our areas.
In Dinnington, I have been in extensive discussions with Dinnington Community Land Trust and Dinnington St John’s Town Council regarding what is needed to regenerate the high street. The sheer number of boarded-up, burnt-out and abandoned buildings is disheartening. Both organisations raise the point that Dinnington was for many years the area’s main commercial centre. It had a broad range of shops as well as banks, a post office, a cinema, a theatre and the other commercial outlets that one would expect in a busy local town.
With money from the levelling-up fund, there are great possibilities for renewal on Dinnington’s high street. There has always been a market in Dinnington, but over the years it has decreased in size and importance due to lack of vision from the council and poor-quality facilities for vendors and customers. Yet it remains the only traditional market for many miles and still enjoys a good following on market days. It needs rethinking in order to give a 21st-century offering to its customers and vendors, with specialist vendors encouraged to set up in the market area to win back customers who travel to Sheffield for products they cannot currently buy at Dinnington market. My constituents will know how important an improved access road into Dinnington is in order to facilitate that inward flow.
The presence of Tesco and Aldi attracts up to 1,200 shoppers each day to the centre of Dinnington, and pre-pandemic up to 200 people visited for performances at the Lyric Theatre. We need to ensure that those people stay on the high street, by way of an attractive and well-defined pedestrian route, such as a “town centre gateway” through Constable Lane; a complete rebuild of the indoor and outdoor market; and support for more restaurants and bars along the street to encourage a vibrant night-time economy.
The levelling-up fund must support business owners to renovate their shop frontages and tackle the preponderance of unsightly shutters. Similarly, Dinnington’s high street is currently maintained by little more than one man and his brush. A small investment in street cleaners and waste bins would clean up our town centre and make it a more pleasant place to visit. Equally worth considering is a fully pedestrianised high street, which would tackle speeders and joyriders, and allow vendors to spread out into the high street, permitting trees, street furniture, monuments and seating to be strategically placed in order to create a more open feel. We must not forget our heritage, either, so it is important that some money is allocated to a local history centre on the high street, which would pay tribute to our miners and serve as a destination for local schools and community groups.
Those needs and wants are echoed on high streets across Rother Valley. In Maltby, we need to preserve the historic and iconic Maltby Grammar School building and endow it with a new purpose. Likewise, Coronation Park needs a comprehensive revamp. My constituents would like to see a nod to Maltby’s glory days, with any rejuvenation efforts paying tribute to the town’s mining heritage, textile industry, brickworks, library and picture house. Traffic congestion on the high street is a serious problem, with RMBC taking no steps to address the promised motorway bypass, and in fact building more and more new houses without taking mitigating measures.
We need to make Maltby High Street a destination once again. That means clearing up the broken glass and introducing frequent sweeps of the road; supporting lots of new shops and restaurants; improving the road between Maltby and Dinnington; and ensuring that our high street complements local attractions such as Roche Abbey and our beautiful countryside and villages. Furthermore, we urgently need a reliable, frequent and fast bus link between Maltby and Dinnington, with the network extending throughout Rother Valley. It is a disgrace that we do not have that direct bus link in the constituency.
In Thurcroft, the parish council has suggested that initial improvements with levelling-up fund money could include the renewal of bollards, street furniture, litter bins, new street management and the creation of additional shop units on adjacent land. Likewise, the Aston Parish Council recommended that Swallownest High Street, Rose Garth Avenue in Aston and Aughton Main Street urgently need funding for the return of the lengthsman who cleaned the streets three times a week, alongside more dustbins, street furniture, footpath repairs and an increased police presence.
In Kiveton Park and Wales, residents wish to see the levelling-up fund used to renew the roads and pavements, spruce up the existing shops, finance more dustbins and street cleaning—yes, there is a theme—and back the introduction of flower boxes and grass verges, as well as facilitating the drainage of the Kiveton Park football club fields. On Whiston High Street, we must take measures to safeguard against flooding in order to protect homes and businesses.
Vandalism and antisocial behaviour are a scourge on all our high streets as well. We need the levelling-up fund money to be spent on CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention measures, which will dovetail with my campaign to persuade the Labour police and crime commissioner to have a police base on Dinnington and Maltby high streets.
In the light of this consultation with my towns, and with the title of the debate in mind, how will regenerating high streets in Rother Valley lead to better outcomes for my area and my residents? It is important to understand the role of the high street in Rother Valley. Our high streets are not just the centre of our towns, but the very heart and soul of our community. They are a reflection of who we are as the people of Rother Valley— our heritage, our character and our aspirations—and serve as an illustration of the pride we have in our local area. And we are a proud people: proud of our industrial and mining past, which forms the foundation of every town; proud of our “roll our sleeves up and get the work done” attitude, which encapsulates our straightforward and uncomplaining nature; and proud of our ambition and talent, which we combine with our warm-hearted and friendly demeanour. That is who the people of Rother Valley are, and accordingly, we deserve high streets that match up to our rich history and our bright future.
That is why it is an absolute priority that the levelling-up fund money is used to regenerate Rother Valley’s high streets. We want to create the new high streets of the future, ensuring that they are the “places to be” and the “places to live”. This mixed usage will see provision for housing, health, business and transport, where residents can shop, work, access vital services and spend their leisure time. This funding really will transform our constituents’ lives, spreading jobs and opportunities throughout Rother Valley. It is clear that a prosperous high street means a prosperous town and a prosperous community.
I recently visited the regeneration project in Waverley, where there are plans to build a new, thriving, modern high street for the communities who live there, and I must say it sounds very impressive. There is no doubt in my mind that the principles being followed to build Waverley’s new high street must be applied to our historic high streets across Rother Valley: keeping residents local by ensuring that they have the amenities they need; building good transport links; clamping down on crime; and prioritising high-quality local employment and education.
Of course, the rejuvenation of our high streets with levelling-up fund grants will build on the work that I have undertaken to level up Rother Valley since I was elected. Recently, I presented a petition to Parliament on levelling up our area’s high streets that has been signed by over 1,800 constituents, and I have fought ceaselessly in the House for access to the levelling-up fund and increased investment for Rother Valley generally. The co-chairman of the Conservative Party—the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling)—and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government visited me on Dinnington High Street to support and discuss my high streets campaign, and over the past year, I have taken countless meetings with parish and town councils, constituents and RMBC concerning what Rother Valley needs most.
I have sponsored debates in my campaign to bring high-quality renewable energy jobs to our towns—for example, focusing on the hydrogen and critical minerals industries. I have vocally opposed fracking, which would degrade our communities at the expense of fossil fuel companies. I have stood against High Speed 2, which would cost huge sums of money for a project that destroys our landscapes and homes for no benefit to us, when we need the investment to be spent on transport locally. I have championed the reopening of the South Yorkshire joint railway to connect our towns and villages. I have led a bus campaign as part of the Rother Valley transport task force, as well as convening the Rother Valley rural crime task force calling for the reopening of police stations to make our towns and villages safer. I have also spoken out against CISWO’s sale of our community assets, which have been paid for by miners and should have remained open for residents to enjoy. All of that work is part of my vision for safer, prosperous high streets and a truly levelled-up Rother Valley.
As I draw to a close, I am pleased that RMBC has noted my petition, and now agrees with me that high streets need to be prioritised in this bid. I ask the Minister to urge RMBC to level up for all our communities and for all the people in Rother Valley, by restoring our high streets to their former glory and making them a place of pride once again. The levelling up fund will be life-changing, and I look forward to seeing that change on Rother Valley’s high streets in the months and years to come.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) on securing this hugely important debate. Since his hugely important and historic election result in December 2019, he has shown his passion and determination to secure the brightest possible future for his constituents. He has been a true cheerleader for the Rother Valley, as he has demonstrated today, championing the local issues that he has outlined, like Dinnington high street through the impressive 1,800-signature petition that he submitted to Parliament; like his campaigning on high streets with the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling); like his work on bringing net zero jobs to his constituency; like the numerous meetings he has held with his local council, with businesses and with stakeholders to ascertain and understand their levelling-up priorities, to ensure that those can be reflected properly to central Government.
My hon. Friend has already spearheaded the work to regenerate Swallownest High Street in addition to his work on saving Maltby’s grammar school building. I commend him for all his work as lead sponsor for a South Yorkshire joint railway, through the Department for Transport’s restoring your railway fund, which looks to reinstate the connection between Worksop and Doncaster, which includes a number of stops in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The revised bid has been submitted and DFT is currently assessing it; I expect that the Department will be announcing that before the summer. These are hugely important achievements to his constituency and his constituents, and I commend him for his work.
My hon. Friend aptly described the challenges and potential of many local high streets as lifelines for our communities, particularly over the past year, while so many people have had to base themselves at home and had to shop local in their high streets. They have been vital sources of jobs, prosperity, local pride, local identity and community and have great potential to be even stronger local assets than they are now.
The towns and villages of Rother Valley are rich in history, from their ancient beginnings to their proud industrial heritage. I remember very well my hon. Friend’s maiden speech, in which he explained how his constituents’ hard work, skills and resourcefulness are forged into the very heart of our democracy: the Palace of Westminster was rebuilt from limestone transported here from the quarries of Anston. However, of course we completely recognise that over more recent decades, the pace of industrial and economic change has created new challenges and barriers to growth, prosperity and social mobility in places such as Rother Valley. These challenges, which my hon. Friend has outlined, are the reason why levelling up is crucial to our vision, and why we have set out a clear commitment to unlock economic prosperity across all parts of the country.
Our landmark White Paper on levelling up will be published later this year. That will lay out bold new policies that will improve opportunity, support businesses and high streets and boost livelihoods across the country, including of course in Rother Valley. Levelling up is about providing the momentum to address precisely those long-standing local inequalities that my hon. Friend has so clearly articulated, and providing the means for people to pursue life chances that have previously been out of reach. We are backing up these levelling-up ambitions with considerable funding, helping to unlock the investments most needed in our communities—the investments that our constituents want to see—particularly as we support places to recover and build back better from the pandemic.
The spending review in November 2020 announced £27 billion of investment in transport, energy and digital communications to help level up the entire country. Through the restart scheme we are providing a further £5 billion to specifically help businesses, including on the high street, which my hon. Friend talked so passionately about, as the covid-19 restrictions are lifted. In April we launched our £56 million welcome back fund, from which my hon. Friend’s council has received £470,000. That builds on our reopening high streets safely scheme, which has been supporting councils and businesses across the country, helping ensure a safe return to the high street. The high streets taskforce will also be providing expert advice to a number of towns around the country, including visiting local towns alongside stakeholders. That will be followed up by ongoing, continued support that can help the wider area, including through planning, advice, training and workshops. I am pleased to confirm that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council covers one of the areas that will receive that tailored support; I am sure that it will work with my hon. Friend to deliver it in the places that he names, such as Dinnington and Maltby.
That targeted support for councils and their high streets comes on top of the extra local government support that has been received by local authorities this year, not only through the finance settlement, but in the covid grants. We have provided more than £9 billion directly to councils across the country, including more than £46 million for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, of which more than £24 million has been un-ringfenced so that the council can spend it on local priorities such as supporting the high streets and economic regeneration, as my hon. Friend outlined.
Our reforms of the planning system are also set to further unleash the power and potential of local high streets by removing eyesores, transforming unused buildings and making the most of brownfield land. There will be more freedom to allow outdoor markets and dining, and longer opening hours. We will make it easier to change the uses of buildings, to keep our town centres vibrant and to support more thriving businesses. In total, approximately £25 billion has been transferred from Government to businesses through covid support grants during the pandemic. Across South Yorkshire, that amounts to more than £487 million in support for businesses through local authorities, and more than £177 million for businesses in Rotherham.[Official Report, 17 May 2021, Vol. 695, c. 4MC.]
Our £520 million Help to Grow scheme, announced in the Budget, will also provide help to small businesses right across the country to learn skills, reach new customers and boost their opportunity and reach, while the furlough scheme continues to protect those workers who are most affected by the ongoing impacts of the pandemic as we successfully move through our road map towards the reopening of local economies.
My hon. Friend talked about levelling up and the levelling-up fund. The White Paper on levelling up will be a natural continuation of our commitment to support local places, building in particular on the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, which was announced in the last spending review and will allow local areas right across the country to invest in infrastructure that improves everyday life. That will include regenerating town centres, upgrading local transport networks and investing in cultural heritage assets—exactly the kinds of project that my hon. Friend talked about.
The prospectus that we published for the levelling-up fund in March explained how we are welcoming bids from all parts of the country, but we have also been clear on the areas of the country that have the highest category of need, based on the fund’s priority themes of economic recovery, improved transport connectivity and regeneration. As my hon. Friend correctly points out, Rother Valley, within the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council area, is in the highest category of need. Councils in category 1, such as Rotherham, will benefit from £125,000 of capacity funding to help them to work up their bids for the fund.
We have also recognised explicitly, through the levelling-up fund prospectus, the crucial role that local Members of Parliament can play in championing the interests of their constituents and communities, and in understanding the local priorities. That is why we expect bidding authorities to fully consult their MPs as part of the process; I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s council has been doing so and working with him on his priorities alongside other businesses and stakeholders in the area. MPs can officially endorse one of the bids by writing in and can support other bids in the usual way. This is a hugely important part of the bidding process; it is a positive role for MPs in helping to shape the bids and perhaps in acting as a local broker for consensus on what the area really needs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work on that alongside his council.
On 30 April we published some updated information to clarify a number of issues for all bidding authorities and respond to some common questions, which will help to address some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised about the type of bids that can be submitted. It provides further guidance on, for instance, how up to three projects can be presented as part of a package of proposals within one bid. He referenced multiple projects that he would like to consider alongside his council and other stakeholders for that bid.
Later this year, we will set out more detail about future rounds of the levelling-up fund and how it will work from 2022. While I cannot comment on the specific merits of any of the emerging proposals that he is working on alongside his council or, unfortunately, their chances of success, I certainly encourage him to keep working with his council and to get that bid in by midday on Friday 18 June. We look forward to receiving that.
I also want to mention the UK community renewal fund, which sits alongside the levelling-up fund to pilot new approaches to tackling the skills, employment and local business support challenges faced in different communities. Ultimately, the UK community renewal fund will help us pave the way for the introduction of the new UK shared prosperity fund from 2022, about which we will be saying more in an investment framework later this year. It is important that local areas look to the dual opportunities of the levelling-up fund and the UK community renewal fund, which have the potential to complement each other extremely positively. Given that Rotherham is in the high priority category for the UK community renewal fund, we very much hope it will be submitting for both bids, and we look forward to receiving them. Rotherham should grasp the opportunity that both funds present.
My hon. Friend has passionately articulated the case for his community. I congratulate him on securing this debate and on his determination to deliver for Rother Valley. We believe that all areas of this country should have the means to positively shape their future. That is important now more than ever as we look to recover from covid-19, and he has made the point that residents of Rother Valley can sometimes feel in need of levelling up. There is the work he is doing on Dinnington and Swallownest high streets, the work he is doing alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase on net zero jobs and the work he is doing on Maltby’s grammar school building and the South Yorkshire Joint Railway proposal. It is clear that Rother Valley and wider South Yorkshire is building on its rich industrial past, ushering in a new era of economic renewal and innovation under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, alongside his colleagues.
One thing is extremely clear: since my hon. Friend’s election, he has placed Rother Valley at the centre of a political map. His community now has a loud, strong and powerful voice in Parliament, which cannot be ignored. He has made sure that Ministers and the whole Government are listening, and he has left us in no doubt that we must deliver for Rother Valley.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals: Radovan Karadžic
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Promoting and enforcing international justice is central to global Britain’s role as a force for good in the western Balkans and in the world. The conviction of Radovan Karadžić for genocide and grave crimes at Srebrenica, the siege of Sarajevo and other parts of the conflict was an essential part of addressing the horrors of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Ensuring accountability for such crimes is also pivotal for promoting reconciliation in the region.
On 24 March 2016, the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in The Hague found Radovan Karadžić guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war committed during the conflict in and around Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) during the mid-1990s. The Court sentenced him to 40 years of imprisonment, which was increased on appeal to a life sentence.
Following a request to the United Kingdom from the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT), the successor body to the ICTY, Radovan Karadžić will now be transferred to a prison in the UK to serve his sentence. Radovan Karadžić will be the fifth prisoner transferred to the UK by the ICTY/IRMCT.
The crimes for which Radovan Karadžić was convicted relate to actions taken in municipalities throughout BiH with a view to permanently removing Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory; spreading terror among the civilian population of Sarajevo through a campaign of sniping and shelling; taking UN personnel hostage; and the genocide at Srebrenica.
The United Kingdom signed a sentence enforcement agreement with the ICTY on 11 March 2004, allowing for sentences to be enforced in the UK, and for Her Majesty’s Government to meet the associated costs. The IRMCT remains responsible for further decision making regarding his imprisonment, over and above the prisoner’s daily care.
[HCWS20]
Official Development Assistance: Departmental Allocations
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I would like to update the House on the official development assistance (ODA) allocation by Department, 2020-21. ODA allocation by Department (£m) 2020-21 allocations made at the 2019 spending review Revised 20-21 allocations FCDO 11,865 11,075 BEIS 1,406 1,281 CSSF 687 644 HO 482 482 DHSC 301 273 Prosperity Fund 295 237 DEFRA 95 95 Other 58 54 1. The FCDO total for SR19 is constructed using the original DFID (accounting for reclassified R&D confirmed at SB20) and FCO SR19 allocations. 2. These figures do not account for budget exchanges or transfers that are agreed and occur between Departments at mains and supplementary estimates. 3. Departmental ODA outturn figures may differ from allocations due to transfers undertaken and agreed between Departments, budget exchanges, and any financial year underspend that may occur. 4. ODA allocations are adjusted as needed at fiscal events in line with OBR projections. 5. ODA in cross-government funds (CSSF and Prosperity Fund) is spent by several Government Departments. 6. “Other” includes DfE, DCMS, DWP, MOD, HMRC, HMT, ONS and Barnett given to the devolved Administrations as a result of UK Government spend on ODA.
The Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office’s provisional statistics on international development confirmed that the UK met the target to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance in the 2020 calendar year. https://www.gov.uk/government/ statistics/statistics-on-international-development-provisional-uk-aid-spend-2020.
Following the end of the 2020-21 financial year, we are now publishing the total ODA allocations to Departments and cross-Government funds for 2020-21, as set by HM Treasury at the 2019 spending round and subsequently adjusted through supplementary estimates 2020-21.
The below allocations show the revised financial year budget for 2020-21 compared to SR19 allocations. As set out in the “Official Development Assistance spending for 2020: First Secretary of State’s letter” published on 22 July, last summer the Government identified a package of possible reductions in their planned ODA spend for the calendar year 2020, which included arrangements to tailor spending further during the remaining months to enable the Government to manage ODA spend against an uncertain 0.7% position. That package included underspends, delaying activity and stopping some spend. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/official-development-assistance-oda-spending-for-2020-first-secretary-of-states-letter/official-development-assistance-oda-spending-for-2020-first-secretary-of-states-letter.
The Foreign Secretary led a cross-government review of how ODA is allocated for 2021-22 against the Government’s priorities after the 2020 spending review. The final allocations were provided in a written ministerial statement on 26 January 2021 (HCWS735).
[HCWS25]
E-Commerce: VAT Legislative Changes
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The Government will be introducing changes to simplify the way VAT is administered for some goods sold between Northern Ireland and the EU, and some low-value imports into Northern Ireland from 1 July 2021 (otherwise known as e-commerce VAT changes). This mirrors an EU-wide reform, which the UK is implementing in Northern Ireland in line with the obligations set out under the Northern Ireland protocol, where EU VAT rules with respect to goods will continue to apply in Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the UK’s VAT system.
The overall aim of the e-commerce VAT changes is to facilitate the declaration and payment of VAT for (a) sales of goods to consumers between Northern Ireland and the EU; and (b) low-value goods, where they are in consignments valued up to £135 (€150), supplied to consumers in Northern Ireland from non-EU countries, including from Great Britain. The changes will affect businesses and online marketplaces that are involved in these transactions. The consumer experience overall will not change.
On 1 January 2021, the UK introduced a set of new VAT rules for the imports of low-value goods into Northern Ireland from outside the UK and the EU. The EU’s e-commerce reforms mirror many of those changes. Therefore, the Government consider that there will only be minimal changes for businesses selling imported goods to customers in Northern Ireland.
From a UK perspective, the e-commerce changes mean that:
A new single EU-wide distance selling threshold of £8,818 (€10,000) will be introduced for the sales of goods and services in the EU. The threshold will only apply to supplies of EU-located goods to and from Northern Ireland, which means that, EU suppliers who exceed the threshold will have to register for VAT in the United Kingdom if they wish to sell goods to consumers in Northern Ireland;
Online marketplaces will be liable for collecting and accounting for VAT on goods supplied in Northern Ireland, under certain circumstances; and
Low-value consignment relief, which relieves import VAT on consignments of goods of up to £15, will be removed fully in Northern Ireland and across the EU.
Alongside these changes, two new IT systems will be introduced: one for accounting and collecting VAT on sales of goods between Northern Ireland and the EU—the one-stop shop; and the other for accounting and collecting VAT on imports of non-excise goods from non-EU countries, where they are in consignments that do not exceed £135 (€150) in value—the import one-stop shop. Both systems are designed to reduce burdens on business and facilitate the collection of VAT on sales of goods across Northern Ireland and the EU; and are optional for businesses and online marketplaces to use.
The UK will be taking a phased approach to the introduction of these IT systems. HMRC have today published guidance on gov.uk setting out what this will mean for businesses. However, in many cases, if businesses and online marketplaces opt not to register to use these systems, there will be no change in how they declare and pay for VAT on their sales of goods to consumers in Northern Ireland and EU member states.
The Government will legislate for these changes shortly.
[HCWS24]
Sport Broadcasting
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has written to the Premier League and to Sky, BT, Amazon and the BBC, as the current holders of broadcast rights to the Premier League in the UK, to inform them that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is “minded to” make an exclusion order under the Competition Act 1998, allowing the Premier League to renew its current broadcast agreements with current UK broadcast partners for an additional three-year period starting 2022-23, without conducting the normal tender process.
In order to remain consistent with past commitments to competition authorities and to avoid a potential breach of competition law, and absent covid-19, the Premier League would normally have re-tendered its domestic broadcast rights in early 2021 at the midpoint of the current three-year cycle and would have concluded sales by now. However, covid-19 has had a significant impact on the value of broadcast rights for football across Europe. Under an auction, it is plausible that the value of the Premier League's domestic rights could drop.
The football pyramid receives the majority of its funding via the Premier League’s broadcast revenue. The Premier League and its clubs have already experienced financial losses totalling over £1.5 billion due to the impact of the pandemic, with further losses projected into next season. The wider football pyramid, from the championship through to women’s football and the grassroots, has also suffered financial losses due to the pandemic.
The Government have been clear that football has the resources to support itself financially to deal with the consequences of the covid-19 pandemic. To provide financial stability for the football pyramid, the Premier League has therefore requested that the Government make an exclusion order allowing it to renew its current broadcast agreements for an additional three years, on the same commercial and licence terms, with current UK broadcast partners, without conducting a tender process.
Under paragraph 7 of schedule 3 to the Competition Act 1998, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has the power to exclude, via a so-called “exclusion order”, certain agreements from the application of UK competition law where there are “exceptional and compelling reasons of public policy” to do so.
If such an exclusion order is made, the Premier League has committed to:
guaranteeing existing levels of financial support for the football pyramid for four years from 2021-22 to the end of the 2024-25 season. This includes solidarity payments, parachute payments, youth development funding and funding for grassroots football at existing levels, worth over £1.5 billion over the three-year rights cycle.
maintaining at least this level of funding even if its international broadcast rights decrease in value when they are re-tendered individually over the next year into 2022, and to increase the level of funding if its international broadcast rights exceed their current value; and
providing a further minimum £100 million in solidarity and good causes funding to the end of the 2024-25 season, in roughly equal shares, to the National League, women’s football, league one and two clubs, grassroots football and cross-game initiatives. This would make a significant financial contribution, including doubling the support for the non-league system, and providing crucial financial support for the women’s game.
The Secretary of State for BEIS and DCMS Ministers have considered the impact of covid on the English football pyramid and are minded to agree the Government should act to enable the Premier League to provide financial stability to protect the pyramid following heavily disrupted seasons due to covid, for the following reasons:
Football clubs are a central part of local communities across the country. They provide a focal point, but also huge social and health impacts via outreach and wellbeing programmes and fundamentally provide economic value to local areas through jobs, income and tourism. There is therefore public policy value in preserving football clubs for their fans as consumers and local residents.
There is inherent value in the football league pyramid. As our national game, football holds a unique cultural position, and the preservation of a meritocratic, fair system through the football pyramid has a public policy benefit in its own right.
There is public policy value in having a healthy football system. It is a source of international reputation, attracts fans globally and is a major source of exports for the United Kingdom. The strength of the Premier League is one of the UK’s soft power levers for the United Kingdom to attract investment, so having a financially stable system enables that.
As the football pyramid receives a majority of its funding from the Premier League, a reduction in the value of domestic broadcast rights would negatively affect the ability of the Premier League and its clubs to continue to directly and indirectly support the football pyramid in England in the current climate. This would compound the impact of the wider financial losses each level of the pyramid has experienced due to covid, with a real prospect that some clubs and facilities could cease to exist.
An exclusion order allowing the continuation of previously competitively tendered rights for another three years would support all of football following covid. It would help to promote the domestic game after heavily disrupted seasons due to covid by enabling the Premier League to commit to its solidarity payments, parachute payments, and funding for grassroots football at existing levels, worth a minimum of £1.5 billion to the football pyramid over three years.
An exclusion order would also enable the Premier League to release at least £100 million of new funding for particularly vulnerable areas of the sport. This would make a significant financial contribution, including doubling the support for the non-league system, and providing crucial financial support for the women’s game.
The Government are in the process of a fan-led review of football governance, and the Premier League is undertaking a strategic review. The proposed exclusion order would not preclude those reviews from acting to change the distribution of broadcast revenue, but it would provide a level of certainty for the wider football pyramid and a minimum level of funding to maintain stability to 2024-25.
On advice from my Department, the Secretary of State for BEIS is satisfied that the Premier League’s funding commitments as set out above would provide vital financial stability for the English football pyramid, allowing football to support itself financially, and that renewing the Premier League’s domestic broadcasting rights for a limited period of three years only will help to minimise any possible detrimental effects on the broadcasting market and consumers.
On balance, the Secretary of State for BEIS is minded to conclude that there are exceptional and compelling reasons of public policy to make the proposed exclusion order, but would like to consider any representations from interested parties before a final decision is taken. Written representations should be sent to plbroadcastingexclusionorder@dcms.gov.uk by 5 pm on Friday 28 May 2021.
An exclusion order, if made, should be seen as a temporary measure in response to the pandemic. The Government are content that this request by the Premier League was not made as a result of the recently proposed European super league.
Ministers at my Department will keep Parliament updated on progress with this case. A copy of the “minded to” letter will be placed in the Library of both Houses.
[HCWS16]
Independent Reservoir Safety Review Report
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Today I am publishing Professor David Balmforth’s review into the application of current legislation for reservoir safety which considers whether the regulation of reservoirs remains effective and robust in securing the ongoing safety of this critical infrastructure. This review follows Professor Balmforth’s initial report into the lessons that could be taken from the Toddbrook reservoir incident, where parts of the spillway collapsed following significant heavy rainfall.
I thank Professor Balmforth, and all those who contributed, for a comprehensive assessment of the current reservoir safety framework, and his further recommendations for improvement.
Key findings
The report recognises that there is already a well-established regime to manage the safety of our reservoirs, and that the legislation that supports it is well understood by all those involved, with high levels of compliance. It recognises that many reservoirs have appropriate surveillance, operation and maintenance but the report raises concerns that this is not applied consistently across the industry as a whole.
The report found that both the legislation and industry practice has not always kept pace with the risk-based approach adopted for health and safety in other industries, resulting in a potentially disproportionate approach for measuring risk. Professor Balmforth also found that not all reports received from engineers were clear or well understood by owners and operators, which may be leading to delays in repairs, and/or ongoing regular maintenance at some sites.
The review highlights that the regulator for reservoir safety, the Environment Agency in England, has limited opportunity to quality-assure the overall processes and procedures, which is a key role of other regulators.
The role of panel engineers is central to ensuring all our reservoirs are managed and maintained to minimise risk to public safety. This report finds that while the appointment process ensures competent and capable individuals are in these roles, improvements could be made in respect of the current fragmented approach and leadership for ongoing development and knowledge sharing. There is concern that the supply of appropriately qualified and experienced engineers for the future may not keep pace with need.
Recommendations
Examples of good practice from across the reservoir industry, other regulated industries and international experience have been used to inform a set of comprehensive and interlinked recommendations for both Government and the industry to consider.
The recommendations include:
Seven recommendations (or parts thereof) that relate directly to developing a reservoir safety regime through a risk/hazard based approach
Five recommendations (or parts thereof) relating to panel engineer and owners roles and responsibilities
Three recommendations (or parts thereof) in respect of panel engineer supply and/or ongoing development of the engineers and/or owners
Six recommendations to strengthen the role of the regulator (Environment Agency) including new responsibilities, duties and powers
One recommendation for Government to consider the legislative framework in the round
I welcome these recommendations, and their potential to further strengthen how Government and the reservoir sector itself can embed and secure an effective safety culture. While some of the ideas and recommendations can, and indeed must, be taken forward by the industry itself as good practice now, others will likely require legislative changes.
DEFRA will take forward detailed work, including with the industry, to explore these recommendations further. This will ensure we have a reservoir safety regime that is fit for the future, without disproportionate burden on those responsible.
Alongside this review, Government have taken action to further strengthen reservoir safety, including making it a statutory requirement for registered reservoirs to prepare on-site emergency flood plans. I have issued a direction to this effect to all undertakers of large raised reservoirs in England. This will ensure that those responsible have plans in place and are prepared to mitigate and/or manage an emerging or actual emergency that could result in an uncontrolled release of water. Thankfully such incidents are very rare in this country, but the experience from Toddbrook clearly demonstrates how important this preparation is.
[HCWS17]
Coronavirus Restrictions Regulations
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 SI 2020/750 came into force on 18 July 2020 and have now been extended until 17 July 2021. These regulations give powers to local authorities to issue a direction to impose prohibitions, restrictions or requirements in respect of: Region Bar/Club/Pub1 Restaurant1 Business1 Event2 Outdoor places3 Total East midlands 15 12 3 1 1 32 East of England 6 2 0 5 0 13 London 14 2 16 3 0 35 North-east England 34 2 6 1 0 43 North-west England 45 20 25 15 0 105 South-east England 0 0 3 9 3 15 South-west England 0 0 1 3 0 4 West midlands 6 5 12 2 0 25 Yorkshire and Humber 12 7 6 8 0 33 Totals 132 50 72 47 4 305 1 Regulation 4—directions relating to individual premises 2 Regulation 5—directions relating to events 3 Regulation 6—directions relating to public outdoor places
individual premises (regulation 4(1));
events (regulation 5(1)); and
public outdoor places (regulation 6(1)).
A local authority may give a direction under regulation 4(1), 5(1) or 6(1) only if it considers that the following conditions are met:
a) that giving such a direction responds to a serious and imminent threat to public health,
b) that the direction is necessary for the purpose of preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection by coronavirus in the local authority’s area, and
c) that the prohibitions, requirements or restrictions imposed by the direction are a proportionate means of achieving that purpose.
The local authority must have regard to any advice provided by its local director of public health, its interim or acting director of public health, or a consultant appointed by the director, interim director or acting director of public health, in order to issue a direction under the No. 3 regulations.
The No. 3 regulations also allow for the Secretary of State to give a direction to a local authority requiring it to issue a direction under regulation 4(1), 5(1) or 6(1) if the conditions in paragraphs (a)-(c) would be met in relation to the direction. The Secretary of State may also revoke such a direction but must first consult the chief medical officer or deputy CMO of DHSC. To date, I have not given or revoked any directions under regulation 3 of the No. 3 regulations.
Support to local authorities
To help support local authorities in their decisions to issue directions under the No. 3 regulations, optional templates for directions, a decision-making guide and a process map have been provided by the Joint Biosecurity Centre. In addition, a newsletter is regularly published offering additional guidance, local authority case studies and communication of initiatives within local areas to provide assistance. Training has also been offered to all local authorities on the aims and use of the No. 3 regulations, most recently in March 2021.
Use of directions to respond to a serious and imminent threat to public health
Local authorities have used the No. 3 regulations to manage the risk of virus transmission in their local areas. Figures from 18 July 2020 to 29 April 2021 are:
Directions can be used to restrict activity in individual premises, events and public outdoor places in a variety of ways, such as restricting customer numbers, requiring seating to be suitably distanced and ensuring customer social distancing. A direction may also be used to close a business or place restrictions on, or prohibit, an event where the risk of transmission, and therefore risk to health, is considered too high. Two thirds of directions issued under regulation 4(1) have closed businesses, while one third have placed restrictions upon the business. Directions issued under regulation 4(1) account for 83% of all directions issued, while directions issued under regulation 5(1) on events, and regulation 6(1) on public outdoor places, account for 15% and 2% of all directions issued, respectively.
As of 29 April 2021, I have considered seven representations from appellants which were made under regulation 4(9)(b) and 5(9)(b) of the No. 3 regulations. On all occasions, after investigation and thorough consideration of the representations and epidemiological data, I decided that it was not appropriate to exercise my power in regulation 3(2) and I upheld the directions on the basis that they were made in response to a serious and imminent threat to public health, were necessary and proportionate, and were based on the epidemiological evidence and other available information.
I will continue to provide updates to the House regarding the use of these powers.
[HCWS28]
Legislation to Counter State Threats: Government Consultation
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I am today publishing the consultation on the Government’s legislative proposals to counter the evolving and full range of state threats posed to the United Kingdom.
The threat from hostile activity by states is a growing, diversifying and evolving one. States are becoming increasingly assertive in how they advance their own objectives and undermine our own. Unlike terrorists, whose methods rely on grabbing the public’s attention, states conducting hostile activity against us will seek to operate in the shadows and remain hidden. While sometimes acts are conducted in broad daylight or through obvious propaganda channels, many of the myriad forms that state threats take will not always be visible: for example, espionage, political interference, sabotage, electoral interference, disinformation, cyber operations and intellectual property theft. Though these acts fall short of open conflict, the consequences for our democracy, economic security and prosperity are real. We continue to face this very real and serious threat from those who seek to undermine and destabilise our country to pursue their own agendas.
In addition, the global landscape has changed significantly since comprehensive legislation was last passed in this area. New technologies and their widespread commercial availability, have created new opportunities and vectors for attack, lowering the cost and risk to states to conduct espionage. There are also a number of current and future trends that impact on both the threat and our response, including the covid-19 global pandemic, advances in data and technical innovation, and the increasing use of information operations that aim to sow discord, attempt to interfere in democracy, and disrupt the fabric of society.
There is a significant volume of work ongoing within Government to counter state threats and we are making the UK safer by strengthening our ability to deter, withstand and respond to it. This work includes bringing into force a new power under schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and avowing the Joint State Threats Assessment Team to better understand the threat and inform the Government’s response. However, there remains a compelling case for new legislation to help address the threat. Now is the time to comprehensively update existing laws and bring forward new powers.
At their core the legislative proposals in the consultation seek to do three things:
Modernise existing counter espionage laws to reflect the modern threat and modern legislative standards;
Create new offences, tools and powers to detect, deter and disrupt hostile activity in and targeted at the UK;
Improve our ability to protect official data and ensure the associated offences reflect the greater ease at which significant harm can be done.
The legislative proposals in this consultation have been developed through extensive review of current legislative provisions and collaboration with security and intelligence agencies and policy departments at the forefront of tackling state threats in the UK today. These proposals, which are intentionally designed to be country and actor agnostic, include:
Reform of the Official Secrets Acts 1911,1920 and 1939—these Acts contain the core espionage offences which have failed to keep pace with the threat and modern legal standards;
Reform of the Official Secrets Act 1989—which governs the law around the unauthorised disclosure of official material and its onward disclosure; and
The creation of a foreign influence registration scheme—an important new tool to help combat espionage, interference, and to protect research in sensitive subject areas, as well as to provide a greater awareness of foreign influence currently being exerted in the UK.
The consultation also considers whether there is the case for new tools and powers to criminalise other harmful activity conducted by, and on behalf of states.
I have asked my officials to engage with parliamentarians, Committees and key industry, research and media sectors to ensure as many views as possible can be heard and considered to inform final policy legislative proposals. The Home Office will work in close partnership to consult with the devolved Executives given the clear applicability to the entire United Kingdom.
The input received through this consultation will help shape the tools and powers to ensure they are comprehensive, effective, workable and balance the protection of national security with the important rights and values we all enjoy in the UK.
This country is fortunate to have the best security services in the world. I stand shoulder to shoulder with them, just as I do with our police, and I am committed to ensuring that they have the tools in place to keep this country safe, disrupt hostile activity and punish those who conduct hostile acts against the UK.
Next steps
I will arrange for a copy of the consultation document to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The deadline for responses to the consultation is 22 July 2021, following which I will update the House and publish the Government’s response to the consultation.
[HCWS23]
Local Government Pensions
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
The Government are committed to public service pensions which are fair to public sector workers. In 2014, reforms were made to the local government pension scheme in England and Wales (the LGPS) to make the scheme more sustainable and affordable for the longer term. These reforms followed the prior recommendations of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission and were part of similar reforms made across the public sector. The Government believe the 2014 changes to the LGPS balanced the interests of local government workers, employers and taxpayers fairly, and it remains the right package of benefits for the sector.
In July 2020, MHCLG consulted on changes to the local government pension scheme in England and Wales (LGPS). That consultation outlined proposals to amend LGPS “transitional protections” following a December 2018 Court of Appeal finding that similar provisions in the judicial and firefighters’ pension schemes gave rise to unlawful discrimination. Transitional protections had been introduced by the Government to exempt scheme members nearest to retirement from the impact of the reforms made to public service pensions in 2014 and 2015.
In the LGPS, transitional protection was provided through an “underpin”, providing protected members with the higher of their pension under the reformed, career average scheme and the pension they would have been entitled to under the previous final salary scheme. In our consultation, we proposed extending underpin protection to younger qualifying members.
The Government received responses from a variety of stakeholders. These were detailed and varied, and the Government are grateful for the consideration and thought given to the issues covered in the consultation. Responses were largely supportive of the key elements of the proposals.
After consideration of the responses, we can now confirm the key elements of the changes to scheme regulations which will be made in due course. The overarching aim is that the changes will address the findings of the courts and provide protection to all qualifying members when their benefits are drawn from the scheme. The key points are:
Underpin protection will apply to LGPS members who meet the revised qualifying criteria, principally that they were active in the scheme on 31 March 2012 and subsequently had membership of the career average scheme without a continuous break in service of more than five years.
The period of protection will apply from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2022 but will cease earlier where a member leaves active membership or reaches their final salary scheme normal retirement age (normally 65) before 31 March 2022.
Where a member stays in active membership beyond 31 March 2022, the comparison of their benefits will be based on their final salary when they leave the LGPS, or when they reach their final salary scheme normal retirement age, if earlier.
Underpin protection will apply to qualifying members who leave active membership of the LGPS with an immediate or deferred entitlement to a pension.
A “two stage process” will apply for assessing the underpin so that, where there is a gap between a member’s last day of active membership and the date they take their pension, members can be assured they are getting the higher benefit.
Scheme regulations giving effect to the above changes will be retrospective to 1 April 2014.
A full Government response, containing further detail on the matters addressed above, and on other issues which were covered in the consultation, will be published later this year. This will include the Government’s decision on whether members will be expected to meet the underpin qualifying criteria in a single period of scheme membership for the underpin to apply.
It is anticipated that regulations giving effect to these changes will be made after new primary legislation in relation to public service pensions has completed its passage through Parliament, and the Government’s intention is that regulations will come into force on 1 April 2023.
Ensuring that future pension accrual for all LGPS members is on a career average basis from 1 April 2022 will mean that local government workers continue to receive some of the best pension scheme benefits available in the UK, but that provision is more sustainable for the long term and more affordable for the taxpayer.
[HCWS26]
Motor Fuel and Biofuel Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I have today published the draft statutory instrument the Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) and the Biofuel (Labelling) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2021 and accompanying explanatory memorandum. These regulations amend the Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) Regulations 1999 to require the introduction of E10 petrol (petrol with up to 10% ethanol) at filling stations in Great Britain. Current petrol in the UK contains up to 5% ethanol (referred to as E5).
Switching to E10 can reduce the CO2 emissions from a petrol vehicle by around 2%. This, combined with an increase to overall renewable fuel targets (which has been subject to a separate consultation) could cut overall transport CO2 emissions by a further 750,000 tonnes a year—the equivalent of taking around 350,000 cars off the road. E10 introduction will also help support UK farmers and particularly the ethanol industry based in the north-east of England. Producing ethanol also creates the valuable by-products of high-protein animal feed and stored CO2. These reduce reliance on imported products, in line with the Government’s bioeconomy strategy.
The regulations also ensure the ongoing availability of E5 petrol (petrol with 5% or less ethanol) for those with vehicles and equipment unsuitable for use with E10. The amendment to the Biofuel (Labelling) Regulations 2004 changes the consumer message that must be displayed when E10 petrol is sold at filling stations. These regulations also make amendments related to the United Kingdom’s exit from European Union to rectify deficiencies in the regulations and replace references to European directive 98/70/EC with references to domestic legislation.
The regulations are published in accordance with the procedure required by schedule 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and agreed with Parliament. The draft regulations will be available for review for 28 days before they are laid and debates scheduled. They remake the provisions of the Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) and the Biofuel (Labelling) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. Those regulations were treated as if they were subject to the negative procedure, but as they amended provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 using a power conferred before 21 June 2017, paragraph 13(1) of schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 applied meaning that the affirmative procedure should have been used.
These regulations were subject to open consultation. The policy detail, Government response and impact assessment are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ consultations/introducing-e10-petrol.
[HCWS27]
Licensing of Railway Undertakings: Draft Legislation
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
As part of the Government’s EU transition programme, the Department for Transport, working with colleagues in other Government Departments, has been in discussion with France on bilateral arrangements to support the continuation of cross-border services, which provide significant economic and social benefit to the United Kingdom. While other bilateral agreements remain under discussion in relation to the channel tunnel, the critical agreement relates to the recognition of operator licences, which are needed to operate rail services. Agreement in principle has now been reached with France at a technical level, subject to final legal checks, and the agreement is expected to be concluded in the coming weeks, with ratification through the UK and French Parliaments then to follow.
Through these regulations, which will amend 2005 and 2019 regulations, the Government intend to take the necessary steps to ensure that the above-mentioned bilateral agreement on the rail operator licensing framework for the channel tunnel can be ratified, supporting the continued smooth operation of cross-border rail services. The regulations will enable cross-border operators to continue to operate as they do now and will not introduce any new requirements on them. Without this legislation, there is a real risk that rail freight services, excluding Eurotunnel shuttles, and Eurostar passenger services through the channel tunnel would cease to operate from 30 September, when the current EU contingency legislation applicable to the channel tunnel expires.
The regulations are being published in draft 28 days before they are due to be laid for affirmative debate. This is required under paragraph 14 of schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 because the 2005 and 2019 regulations which are being amended were originally made under the European Communities Act 1972. The draft regulations and accompanying explanatory memorandum can be found on gov.uk.
[HCWS24]
High Speed 2 Phase 2a: Consultation Response Report
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I am today publishing a consultation report as required under section 60(1) of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021. The report summarises the responses to the HS2 phase 2a local consultation held between 1 February and 26 February 2021 and has been prepared by the independent research company, Ipsos MORI. I am placing copies of the report in the Libraries of both Houses.
I am carefully considering the report and will publish the Government response to their findings in June.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-05-13/HCWS19/.
[HCWS19]
Maritime and Coastguard Agency: Business Plan 2021-22
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I am proud to announce the publication of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s (MCA) business plan for 2021-22. The MCA does vital work to save lives at sea, regulate ship standards and protect the marine environment. The agency affects not just those working on the coast or at sea, it upholds the legacy of our great maritime nation.
The business plan sets out:
MCA’s work towards positioning the United Kingdom as the innovative flag of choice;
Supporting the development and implementation of emerging fuels and technologies, with a key drive towards reducing emissions and with the support and development of autonomous shipping and;
The vision for a future aviation strategy, including the next phase of helicopter contracts.
At the international level, MCA will work alongside the Department and with the input of other Government Departments to represent the UK’s interests at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), and at other relevant bodies.
Domestically, MCA will, despite the impact of the pandemic, continue to work collaboratively to grow the maritime sector in the UK so that it continues to contribute positively to the economy. They will also continue to provide a valuable contribution to the delivery and ambitions that were set out in the Maritime 2050 strategy just over two years ago and its accompanying route maps.
This plan allows service users and members of the public the opportunity to see how the agency is developing and using new technologies to improve its services and performance.
The key performance indicators will assess how the agency is performing in operating its key services, managing reforms and the agency finances throughout the year.
The business plan will be available electronically on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-05-13/HCWS18/.
[HCWS18]
Benefit Fraud and Error Statistics
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The statistics for fraud and error in the benefit system for the financial year ending 2021 were published on 13 May 2021, at 9.30 am.
When the pandemic struck last year, the Department faced an unprecedented challenge in meeting the surge in new universal credit claims, which at their peak reached 10 times the levels we would expect during normal times.
DWP’s considered judgement was to get money as quickly as possible to those who needed it. To do this, the Department took the decision to streamline our checks to ensure that people could make a claim and still stay at home, save lives and protect the NHS.
This decision meant that the Department could successfully pay an additional 3 million claims during the early months of the pandemic, at the peak of the surge in claims. This ensured that households affected by sudden job losses were able to access benefit payments to help them meet the cost of living during this challenging time.
We were careful to assess what the changes might mean for fraud and error, which is why we logged each change and considered the impact it would have. We also tracked every claim where we were unable to undertake the usual checks.
We began to restore our processes at the earliest opportunity. Limited by capacity constraints due to social distancing and “stay at home” guidance, we accelerated our innovation by building new safeguards, like our enhanced checking service, a team of trained investigators who review claims and contact claimants by telephone to obtain further information or evidence where there is suspected fraud.
We also increased the role of our integrated risk and intelligence service in co-ordinating the monitoring of, and response to, fraud risks from individuals and organised crime groups. A targeted attack on the benefits system by organised criminals at the height of the pandemic was thwarted by the Department for Work and Pensions, which meant we prevented an estimated £1.7 billion from being paid to people trying to scam the system.
Throughout the pandemic, our serious organised crime teams continued to target organised crime groups working collaboratively with other Government Departments and law enforcement agencies nationally and across borders. We have recently identified another organised attempt to fraudulently claim universal credit at scale and have worked in conjunction with the police to arrest suspects involved, seizing evidence which will enable us to pursue the perpetrators. We will pursue and prosecute those who commit fraud against the benefit system.
The action we took in terms of reinstating—where possible—our normal checks, introducing mitigations and actively intervening in cases has made a significant difference to the level of fraud we might otherwise have incurred.
However, we always knew a minority would abuse the situation the country faced and were clear that the level of fraud and error would inevitably increase, a fact recognised by the National Audit Office. The fraud and error figures published today confirm that overall losses last year were 3.9%, mainly through fraudulent activity from a minority of claimants in the pandemic.
All benefit fraud is wrong. It is a crime and we are bearing down on it as the country emerges from the pandemic. We take any abuse of taxpayers’ money seriously, but it is especially disappointing to see people exploit a global pandemic in this way.
We are part way through an exercise which is examining all the cases we tagged and reapplying the verification standards that would have been applied at the time, had it not been for covid-19. We will correct each and every case where we find something is wrong, and where appropriate, we will bring to bear the full force of the law.
In addition, at the Budget the Government announced £44 million of funding for a package of measures designed to prevent fraud and error entering the system, including the expansion of both the enhanced checking service and the integrated risk and intelligence service. This will help build on the work already undertaken to protect universal credit, which has seen us improve the way we collect information, introduce new housing costs verification procedures and develop risk profiling strategies.
The figures announced today show how hard we, as a Department, have worked during these difficult times to offset fraud and error. Despite the huge surge in claims and redeployment of staff, the proportion of fraudulent claims has remained broadly the same as pre-pandemic levels. While the value of overpayments has increased, this is in part a consequence of our decision to suspend the minimum income floor (MIF) in order to support self-employed universal credit claimants during the pandemic. We will be reinstating MIF in August 2021.
Moreover, official error in universal credit decreased this year, which is testament to the efforts of our staff and the hard work put in to support claimants.
We stand by our decision to honour our obligation to those who found themselves relying on the welfare safety net to support them through these exceptional times. Given the circumstances, no responsible Government could have considered an alternative course of action.
The Department continues to focus on reducing fraud and error. We are confident the plans we are putting in place will reduce the losses incurred during the last year and will help us develop new approaches to root out the scourge of benefit fraud.
[HCWS21]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Rail Disruption: Social and Economic Impacts
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the social and economic impacts of disruption to services following the withdrawal of some Hitachi high-speed trains being removed from service after defects were discovered in them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the vast majority of services across the national rail network are unaffected. The trains affected are Hitachi Class 800 series units operated by Great Western Railway on intercity services as well as some LNER services, Hull Trains services and a small number of TransPennine Express services. Most of the services used by schoolchildren and local workers are local services which have not been affected by this issue. The Government have asked operators to prioritise services used by schoolchildren where possible.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for that Answer and I appreciate the amount of joint working that has taken place to enable some replacement services to run. The abrupt and total withdrawal of Hitachi trains from several routes caused massive disruption to passengers and businesses in some regions. It is an added blow to train operators, which had hoped to be attracting passengers back on to services. This is a crucial time as we establish fresh working patterns and the Government need to lure us back on to public transport. This appears to be an expensive design or manufacturing error.
Does the Minister agree that it is essential the cost is not borne by train operators, passengers or taxpayers? If so, are the Government in discussions with Hitachi about this issue? What steps do the Government intend to take to compensate the businesses and passengers affected? Does she agree that the Government need to fund a promotional period of reduced fares to attract passengers back on to the services, which have been so badly affected?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the agreements in place to use the affected trains contain provisions that protect the taxpayer. We expect those who have contractual performance and train availability obligations to fully compensate the taxpayer.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for asking this Question. I understand from the technical press that 86 out of 93 of these affected trains have either a failure of the yaw dampers, which connect the bogie to the body shell—they are quite important parts—or the lifting points, with cracks of up to one foot long. On the routes affected this clearly means that there are very few, if any, trains. These are trains designed and procured by the Government—
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but could he keep his question succinct?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Unfortunately I missed the question, but I hope to provide some colour to what the noble Lord was saying. Indeed, there are two different types of crack. One is found on the yaw damper; those cracks were found three weeks ago and are not the reason for the withdrawal of the trains from service. The second cracks are on the lifting lugs and have led to the withdrawal of trains from service. I would like to reassure the noble Lord that there is a very stringent engineering risk assessment in place. These trains are checked every 24 hours and are being returned to service from today; we expect to have up to 25 coming back today. We hope that 60 GWR trains will be back by Monday and we believe that services will significantly improve.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con) [V]
The current situation has brought about an intolerable level of stress and inconvenience to the travelling public, not least here in Wales on the GWR routes. It is a relief that Hitachi has issued a statement this morning advising that a significant number of the IETs can return to service. What inquiries have been made of train leasing companies, such as Angel Trains and Porterbrook, to establish the possibility of recommissioning some of their redundant and in-storage HST 125 fleet to provide some alleviation of the current problem and possible future issues?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I would like to reassure my noble friend that I spoke to Mark Hopwood, the MD of GWR, this morning. He told me that the major routes of particularly high priority include those from south Wales and the south-west. We recognise that getting those services back is important. He is looking at other ways of procuring modern, clean rolling stock, although he pointed out that the return of HSTs is unlikely and he would hope to get more modern stock from elsewhere.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, the question of compensation arises here. Is there a liquidated damages clause in the agreement between the Government and Hitachi about these trains? If not, can Hitachi be pressed to make some ex gratia compensation payment for the huge damage that this delay is inflicting on both passengers and railway staff, through no fault of their own?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, we are in conversations with Hitachi, and we welcome its decision to put safety first and take the trains out of service while we properly understand what is going on. As noble Lords will be aware, 122 Hitachi trains are procured via the intercity express programme, while the remaining 60 are under conventional rolling stock leases. We will look into what potential compensation may be forthcoming from Hitachi, but the train operating companies are offering refunds to their passengers for cancelled services.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness and I were in happy agreement recently in your Lordships’ House about the fact that it was not necessary to copy France in limiting domestic air travel here because cities such as Manchester are closer and well connected by fast intercity services. However, of course, this utterly depends on reliable service—so is the Minister concerned that unreliability will inevitably force travellers back into their cars and on to still more polluting airlines?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
No one wants to see a vast modal shift towards cars, but I accept that, in certain circumstances, when we have a situation such as this, that will occur. However, it is a very rare occurrence for this sort of wide-ranging manufacturing or other fault to be found in the make-up of the units. I am convinced that the Hitachi manufacturers are doing all that they can to get these units back on the rails, and I believe that services will be back to normal in the medium term.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I declare an interest as a regular LNER user—indeed, I experienced disruption to the service on my trip down from Darlington. While it is essential that the defects are addressed, I am very aware of the jobs and investment brought to County Durham by Hitachi. Can the Minister confirm that this issue will not impact the investment in the region and the security of the jobs?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, in general, Hitachi trains have an incredibly good track record. Hitachi built the bullet trains in Japan, which, as noble Lords will know, have an exemplary safety record, and it has a very high engineering pedigree. While it will of course be up to Hitachi’s customers to decide where they make their purchases in the future, I for one believe that that sort of pedigree will not be diminished by these events.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
What is the estimated likely total revenue loss following the withdrawal from service for repairs of the Hitachi trains? Who will foot the bill for that loss of revenue? I hope it will be neither the taxpayer nor passengers, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is the position.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is very tricky to make a detailed assessment of the reduction in revenue, given where we are at the moment and the fact that GWR operates a turn-up-and-go service, so numbers are very difficult to estimate. We estimate that, from an LNER perspective, it is probably a reduction of 1,000 passengers a day, but, as noble Lords will know, this is a fast-moving situation, these cracks were found on only Friday night and Saturday morning and, obviously, much more work needs to be done on the impact in the medium term.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I also declare an interest as a regular user of the east coast main line. I press my noble friend—because I understand that the department played a large part in designing the Azuma train—to address the part of the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about whether Hitachi will make good the damage, which is a very serious structural concern? Can she also assure the House today that the Government will review where the carriages will be sourced for the HS2 project?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not sure that I can give my noble friend all the assurances that she seeks on this matter. In general, Hitachi has a very strong track record in this area. The Department for Transport is not in the business of designing the details of trains—but if there is more information in this area, I will certainly get back to her. I reassure noble Lords that the removal of all these trains was carried out because safety is our highest priority; we are taking a very cautious approach to getting these units back on the tracks. However, we believe that we can do so safely and that we can undertake a medium-term forward repair plan to return them to 100% health.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I declare that I am a member of the GWR APPG and a user of GWR’s services. In her Answer to the Question, the Minister said, quite rightly, that the “vast majority” of trains are unaffected, but that seemed to dismiss the experience of those travellers for whom the vast majority of their trains are affected. Perhaps the Minister would like to correct that impression. In doing so, could she outline, in detail, how those passengers will be compensated for this very difficult period?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will not correct the record on that because I was trying to reassure people that the vast majority of train services are actually running throughout the country at this moment. Therefore, it is very important that people do not read the papers and think, “I can’t get on a train”. The most important thing is that you probably can, but check beforehand. However, it is also the case that we experience disruption on our railways periodically, sometimes due to strikes and sometimes to defects in the track—these are incredibly unfortunate. We do not want them to happen; we want our services to run as punctually and effectively as possible.
The operators are offering refunds and delay repay compensation for cancelled and delayed trains. There has been an enormous amount of collaboration with all the train operating companies: I pay particular tribute to CrossCountry rail, which has put on new services to Bristol and Swindon, a route on which it does not normally travel. Tickets are accepted by other train operating companies, and indeed some have offered support by offering rolling stock.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Minister can reassure me that the 7.30 am train from King’s Cross to Edinburgh will be running tomorrow. More generally and significantly, have there been discussions with the devolved Governments about the economic and transport consequences? Given the responsibilities of the Scottish Government in relation to rail services, what specific discussions does the Minister plan to have with them?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I wish I could reassure the noble Lord that the 7.30 will operate, but I am sure that the train operating companies are watching and will make sure that it does. I can reassure him that we always engage with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations in these circumstances. Priority has been given to resolving this at an operational level; it has been at an operational level that we have been collaborating. It is interesting to note that this issue has emerged also on the ScotRail class 385 fleet, with 10 out of the 70 units there experiencing a similar problem, but, thankfully, there has been no impact on services in Scotland.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, while safety is of course paramount, I have twice this week had to take a car from Lincoln to London and I shall return by car today. What we need is some degree of certainty. Can we please have for next week a programme of cancellations and running trains given at the beginning of the week?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is in the train operating companies’ interest to provide as much certainty as possible. I know that they are working incredibly hard on contingency planning such that, as we move to the new timetable—which also comes in next week—we will be able to offer as many services as possible. I am aware that the services from Lincoln have been particularly hit; I believe that it is now possible to get to Peterborough and then to change there, but I hope that the noble Lord’s services are back running as soon as possible.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the planned engineering works for the Whitsun bank holiday weekend on the East Midlands Railway line which mean that no trains will be running from St Pancras to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield and of the additional pressure that that will place on the east coast main line? What steps are being taken at this point to mitigate the potential additional chaos and disruption on that busy weekend?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We recognise that that weekend may be busy. It is also the case that bank holidays are often the best time to do much-needed engineering works. The Government have asked Network Rail to review the engineering works for the late-May bank holiday weekend and to work with operators to ensure that passengers can still travel. In anticipation of the potential return of passengers, Network Rail has decided to defer some of the previously planned engineering works where possible—sometimes they are scheduled many months in advance, and it is not possible. However, we have tried to minimise them as much as possible. We will monitor the progress of the engineering works throughout the bank holiday weekend so that as many passengers as possible can travel.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Thursday 13th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 View all Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text
Committee of Selection
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I shall call the following Members to speak: first, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and then the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.
Lord Balfe (Con)
This is a great exercise in lack of transparency. We are appointing committees that will run virtually every aspect of the House’s policy-making functions. I am told that we do have some transparency and that an email was sent out in March. To me, that is not a very transparent way of doing things. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker make his name in this House by being a reforming Senior Deputy Speaker? I in no way criticise his predecessor, who I know put a lot of effort into trying to get things moving.
The appointment of chairs of sub-committees is quite different here from in another place. The other place for once seems to have got a bit more democracy into it. This is not an arcane point, because it means that the chairs of the sub-committees have to relate to the Members; they have to be to a level accountable. I would like to see, as in the other place, the chairs allocated to the party groups and then some elections, so that people had to demonstrate not only that they knew what they were talking about but that they could reach across the aisle—as they say in the United States—and one did not look at things and say, “Oh, well, that’s a Labour chair; we’re not going to get anywhere there”, and so that the persons standing for chair, of whom I hope there would be more than one from any group, had to make the case as to why they should be the chair.
The only committee excepted from this is the Committee of Selection itself. Perhaps the Senior Deputy Speaker could start a reform package by ensuring that at least a part of the Committee of Selection is elected and that there are some Back-Bench voices on it. At the moment, that committee is basically a committee of the leaders; it is like the chiefs’ pow-wow of the House of Lords—everybody gets together with their pipe of peace and they agree with everybody on how they are going to divide things up. I do not think that is acceptable.
I have one final point. Some noble Lords will recall that I was one of the two people who divided the House on the case of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and his suspension from this House. It was a suspension that was decided in private, that was never debated in public, where he had no opportunity to put his case to his Peers and where it was decided by a committee that contains four people who are not even Members of the Lords and five people who are, at least one of whom has a senior role on a completely different committee. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker look at the way in which this committee works? The punishments—that is the only word for it—that it dishes out are far more stringent than anything found in the House of Commons.
I examined carefully all the evidence that was published about the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I would certainly have suspended him for a week. His behaviour was “sub-optimal”—which I think is the word we are searching for—but he did not deserve to be sacked completely for ever from his job, which is the effect of a five-year suspension on a person of 82 years of age who, whatever else one says, had had a distinguished political career. I was never in his party in Ireland; I do not agree with him, but the punishment was far harsher than the crime. The crime, basically, was a curmudgeonly old man losing his temper at the door on the way in; it was nothing more serious than that. I ask the Senior Deputy Speaker also to look at ways in which the Conduct Committee can be democratised so that when it comes to conclusions Members are able to comment on them and have some influence on the way things operate. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, a massive injustice was perpetrated by this House without any opportunity for debate, discussion or understanding.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank you, Lord Speaker, for all the work that you did as the first Senior Deputy Speaker. The whole House is very much in your debt.
Secondly, I welcome my noble friend Lord Gardiner to his new responsibilities. I hope that he can develop the role, building on the foundations laid by our Lord Speaker, and become something of a spokesman for Back-Benchers in this House.
I often think that this House, or the usual channels—once described as the murkiest waters in Europe—have one thing in common with the Almighty: they move in a very mysterious way. We need to have much more transparency. Indicative of what I am saying is that we have 33 Motions to be moved and accepted en bloc. We have no elections of chairmen to Select Committees; it is all done in the back room and the names are then produced.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House by repeating the arguments that my noble friend Lord Cormack has made and with which I agree completely. I certainly do not want to make any difficulty for my noble friend Lord Gardiner on his first day out, but I repeat one thing, to pay tribute to his predecessor, now our Lord Speaker, for the way in which he has worked to help the committees—and I know that from being a member of the committee of chairs which, as Deputy Lord Speaker, the present Lord Speaker initiated and which has been very helpful. I know that making a change in this place, as my noble friend is about to find out, is quite a fight against quite a formidable bureaucracy—and I think that great progress has been made.
However, I have a question for my noble friend. I find it quite difficult to understand, given that we are being asked to appoint a Committee of Selection and that those members have not actually been appointed, how they were able to make these recommendations and how they were able to meet. Are we going to adjourn while they meet and then bring forward these recommendations? I know that my noble friend will no doubt say that it is because of the changeover being changed to the beginning of the year, and everyone knew they were going to be reappointed, but I do not really think that that is good enough.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack about the Conduct Committee. I certainly worry about its composition, because any committee that decided that Valuing Everyone—which I have done, so I have no interest to declare—should be made compulsory, when it was not made compulsory in the House of Commons, is quite extraordinary. How, when it deliberated, did that committee come to a conclusion that it would make it compulsory without considering what it would do in the event that people were unable to comply with that? My noble friend Lord Gardiner may very well say that the House approved that. I shall not detain your Lordships by explaining how little time we were given to approve and debate it; in fact, we were given little opportunity, in part because of the circumstances that we find ourselves in.
It is very worrying to me that the institution of the hybrid House is being used to ram things through without proper discussion. It is perfectly clear that there is something wrong with the composition of the Conduct Committee when they can make such ill-judged recommendations to this House, which have brought us into complete ridicule—not least in respect of the pursuit, which I believe is still continuing, of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. The commissioner was quoted in the newspapers—I assume misquoted—as saying that she would pursue this and that anyone who spoke to the newspapers would be in contempt of Parliament. That says to me that the stage is now laughing at the audience, and the country is laughing at us as a result. I regret the fact that we do not have an opportunity to consider the composition of that committee, because that committee has let the place down.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would like to speak.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I note my thanks to the Lord Speaker for the part that he played in his previous role and the support that he gave to chairs and members of committees. I welcome my noble friend to his new role, which I am sure he will perform with aplomb.
It is a privilege to serve in any capacity on a committee, and I recognise the fact that there are insufficient places. Could my noble friend consider a proposal that we look at increasing the size of committees or allow alternates to all committees rather than just some? There has been an imbalance in recent years, with some who for no fault of anyone’s were able to serve for four years on a committee and others who could serve only one and a half years. In addition to transparency and possible elections to those committees and those who serve as Back-Benchers on committees, we are all here as working Peers and we want to serve in whatever capacity we are called to, but it is important to have a sense of fairness and balance in appointments.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, let me say first that I am very clear about my function, which is that I am a servant of this House. Therefore, I entirely take on board, and am very interested in, what the noble Lords and the noble Baroness—as I must now call them, rather than “my noble friends”—have said, as part of that important role as a servant of this House.
As your Lordships will understand, I have been in post for but two days. However, on the issue of composition of committees, there are a number of things that I have been seeking to tease out. Having looked at the Motions, I am inclined to say that the force of experience that your Lordships provide on these committees is nothing short of unique. It is truly exceptional what this House can provide by way of specialism.
The practice, I understand, is that all Chief Whips and the Convenor seek expressions of interest from their Members. If Members are keen to serve on particular committees, I suggest that they speak to the Chief Whips or the Convenor. But it is important to say that, in the case of any Members not so represented, I would encourage them to write to me, setting out their desire to serve on a particular committee. I will then ensure that that expression of interest is considered by the Committee of Selection at the appropriate point.
Something that I know has been under consideration is the issue of elections of committee chairs, and I understand that during the extensive committee review exercise the Liaison Committee heard evidence on that. After careful consideration, the committee took the view that the current arrangements had a number of distinct advantages. Of particular note for me was the expertise we have in this House, the fact that the composition of this House is different from the other place, and the consensual and apolitical nature of our committee work; all are important features that we ought to reflect upon. We are different, although there are obviously important similarities in the work that we do. Further to the consensual and apolitical approach to committees, from my first impressions it is very important for the committee structure to have a spread across the whole House, so that the expertise and distinct knowledge that your Lordships bring is clear.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, regarding the Motions being tabled on Tuesday, I understand that it is the usual practice to reappoint committees quickly at the beginning of a new Session. The point that has been put to me—as the new boy—is that, as a result of the rotation of committee members having already taken place in January, the membership of these committees remains almost entirely the same as it was before Parliament was prorogued. As such, the Motions allow our committees to continue their important work, picking up as necessary the inquiries and activities that they were engaged in just a few weeks ago.
I have of course heard the points that were made about the Conduct Committee. Indeed, I have had a number of discussions already in the few days that I have been in this post. The House appointed four lay members to the Conduct Committee in October 2019. This followed the House’s earlier agreement to a recommendation from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct in April 2019. The decision to appoint lay members to the Conduct Committee was made by the whole House. The lay and Peer members are a cohesive group, working to oversee the Code of Conduct. I assure noble Lords that the inclusion of lay members on the internal disciplinary committee of the House is—when I asked the question—very much in the direction of travel of other legislatures and public bodies. I have noted the points that have been made by noble Lords, but I think that this scrutiny—by both your Lordships and lay members—is an important dynamic for the long-term reputation of this House.
Noble Lords have made points about the Valuing Everyone training. I am mindful of this, and of course I have been on the course. The House as a whole agreed to making the Valuing Everyone training mandatory for Members, and the independent Commissioner for Standards is therefore required by the code to look at the circumstances of all Members who do not undertake the training by the deadline set by the House. My understanding is that the commissioner is expected to report soon on this, and I look forward to that report.
Violence in Israel and Palestine
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I note what James Cleverly, the Minister, said yesterday. I heard him on the “Today” programme this morning, and I totally share his sentiments on the violence. We need to know that this Government, at the highest level, are working with all our allies to get all sides around the table to talk, with the Palestinian people recognised as equal partners in that conversation. I ask the noble Lord the Minister: has the Prime Minister spoken to President Biden? Following yesterday’s closed-door meeting of the UN Security Council, can the Minister update the House on whether the council will take any concerted action to protect civilians?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome for what my right honourable friend the Minister for the Middle East said in the other place and in his broadcast this morning. The ongoing violence across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is deeply concerning and must stop. As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said, we want to see both sides stepping back from this. The Foreign Secretary delivered a message of de-escalation in his call to Israeli Foreign Minister Ashkenazi on Tuesday and to Palestinian Prime Minister Shtayyeh yesterday. We are working with our partners, including those in the region, and remain in close contact with the US Administration and European allies.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this is an extremely dangerous situation, and we condemn violence on all sides, particularly today, as many—including, no doubt, the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—are celebrating Eid. But rocket boosters must now be put under a peace and justice process, not violent attacks. Will the Government condemn the forced evictions from east Jerusalem, Israeli actions in the al-Aqsa mosque and the bombing and possible ground war in Gaza as clearly as they have rightly condemned rocket attacks from Gaza? It is in no one’s interest to escalate conflict here, and all must be held properly to account for any human rights abuses and breaking of international law.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right; de-escalation is important, and that is a point we are making to all parties. Clearly, violence against peaceful worshippers at the al-Aqsa mosque was unacceptable. The UK is committed to preserving the religious status quo at the holy sites in Jerusalem, particularly during the holy month of Ramadan and today as, as she says, Eid al-Fitr begins. We wish all those celebrating Eid Mubarak. We urge all parties to respect this and to refrain from provocation.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is too simplistic, and morally inept, to start apportioning blame, counting lives lost on either side and comparing damage. Funds poured into Gaza have been used to build rockets, not alleviate poverty. This confrontation is the work of Iran, which: funds Hamas; is calling for the use of missiles; wants to disrupt the Abraham Accords; and is behind the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the area. The escalation of tension was long-planned and fuelled by Abbas fearing that Hamas would win an election. Will the Minister use the forthcoming G7 gathering to point out the dangers of appeasing Iran by returning to the ineffective Iran nuclear deal? And will he position the UK to fill the power vacuum left by President Biden’s inaction?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the UK unequivocally condemns the firing of rockets into Israel. We strongly condemn these acts of terrorism from Hamas and other terrorist groups, which must permanently end their incitement of and rocket fire against Israel. We are working, as I say, with our partners in the region. We have engaged Egypt, Qatar and the United Nations to support their efforts to mediate and are stressing that we want to see both sides step back from this and the situation de-escalated.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister says, the first objective must be to de-escalate and stop the terrible violence on both sides. But in working to achieve this, no one should lose sight of the underlying problems that have led to it. Will the Government reconsider their position on a referral to the International Criminal Court? What discussions are the Government having with the US about putting concerted pressure on the Israeli Government to: stop ethnic cleansing in east Jerusalem, in which Palestinians are being forced out of the houses they own; stop the creeping, de facto annexation of the West Bank via further illegal settlements; and, more generally, respect the human rights of Palestinians, both within Israel and the Occupied Territories? These include their right to worship in the al-Aqsa mosque without it being stormed by right-wing thugs and the Israeli police.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the UK is a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court. We are committed to strengthening the court so it can best serve international justice. We oppose the investigation related to the Occupied Palestinian Territories on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction in the OPTs. The UK is a friend of Israel, but our concerns about evictions of Palestinians from their homes are long-standing and well known. They are unacceptable and contrary to the cause of peace.
Lord Gold (Con) [V]
My Lords, the alarming conflict that Israel and the people in Gaza are now enduring was instigated by an unprovoked attack on Israel on Monday night by terrorists in Gaza. In its military action since then, Israel has made every effort to minimise civilian casualties, including warning of a planned strike on a building complex so that occupants could safely leave. The terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have no respect for life and have fired over 1,500 rockets indiscriminately into Israel, killing Israelis and Arabs alike. What steps are the Government taking to ensure an end to weapon smuggling into Gaza, particularly by states such as Iran?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the UK unequivocally condemns the firing of rockets at Jerusalem and any locations within Israel. As I say, there is no justification for the targeting of civilians. We strongly condemn these acts of terrorism from Hamas and other terrorist groups and want them permanently to end their incitement and rocket fire. Our priority now must be an immediate de-escalation on all sides and an end to the killing of civilians.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, everybody should condemn these rocket attacks, but do the Government agree that Israel’s absolute right to exist cannot justify evicting its own Arab citizens from their homes in Jerusalem? As the respected Human Rights Watch reported, the State of Israel is perpetrating international crimes against the Palestinian people, and these practices are at the root of the current tit-for-tat civil war, tragically endangering its own, Jewish citizens as well.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of the Human Rights Watch report, which the noble Lord mentions, and we will review the findings. The UK continues to engage with the Israeli Government on human rights issues in the context that the report raises. The situation on the ground demonstrates the urgent need to make progress towards peace and, of course, the immediate situation is best helped by de-escalation on both sides.
Lord Polak (Con)
I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register. Leaders make choices for their people. Some will choose to save lives by purchasing vaccines or investing in Iron Dome technology to defend their people; others may prefer to buy deadly rockets and complain, to those who shamefully listen, that they have no vaccines. Our integrated review said:
“we will increase our efforts to protect open societies and democratic values where they are being undermined.”
In that spirit, can my noble friend name one country on earth that would be expected to tolerate the incessant attacks on innocent civilians by Hamas, the Iran-backed terror organisation committed to its annihilation?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The UK remains resolute in its commitment to Israel’s security. We utterly condemn Hamas’s indiscriminate and abhorrent rocket attacks, as I say. Israel has a legitimate right to self-defence. In using it, it is vital that all actions it takes are proportionate, are in line with international humanitarian law and avoid civilian casualties.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, how can terrorists import thousands of Iranian rockets but Israel be blamed for a lack of food or medicine? How can anyone believe that Hamas wants peace when it is committed to Israel’s destruction, with no regard whatever for innocent life? Hamas is exploiting the PA’s weakness after it cancelled elections, a century-old legal dispute about four houses, and violence in Jerusalem to provoke this crisis. Does the Minister agree that there is no equivalence between terrorists raining down rockets on civilians and a legitimate, democratic Government defending itself?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Hamas’s military wing, as the noble Lord will know, has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK since 2001. The UK retains a policy of no contact with Hamas in its entirety. The UK unequivocally and strongly condemns the firing of rockets into Israel. We want them to stop, and we want a permanent end to this incitement and rocket fire, and a de-escalation of the situation today.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Queen’s Speech
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows: “Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege and pleasure to open the second day of debate on Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech. I am delighted to be joined by my noble friend Lord True, who I know will do a brilliant job of closing what promises, as ever, to be a debate packed with lively and robust contributions. I look forward greatly to the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and to all the wide-ranging contributions from noble Lords, which I am confident will reflect the breadth and wealth of knowledge and experience represented on all sides of the House.
With our focus on our great union and constitutional affairs, we have the opportunity to explore some of the overarching themes of the gracious Speech, including the proposals to restore tried and tested constitutional arrangements to the Dissolution and calling of this Parliament, and the vital job of protecting our democracy. Before I introduce the specific elements of legislation for our debate, however, I will briefly go back in time to events shortly before the pandemic and provide some vital context, in my view, for today’s discussions.
While the impact of coronavirus has inevitably monopolised the nation’s attention for a little over a year, let us not forget how proceedings in this House and the other place were previously dominated by wrangling over the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union. It was a long, fraught process, not without moments of rancour, yet for those of your Lordships who savour the idiosyncrasies of parliamentary affairs it would be hard to think of a more rewarding period in our recent history. In the context of democracy, though, the referendum vote was the largest democratic exercise ever conducted in the history of this country. The British people voted for change in 2016, and again in the 2019 election to make sure that change was delivered. Now, as we look to recovery and renewal, and to tackling longer-term, cross-cutting challenges such as climate change and the road to net zero, we can enjoy the fruits of our freedom and flexibility outside the European Union’s institutions, the single market and the customs union.
The UK’s independent vaccine programme is leading us out of lockdown. Outside the common agricultural policy, we will reward sustainable farming practices so that, in England, farmers can produce healthy food at a profit without subsidy, while also taking steps to improve the environment, reduce carbon emissions and improve animal health and welfare—win, win and win again. Outside the common fisheries policy, we can revive our coastal communities around the United Kingdom and take steps to improve our marine environment. Under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the UK secured tariff-free access for fisheries products and a substantial transfer of quota equivalent to 25% of the value of the EU’s historical catch in UK waters, worth £146 million over five years. Last but not least in respect to our Brexit dividend, we can send our money not to Brussels but to the parts of the country where we know it is needed most to help citizens and communities come back from Covid and to improve productivity in all parts of the United Kingdom.
It was evident during the pandemic that the interests of people across the country were best served when we worked together as one United Kingdom. Now that we are turning the corner, the same is true: we are learning from one another to achieve the best outcomes for all the people of our great nation. Now is not the time to stoke old divisions, but to throw ourselves into what unites people across the UK—recovering from the pandemic. People want their politicians focused and working together, improving people’s lives as we engineer a sustainable recovery, building back better, fairer and greener, ensuring communities and businesses have the support they need and making the levelling-up agenda a reality.
The union of the United Kingdom is the most successful political union in history, the foundation on which all our businesses and citizens can thrive and prosper, standing up for, and embodying in its institutions, liberty under the law, respect for all, fair play, free trade, parliamentary democracy and material progress. This Government are committed to protecting and promoting the strengths of this union, building on the hundreds of years of partnership between the regions of our country to ensure that the institutions of the United Kingdom are used in a way that benefits people in every part of our country, from Aberdeen to Aylesbury, Belfast to Brecon. We are committed to strengthening that union and the common prosperity it brings, but even more important than the material wealth that can flow throughout the union is recognising and, where we can, fostering the deeper strength of our partnership. It is a strength that arises out of the millions of relationships that bind together people of good will throughout the union: yes bonds of trade and common endeavour, but more fundamentally yet the ties of affection, of common heritage, of friendship, of love. These ties are countless in number and increasing all the time.
When we work collaboratively as one team UK we are safer, stronger and more prosperous, and far better able to tackle the shared challenges that all parts of the UK face together, from defending our borders and our waters and fighting national cybersecurity threats, to delivering the furlough scheme and ensuring that every part of the United Kingdom has received its fair share of one of the world’s largest and most diverse vaccine portfolios. That is why the Prime Minister has invited the First Ministers of Scotland and of Wales, and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, to a summit meeting in the coming weeks to address the shared challenges of recovery from the pandemic. In March, the Government also published a status update on the joint review of intergovernmental relations. The significant progress made has been well received by academics and experts alike, reflecting closely, as it does, the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Dunlop in his excellent report. We are committed to seeing new structures established at the earliest possible opportunity.
In addition to the Government’s £2.9 billion commitment to fund 20 city and growth deals across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Brexit means that we can put more money into communities that might hitherto have felt overlooked or left behind. In 2021-22 that means the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund and the £220 million UK community renewal fund being invested in local areas, both of these using the financial assistance power in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act passed last year, ahead of the launch of the UK shared prosperity fund in 2022. Yes, for the first time in decades the Government can provide the kind of direct financial support that people can see and feel transforming their daily lives, regenerating town centres and high streets, improving local transport links and infrastructure, and boosting cultural, sporting and economic development to help level up the whole country. The Government will, of course, continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations, as well as with other public authorities and stakeholders across the country, to ensure that money is targeted to deliver the maximum impact and benefit for all citizens.
I now move on to the constitutional elements of the gracious Speech, providing increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process of dissolving Parliament, while providing flexibility for exceptional circumstances. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill will deliver the Government’s commitment to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The Bill makes express provision to revive the royal prerogative powers relating to the dissolution of Parliament. We will return the country to tried and tested constitutional arrangements, where the Prime Minister is able to request a dissolution from the sovereign.
In repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, we will restore the essential link between confidence and dissolution, enabling critical parliamentary votes once more to be designated as matters of confidence. The Government are grateful for the thoughtful and meticulous work of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Lords Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in considering how that Act operated and for the scrutiny of the Government’s draft Bill. We have listened to the advice of the Joint Committee, and your Lordships will see that it has informed our approach.
I turn now to the elections Bill, which will deliver the Government’s commitment to protecting our democracy, as promised in the 2019 manifesto. We have a world-leading democratic heritage and the Government have a unique role to play in respecting and sustaining it, ensuring that it continues to flourish. The measures introduced by Her Majesty’s Bill are guided by the Government’s determination to ensure our democracy is secure, fair, modern, inclusive and transparent. These measures seek to encourage participation by British citizens in our elections by increasing transparency, strengthening protections for those who participate, and better supporting voters with a disability to cast their ballot.
Respect for our democracy is also rooted in the public having confidence in our systems and approach. That is why the potential for voter fraud in our current system strikes at a core principle: your vote is yours, and yours alone. Any breach of this is inexcusable, as is any suggestion that voter fraud is a victimless crime. Any instance of, or potential for, electoral malpractice damages the public’s faith in our democracy. Allegations must be taken seriously and acted upon.
The introduction of voter identification, therefore, is the best, common-sense way to prevent voter fraud and strengthen public confidence in the integrity of our elections. This will bring the United Kingdom into line with Northern Ireland, which has required voters to show paper identification since 1985 and photographic identification at polling stations since 2003, without adverse effect on participation. I can absolutely assure the House that everyone eligible to vote will have the opportunity so to do.
The overarching themes set out in Her Majesty’s gracious Speech underpin this Government’s ambition to seize the opportunities arising since leaving the EU as they build a sustainable recovery from Covid. The constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom is vital to the long-term prosperity and security of all its parts, and increases opportunities for everyone to succeed. The steps we are taking to protect our democracy will strengthen our resilience and enhance our reputation and international standing. Over the coming weeks and months, I look forward to debating with your Lordships the many measures I have outlined today.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I too am delighted that we will hear from two women as new Peers today, the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and my noble friend Lady Merron. They both bring wide and deep experience to our House, and we look forward to hearing from them.
As my noble friend Lady Smith said on Tuesday, we had expected from this gracious Speech—coming after perhaps peacetime’s greatest challenge—an ambitious programme to improve the country, making it safe, secure and healthy for all, tackling insecurity and inequality, safeguarding the union, protecting national institutions and improving our democracy. Heeding the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that good government stems from good opposition, we will seek to provide that as we examine how the Speech measures up to the Government’s responsibility for good governance, preserving the union and respecting the view of the Financial Times that:
“The ability to hold an elected government to account is a central pillar of a democracy.”
I was bemused—perhaps others were—to read Jacob Rees-Mogg extol Parliament as
“indisputably the nation’s supreme lawmaking body”
which
“now wields the full power of its sovereignty … again”,
when, in fact, we have seen the Executive wielding more power than Parliament and a Government uniquely unwilling to be held to account. Witness the Prime Minister’s reluctance to answer questions at PMQs; his contempt for a court which enforced the rule of law; the abandonment of televised press conferences once he realised that it meant answering questions; and his disdain for the decisions of this House, such as over giving an additional role to the parliamentary ISC, when his Commons majority simply and blindly trumped the wise words from some of the most respected Members of your Lordships’ House.
Similarly, we fail to understand the Government’s ill-conceived attack on judicial review, a process whereby courts simply ensure that the Government’s decisions are lawful and fair. A Government shy of legal scrutiny fail to understand that our independent judiciary is a strength, not a weakness—something which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will address further later on.
Democracy depends for its support on good governance, which means fair lobbying rules, obedience to the Ministerial Code, and open and fair recruitment to decision-making bodies—not something much in evidence, leading Peter Riddell, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, to report the Government for actively seeking
“to appoint allies to … public bodies”,
including with
“the close engagement of 10 Downing Street.”
We have seen it even in the charity field, with attempts to restrict charities’ ability to speak out for beneficiaries even in the midst of the pandemic when their own resources, and perhaps futures, were at stake, while the PAC inquiry showed that political advisers were at the heart of deciding where taxpayers’ funding should go.
Good governance needs firm red lines between party and government when decisions are taken by Ministers. This is clearly not understood by some, with Covid contracts awarded to friends and HMT giving £700,000 worth of contracts to a lobby company with close Conservative links. Incidentally, this firm was busy lobbying Ministers at the very same time on behalf of its clients, including a meeting with the Chancellor—the head of the very Treasury that was then awarding those contracts worth £700,000.
If the journalist Peter Oborne—not normally read on this side of the House, I have to say—is right that the Prime Minister behaves
“as if he believes the Brexit referendum ... has given him a political legitimacy to trash British institutions like Parliament, the Supreme Court and the BBC”,
it is vital that we safeguard these and have effective laws about lobbying, plus codes about ministerial behaviour, integrity and conflicts of interest. That includes full disclosure of who pays for the Prime Minister’s holiday or apartment, so we can see to whom he might be beholden.
Notably absent from the Speech was legislation to amend our ridiculously weak lobbying rules, which allowed the Chancellor to be lobbied by former Prime Minister David Cameron, who, I hear, contacted Ministers 56 times on behalf of Greensill, and whose own wishy-washy Act gave free rein to in-house lobbyists, meaning that, for example, if the TUC or CBI hires a public affairs agency to lobby Ministers, it must be disclosed, but if it does it itself, it need not be. That does not make sense. It is time for every Minister to disclose all lobbying approaches in a timely, open and transparent manner. If there was one thing I wanted from this gracious Speech, it was a re-committal to good governance, high standards, openness and democracy.
I turn to two other aspects of our country’s future and our democracy: the proposals outlined on election law and the future of the union.
First, on voting, we will have the absurd position that, even as 16 and 17 year-old citizens whose futures will be decided by elections are denied the vote, the Government want to give the vote to people who have long since left these shores, may never return, and do not pay our taxes, contribute to our economy or depend on the services that those elections then produce. Why? Is it really to give them the vote, given how few of those currently able to vote at the moment under the 15-year rule actually do, or is it that it allows these long-term ex-pats suddenly to become “permitted donors”, able to fund a UK political party with unchecked sources of wealth, no checks on their bona fides, and no questions asked? They can simply mail in a ballot paper signed by who knows whom, from who knows where, and that makes them a permitted donor. Indeed, it is hard to know how they will be able to prove their bona fides. They will be able to choose in which constituency to cast their vote, and, unlike the rest of us, whose addresses are checked and who will need to prove our identity when we vote, they will simply be able to put theirs in an envelope, no questions asked.
Reverting to Peter Oborne again—noble Lords can see what I have been reading during the recess—he writes that, as Conservatives lost millions of members, small donations dried up:
“Financiers were alert to this and a new class of private donor began to emerge … Party funds were increasingly provided by a new group of super-rich. Many of them were based offshore, secretive about the financial arrangements and obscure about their motives … In return for their money, these donors gained access to power.”
So a major part of the electoral change will be to increase such offshore funding. If this is not the rationale for the change, and it really is to give our wonderful Labour member and war veteran in Rome, Harry Shindler, the vote, let us exclude overseas voters from being permitted donors. Speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, we will forgo Harry Shindler’s largesse if the Conservatives do the same with their overseas voters.
Meanwhile, very seriously, the ID requirement will reduce some people’s access to the vote. Three and a half million electors have no photo ID—predominately the young, whose votes we are trying to encourage, the less well-off and some of the very aged. In addition, this is on the back of no history of voter fraud—there was just one conviction after the 2019 election. The Prime Minister, who promised to eat any ID card that he was asked to show, is now demanding from voters that they produce one to exercise their democratic right to vote.
Perhaps the most serious issue facing us is the very continuation of the union—I think the Minister called it the precious union; it is certainly the most successful one we know of—and indeed of cross-UK devolution. As the Minister said, we have at last seen the Dunlop report, but there were no concrete proposals in the Speech for enriching devolution to Wales, Scotland and indeed London and our major towns, cities and regions.
Reading the background notes on the Speech that cover the union, they were virtually all about increasing the UK government spend in the other nations. The Minister himself referred to the financial assistance power in the UK Internal Market Act, which allows the Government to provide direct expenditure in areas of devolved competence. That is an issue of great concern, as it raises the question: if this money is available to devolved areas, why can it not be spent by the devolved authorities? The notes also list what sounds like largesse to the devolved nations, emphasising how much has gone there by way of furlough and other national expenditure.
Do not get me wrong—I am very happy for increased public expenditure to come to Wales, and I am sure our Scottish colleagues would say the same for Scotland. However, devolution and the future of the union are about the distribution of power and decision-making, not simply about taxpayers’ moneys. It is about strengthening the union by strengthening its component parts. Levelling up is not simply about funding. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, has argued, Whitehall must give powers to regions or admit that levelling up means nothing.
The case for devolution has never been stronger. All of us saw over the recent elections that voters are increasingly aware of the disconnect between themselves and London. The elections showed how people trusted local decision-makers. We should build on that trust, which will pay off in terms of the outcome of decisions as well as for the future of the union.
Prosperity follows democracy. We need both for the sake of the whole country. This gracious Speech fails to protect, much less enhance, our democratic traditions.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, the opening speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, was somewhat breathtaking in presenting the idea that Brexit has gone like a dream and is without problems and that we are about to see a transformation of our democracy. Indeed, reading the sections of the Queen’s Speech on democracy and the constitution might make you think that there was a reformist agenda—but of course there is nothing of the sort. In reality, the Government want to strengthen the Executive against Parliament and reduce the independence of the courts to adjudicate on the propriety of executive actions. At the same time, they want to suppress participation and fairness in elections by requiring voter ID and by replacing the supplementary vote system for elected mayors with first past the post—an increasingly regressive form of electoral democracy. The Prime Minister then wants to recover the freedom to manipulate the electoral cycle for incumbency benefit by repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, so do not be surprised if this leads to an opportunist election next year on the back of the hoped-for ending of Covid restrictions and the hoped-for bounce-back of the economy.
What is missing is any thoughtful or imaginative consideration of how our democracy can be enriched and how the tensions in Scotland and Northern Ireland—and, to a lesser extent but validly, in Wales—can be addressed. A cavalier, careless Prime Minister has stirred up a crisis that threatens the integrity of the United Kingdom and, what is worse, the English nationalist wing now in control of the Conservative Government frankly do not really care what happens. During the general election, the Prime Minister said that there would be no border in the Irish Sea and that the Northern Ireland protocol would not lead to extra bureaucracy and costs, even though the Government’s own website at the time spelled out the exact opposite—something I repeatedly pointed out in debates in this House. The reality has led to tensions, disorders and threats of violence, and the toppling of the leaders of the two unionist parties. Instead of criticising the deal they signed up to, will Ministers engage constructively with the EU to secure a veterinary agreement that would benefit food producers across the whole of the UK and reduce the problems in the Province? Can the Minister confirm what progress is being made to achieve a practical working veterinary agreement?
Now thrown into the mix is the suggestion that the Government might put a statute of limitation on offences committed during the Troubles, something which is not being called for by anyone in the Province itself. The Government say they will work with all relevant stakeholders, including the parties in Northern Ireland and Westminster, the Irish Government, and civil society, including victims’ groups, as part of this process, but so far there seems little chance of winning them around. So then what? Positively, the proposed reform of the petition of concern is welcome, as far as it goes, but will the Government monitor its working and review it if it proves inadequate, as some fear it will?
To be frank, fairness and justice, facts and the truth are strangers to this Government, which has compromised their capacity to uphold the Good Friday agreement. The polarisation of politics that has plagued Northern Ireland for so long is in danger of being reinforced, although growth in support for Alliance is at least one positive development.
And now Scotland is similarly deeply divided. I have never believed that dislike and resentment of a Tory Government is a valid reason for breaking up our family of nations, but it is a potent fuel. The SNP and its fellow travellers, the Greens, peddle the myth that Scotland’s problems can be resolved only by independence, yet they have no coherent plan for how independence could be achieved and what it would look like. Nor can they have such a plan, because it is not down to Scotland alone but to the rest of the UK and the European Union.
Much worse, this grievance-sustaining, which frankly suits the SNP and the Tories equally, paralyses decision-making and sucks oxygen out of tackling the wide range of problems we face in Scotland today which are within the responsibility and power of the Scottish Government to address. But the SNP do not want to do it, because it would ruffle feathers and reveal the paucity of talent and vision behind the bluster of demanding indyref2.
Scotland’s NHS has been squeezed, year on year, by the SNP Government to the point where spending per head could soon lag behind England, yet there is a huge backlog of non-Covid cases to address and a mental health crisis. Intervention in the economy has been an embarrassing disaster, with failures over ferries, airports, aluminium smelters, fabrication yards and the investment bank. Practical skills training has been undermined by cuts to college places, and more and more Scottish university students are paying tuition fees in England because places for Scottish-domiciled students are capped by the SNP Government. Secondary school pupils have been let down by a curriculum and examination regime that was conspicuously failing before the pandemic and has now collapsed, with no solution in sight.
These issues, plus the worst rate of drug deaths in Europe and poverty and deprivation at its worst in the First Minister’s own constituency, are deprived of oxygen and light by the distraction of a bare-knuckle clash between the SNP and the Tories. Whichever way you look at it, to suggest that a country recovering from a pandemic and a botched Brexit agreement should launch itself into convulsions over independence is disastrous, irresponsible and negligent.
This is especially true when the depth and even distribution of division is so apparent. The country is literally split down the middle on the issue. This is no basis on which to build a new nation under any conditions, but under the present circumstances, it is just reckless. After 14 years, the SNP has a stranglehold on nearly all the levers in Scotland. It is pretty near a one-party state. As a result, it is able to use all the instruments at its disposal to spread disinformation. This involves two parallel strategies. The first is to distract attention from the miserable failure of the SNP Government in building a stronger and more cohesive society, and the second is to ignore or discredit the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom.
Many may be persuaded that there could be a quick move to independence which will somehow realise a dream of prosperity and the resolution of all our problems. Yet ask people how they will feel if their pensions and mortgages are paid in an untested Scottish currency, backed by an as yet non-existent central bank, and enthusiasm might be dimmed. It will wane further if people realise that there is no quick way back into the EU, and, even if it were eventually achieved, it would mean a hard border with the rest of the UK, where most of Scotland’s goods and services go and where many of our family and friends live.
I am proud to be Scottish and British. I know, regardless of my opposition to this Government, that the development, procurement and rollout of vaccines is a striking and visible example of the benefits of the United Kingdom. So when Nicola Sturgeon says that Scotland could have achieved comparable vaccine progress as an independent country, she is not only deluded but deliberately seeking to deceive. You have only to look at the challenges facing, for example, Ireland and Canada to see that.
Support for the Scottish economy through Treasury-funded furlough; self-employed income support—not enough, but welcome—supporting more than 1.3 million jobs; £3.4 billion extra through Barnett, although not all of it passed on; and VAT cuts for hospitality: all of this is glossed over or suppressed by Scottish Ministers. When challenged, they claim, disingenuously, that they could have funded it as it is “our money”, suggesting, in defiance of the facts, that Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK. When it is pointed out that their own analysis shows that the Scottish deficit is significantly greater than the UK’s, they either lie or bluster that an independent Scotland, free of the shackles of the UK, would soar into the stratosphere of prosperity and untold wealth.
However, and nevertheless, the strength of support for the SNP and the Green nationalists has to be acknowledged and addressed. Countering misinformation is legitimate and necessary, and making the UK Government more visible in the devolved Administrations is also a good thing. But simply dismissing the result and patronising the devolved areas will only add fuel to the flames. We need a vision to reach beyond this and look for a solution that combines to deliver the best of devolution and the best of the benefits of UK-wide co-operation. It requires the Government to reach out and engage with other parties and organisations that support the continuation of the United Kingdom but want to make it work better. They should listen to calm voices in their own ranks, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, they should take Gordon Brown seriously, and they should recognise the thoughtful ideas set out by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem.
Perhaps this would lead to a federal solution, which some argue is not possible because of the imbalance between England and the devolved areas. However, there is evidently a desire for a voice for the English regions, which a battle over the red wall cannot satisfy, but which could help for a more balanced political settlement. It could end up being a uniquely British, quasi-federal outcome, embedding the devolution settlements, structuring the mechanism for co-operation across the UK and unlocking the voice of the English regions.
The Government say that first past the post enables voters to kick out unpopular politicians, but of course, in reality, it enables a minority, such as the current Conservative Party, to secure an overwhelming majority and brook no opposition. The Scottish electoral system has a proportional dimension, but the SNP dominance is down to the tactical squeeze of first past the post and the successful gaming of the proportional system by the Greens. A reformed constitution in which all elections are conducted by a fair voting system, and this House, the House of Lords, reformed to be similarly elected but also to reflect the voice of the nations and English regions, would represent the imaginative reform that would make our democracy fit for purpose and would perhaps re-engage voters in the excitement of actually being listened to and being able to influence and shape the debate in the United Kingdom. But under this Government, do not hold your breath, my Lords.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the gracious Speech records the Government’s intention to strengthen the constitution. Well, hurray—we all agree. But we all agree provided we remember that the whole point of any constitution is to establish and maintain the rules which govern the exercise of political power. The gracious Speech goes on to record the Government’s intention to
“restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts.”
Hurray, we all agree, provided we remember that, in a democratic society, the Executive should be subject to control by the legislature and governed by the nation’s laws, made in the place where they should be made.
So it is all fine: we are all agreed that the gracious Speech catches all the problems that we have—on this issue, at any rate—and we can go home. I am sorry, but I rather regret that I cannot avoid the suspicion that the Government’s real objective is to strengthen the control of the Executive over the constitution and rebalance the constitution yet more favourably for the Executive. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, talked about “tried and tested”, my suspicions were confirmed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has just said, the Executive is already too powerful. Today, the most alarming imbalance in our constitution is between the Executive and the legislature. In April 1780, the Commons passed a resolution deploring the fact that
“the influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing and ought to be diminished.”
In 2021, take out the word “Crown”, put in the word “Executive” and that is what we have.
Demosthenes himself could not have persuaded everybody to change our constitutional arrangements and wake up to the reality in only five minutes, so I shall just identify a couple of specific issues. In doing so, I want to go way back before Henry VIII to the medieval concept of the royal prerogative.
I should like to begin with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I understood the arguments in favour of that legislation, but the harsh reality of political life is that it did not work, as the past five years has demonstrated. Therefore, the Government propose that we go back to something “tried and tested”: the Dissolution process should be restored to more or less the way it was before the Act was passed, and should be—good Lord—a Prime Ministerial decision. In constitutional theory, it is open to argument that that particular prerogative might be open to the monarch of the day actually saying no to the Prime Minister, but that is bunkum. The monarch cannot possibly tell the Prime Minister that she will not grant him a Dissolution if he wants it. It would be catastrophic for the monarchy and, indeed, the constitution. Anyway, the Crown should not be there to provide protection against the misuse of executive power.
So the answer is simple, is it not? The Dissolution process should be in the hands of the body whose dissolution is being proposed. In our system, the Government of the day would probably win, but in a balanced constitution they should not both conceive the proposal and have exclusive control over the outcome and, in effect, dismiss the legislature, including the part of it that has been elected in a democratic mandate.
On Prorogation, the protests against the decision of the Supreme Court were voluminous, as were the protests against the issue even being considered by the Supreme Court. Would noble Lords believe it: as a former judge, I understand the protests? I understand Article 9, which is an imperative part of our constitution. What the protests tended to overlook was that the Prime Minister was proposing to make an executive decision that Parliament should be prorogued for five weeks in the very middle of the Brexit crisis. Parliament was, in effect, being inconveniently troublesome. So Prorogation would happen. It was Charles I who kept proroguing difficult Parliaments and look what happened to him.
I simply recall that the argument against the courts considering the issue would have been far more persuasive if Prorogation were a decision by Parliament or even the House of Commons. There must be curbs on such executive power. Restoring the prerogative and removing the courts altogether from the process simply hands power to the Prime Minister of the day unilaterally to shut down Parliament and close down our democratic process or, at any rate, put it on hold—without Parliament even being there to question, let alone reject, it. What are we doing with unconstrained powers these days?
Our constitutional arrangements should not be based on medieval concepts such as the royal prerogative. I can see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, wearing a wimple; I can see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, putting on a tabard; but how many of your Lordships would like to have your escutcheon marked? Do noble Lords know what their escutcheon is? I do not know what mine is, but it is a medieval concept. We really must get rid of ideas such as the wimple, the tabard and the escutcheon from our constitutional arrangements.
I am afraid that my five minutes are up. I wish that I could have gone on for longer.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, what a privilege it is to make my maiden speech in this Chamber today. I am incredibly honoured to have become a Peer of the United Kingdom. My thanks go to Garter but also to Lord Lyon for the formalities. I am indebted to the commitment and professionalism shown by Black Rod, the Clerk of the House and their teams for efficient online briefings and warm welcomes in person. The doorkeepers have been tremendous in keeping me on the right path and ensuring that I am wearing the right footwear. I thank them for their continued patience with me.
Since my introduction in the snows in February, I have been touched by the welcome from Members of the House. I should particularly like to thank my supporters, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, and my mentor, my noble friend Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, all of whom have been wonderfully reassuring and encouraging.
That I should have the opportunity to make my maiden speech during a debate on the union seems particularly fitting. On the list of new Peers to include me, I was the only name from Scotland. Indeed, I was the only one not from England. And having experienced the challenges of connectivity as I commute to this House, I was delighted to hear of the Government’s commitment to improving rail infrastructure in the Queen’s Speech.
I also welcome the Government’s support for the voluntary sector. I have spent the last 20 years in the charity, health and arts sectors in Scotland. All of these are devolved areas of responsibility and so, declaring my interests, I come here today as someone who wants to contribute to the constitutional debate as this House navigates the challenges faced by our United Kingdom.
It could be said that I am a unionist by descent. My great-grandfather, William Hutchison, sat in the other place as the Unionist Member of Parliament for Glasgow Kelvingrove. However, I came south to train as a ballet dancer. I believe that I am the first professional choreologist to be a Member of your Lordships’ House, a qualification that I could not have achieved if I had stayed in Scotland. But my career to date has been to enable others to shine, whether they were the dancers of English National Ballet or, more recently, people with cerebral palsy.
I am a supporter of devolution, as are the majority of Scots. And in this House, I note the work of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee recognising the existing interdependencies between UK and devolved Governments. For too many people in Scotland, Westminster seems at best distant and at worst irritating or irrelevant. So I have been musing. If roles were reversed and Nicola Sturgeon were sitting in the Prime Minister’s seat, I suspect that her reaction to a request for indyref2 would not be one of outright refusal. Instead, she would send out a very public message that emphasised how she supported the principles of democracy and the importance of the will of the people. She might announce a period of public consultation around the details of how any referendum might be held, and she would announce the formation of an advisory committee, as the Scottish Government love advisory committees to pass difficult issues on to. In short, while seeming to act reasonably and responsibly, she would kick the issue into the long grass, for now.
For this is not an issue that will be solved by entrenched positions or the waving of flags. I point to the evidence of the common frameworks programme, which has revealed what is possible in joint working, even when one has parties with very different ideological and constitutional outlooks. I hope that the Minister can therefore confirm that future intergovernmental relations are committed to seeking consensus and working with an ethos of mutual respect. I hope that he will go further on future engagement, beyond new structures, to ensure that connectivity is strengthened at all possible levels. We should enable others to shine: close working in all areas of the NHS; encouraging students to study at the best institutions across the UK and not be constrained by separatist funding decisions; championing cultural and family ties; and recognising our ability to be loyal to more than one flag alone.
I feel that, in this Chamber, I am preaching to the converted. We do not have representatives from the independence movement among us; as such, our contributions to this debate are potentially flawed. However, to ensure that others will be afforded the opportunities that I have probably too often taken for granted, we must ensure that the future of our union is a conversation of co-operation. I look forward to contributing to this conversation from these Benches.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow such an excellent maiden speech from the noble Baroness. I particularly resonate with her point about the self-harm of the SNP refusing to take up seats in this House, which I feel is greatly not to the advantage of all people in Scotland.
The noble Baroness hid her light under a pretty thick bushel, I am afraid. Craigmaddie means “great rock of the wolf” and is in Stirlingshire. She is the product of the Glasgow Academy—as noble Lords know, it is a star school—and Cambridge, which is the second-best university. Before going back, she stopped off briefly in London, where she enjoyed the delights of the advertising world, to which I will return in a second. She danced, I suppose, back to Scotland and to her roots.
Today, apart from being the chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland, she also chairs the Scottish Government’s National Advisory Committee for Neurological Conditions and is, among other things, a board member of Creative Scotland—our version of the Arts Council—and OSCR, which is the charity regulator in Scotland. Her energy and fairness of approach are recognised by all north of the border. I for one am thankful that she employs her skills in Scotland—now, to some extent, in this House too—and not with J. Walter Thompson in London on a diet of Go-Cat, Timotei and Listerine mouthwash. Anyway, I very much look forward to her future contributions in this Chamber.
The trade and co-operation agreement and the withdrawal agreement represent the cornerstones of the most wide-ranging arrangements that the UK has had with any international partner. The mechanics of these arrangements are hugely complex. The competencies covered by the agreements range from those reserved to Westminster, through those that are shared with the devolved nations and the UK, to those that are wholly devolved. Yet the 32 committees that currently exist under these agreements contain seats only for EU Commission and UK Government representatives. The agreements are silent as to how the devolved nations interact. That is right because it is not a matter for the EU, but it is therefore a matter for the UK Government to lead on, explain and make happen.
The 24 committees of the trade and co-operation agreement were not operational until the TCA’s ratification at the end of last month. As the European Affairs Committee well knows, they are now cranking up. I note how many will involve devolved matters. Take the Specialised Committee on Fisheries. This is a wholly devolved competence. How are the devolved nations to be involved?
The Dunlop review of November 2019, which was finally published on 24 March this year, is wonderfully clear on this area, with common-sense principles that should apply. Where intergovernmental relations are concerned, it underlines that we must have a new system and that that system must be transparent. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote a response of the same date that appears positive but lacks a firm commitment to implementing the totality of the Dunlop recommendations of 16 months before. The third document of that day was the Progress Update on the Review of Intergovernmental Relations. It reveals how much important detail still needs to be agreed in the review that started in March 2018.
The Government appear to be bogged down. The Dunlop review is now 18 months old. The key elements are not being acted on. The review of intergovernmental relations is more than three years old, with an ending not even on the radar, let alone in sight. Failing to address devolved Administration interaction with the relevant TCA committees will inevitably give rise to more energy and time-sapping arguments, which do no one any good. At the very least, it is vital that the Government complete and implement the review of intergovernmental relations, and rapidly.
My thoughts on the trade and co-operation agreement and the withdrawal agreement stand on top of all the other reasons for urgent action on the mechanics of our union that have been advanced today, not least in the excellent opening speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble and learned friend Lord Judge. I very much wish that we could have had more than five minutes of him. Does the Minister agree with my analysis so far?
In closing, I note that the fact that the devolved Administrations have involvement in the trade and co-operation agreement committees means, of course, that the devolved Assemblies will have commensurate scrutiny duties. Does the Minister recognise this, and can he confirm that the Government will support reasonable scrutiny by those Assemblies?
The Lord Bishop of London [V]
My Lords, I add my voice to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie. I thank her for her maiden speech.
There is much to welcome in this gracious Speech, including its focus on recovery from the impact of Covid on our lives and on the economy, the investment in skills and infrastructure that it promises, and its whole-country approach. A new programme implies a clean sheet and a fresh start, but I hope that the unresolved issues from the close of the last Session—namely those relating to the then Fire Safety Bill and the then Domestic Abuse Bill—will be resolved in this Session. I hope that the financial burdens on leaseholders will stay at the forefront of the Government’s concerns and be quickly resolved in the building safety Bill. Additionally, it was disappointing that the Domestic Abuse Bill reached Royal Assent without securing protection for all women, namely migrant women. I hope that the Government will uphold their promise to treat victims as victims first and foremost, and at least ratify the Istanbul convention before the nation’s 10-year anniversary of its signing in the summer of next year.
The previous parliamentary Session will for ever be marked in our minds due to coronavirus. I will say something about integrated health and social care, but will start off with the subject in hand: the constitution. In the Government’s briefing documents for the gracious Speech, the part dealing with the constitution has a strong emphasis on economic and structural benefit. It describes the United Kingdom as
“the most successful political and economic union in history, the foundation upon which all our businesses and citizens are able to thrive and prosper.”
Note the order. However, a union of nations and people is more than, and different from, a shared belief in a healthy bottom line. If we think that we can tarmac our way to unity, we are on the wrong road. A united and flourishing country is as much about the knitting together of hearts as it is about the laying of cables. Any project in service of the future of our union—if it has one—will need to be a project of the heart. We can look in our wallets or purses for cards—perhaps even one that will give us permission to vote—but we will not find our identity there.
The proposal to require photo ID to vote seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I confess to having some anxiety about it when the Electoral Commission itself estimates that almost 3.5 million voters are without suitable ID. Those in more marginalised communities, including many in my diocese, will number the highest among them. Taken alongside measures on protest and judicial review, this raises questions about the Government’s commitment to upholding those liberties and freedoms that they wish to encourage elsewhere in their programme. A union that takes seriously the role of every voice will yield a stronger hold. I hope that we might look to encourage an approach to unity that encourages thoughtful relationships with one another, recognises diversity and generosity and the contributions that each has to give, and, while recognising the economic benefits, puts common values and aspirations first.
This principle also extends to health. The need for a localised but joined-up integrated health and care system has become increasingly relevant. I note the comments yesterday by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that we must ensure that every part of England is covered by an integrated care system. We await further details. I hope that we will see an integrated care system on a statutory footing in this Parliament, as its benefits would be to reduce health inequalities and improve population health. A joined-up system with genuine multi-agency partnerships that span the NHS, local government and civil society, including faiths, can work. We have seen this in the action taken through the vaccine rollout.
Furthermore, I welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to the reform of adult social care in England to ensure dignity in old age, and the commitment to improving mental health services. A system that values every member of its body will not forget the vulnerable in our society or allow its members to arrive at old age unprepared for the reality of care costs that they cannot afford. It is imperative that we pursue integration seriously.
To succeed any system or union, be it of nations or public services, must value the voices of everyone, at every level, and develop systems that promote being seen and heard, and which will foster mutual respect and common unifying values. We must be connected in sharing the skills and prosperity that we enjoy and effective in making them available to all in need. This is more than a transactional relationship; it is about building ties of trust, respect and mutual support for the generations to come.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, it is not too unkind to say that, after 11 years in office, this Conservative Government do not have the greatest of records on constitutional reform. First, let us remember that, in 2011, they gave us the shameful Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, which resulted from a deal between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and proposed a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Secondly, also in 2011, we had another constitutional stitch-up, again with no pre-legislative scrutiny—namely the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. This had the principal aim of giving the coalition Government a guaranteed five years in office.
I am happy to say that we got rid of the constituencies Act last year. Now this year, in the Queen’s Speech, we are told that we will get rid of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act as well. I cannot resist saying that the Government would have saved themselves a lot of time and trouble if, back in 2014, they had supported my Private Member’s Bill: the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (Repeal) Bill. At least it gives me the pleasure of uttering my favourite parliamentary phrase: I told you so.
As the House knows, a Joint Committee of the two Houses was appointed last November to review the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and scrutinise the draft government Bill to replace it. It was clear to many of us on the committee that the shambolic 2017-19 Parliament was, at least in part, due to the malign consequences of the 2011 Act. First, it gave a Government virtual security of tenure, even when losing on their major flagship policy by huge majorities. That would have been unthinkable prior to 2011. Secondly, it allowed that absurd period at the end of 2019, when a Government who had clearly lost the confidence of the Commons were unable to call a general election because of the two-thirds majority required by the Act.
While I welcome the Government’s plan to solve a problem in the Commons, albeit a self-inflicted one, I deplore their failure to address clear problems that we have here in the Lords. I will mention just two. The first is the size of the House. In his excellent all-party 2017 report the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said that the Lords, at 800-plus, was too big and should be reduced to 600 Members. This could be achieved without legislation but would require the active support of the Prime Minister. There is no point in reducing our numbers voluntarily if the Prime Minister simply replaces everyone who dies or retires. The lesson is simple: we cannot limit our size without legislation. I am very pleased that our new Lord Speaker is committed to raising this directly with the Prime Minister. In so doing, he can be assured of the support of the vast majority of Members of this House.
There is another piece of legislation required. In the next three months, this House will hold no fewer than six by-elections at which only those hereditary Peers who are on the register of such Peers are entitled to stand. At present, there are 209 names on the register; all but one are men. Yesterday, the House published an official notice on the by-elections to replace hereditary Peers. It ought to be compulsory reading for this House and preferably for a wider audience. It proves that satire is not dead. Please read it: Gilbert and Sullivan live on.
The first of the six elections will take place on 17 June—put that date in your diary. The result will be announced in this House, and three new Conservative hereditary Peers will then arrive, having been elected by 43 Conservative hereditary Peers already in the House. It is a great election; the first three all win. I wish that system had operated in the various general elections that I have lost. That is the system. It gets worse, but I do not have time to deal with it.
Three times in the past five years, I have tried to scrap these by-elections in Private Members’ Bills. I am delighted that I have come 11th in the ballot this year, so the House will have the pleasure of listening to the same speech, which I am slowly improving over the years, to deal with the problem. But my attempt to scrap the system has been thwarted every time, as the Government have refused to back it. Is it too much to hope that, in this Session of Parliament, the Government either introduce a Bill of their own or support my Private Member’s Bill, so that we get rid of this nonsense once and for all? The Procedure Committee might even help by suspending by-elections in the meantime, as they have the power to.
On two constitutional issues affecting the Commons, the Government have seen the error of their ways. But in the Lords, even where there is consensus on the size of the House and on elections, they have done nothing. Is it too much to ask the Minister to reassure the House that he understands the need for reform here and that he will represent us faithfully, by making this known to his colleagues in Government?
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, according to Mr Johnson, the public “don’t give a monkey’s” whether he and his party have cheated and broken electoral law, so did the election results last week bear him out? They did up to a point; 36% voted for his candidates and 64% did not. Taking turnout into account, he could claim about 15% of the eligible electorate.
Trust is an essential ingredient in our democracy. Trust in our system of governance and in those who currently exercise it is dangerously low. We do not have to go far to discover why: the public do not recognise, in the Government, respect for the seven Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. It is very timely that the Committee on Standards in Public Life is now examining the extent to which these principles are being adhered to. It will have to add the Government’s legislative proposals to its analysis.
The absurdly misnamed electoral integrity Bill should be high on this list. Evidence of the alleged problem of fraudulent voting in polling stations is virtually non-existent; there was just one conviction out of the 47.5 million people who were registered to vote in the 2019 general election, and I discovered that that case had nothing to do with fraud. The offender was told that he was not on the register, so he picked up a ballot box to try to prevent others voting.
No. 10 is so weak in its supporting arguments that it claims that photo IDs are necessary for taking out library books and collecting a parcel, which simply is not true. It is a poor advert for a Bill when Ministers have to employ obvious lies and exaggeration to justify it. Its real purpose is to exclude those eligible electors who are less likely to vote Conservative, up to 3 million people who at the moment have no photo ID, comprising of older people, some ethnic groups and new vote attainers in particular. That is straight out of the Trump-Republican voter suppression gambit. To increase trust, we should be insisting on more thorough registration of those who are entitled to vote, not driving them away.
The other related proposal seems designed to increase the number of overseas-resident millionaires who can donate to the Conservative Party. This should be read alongside the proposals from Mr Gove and his colleagues in the Cabinet Office to hugely increase the limits on national party campaign spending. Taken with the attempt to overturn the court judgments on the responsibility of candidates and their agents for spending in constituency campaigns, this is a deliberate plan to reduce the integrity of elections. Millions more could be spent in target seats, with inadequate transparency. The Government should instead be addressing the known weakness of the transparency of lobbying Act. As Mr Cameron himself said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Meanwhile, the Home Secretary is apparently attempting to undo Parliament’s relatively recent insistence that metro mayors and police and crime commissioners should receive effective majority support to qualify themselves for wide-ranging individual powers. Fiddling the electoral system there, just because Tories benefit from the distortions of the first past the post system, is hardly conducive to trust and integrity. Taking a rigorous look at the proven illegality of leave campaigners in the 2016 referendum, and publishing in full all the evidence of foreign interference, then and since, including that from the Russians, would be genuinely addressing the lack of electoral integrity.
The Government are seeking to concentrate more power in the hands of the Prime Minister, with the right to dissolve or prorogue Parliament at a time to suit his own and his party’s interests. I have recently re-read the 1976 Dimbleby lecture of the former Lord Chancellor Viscount Hailsham, a true Tory if ever there were one. He reminded us, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, today, that the Government are accountable to Parliament, not the other way round. Lord Hailsham cited the dissolution power as an example—one of many—of what he warned was an insidious slide from parliamentary democracy into “elective dictatorship”. He also, incidentally, showed how even then, 45 years ago, the electoral system had failed to keep up with the changes in British society, and recommended a fresh look at the case for more representative democracy.
Last Thursday, the majority of those who voted in English local council elections were cheated of any impact on the result. Now that their Scottish fellow citizens are already benefiting from better representation, with the Welsh soon to follow, surely it is intolerable that the English should be so disadvantaged on such a crucial democratic level, in our so-called United Kingdom. That really is an issue of electoral integrity and one that must urgently be addressed if trust is to be restored.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I was going to praise the Liberals for their part in the Scottish election, but the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has made it slightly more difficult for me.
I have a Shakespearean question: after last Thursday,
“Stands Scotland where it did?”
The answer must be, yes, it does. Nicola Sturgeon described the result as a landslide, a historic outcome, when in fact she gained one seat—more a hysterical overreaction on her part than a historic outcome. The Conservatives have remained with the same number of seats. Labour lost two seats, partly because their excellent leader spent most of his time attacking the Tories instead of attacking the nationalists, who are in power in Scotland.
Therefore, we remain exactly where we were, with a minority Government led by Nicola Sturgeon, who are unable to govern except with the support of other parties. It is true that she got more than a million votes, and we should respect that, just as she should respect that more than 2 million people voted to remain part of the United Kingdom in the referendum on independence, and the Edinburgh agreement, which was solemnly signed by the then leader of the SNP—who actually did achieve a majority in the Scottish Parliament —gave a commitment to respect that result for at least a generation.
Nicola Sturgeon got those million votes by extending the franchise. The franchise has been extended to include refugees, prisoners, 16 year-olds—almost everyone except Scots who live outside Scotland in the United Kingdom. All foreign nationals can vote and, in the event of an independent Scotland, those people who would be eligible for a Scottish passport are to be excluded from voting in her referendum, which would destroy the United Kingdom.
I would like to share a secret. I find that saying things in this House is a good way of keeping them secret, especially from the Scottish media. Nicola does not want a referendum. It is the last thing that she wants. She wants one only when she is sure that she can win it. The SNP itself said that it would need at least 60% of the electorate supporting it, and support is on the decline. However, she does want to talk about having a referendum because it is a diversion from her record, which is abysmal, and the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, outlined some of the issues. Her Government are responsible for a health record where an Albanian man has a longer life expectancy than a Scotsman, even though more money is being spent on the health service in Scotland. The difference in life expectancy between men in the most deprived areas of Scotland and the most prosperous is 13 years. Scotland is the drugs capital of Europe, with 24 such funerals every week, yet she thinks that she should concentrate on talking about the need for a referendum. She said that she should be judged on her performance on education and has been in power for a very long time, yet the annual surveys of numeracy and literacy show continuing decline. What is the response to that? To abandon the annual surveys because they have become too embarrassing, and to remove Scotland from international league tables as we plummet down the list. In her own city of Glasgow, men’s life expectancy is less than the life expectancy of men in Libya.
Douglas Ross won 31 seats, and more votes than were won by Ruth Davidson of blessed memory, whom I am delighted to say will be joining us in this House. In Shakespeare, Macduff’s question was answered by Ross:
“Alas, poor country!
Almost afraid to know itself.”
Large numbers of young people believe that independence would be a good idea but, when asked in the opinion polls, they changed their minds if independence was going to cost them more than £1,000 in lost income or lost benefits.
I ask the Front Benches: where was the Prime Minister in our campaign? Where was the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Where was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? Where was the Defence Secretary? Michael Gove came to Scotland the day after the votes had been counted. We need Ministers to go north of the border and explain to people how they benefit from having the strength of the United Kingdom around them, because they do not know it, and to lose it would put us in desperate times, faced with Nicola Sturgeon’s Brigadoon vision of an economy.
Alex Salmond is very keen on quoting Rabbie Burns. Well, let us take Rabbie Burns’s advice, in the address to the Dumfries Volunteers:
“O, let us not, like snarling tykes,
In wrangling be divided…
Be Britain still to Britain true,
Amang oursels united;
For never but by British hands
Maun British wrangs be righted!”
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and to be in a position to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, on her marvellous maiden speech. I too thank the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he introduced this debate and in so doing declare my interest as chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. The period between 2017 and 2019 made vivid the severe limitations of that legislation. Keeping a powerless Government in power against their will, exacerbating tensions between the Executive and Parliament and, indeed, the Executive and the courts, and drawing the Crown into potential controversy—a seriously dangerous situation—were the unintended consequences of that legislation.
We have heard about the important Dissolution principles that have been established in preparing the way for the repeal of this Act and legislation that will follow. I think all noble Lords agree that it is essential that the Prime Minister of the day enjoys the absolute confidence of the other place to remain in the position to form a Government, and it is absolutely correct that all involved in the political process ensure that that the sovereign is not drawn into party politics.
However, much has happened in addition in the period since the enactment of that Act. Much of what has happened has drawn on provisions in that statutory framework, the interpretation of other statutes and other long-standing legislation. We have heard from my noble and learned friend the Convenor about Article 9, for instance. Therefore, this Parliament has to be certain that all that happened—the new precedents and the new conventions that were established in that period—will also be addressed responsibly and sensibly to ensure that we do not find ourselves with new unintended consequences as a result of further legislation in this regard, or indeed through not having addressed the totality of what we have learned in the period since the Act’s passage. In considering the way forward, are Her Majesty’s Government content that, in instructing the courts that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act no longer exists and that what has happened subsequently may be ignored, there are sufficient safeguards to protect our constitutional arrangements and to ensure that we never again find ourselves in the situation we were in during that very difficult period for this Parliament?
I will also draw on the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London regarding integrated care. I know it is not a subject of debate on the constitution and the union, but I support her comments. Integrated care is essential to the future functioning and delivery of our National Health Service, and I warmly welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to legislate in this Parliament for provisions to ensure that the NHS can perform on an integrated basis. The proposed legislation, as laid out in the White Paper, identifies the structural and commissioning impediments to delivering integrated care in the NHS, but it fails to address the important issue of regulation. To deliver integrated care, care must be seamless across different clinical environments—hospitals, primary care and community care—and across the needs of patients for care of their physical and mental health, and it must deal with healthcare and social care. Each of these domains is regulated differently. The White Paper fails to address regulation for an integrated care system, and as a result we may end up with the unintended consequence of dealing with the structural and commissioning impediments to delivering integrated care while retaining the regulatory impediments to doing so.
It is also critical, in committing to integrated care in our National Health Service by building on our experience during the Covid pandemic and the remarkable achievement of mass vaccination across our nation, that there is a renewed commitment to establishing the metrics and measurement of data pertaining to how care is delivered and how successful it is to ensure that we are always improving outcomes for every citizen and patient in our country.
Baroness Merron (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is with the greatest of pleasure that I speak to you for the first time today, having had the honour of joining your Lordships’ House. Noble Lords from all sides of the House have given me the warmest of welcomes, for which I am most grateful. It is a particular joy to become reacquainted with former colleagues of all parties from the other place, as well as noble Lords with whom I have worked in different parts of my life and career. I thank the staff and officers of the House for their ever-present professionalism, guidance and often literal direction as I get used to this remarkable place. I thank not only those we see in person but those who go about their work behind the scenes to keep the wheels turning, particularly in these times of Covid pandemic restrictions and requirements.
I was advised early on to put aside all that I know about the ways of the other place. I am secure in the knowledge that, should I transgress, I will be gently and firmly put back on track to the way of the Lords. At my introduction, I was blessed to have as my supporters my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Knight of Weymouth, with whom I served as an MP. I am grateful to them for ensuring that a newly ennobled heel did not catch in the hem of robes that your Lordships will recognise as somewhat tricky to negotiate.
My mother’s advice, so as not to offend, was never to talk about religion or politics. However, we can safely say that I have made an art form of talking about both subjects, as evidenced throughout my career as a local government officer in Derby enhancing the lives of those on benefits, as a senior union official speaking up for low-paid, part-time women workers across the east Midlands, and as MP for Lincoln for 13 years, during which time I served as a senior Government Whip and as a Minister in five departments. As Minister of State for Public Health, I was particularly proud to legislate to protect young people from cancer and to pioneer anti-smoking legislation and practical help to support better health for children and the hardest to reach.
I have also had the privilege to serve as chief executive of the esteemed representative body of the Jewish community, the Board of Deputies of British Jews. My parents grew up in the East End as children of Jewish immigrants forced to flee to Britain by pogroms that murdered Jews and destroyed communities. I reflect, with feeling, that if my grandparents, who I was born too late to know, had been told that their granddaughter— not even their grandson—would serve as a member of Her Majesty’s Government, as the chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and as a life Peer, they would not have believed it. It would all have seemed too remarkable.
For myself, I could only have dreamed that it would ever be possible to have the honour of a life peerage bestowed on me. My journey to this place, in the very heart of the British establishment, is not one that was expected. I am, as the film says, made in Dagenham. I had opportunities afforded by social housing, education, employment and the NHS—all contributors to a fair and decent society.
Our destiny should be shaped not by the conditions into which we are born but by what can be. We sit in this House with that responsibility on our shoulders. Through my years of public service, I feel I am repaying the debt to this country that gave my grandparents refuge and life for future generations, including my own. I hope that in taking my place in this House, I will do justice to their memories.
I turn to the debate. In my experience, good legislation always hits the target, but regrettably the target of the electoral integrity Bill will be those already on the very edge of our society who find it hard to exercise their democratic right to vote. Anyone who has campaigned in an election will know that the real scandal is the low levels of turnout, particularly among marginalised groups.
I recall a young woman in my former constituency of Lincoln who was embarrassed to say why she would not be voting for me. She confided that she had never voted, because she simply would not know what to do if she were to go to a polling station. How will this unnecessary Bill help her? Adding more hurdles to deal with a non-existent problem will simply drive her further away.
I look forward to making further contributions in this House on matters that speak to the reality of people’s lives, and I thank your Lordships for the patience and support given to me today.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to be the first to congratulate her on an excellent and moving maiden speech. It may sound counterintuitive but this is the second time I have listened to her maiden speech, having been in my seat in another place on 3 July 1997, when the noble Baroness again spoke eloquently on a range of subjects and strongly criticised the rail service to Lincoln, for which I had had ministerial responsibility only a few weeks before.
I first met the noble Baroness when she and I both sat on the Committee of Selection in another place, when she was a Government Whip. The proceedings were carefully scripted, with the usual channels reading out a list of names hand-picked for party loyalty. The meetings lasted seconds rather than minutes, so there was little opportunity for anyone to display talent. But subsequently, the noble Baroness was promoted and held seven different government jobs in 10 years, demonstrating the skill, stamina and versatility needed on the Opposition Front Bench in your Lordships’ House, to which she has rightly been promoted.
In her gap years between the other place and here, she gave strong leadership to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, addressing, among other issues, the anti-Semitism in the Labour Party at the time. She was popular and respected on both sides of the House in the other place, and I know the same will be true here. We all bid her a warm welcome.
On the constitution, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act clearly has not worked, whatever the theoretical benefits. The last Parliament had “Do not resuscitate” at the end of its bed, but the Act officiously kept it alive. It has to go. The dominant issue now is the future of the United Kingdom, as Brexit adds momentum to the centrifugal forces in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I have three points. First, we should learn the lessons from the excellent report by the UCL Independent Commission on Referendums:
“Referendums are best suited to resolving major constitutional issues, such as those relating to sovereignty. They work best when they are held at the end of a decision-making process to choose between developed alternatives … It is of utmost importance for the proposals put to a referendum to be clear and for voters to know what will happen in the event of a vote for change. Hence, the Commission considers standalone pre-legislative referendums to be highly problematic.”
Developed alternatives were not present in either the EU referendum or the referendum on Scottish independence. If a referendum is to be held, the UK Government, whose consent will be required, should make it a condition that clear answers to the questions of currency, fiscal balance and borders should be given first.
Secondly, there are reports that we are going to love-bomb Scotland with public money to combat the threat of the nationalists, but this risks aggravating the existing imbalance between public funds for Scotland and for England and is fraught with moral hazard. The SNP will argue that any fresh influx of funds has come about only because of its success in the recent election and that, if the influx is to continue, voters should continue to vote for the SNP. This is 21st-century Danegeld.
Thirdly, following the excellent point made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, it is worth looking again at whether the franchise for any referendum should be extended to Scots living in other parts of the UK. This would follow precedent. When we held the EU referendum —again, an issue involving sovereignty—UK citizens living overseas were given a vote. I believe the case is even stronger for Scots living in other parts of the UK if they have been on the register in Scotland during the previous 15 years.
Finally, there is one conspicuous omission from this year’s Loyal Address. The last one said:
“A Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission will be established.”
That was also a manifesto commitment:
“In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission”.
That commitment has been ditched, but in its place we move straight to legislation to
“restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts.”
In his wind-up speech, can my noble friend shed some light on what is proposed? If we are not to have the promised commission, will there be a Green Paper or a draft Bill before any legislative button is pressed? What is proposed for your Lordships’ House?
I end with this question. Over the past 12 months, the Executive have taken unprecedented powers away from the legislature and the courts. Any balance that needs restoring now should reverse that, but is that what the Government have in mind?
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the title of the proposed electoral integrity Bill is worthy of Newspeak from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Big Brother wants to protect us from a virtually non-existent threat.
The offence of stealing someone’s vote at a polling station is extremely rare. It is possible to determine exactly how many people go to vote to find that their vote has already been claimed by somebody else. When there is such a problem, a special ballot paper, known as a tendered ballot paper and printed on different-coloured paper, is issued by the presiding officer. If the number of such ballot papers may make a difference in an election, a determination can be made as to what has happened and which votes should count. Ministers have repeatedly refused to say how many such ballot papers have been issued in recent elections. That is because the answer is virtually none.
When the Electoral Reform Society asked returning officers for such details and made freedom of information requests a few years ago, the evidence was that the offence of personation is extremely rare. The Electoral Commission reports that in all the elections held during 2019, there was only one conviction.
So why are the Government introducing a Bill requiring photo ID when there may be millions of legitimate voters who do not have it? The reason is simply that those people are disproportionately younger, poorer and from diverse ethnic backgrounds—in other words, less likely to vote Conservative. The proposals for photo ID are expensive, irrelevant and a distraction from the things that people really wanted to see. They are unworthy of a British political party that claims to believe in fair elections.
There are many Conservative parliamentarians who strongly oppose the idea of Covid passports being required to visit the pub or other places so I look forward to them joining the former Secretary of State for Brexit, David Davis, and others in opposing the principle that any form of passport should be required to vote. The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, himself said in his Daily Telegraph column a few years ago:
“Ask to see my ID card and I’ll eat it”.
They will not be made of chocolate.
Yesterday the former Conservative leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, shortly to join this House, tweeted that
“there are bigger threats from agents outside our borders than from someone who forgets to take their drivers’ licence (if they have one) to a polling station.”
I feel that I cannot quite quote the unparliamentary language that she used to describe this proposal in her interview, but the word begins with the letter “b”.
If the Government wanted elections to be fairer, they would be supporting the excellent electoral integrity Bill put forward by Unlock Democracy. They would also now be enacting a measure to halt the farcical process of topping up the membership of this House by holding by-elections amongst the registered hereditary Peers.
It is with some irony that I note how the by-elections now planned for another six hereditary Peers will be conducted by the alternative vote system, just as was the recent election for our Lord Speaker. What is good enough for us should also be good enough for electing mayors and police and crime commissioners. By seeking to abolish any form of preference voting for these positions, the Government are simply setting out to make it easier for Conservatives to be elected even when most voters would prefer to have someone else.
Lastly, the Prime Minister announced yesterday that there will be a public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Two years ago, he delayed publication of the report into Russian interference in our democracy until after the general election. Is the real reason for abolishing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act so that the timing of general elections can be manipulated to avoid scrutiny of such reports during an election campaign?
Prime Ministers should not be able to play games like this. When a Prime Minister can determine the date of a general election, they are playing with loaded dice and obtain an unfair advantage for their party. In football we would never allow the winners of the Premier League to arrange the fixture programme for the following season, and we should not let a Prime Minister be able to fire the starting gun in the race for their re-election.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I am unable to call the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, so I call the noble Lord, Lord, Browne of Belmont.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I was pleased to hear in her Majesty’s gracious Speech that her government Ministers will promote the strength and integrity of the union and that measures will be brought forward to strengthen devolved government in Northern Ireland. In promoting the benefits of maintaining and enhancing our great union of nations, we should emphasise that we have in these isles a history and a bond unmatched anywhere else in the world. We have a unique selling point: four distinctly original constituent parts of one nation.
We hold this key debate during Northern Ireland’s centenary year, a very significant milestone in our country’s history. One hundred years since its foundation, Northern Ireland is still very much part of the United Kingdom, and in 2021 it is in many ways unrecognisable when compared with how it looked and felt in the darkest days of conflict. One has only to look at Belfast’s harbour and skyline to appreciate the changes. In recent years we have witnessed relative peace and significant inward investment, including the growth of a strong film and television industry. International companies and studios recognise Northern Ireland’s value and potential as a location containing some of the most breathtakingly beautiful scenery in this nation. The considerable growth in tourism over the past decade is perhaps further evidence of that.
However, our union now faces several different and unique difficulties and challenges. In Scotland we hear familiar separatist rhetoric from those who wish to divide us. Despite having lost a previous referendum, some still seek to divide.
In Northern Ireland, regrettably, we are facing new realities as a consequence of trade uncertainties arising from the introduction of the Northern Ireland protocol arrangements. It is essential that we ensure the long-term prosperity of the UK and the viability of businesses. We must do all we can to protect our internal market and build on our relationships across our nation. It remains true that no part of the UK should feel disadvantaged because of the proximity of a trade border. There remain some real concerns in communities and within businesses in Northern Ireland that the protocol represents a threat to the integrity of our union. These are not concerns that will be easily swept away. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that many will seek further assurances and legal guarantees regarding these matters.
The UK’s independence from the EU now opens up a new era of opportunities for increased co-operation and trade across the globe. However, before we enter new arrangements, perhaps we should first seek to repair, improve and further the friendships and alliances on our doorstep, across these isles. Being equal partners in a shared and integrated UK economy helps all the constituent parts of our nation to deal with risks and share opportunities. Inside the union we share not only a currency, a language and common standards but we are also socially integrated. Our strongest cultural bonds, interests, histories and values are those that we share across our nation. It is an undeniable fact that strong links across these isles and our open UK markets have brought huge benefits to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The case for maintaining the union is as important as it is compelling. Though being British may be interpreted differently in different parts of our nation, there is a common understanding and appreciation of certain basic constitutional principles, such as the rule of law. Most British citizens instinctively recognise the many practical benefits of our union, such as our shared currency, which facilitates the growth of a strong and integrated economy. However, we should never complacently take those opinions for granted; nor should we use language that may alienate some when making our case. We must continue to work together, championing the union and strengthening the bonds between us.
The case for the union is a compelling one, based on future growth and opportunities. It is important to older and younger people alike. It is a case based on securing our economic future and sustaining our place on the world stage for years to come. Maintaining the union is the responsibility of all of us. Putting forward the case for it is as vital now as it was 50 or 100 years ago. All those who value and respect our United Kingdom, across all parts of it, must seize the opportunities before us to promote and safeguard it for future generations.
Lord Lisvane (CB) [V]
My Lords, I add my warm congratulations to those of others and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, who I was very glad to know in a previous life.
The Covid-19 pandemic has had a serious effect on the legislative process in terms of quantity of proposals, shortness of notice, difficulty of scrutiny and, insidiously, the confusion of guidance or ministerial instruction with the law. The report published today by the Constitution Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, has provided an excellent analysis of the effect on Parliament and has given us our own parliamentary road map, as it were, for the future. I much look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness in a moment or two. It is vital that those baneful legislative effects of the pandemic should not persist, but that does not mean that all will be fine once the dial is reset.
On Tuesday, we were told of some 30 Bills that Parliament will be invited to consider in just a few months of this Session. So I think it is reasonable to ask how well Parliament is equipped to pass good law. However welcome it may be to have, in the often-used phrase, “taken back control” or taken back sovereignty—whatever sovereignty may really mean in practice—the dice are ever more heavily loaded in favour of the Executive, as my noble and learned friend Lord Judge pointed out so compellingly.
I am not being unrealistic, of course. For years, Bills have not really been draft legislation; they have been word for word what the Government of the day wish to see upon the statute book. But the rules of the game have been changing. We have extensive delegation of powers to Ministers in SIs, with minimal parliamentary scrutiny, Henry VIII clauses which can negate scrutiny of primary legislation, and the use of delegated legislation to provide for matters of serious policy. We may pride ourselves on line-by-line scrutiny, about which I have my doubts, but if we really wish to equip Parliament to pass legislation that is respected and which maintains the accountability of Ministers and the authority of Parliament, we need to do a lot more than just reset the dial.
Let me turn to the union for a moment. Whatever the prospects for indyref2, the debate on the future of the union remains focused upon Scotland, and it remains binary. On the one hand, there is the possibility—remote, perhaps, but nevertheless—of independence and, on the other, of carrying on much as we are, with the hope that increased investment and joint projects will keep the centrifugal forces in check. But what will remain in the eyes of many will be what I have described to your Lordships before as the imperial condescension of the UK’s central government.
A symptom may be the term “devolution”, which I suggest is rapidly becoming outdated. If you devolve, you are giving away part of what you control. If you are the owner of the cake and you decide how much to give away, however tasty the morsel, this will not stop recipients being rightly resentful. I suggest that what is needed is a reshaping of the relationships, powers and responsibilities of the four members of the union. This has been the aim of the Constitution Reform Group, convened by the Marquess of Salisbury, a distinguished former Leader of your Lordships’ House, and of which I am a member. In the last Parliament, I introduced the group’s act of union Bill. In this Session, I hope to put before your Lordships a greatly improved and developed version of the Bill, seeking to replace the present top-down approach, where the centre decides what powers are to be given to the other parts of the UK, with a bottom-up approach in which the four parts agree upon the powers they need to serve their citizens best and to take a full part in a union which has been astonishingly successful, culturally and economically.
My last point is constitutional, in that it relates to our parliamentary home. The sound of the restoration-and-renewal can still being kicked down the road is increasingly depressing. I have a personal interest in this, having commissioned the first condition survey, which initiated the whole process the best part of a decade ago. All the issues have been well exposed and, it seems, endlessly discussed. The questions of political embarrassment and the impact on the public finances are the same as they were 70 years ago, although of course the cost of not having tackled the problem for all these years now has to be added, month by month, inexorably. The reality that will not go away is that, if we have a catastrophic failure of services, we will probably not be able to remain in the Palace of Westminster, and all the decisions that have been put off for so long will come to a head in the space of 24 hours. In my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House I urged rapid progress. And that was six years ago.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Merron on her very heartfelt maiden speech. I have known her for many years, and I know she will make a significant contribution to this House. All I can say is that I am very glad she did not take her mother’s advice to stay clear of politics, and we must welcome her.
As the Constitution Committee of this House, which I have the privilege of chairing, is conducting an inquiry into the future governance of the UK, I do not intend to talk about the future of the union—tempting though that is. I want to mention a few of the issues outlined in the Queen’s Speech. I think they fall into the description of “the good, the bad and the ugly.”
Let me start with the good—or at least, the potentially good—which is the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. We should be honest from the start and acknowledge that this was never really introduced as a constitutional measure. It was simply part of the political deal between David Cameron and Nick Clegg, and so I welcome its repeal. But as the Constitution Committee pointed out in its report, you cannot simply repeal it because you would leave a vacuum in other areas.
This morning I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord True, giving more detail on this five-clause Bill. Some aspects will not be controversial, such as providing a maximum parliamentary term of five years. However, the noble Lord, Lord True, goes on to say that the Bill will revive the Crown’s prerogative power to dissolve Parliament and restate the long-standing position that the exercise of the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament is non-judiciable. The Minister is confident that that will be watertight. I fear that other legal opinion will not share his confidence. It is essential that, whatever is in this Bill, it is absolutely watertight in respect of the role of the monarch. The Minister also says in his letter that this will be underpinned by a set of non-legislative constitutional conventions. That is an interesting concept, and we will look forward to the detail on how this is going to be achieved. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, will have a lot to say on that.
I wish the Minister well with his Bill, but I think its passage may not be as easy as he anticipates, and maybe the Commons, having been given the taste for a say in the timing of elections, will not be quite as willing as he thinks to relinquish that role. So that was the good.
The bad is simply the irrelevant proposal about free speech and universities. In opening, the Minister said that we should not be divisive, but that is exactly what that Bill is.
The ugly Bill is also divisive, and here I refer to the voter suppression Bill, because I think that is the title it deserves. I do not often agree with David Davis MP, but he described this measure as “pointless” and a “waste of time”. Photo ID for voting is just not necessary, and I speak as someone who approves of the principle of ID cards. It is not the problem that Ministers are suggesting it is. Ministers have said they want to protect our democracy; is this what they think is the main problem of our democracy at this time?
We have heard the figures: there have been two convictions and, in the trials, 819 people were denied votes. You have to think about who will be affected by this—it is very clear. We probably all know someone with no driving licence or passport; they will often be on a low income. I do not see why we should make it more difficult for people who do not enjoy our comfortable lifestyles to exercise their democratic right to vote—a right just as valuable as anyone else’s. A better use of Parliament’s time would be to drop this Bill and for the Government instead to adopt my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill to end by-elections for hereditary Peers.
Finally, I will mention one phrase that caught my attention, as it did that of others in this debate. The Government have written that they will
“restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts.”—[Official Report, 11/5/21; col. 3.]
These are fine words, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out. My question is: are they a promise or a threat? I fear the latter. Reversing the increasing domination of the Executive should be a theme for us all in this Session.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to echo the congratulations to my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on their excellent maiden speeches.
I also strongly welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech that
“Ministers will promote the strength and integrity of the union.”—[Official Report, 11/5/21; col. 3.]
Throughout 34 years, ever since I was first employed in the Conservative Research Department and as a special adviser to six Northern Ireland Secretaries, the union is the cause to which I have devoted most of my political energies. For me, the strength and integrity of our United Kingdom is the most precious of all commodities, and I have always been a unionist first and a Conservative second. However, today, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the United Kingdom is once again under sustained attack and threat. In the short time available, I will focus on Northern Ireland, where my experience lies, but I will make one observation on the situation in Scotland.
As things stand, Scotland’s departure from the United Kingdom could take place on the basis of 50.01% of those actually voting in a referendum. However, in circumstances where a referendum were carried by such a slender majority, and where border areas voted decisively to remain within the United Kingdom, what is the prospect of those areas demanding some form of special provision, with one option being for them to stay within the union?
I merely throw open the question. Like the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, I do so conscious that 10 days ago we marked the centenary of the coming into force of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which made special provision for the six north-eastern counties of Ireland, thereby establishing Northern Ireland as a distinct political entity within the United Kingdom. Those who devised the Act intended it to be a temporary arrangement, so I am especially pleased that, 100 years on, Northern Ireland remains firmly rooted within our great union.
I also completely acknowledge that, for some, this is a contentious centenary and certainly not one greeted with any enthusiasm by nationalists. It is right that this anniversary, like others in this so-called decade of centenaries, is characterised by reflection as well as commemoration. The aim must always be to promote greater understanding rather than to fuel further division.
In the past, I have expressed the hope that the centenary might also provide the catalyst for a debate within unionism about how the union could survive, prosper and be strengthened for at least the next 100 years. Little could I have predicted that the centenary would actually take place against a backdrop of the resignations of not one but both leaders of the two main unionist parties in Northern Ireland—two people whom I know from personal experience to be individuals of great conviction and integrity.
As a result, we now have two leadership contests, and at the heart of both is the future direction of unionism and the union itself. As such, in that context, I say that Northern Ireland is a very different place today from that in which the Belfast agreement was made, nearly a quarter of a century ago. Even so, I remain convinced that, in any border poll, a clear majority of people would vote to stay within the United Kingdom—incidentally, a far greater number than those who currently vote for the two main unionist parties. I am sceptical of the methodology of certain recent internet-based opinion polls that might suggest otherwise.
However, in the long term, the union will not be secured by unionism turning in on itself, retreating into history or singing the same old songs, whatever short-term comfort that might bring to some. The surest foundation for the future of the union and Northern Ireland’s place within it has to be an open, inclusive and tolerant unionism that understands, is comfortable with and embraces the values of the modern world. It has to be a 21st century unionism, with a narrative that speaks to people outside its core base and whose mission is to build a more stable, prosperous and secure Northern Ireland that everyone, irrespective of their background or ultimate political aspiration, can be proud to call home—a Northern Ireland based on a shared and united future rather than a divided past.
In conclusion, it is over 50 years since the unionist Prime Minister Terence O’Neill made his famous broadcast, in which he said:
“Ulster stands at the cross roads.”
In so doing, he asked a question of his fellow unionists:
“What kind of Ulster do you want?”
Surely, against the backdrop of the centenary of Northern Ireland and two leadership elections, the time has now come for unionists decisively to answer that question in ways that secure rather than weaken Northern Ireland’s future as part of this great United Kingdom.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, while preparing this response to the gracious Speech, I found myself thinking about how different my speech today would have been if my party’s calls for the devolution of policing to Wales had been heeded and granted. I also thought about how, if we had full powers over elections devolved to us, there would be no threat to the ease with which we have cast our votes for generations in Wales.
However, with the confirmation of the UK Government’s intention to progress the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill beyond Committee in the Commons and the introduction of the electoral integrity Bill, we see this Government moving further and further away from the progressive politics and country that we on these Benches aspire to.
The intention to introduce new powers for the police to control protests is, above all, unnecessary and draconian. Police already have powers to limit protests to ensure safety. Protesters have the right to protest and express themselves under the Human Rights Act—a right that I and many others in this House have used to protest peacefully for causes that we believe in. The right to peaceful assembly has always been a crucial part of our democratic society, and these new laws undermine that right.
Like many others, I watched the presidential elections in America and was appalled by the reports of voter suppression, but the reality is that the UK is already emulating our transatlantic cousins. In the run-up to the 2019 general election, it was estimated that 17% of the UK population were not registered to vote. Individual voter registration has made the process far less easy than it was, and it has been the Tory party’s first step towards the UK version of voter suppression.
The electoral integrity Bill—was there ever such a misnomer?—continues that process with its emphasis on the introduction of voter ID cards, such as a passport or driving licence, for future elections. However, there is little evidence of voter fraud in the UK, with only one person convicted of personation and one person cautioned in 2019, as referred to by my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard. Whatever gloss the Government try to put on this decision, it is a blatant and cynical attempt at making it harder for people to exercise their right to vote, and it is aimed at those they perceive as not being their voters. Welcome to voter suppression, UK style.
As ever, this gracious Speech is significant for what it does not contain. For those of us who live in Wales, the disappointment, although expected, is in the fact that it says nothing about our devolution settlements. Indeed, by their actions, this Government are bypassing and undermining the position of our devolved Governments, and there can be no better example of this than the way the shared prosperity fund is being allocated. My local town council—I refer the House to my membership of the council noted in my register of interests—was given details of the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund when our local MP visited. The shared prosperity fund has yet to begin, but it is to be billed, I believe, as a Brexit bonus, using money that would have gone to Europe and replacing the European Social Fund. I note that there is no reference to replacing all the money that would have come from the EU. Delivery of all these will be to and through councils, bypassing the Senedd and leaving it without the finances to plan and implement policies and projects on a nationwide basis, other than those funded through the basic Barnett formula. I have a number of questions on the issue, which I will submit as Written Questions, and I hope for a full response.
A week ago today, the people of Wales returned a new Senedd, with 44 of the 60 seats taken by parties which support either federalism or independence, seeing off the negative influence of UKIP, the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party and Reform. These parties now have no seats in our Senedd, thankfully, although I suspect that their voters turned to the Welsh Conservatives, who increased their numbers. Some Conservative candidates ran on an “Abolish the Welsh Assembly” ticket and I ask the Minister to confirm that this is not Welsh Conservative policy or, indeed, UK Conservative policy. What is clear is that there is an increased appreciation of the role of our devolved Administration and no mandate in Wales for anything other than increased autonomy for the nation.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and my noble friend Lady Merron on their maiden speeches—cogent, moving, funny and full of perspective. We look forward to hearing much more from them. While I certainly do not welcome the measures in the gracious Speech to make voting more complex and inaccessible to people or the power grab of the Executive or the privatisation agenda behind the health Bill, I do welcome the Government’s intention to strengthen the union, finally.
In the years to come, there will be four roads back from this dreadful pandemic. The climb back to jobs and economic prosperity; the setting and achieving of bold climate change targets; the renewal of close and sustainable partnerships with our European Union friends and neighbours; and the fight to save the United Kingdom from disintegration.
Despite the whining bluster of the SNP, the outcome of the Scottish elections was not as obvious and clear-cut as the First Minister claims. Scotland has by no means made up its mind on a second referendum or on independence and, I believe, is not in the mood for risk-laden, irreversible decision-making in the middle of a pandemic. The Prime Minister’s summit, bringing devolution leaders together, is a start, but a complete cultural change in the language of devolution is needed if that language is not to become extinct.
By all means, ensure that UK-wide infrastructure projects are signposted as such, so there is more clarity for citizens on the source of public funding, but we will have to go far beyond summits, infrastructure signposting and the redeployment of Whitehall departments if our grandchildren are going to live and thrive in a United Kingdom in 30 years’ time. We will have to tear up the “know your place” devolution handbook that is still influencing government thinking and decision-making. What is devolved and what is reserved does not have to be thrown out of the window, but it does have to be reformed for modern, post-Brexit times. Devolution for the 2020s, 2030s and 2040s must, first and foremost, be about partnership and parity of esteem and decision-making across the UK.
The template set out by Gordon Brown recently would not be a bad place for the Government to start. The excellent report on intergovernmental relations by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, at the request of the Government, also needs serious study, and we will hear from the noble Lord later in the debate. The emphasis of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, on collaboration across the parties in the matter of devolution was another useful contribution to the debate this week.
Some will say that keeping Scotland in the United Kingdom is a lost cause, that that ship has sailed. I do not agree. Yes, intergovernmental relations between the devolved Administrations need a serious reset, but the union can be saved. I am more convinced than ever, through my membership of the new Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, of what practical, pragmatic and legislative co-operation between devolved Administrations can actually achieve, and how an ongoing low-trust environment between the four nations can be avoided.
In our recent committee report to Parliament, we describe how common frameworks stitch together policy across the union in so many areas previously covered by EU law—areas such as food safety, hazardous waste, farming, transport systems, the environment and much more. This is achieved in a practical, co-operative, constructive way that respects the divergence of the devolved nations and builds together the new UK internal market. That is not to say there are no problems with constructing common frameworks, but there is a recognisable dispute resolution mechanism that is supported and has buy-in from the devolved Administrations.
When it comes to building a co-operative union, we have to roll up our sleeves now, today, and, as the poet Cicely Herbert said,
“plant trees for those born later.”
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, we must work collectively in this House, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, has so eloquently explained, to give real effect to the commitment in the gracious Speech to promote the strength and integrity of the union. I therefore particularly welcome the step taken at the end of the old Parliament by the Secretary of State for Wales and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, to set about constructive discussion with Peers who have a particular interest in Wales.
There are four matters in particular which we should address together. First, there are the common frameworks —I have had the privilege of serving on the committee for their scrutiny, so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. The name of these instruments does not suggest for a moment that they are of much interest or importance, but the first report of the committee, published on 24 March, tried to make clear how essential they are to a co-operative union and the creation, by consensus, of UK-wide systems to protect matters as diverse as protection of the environment, public procurement and the regulation of subsidies, while allowing appropriate divergence, reflecting devolution. There is much we can do together to strengthen the union through effective common frameworks but, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, these require hard work and detailed co-operation.
Secondly, I will refer to the levelling-up funds, which Part 6 of the internal market Act permits this Government to use in areas of devolved competence. When these provisions were debated in this House and at the final stages of ping-pong on 14 December the Minister made it clear that while the specific arrangements for the governance of the funds were still being developed, there will be governance structures, and that the devolved Administrations—[Inaudible.] Can the Minister tell the House when the governance structures will be in place and assure us about the place of the devolved Administrations in those structures?
Thirdly, I will refer to the absence of proper structures for developing UK-wide policies on which again we in this House ought to work together. There are two basic problems: first, the current structures do not sufficiently involve the devolved Administrations and their Parliaments and, secondly—[Inaudible.]
Finally, I will refer to the balance of power between the Executive, the legislature and the courts. This must reflect a properly balanced, interdependent relationship between these three powers of the state. There is nothing that I can possibly add to the eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, explaining how the balance has swung too far in favour of the Executive, to the detriment of Parliament, particularly in the light of our method of legislation, and particularly framework legislation, so clearly summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. It is important to stress that it is in that context that the position of the courts must be set.
To go back to my theme about the need to work together to strengthen the union, there is one point I must mention. The proposals will also have implications for the devolved nations. Therefore, I trust that the Government will look at ensuring that the Parliaments and Executives in those nations have a decisive voice in the arrangements in so far as they may be affected by these proposals, because they relate as much to democracy in the devolved nations as they do to democracy within the United Kingdom as a whole.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. We cannot hear the noble Lord, so we will come back to him. I call the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I begin by adding my voice to those who have welcomed our two new Members, my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron—a very judicious and measured speech from the first and a very moving and uplifting one from the second, both demonstrating the way in which your Lordships’ counsels are elevated and enriched by the diversity of experience that individual Members bring to the House.
The words
“electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic”,
were used by a judge in describing some industrialised postal vote fraud in Birmingham in 2005. That phrase stuck with me, because I have what may be the slightly unusual distinction of having served as an election observer in two actual, literal banana republics, in the sense of being republics dependent on the banana crop, Nicaragua and Ecuador. What we saw in Birmingham would have been completely impossible in both those places because, in common with most Latin American countries, they have a form of photo ID, known as a cédula. When you apply to register to vote, you get a little card; it is no different from registering to vote here, except that you have a form of identification. These are countries beset by illiteracy, where there are remote villages that are cut off and do not have electricity or a clear supply of drinking water, yet they do not find that requiring a measure of identification is a vote suppressor. So please let us not make the inaccurate and insulting insinuation that people would somehow be unable to vote in Great Britain as they do in Northern Ireland.
Of course, the tightening of rules on electoral fraud go well beyond personation. That has been the issue picked up by noble Lords in this House, understandably, but there are many more significant measures in the Bill that will come before us, dealing with the harvesting of postal and proxy votes and, not least, intimidation of voters and candidates. I hope that at least on those issues there will be a measure of unity on all sides, because there is no question of any real flesh-and-blood person being prevented from voting. The only people who would be prevented from voting exist only virtually, as ghosts or theories, not as real human beings.
I want to take on the argument that underlines a lot of this debate—an assumption that sounds plausible but which turns out to be specious—which is that the way to encourage participation is to make the act of voting easier. That sounds reasonable enough but, in fact, the proposition was tested under the Blair Governments. There were all sorts of experiments with e-voting, text voting and ballot boxes in supermarkets, and none of it served to increase turnout. Could it be that we in fact want a little bit of ceremoniousness, so that people take the act of voting more seriously—and in fact that if you make it too easy you cheapen participation? If people are filling in a ballot at their kitchen table while half-watching “Line of Duty”, they are not taking it as seriously as they would with that little bit of ritual of having to go to present their card at a physical polling station. After all, the act of casting a vote in coldly transactional terms is actually quite difficult to justify. What are the odds of your ballot changing anything significant? It needs to stand as a form of civic obligation.
On which note: although I strongly agreed with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, said about devolution and localism, I must take issue with the verb that she used when she talked about “denying” the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. It was only a couple of weeks ago in this very seat that I heard voices from every Bench speaking in favour of raising the age of consent for Botox treatment from 16 to 18. On every side of the House noble Lords said that it was just bringing it in line with all the other legislation that we have—you cannot get a tattoo until you are 18, you cannot use a sunbed until you are 18, you cannot buy a bottle of wine or a knife. Are we seriously saying that people should not be treated as legal adults in all those other respects but should, through the ballot box, be allowed to circumscribe the liberty and property of their fellow citizens? Let people grow up to the right to vote and treat the ballot with a little more seriousness and ceremoniousness, as well as a bit more security. That is how you will get people to value the franchise that they exercise.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice)
I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, may have a more reliable connection now, so let us come back to him.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful, and I hope that the gremlins have gone now. As I was saying, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser and Lady Merron, on their maiden speeches. Alas, my comments may disabuse them that they have entered a Chamber free of voices seeking new relationships with the nations of these islands.
The Queen’s Speech exemplified these issues. The Speech failed to differentiate between legislation that applies to England, such as health and education, or to England and Wales, such as the police Bill, and those with UK-wide force, such as the National Insurance Contributions Bill. Was this because the Government intend to take back devolved powers in those matters? Probably not—it is just the “imperial condescension” to which the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, referred, that Westminster fails to accept that the United Kingdom is a multi-legislature state.
In health, education and many other matters, Wales and Scotland currently enjoy legislative independence, but that seems to have been ignored in presenting measures such as the health and care Bill, the higher education Bill, the Environment Bill and other matters. The reality is that these Bills all deal with competencies that are fully or partly devolved to Wales and Scotland. Will the Minister clarify whether those Bills will apply fully or partly to Wales or to Scotland, or are they mainly, or totally, measures applicable only in England? Will he confirm, if they do apply to Wales or Scotland, that the UK Government have discussed their intentions with Welsh and Scottish Ministers and secured their prior agreement?
The relationship between our four nations was, until Brexit, evolving on a pragmatic basis. Because of the differing history and priorities, devolution was a process which took different paths in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Brexit, however, challenged the devolved patterns of government in relation to repatriated powers and undermined the delicate constitutional balance developed over three decades in Northern Ireland. So it is little wonder that in the recent elections in Wales and Scotland, independence was a central issue. Plaid Cymru’s leader, Adam Price, campaigned primarily on independence and increased the number of Plaid seats. Some Labour candidates also indicated sympathy for Welsh independence. The Welsh Labour leader, Mark Drakeford, secured a notable victory, reflecting the voters’ belief that he had handled the Covid crisis far better than had Boris Johnson. Mr Drakeford is not independence-minded, but he acknowledged that if Scotland becomes an independent nation Welsh Labour will have to reconsider its position.
Last Thursday, as the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, mentioned, parties which advocated scrapping the Senedd lost all their seats, because most Welsh voters prefer the way we are governed by our own Senedd to the way in which Westminster governs Wales. Today, no one denies that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have the right to self-determination, as was recognised in Section 1 of the Wales Act 2017 and stated explicitly by Michael Gove last Sunday. The question is whether we should take up the option of independence in the face of the post-Brexit power grabs by Westminster and increasing English nationalism, as seen most crassly in the Government sending gunboats to Jersey.
If this is Westminster’s approach, it is no wonder that Scotland elected a Parliament with an overall independence-seeking majority and that independence is emerging as a major issue in Wales. Instead of sneering at independence-supporting trends in Wales and Scotland, the Government should ask themselves why this is happening. Is the independence issue here to stay? If so, what models of it might be countenanced?
Whatever form of independence is espoused by Scotland or Wales, both nations will still have a British dimension, just as the Scandinavian nations have a Nordic dimension. We shall still be partners sharing the same island, with the Queen as head of state. We would wish to remain in the Commonwealth, a culturally diverse, voluntary association of nations. Our model of independence recognises a degree of interdependence and the essential free movement of people between Wales and England, as there is between the south and north of Ireland.
Instead of seething with indignation at each other through clenched teeth, would it not be more sensible to start exploring these options? Might there be models of confederalism which facilitate the degree of independence that each nation seeks with a mutual acceptance of the need for intergovernmental models of co-operation in those matters that are best suited to our mutual needs, and to geographic and economic reality? Such mutual issues might well include: the sharing of a currency and an independent central bank; the co-ordination of environmental initiatives and of railway services; and those aspects of defence policy which relate to the protection of these islands.
My appeal is for this Chamber to address these issues positively, across party divides. That is a discussion in which I and my party are more than ready to participate, though I suspect that such an approach may not always be shared in all corners of this House. The failure of the Queen’s Speech to relate appropriately to legislative diversity within these islands is a manifestation of that difficulty.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
I thank my noble friend Lady Merron for an insightful and discerning maiden speech. I am sure that her background of public service will permeate every aspect of her future work in your Lordships’ House. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie.
The theme of the gracious Speech may have been levelling up, but this Government’s actions to date can more accurately be described as an all-too-characteristic stitch-up. How else can the Minister explain this Government’s decision to award top-tier funding to relatively affluent Tory-held areas at the expense of some of the poorest places, which have been pushed to the back of the queue for investment? Does not the Chancellor’s approach to prioritising funding for the levelling-up fund show that if you vote Conservative, your money will go to wealthy areas? How can this Government claim to fix regional imbalances when this fund pits regions and nations against one another?
The fund bypasses the devolution settlement by directly allocating funding for regional and local development in Wales, directly counter to the expressed position of the Senedd and directly contrary to what was announced at the spending review, when the Government said the £4 billion commitment for England
“will attract up to £0.8 billion for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the usual way”.
This is the UK Government taking funding that would previously have been allocated to Wales to spend in line with the priorities that the elected Senedd—Welsh Labour resoundingly re-elected by the people of Wales last Thursday—has identified. This means decisions made by Whitehall departments with no history of delivering projects within Wales, no record of working with communities in Wales and no understanding of the priorities of those communities. Does Whitehall know the massive economic, cultural and social differences between the two Newports that we have in Wales, for example?
The UK Government are taking decisions on devolved matters in Wales without being answerable to the people of Wales. Furthermore, the £800 million spread over four financial years represents little more than £50 million each year for Welsh projects—a fraction of the funding that Wales has lost as a result of no longer having access to structural funds.
The UK Government’s fixation with undermining democratic devolution is driving a cynical attempt at rebranding existing spending as new and rolling back progress on a model of national and regional development by democratically elected Governments and councils across the United Kingdom, and thus levelling down. This Conservative Government have an appalling record on providing Wales with even a fair share of UK spending, let alone the kind of funding needed to level up. The Welsh Government’s budget, set by the Treasury, is still lower per head in real terms than it was in 2010.
Wales has a collaborative approach where our local authorities work in partnership with Welsh government, as they did magnificently with track and trace and as they have done to produce a framework for regional investment. It is very concerning that we will now see a centralised, Whitehall-led, ad hoc approach instead of a strategic Welsh approach, while it appears that the comprehensive review of the UK’s constitutional structures promised in the 2019 Queen’s Speeches—a manifesto commitment —has now been delayed indefinitely.
In the other aspects of the Government’s intentions, the abject failure to deal with the problem of social care will have financial implications for Wales even though it is a devolved policy. In terms of the subsidy control Bill, “state aid” was in the view of the Welsh Government a devolved competence, but this was reversed by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. We want a transparent set of rules for subsidy control which are independently enforced and apply equally to the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. The system must also recognise structural economic weakness in some regions and allow for higher intensity of business support in such regions as west Wales and the valleys, as was the case under the previous EU regime. If the Minister wishes to refer to it, I still have a copy of the “Assisted Areas” map in my office.
We see the electoral integrity Bill as being about voter suppression and curbing the independence of the Electoral Commission. The Welsh Government will shortly publish a Green Paper on electoral issues which will move in a very different direction: making it easier to vote by post; introducing early voting; and building on what is already done to enfranchise people legally resident in Wales, regardless of nationality. We will oppose any suggestion to copy the UK Government’s intention of extending the franchise to all UK citizens resident overseas. What if Westminster just decided to scrap the electoral system in Wales and Scotland?
There is a clear omission of an employment rights Bill. This increases the risk of the UK Government’s international trade policy undermining our current standards, despite all the promises made during the Brexit negotiations.
Devolution received an overwhelming vote of confidence from the people of Wales last week. The role of the national Government of Wales, and that of local government as a partner in delivering Wales’s national vision, must be respected.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baronesses on their maiden speeches today, which indicate that there will be significant contributions from both of them in the days ahead.
On the proposal for voter ID, my noble friend the Minister referred to the fact that, in Northern Ireland, this system, or variations of it, have been in force for some 35 years, with photo ID being introduced in the early noughties. I have listened to a number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses today, and indeed before today’s speeches, expressing concern and the view that this is suppressing, or could suppress, people’s ability to vote. I have to say that our experience over many years does not support that concern. Indeed, while I do not quite agree with my noble friend Lord Hannan, he nevertheless makes some useful points.
In addition, national insurance numbers are used on the application form, not only driving licences and passports. To deal with people who do not possess these—and quite a number of people do not—we introduced an electoral identity card, which is issued by the Electoral Office. Indeed, to reach out to people, it physically took vehicles round housing estates and areas to ensure that people could get photographs taken and have access to these cards. If my noble friend wishes to talk to some of us who have been using the system for many years, we would be only too happy to help.
It is not all perfect; there are several aspects of the voting system that are open to abuse. We found that postal voting was open to abuse. For many years, to get a postal vote here, you had to make an application and have a witness sign the forms to ensure that it was in fact bona fide. The other area is proxy voting; people are still abusing that. People ask what evidence there is to support this, but I would point out that it is almost a hidden crime, in that it is very hard to spot. If my noble friend wishes to pursue this with some of us, we would be very happy to help. I am more concerned about people abroad voting. That requires a lot of close scrutiny before we sign it off into law.
The other point I want to make is about devolution generally in the UK. Whitehall has had a “devolve and forget” policy; it devolves power and then leaves it, and there is then no link between it and what happens. I described it as creating giant ATMs in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh—people do not have any idea where the money comes from. I say to my noble friend that it might be useful if, annually—or whatever period was felt appropriate—a leaflet or something online is produced so that people can see where the cash comes from for the devolved regions. You do not have to make a ceremony of it, but I think people need to understand the arithmetic of the UK. That would be helpful.
With regard to the points from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, about new constitutional proposals, I do not necessarily accept everything that his group has produced but at least they have been thinking. It is perfectly clear that the system as it functions at the moment is not working. For our colleagues in Scotland, even though the electorate is virtually evenly divided, it is clear that money is not going to be the only issue. There are also issues of values, identity and so on, which need to be looked at carefully. The constitution needs to change, but in a way that does not make matters worse, as in some cases devolution did, particularly in Scotland.
I support devolution but I believe that this Parliament must understand what is happening and be sufficiently flexible to adjust to ensure that our union survives. I fear that people might be carried away by rhetoric and regret a decision to leave the United Kingdom at a future point.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I had planned this afternoon to speak about the union, as so many noble Lords have already. But when I heard my noble friend Lord Forsyth speak so eloquently, as he normally does, and the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, I changed my mind. I am also looking forward to the speech of my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton, who was such a distinguished Secretary of State, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on a very fine and eloquent maiden speech.
All this led me to decide to speak on your Lordships’ House, and to make two particular points. I should also add, regarding the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—I am sorry that he is no longer in his place, but I shall make the point again when we debate his Bill—that those of us who stand in this House as elected hereditary Peers are waiting for stage 2 of reform when of course by-elections, and indeed hereditary Peers, will all go. So there is no need for him to have so much urgency on his Bill.
I first want to discuss the purpose of this House, which I believe is to revise and scrutinise, to debate great matters of the day and to be informed through our very good committee structure. Indeed, our role is best when we are complementing the House of Commons, rather than simply opposing it. Yet in recent years you can tell that we are increasingly becoming a House of opposition—a House that simply opposes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said something with which I completely agree: a good Opposition should hold a Government to account. I am enormously in favour of that, and I am also in favour of the Government listening carefully to what your Lordships have to say. I am also very much in favour of Ministers being brought to the Dispatch Box and being obliged to answer questions. But it is now a cause for some celebration when the Government win a vote in the House of Lords.
There is a complaint that the Government too rarely listen to your Lordships, but I contend that more amendments are accepted in Committee and by negotiation than by the blunt instrument of a vote to defeat the Government. In the last Session, which was the first of this Parliament, just after a winning general election and manifesto, the Government were defeated in over 55% of all votes. That is an average—on some Bills, they were defeated considerably more. It was some 96 occasions, which is a record, probably, since the 1970s. On this, you can hardly blame the Government wanting to add to the size of the Conservative Benches.
To those who complain about the size of the House, since January 2020, there have been 110 Divisions in which over 500 Peers have voted—we have never seen as many as 600 voting during that period. Apart from one, these votes were all done remotely. In the 20 years from 1999 to 2019, there were only 30 Divisions with over 500 Peers voting, and 18 of those were on Brexit. I cannot see that leading to a conclusion that the House is overcrowded.
Another interesting factor at play—this is my second point—is the role of the Cross Benches, who consistently vote against the Government. Take last month, April 2021: in only one vote out of 17 did the Cross Benches support the Government, and even then only just, by 38 to 30. Overall, the Cross Benches cast 1,016 votes against the Government and only 242 in favour.
I have to echo the late Lord Richard, who was Leader of the Opposition in the 1990s. At that time, he complained that the independent Cross-Benchers continually voted, independently, in favour of the Conservative Government. I think we can all agree that the exact opposite is true today. After such a consistent time of losing votes like this, the Government, it will surprise nobody to hear, will lose patience.
These are not problems of legislation; they are issues for your Lordships to consider about why we are all here, losing sight of what I believe the House is for. We should, of course, be confident in our role and our constitutional position as laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, but as we carry out our voting duties I ask noble Lords to carefully remember that, often, less is more.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
It has been a great pleasure to hear two such admirable maiden speeches, and it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—our lost Leader—who clearly has not lost his panache. I would simply say in response to his attack on the Cross Bench that there is no Cross-Bench line and no Cross-Bench Whip. Cross-Benchers tend to listen to the arguments, and it is conceivable that they may vote on the merits. There are a number of explanations for a number of government losses in recent votes; it may have something to do with the merits of the issues.
What I want to talk about is Scotland. Sixty-two of the 73 constituency Members of the Scottish Parliament that convene today come in SNP colours. That would equate to 550 seats in the House of Commons. If Mr Johnson had done as well in 2019, his majority today would be 450. Of course, the balancing of this system has done its job and the SNP falls one short of a majority, but to call the election a setback for Mrs Sturgeon, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, came quite close to doing, would be a little absurd. Like it or not, by winning a fourth consecutive term, the SNP Government are now the voice of Scotland, with the right to be heard. I do wish we could hear them in this House.
It would be no less absurd to assert, as Mr Johnson regularly did until recently, that the UK Government and this Parliament could flatly refuse a Section 30 order permitting an independence referendum should it again be sought. The union in 1707 was by consent, not coercion, and the best way of boosting the independence cause in Scotland would be to deny the right of the Scottish people to make a democratic decision. I am very torn about all this. My working life was spent in UK government service. I was privileged to head the Diplomatic Service of the United Kingdom. I liked having three identities and three citizenships—Scottish, British and European. I deeply regret losing one; I do not want to lose another.
In 2014, when Mr Salmond claimed that an independent Scotland could slip easily and instantly into the EU, I disagreed, pointing out that a period outside and an accession negotiation would be inevitable, and the terms obtained from outside inevitably less favourable than those Margaret Thatcher and John Major had secured from inside. The prospect of temporary exile from the EU may have dissuaded some Scots from voting to leave the UK in 2014. In 2016, the Scots voted by a larger majority against leaving the EU, only to be dragged out against their will, which might make some of them now regret and change their 2014 votes. It is a material change of circumstances, with leaving the UK now seeming the only route back to the EU.
But probably a bigger vote-changer in Scotland is the changed way the London Government have handled Scotland—and Wales and Northern Ireland. We have a Prime Minister who calls devolution a disaster. Seen through Scottish eyes, Whitehall risks seeming not a United Kingdom Government but an English Government, deaf to Scottish concerns. It was a very bad mistake when, on the morning after the 2014 referendum, Mr Cameron chose not to bind up the wounds but instead to promulgate EVEL—English votes for English laws. The promise to write the Sewel convention into law was honoured only in form without binding effect. Brushing aside Mrs Sturgeon’s White Paper and going for the hardest of Brexits, ignoring how much free movement meant for Scottish demography and the Scottish university, research and financial communities, Mr Johnson added insult to injury. Then came the internal market Act, driving a coach and horses through the devolution settlement—taking back control, but for England.
Trust, once lost, is not easily rebuilt. Maybe Mr Johnson will now try. I hope so. Parity of esteem and an end to gratuitous and patronising attacks on Scotland, Scotland’s elected Government and their mandate would be a start. But the key point is that if the union is to survive, its Government—the union Government, the Government of the four nations—must stop behaving like English nationalists. Precisely because they now have so few seats outside England, and no Macmillans or Douglas-Homes in their ranks, they must be seen to be alive to Scottish concerns. Why does Rhode Island have as many senators as California, and why did the EU adopt qualified majority voting? It was to give the views of smaller member states greater weight. Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the highest wisdom. Condescendingly throwing in a couple of freeports and some levelling up largesse will not take the trick.
As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, it is 18 months since the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, found
“broad consensus … that the UK’s intergovernmental relations machinery is not fit for purpose”,
but one heard nothing in the Queen’s Speech or from the Minister today about concrete steps to put that right. What is needed is genuine decision-sharing, which probably requires the permanent decision-taking forum for which Gordon Brown has called. Who knows whether 1707 can survive? What is certain is it will not unless Scots want it to, and they probably will not unless London rediscovers a United Kingdom mindset. Of course, for Scots, the economic hit from the break-up would be far greater even than that of Brexit, but Mr Johnson proved in 2016 that heart can overrule head. It could happen again. It is up to him now.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
The Bills contained in this programme will no doubt receive the thorough and robust scrutiny of this House, but as we pass them we will no doubt be delegating dozens of new powers to government and government Ministers, because the volume of secondary legislation has grown enormously in recent decades. The process of EU exit and Covid-related emergency law has added to that.
Many reports and debates in recent times have drawn attention to the shortcomings of both Houses when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation, and that includes the excellent report published today by our Constitution Committee. Too often, the very good work carried out by the staff and the members of the Secondary Legislation Committee and the Joint Committee for Statutory Instruments passes by the House because of procedures that we have ourselves established and agreed. This House has a duty to carry out effective scrutiny, as well a responsibility to ensure that the legitimate business of government can be carried out.
But I am not alone in feeling that, increasingly, the Government are not carrying out their side of the bargain. We have to give this some thought. The Government are increasingly using secondary legislation for significant policy changes that ought to be in primary legislation, and would have been in past years. In its 52nd report, the Secondary Legislation Committee cited changes to the Town and Country Planning Act that were fundamental to our planning system and ought to have been brought forward in a Bill.
In recent years, we have also seen a growth in statutory guidance, which receives virtually no parliamentary scrutiny at all. Again, the SLSC cited the recent grass and heather burning regulations, which were noted because the instrument was passed even though all the detail was in statutory guidance which had not even been published at that point. So the Government are getting three bites of the cherry: the Act itself, the secondary legislation and then the statutory guidance. In effect, this allows for constant post hoc changes to the law, with no parliamentary scrutiny.
These trends have accelerated rapidly during the pandemic. We have taken a pragmatic view that the public health emergency justifies some sacrifice of parliamentary scrutiny, but I think the Government have now taken this too far. The Constitution Committee report highlights that 424 Covid-related SIs have been laid. These include fines of up to £10,000, lockdowns, business closures and quarantines. Whatever position you take on those issues, surely they deserve timely and effective scrutiny—yet 397 of those SIs were either made affirmative or made negative. In other words, they take effect before any scrutiny has taken place, and Parliament can only act retrospectively. The SLSC reported that two came into force before they had even been laid. The Government argue that time pressures in the pandemic make this necessary but, in the case of face coverings, the policy had been trailed for weeks, so it is very hard to see why the regulations in draft could not have been published.
The scheduling of SI debates in both Houses means that they are quite often completely superseded by the time we ever get to debate them. The pressure of work in departments is leading to errors and non-compliance with agreed processes. Preliminary figures from the JCSI show that it reported 194 instruments on 248 separate grounds, including defective drafting and doubtful vires.
We see increasingly important policy announcements being made at press conferences; they get reported in the media and become firmly planted in the public consciousness. When the regulations appear, they are often far less draconian than the announcement but, as a result, there is widespread confusion about what the Government see as desirable and what they see as mandatory. It is not just the public but public authorities themselves—the enforcement authorities—that are struggling with this, as reported by the Human Rights Committee. The Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services said that the difficulty for police officers was made much worse by widespread confusion about the status of government announcements and the law. A Crown Prosecution Service review found that 27% of cases had been incorrectly charged, and no doubt many people have paid penalties rather than go to court. This is grossly unjust. It is a drain on our criminal justice system and very unhelpful to maintaining trust in the police force.
There are times when the state has to control what individuals do, but surely it must be through properly enacted legislation that is thoroughly scrutinised and fairly enforced.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations on both confident maiden speeches today. I note that in the gracious Speech two days ago several references were made to strengthening the ties and integrity of the union, making the United Kingdom stronger, healthier and more prosperous than before. The pandemic and the period that follows it will give us a unique opportunity to ask what kind of a society we want to be and what changes we need to make for our own good and, more importantly, for that of future generations. I understand the desire to return to greater freedoms, but we must resist going back to how things were. Instead, we must plan for a better future.
It is encouraging to hear that the Government intend to achieve this strengthening by levelling up opportunities across all parts of the United Kingdom and within each of our four nations. Levelling up has become something of a new watchword in political circles and appears as a welcome driver for many of the intentions outlined in the gracious Speech, seeking to remove those inequalities within our culture that prevent all people and communities from reaching their God-given potential and calling. The pandemic has brought to the surface a number of issues which have been hidden under the radar for far too long and not given the attention they deserve.
Improving the national infrastructure to strengthen transportation and economic ties will go only so far in encouraging better unity. The north-west, like other parts of England, often feels like another part of the world. I know of a recent mayor in a north-west town who has never visited London and has no desire to do so, and of a competent PA in her 50s, again in the north-west, who had visited London only once—in her school years—before having to attend a training session recently. It is a problem almost universally acknowledged that, despite moves to share power and decision-making, government is too London-centric and, as a result, appears and feels divorced from the economic, social and political realities of life in other parts of the UK. This has led to the elevation of mayoral roles in some regions in England. Imaginative work is required to create unity within each of our four separate nations.
The union of the United Kingdom continues to be challenged on many fronts—not only at a geographical level but also ideologically, as was seen in the divisions over Brexit and in recent elections. Levelling up across the union and within the nations of the union is a key strategy which is relevant to many of the proposals in Tuesday’s gracious Speech. Following both Brexit and the pandemic, the country needs a time of reflection and leaders who will create a desire for a consensus within our fragile union about the way ahead—a leadership that serves. There was a leader 2,000 years ago who came to a sticky end but who has millions of followers today, and he said he came not to be served but to serve.
Diversity within the family of the United Kingdom is something to celebrate and not remove. The current strong diversity agenda argues not just for the value of retaining difference but for the importance of celebrating it. A loss of one part affects the whole. On that basis, there is an argument for decisions about independence and devolution being taken by all parts and not just one. There is even a question of whether more than a simple majority would be wise in such major decisions. Surely this gives hope that there is room for a carefully crafted and increased sharing of responsibility within the four nations of the union without total separation.
The pandemic has one other vital lesson to teach our union. The heroism of many, the brilliance of science and the wonderful sense of community spirit have taught us that we need each other and that we are stronger together. But we have other global crises to face: climate change, poverty, injustice, and freedom of expression and belief. As the UK, we can face some of these challenges in a devolved fashion, but we will have a far better chance of mitigating their impact if we co-operate and support each other. In a crisis, strong family bonds are essential. I commend the intention of strengthening the ties and integrity of our union by levelling up opportunity and providing good sharing of responsibility without total separation.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I follow the diversity theme of the right reverend Prelate and join in welcoming and congratulating our two maiden speakers.
A week ago—it seems a long time ago now—we had elections in Great Britain. I personally sought solace in turning again and again to the Welsh results. But, in retrospect, the big story from the elections may not be the performance of the parties but what the polls revealed about the deepening diversity in our country. Of course, the polls were influenced by the pandemic, and the incumbency factor played a role, but it does only continue a trend. The polls in Scotland and the north-east dominated the headlines; by contrast, Wales was relatively neglected. Obviously, the pressure for independence in Wales is much less than it is in Scotland, but it has doubled to just about one-third over the past seven years. However, the different national and regional responses are not reflected in this Queen’s Speech.
The Prime Minister promised a levelling-up process. The so-called red-wall seats were addressed, with more public money and more decentralised government departments. New assurances were given, and it is hoped by the Government that the same tactics will now succeed in Scotland. However, they ignore the problem of identity, which in my judgment goes much deeper. It is not just about increasing the flow of public money from the south to the north; it is not even about looking for greater flows from the south to the west, although that is of course important.
In that context, I invite your Lordships to examine the indices of poverty and deprivation in the nations and regions as a whole. In that examination, your Lordships will see that Wales is worse off than the north-east and certainly far worse off than Scotland. The facts speak for themselves. Wales has a lower GDP per head than any other country or region of the UK, the lowest growth rate of any region in the UK, the lowest proportion of taxpayers in the additional and higher rates, and the joint-highest proportion of low-income households. It is also the poorest region in terms of gross household disposable income per head. So much for levelling up. Should we shout louder? Should we have more marginal seats to be addressed? It is not just about the money side of things. Wales deserves better. It should not be taken for granted by a Prime Minister who plays for time in Scotland and has increased centralisation by taking to Whitehall powers and money that were repatriated from Brussels.
However, resources are not everything. The Prime Minister, an English nationalist to the core, ignores the problems of identity. Wales has clearly taken up the mantle of Welsh identity and the SNP dominates in Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, emphasised. Are we in the UK now sleep-walking into a quasi-federal state without the constitutional institutions and safeguards that support it? Today’s debate has been set aside for the question of our constitution and the union, but in fact says little of relevance about either. The Minister mentioned only electoral reform and judicial review.
Her Majesty said:
“My Government will strengthen and renew democracy”
and
“promote the strength and integrity of the union.”
That was wholly vacuous and without specific proposals. If the Prime Minister wishes to save the union, he must adopt a more imaginative and sensitive approach. He should let the former European Union money flow directly to the devolved Administrations. He should consider new powers of devolution, such as those in the Welsh Labour manifesto. He should open the debate on the nature and composition of your Lordships’ House. He should seek to be more responsive to the nations and regions, perhaps through direct or indirect elections, and take note of what the latest Lord Speaker’s committee said about his ignoring the Burns report. Most importantly, beyond calling a meeting of the leaders to discuss the results of the pandemic, which is in itself welcome—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can I ask the noble Lord to wind up, please?
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
The Prime Minister should convene a meeting of all the leaders on the constitutional problem. He should respond to what the polls have revealed, which reflects the reality of the UK today.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join others in offering warm congratulations to the noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser and Lady Merron, on their maiden speeches. It is a pleasure to follow a fellow ex-chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and a fellow Welshman.
Trying to halt Scottish independence and maintain the union by infrastructure largesse—seemingly partially bypassing the Edinburgh Government in the process—appears to be the current policy thrust. It will fail and, on the contrary, will greatly strengthen the support for departure. The same is bound to go for Wales. Scotland is a proud, ancient and supremely talented nation with an amazing world cultural footprint. For over three centuries it has played a leading part in the most successful marriage or alliance between nations ever recorded, whether we are talking about the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution or—like it or loathe it—the largest empire in history.
Scotland rightly seeks a voice on the international stage and in the comity of nations commensurate with its influence and potential. Policymakers in London do not always seem to understand this. The British diplomatic establishment, which prides itself on its deep knowledge of 160 or more nations around the world, has tended to forget the one right next door. This is one place where we really do want to see a dedicated union board member of the kind proposed by my right honourable friend Michael Gove; it is urgently needed.
Of course, the arguments for staying close to the rest of the United Kingdom seem blindingly obvious to many of us on both economic and security grounds, but those who think that this will prevail against nationalist and independence emotions are ignoring history, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, made out in her crystal-clear speech. The economics of a trade break with England may seem crazy. The world is now an increasingly dangerous place for small nations, as many have found out to their cost. Economic infiltration from Russia or China is widespread, and lethal cyber intrusion and hacking can literally switch a nation off. Edinburgh already seems to be toying dangerously with deals with China, so we hear.
To counter these powerful and dangerous trends, first, we need to press the SNP far harder than we have so far about what it really means by independence beyond just disliking the UK. Does it want a separate republic, as some are calling for, or the continuation of a joint monarchy and constitution, presumably including currency and Armed Forces? Does it want Commonwealth membership, EU membership or both?
Secondly, Scotland must be offered a place in a better union than the one it is part of now. That is the new reality, and the constitutional framework of our whole nation is going to have to adapt and evolve to reflect it. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, is right that change on this front has to come, and could well affect your Lordships’ House fundamentally. However, it needs to be gradual and happen step by step. Attempting a new settlement in one fell swoop would be fatal. A start in this House would be much better scrutiny of government by strengthening both the resources and the powers of our committee system, as many of your Lordships have urged.
Technology can be our friend in building a better union, as the absolutely excellent Dunlop report recommends; I greatly look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, shortly. A far more intimate, practical, continuous and daily—indeed, hourly—two-way contact between Westminster and Whitehall and the devolved Governments, peoples and businesses is now fully possible thanks to the miracles of connectivity and big data. A truly innovative and modern union, unlike any traditional federal structure anywhere else in the world, based on deep respect and fully sensitive to national feelings, can be steadily devised and assembled if we are clever.
I detect that inside the Executive and the English Civil Service there is now, belatedly, some acknowledgement of that fact. Of course, the question arises as to whether Scotland, like Northern Ireland, should have a separate civil service. I always found the Northern Ireland Civil Service absolutely superb to work with, even under the most challenging conditions. But meanwhile, here in both Houses of this union Parliament, we will also have to make major adaptations. If we are not to face grievous harm and a dark, dangerous and divided future, this will need to begin very soon indeed. There is no “normal” after the pandemic to which to return.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the maiden speeches that were delivered a short time ago in your Lordships’ House.
In the Speech from the Throne a few days ago there were two references to Northern Ireland:
“Measures will be brought forward to strengthen devolved Government in Northern Ireland”—
and then comes the rather telling phrase—
“and address the legacy of the past.”
The fact that those two sentiments are contained in close proximity is something of which I believe I have an obligation to remind your Lordships’ House in today’s debate.
First, on “strengthening devolution”, when devolution became a reality it was greeted throughout the western world as a wonderful experiment: a wonderful example of what was possible, which might one day be repeated across the globe in various segments. Devolution grew. It matured in many aspects but it taught us many lessons in others. Northern Ireland is part of that story, because there are good and bad aspects.
On the positive aspects, devolution for Northern Ireland has given a breath of fresh air to a new generation who can feel that we have an identity which will not be taken away by events further afield. It has given to Northern Ireland the stability to say that it is part of a bigger union. However, there have been detrimental effects. I have to say, with some degree of regret, that there is a widespread feeling in Northern Ireland at the moment that central government is somewhat removed from the realities of devolution. It is somehow removed because the 24-hour visit by statesmen from London when we are in need is so quickly forgotten, not in Northern Ireland but in London. There is a growing apprehension that the real needs of the small Province in the north-east corner of Ireland are not being acutely felt, despite what we welcome in terms of outreach to meet those needs. Therefore my plea is that, when we are looking at developing and increasing the power of devolution in Northern Ireland, Her Majesty’s Government take seriously the fact that there is much more to that relationship than simply structures. There has to be trust, collegiality and understanding.
On the second phrase, that the Government will attempt to address the legacy question, I speak with genuine personal feeling on this subject for many reasons. First, my career as the archbishop took place in the midst of the Troubles; I will take to my grave my memories. But secondly, I was part of the team which made the first attempt to address the legacy all those years ago. Together with Denis Bradley, we tried to give a formula which would in fact address the legacy. Since then, I have lost count of the number of times that institutions, Ministers and indeed Governments have come to say, “This is the answer to your legacy”, and yet, a few days ago, a coroner announced that 10 people shot during the Troubles were innocent—10 lives. They were from one section of the community, but 10 people who will never be forgotten by their family and relatives. To that I would add the numerous lives that have been lost on both sides, and I simply make this plea: no matter what the plans may be to address legacy—we have not had them disclosed—please be careful. Please think before you act, in particular about suggestions that would in fact push us further back rather than giving us hope to move forward.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
My Lords, today’s debate is billed as being on “The Constitution and the Union”. That should be “The Constitution, including the Union”. We should not see the union as some discrete issue. Part of the problem of the past century has been treating parts of the United Kingdom as somehow separate, of treating Northern Ireland as a quasi-state and leaving it to its own devices. We need to be looking more holistically at our constitution. The way to promote the union and to ensure that we remain a union is not to promise more funding or devolution of powers. That is to play into the hands of those who favour independence. We should not be in response mode, nor should we misinterpret why people wish to stay in the union.
In 2014, when an opinion poll suggested that there might be a majority in the referendum for Scotland becoming independent, all three party leaders went to Scotland and promised a greater devolution of powers if electors voted to stay in the union. When there was a majority to stay in the union, the Government delivered on that promise. Then, as now, the Government appeared to assume a causal relationship. There is no evidence that there was one. Survey data revealed that those who voted for Scotland to remain in the union did so for several different reasons; that of wanting more devolution hardly registered.
If we are to maintain the union, we need to be on the front foot, making the case for the union, not on the back foot, making promises in response to demands from those who want independence. I remind the House of the Constitution Committee’s excellent report The Union and Devolution, published in 2016. It noted the ad hoc way in which power has been devolved. As it reported:
“This haphazard approach to the UK’s constitution, in which power has been devolved without any counter-balancing steps to protect the Union, recently culminated in an existential threat in the form of a referendum on Scottish independence. An inattentive approach to the integrity of the Union cannot continue.”
We need to be making the case for the union in all parts of the United Kingdom. The attempts to keep Scotland in the union have exacerbated the English question. The Government should be to the fore in trumpeting the benefits of the union—one constitutional entity under the Crown. As my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart was saying, the whole is far greater than the sum of the parts. The case also needs to be made for moving away from what has been characterised as a grace-and-favour approach to the devolved nations and adopting one of mutual esteem and participation. I welcome especially the report of my noble friend Lord Dunlop. We need not more legislation but an attitude shift on the part of government.
In the short time available, I cannot cover all the constitutional measures in the gracious Speech, but I want to make one point about the constitution. As we have heard, there will be a Bill to replace the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. That Act is generally unloved and was the product of a rushed attempt to deal with a particular problem. It was agreed by negotiators who were not necessarily experts in constitutional matters. As the Constitution Committee noted, the policy behind it
“shows little sign of being developed with constitutional principles in mind.”
Both the Government and Opposition are committed to replacing the Act. As we have seen with the discussion on the Government’s draft Bill and as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, indicated, putting the situation back to what it was before September 2011 is not a straightforward task.
The 2011 Act was one of several constitutional measures over recent decades. They have been notable for their number as well as for being disparate and discrete. We need to be wary of rushing in with more. I have made the case before that we need to stand back and make sense of where we are before we embark on further constitutional change. We should not be talking of restoring balances without being clear as to what the existing balance is and should be. Change should be the result of considered reflection and, for a Conservative Government, grounded in a Conservative narrative for democracy. We need to avoid repeating the mistakes of those responsible for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
We need to stand back and understand the nature and value of our constitutional arrangements and make the case for those arrangements. We need to ensure that we do not lose the value of what we have. Once lost, it is difficult, if not impossible, to recreate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that we try and keep to the five minutes advisory time. If not, we are going to run extremely late in this debate.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to both noble Baronesses, the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and my former colleague as a Member of Parliament, my noble friend Lady Merron, on their inspiring maiden speeches.
In his opening speech, I was also pleased to hear the Minister speak of his deep attachment to our union and the UK family. Those sentiments have been echoed by many powerful speeches. I was surprised, however, that he repeated the incorrect claim that the European referendum was the biggest democratic exercise in our history. That is becoming a bit of a hoary old chestnut, given that the figures clearly show that it was not. The 1992 general election saw more votes cast, when the population was actually smaller than it is now and there was a higher turnout. Turnout was also higher at some other previous general elections. I ask the Minister to ensure that that government claim is not repeated. It would be good, too, if the Government remembered that the referendum result was close and not pretend that it was an overwhelming victory. That is insulting and insensitive to Scotland, Northern Ireland and, indeed, many communities across England and Wales.
I want to say something about the experience of Covid in the light of our devolution settlement. I very much respect our devolution settlement, but I do not understand why there could not have been better co-ordination and more joint action and joint statements across the UK. I have not, obviously, been part of the inside story, so I do not quite know why that situation occurred. I know that Wales felt excluded by Westminster from time to time, and I certainly pay tribute to the way in which First Minister Mark Drakeford has performed calmly and impressively throughout. I imagine, too, that Nicola Sturgeon’s obvious dislike of doing anything at a UK level probably has not helped co-ordination. However, for those of us living near the borders of the UK’s nations, the situation causes a lot of difficulty. For example, the recent announcement on international travel at first applied only to England. Yet for many of us in the border area between England and Scotland, the most convenient airport is Edinburgh and we were left wondering whether we could travel. I urge better co-ordination in future and, if possible, that statements be made on the same day regarding the position of different parts of the UK, so that we know how to plan and move forward.
My main concern, however, is about the part that referendums should play in our parliamentary democracy —an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred. While its immediate relevance arises from the SNP’s demand for another independence referendum, we need to reflect more widely and deeply on the issue. I do not know what has happened to the Government’s constitution, democracy and rights commission or the mini-commissions that were supposed to replace it. Perhaps the Minister can update us. However, the role of referendums is something that such a body or bodies should look at, including perhaps our House of Lords report on the subject a few years ago, when the Constitution Committee did some good work.
We need to think about difficult matters such as what issues are suitable for referendums, as well as issues such as thresholds and turnouts. On a crucial issue such as the future of the union, which affects us all, would it be acceptable for the outcome to be decided on a handful of votes? The noble Lord, Lord Caine, spoke about the nightmare scenario that that could cause. We also need to learn from the Brexit experience. People were asked to vote without any idea of what the details of the deal on the future relationship between the EU and the UK would look like.
That is particularly relevant in terms of Scotland because, if it had voted for separation in 2014, we would all still have been part of the EU, with a customs union, a single market and free movement. Now we are faced, particularly those living near the border in northern England, with a hard EU border on our doorstep that will make Brexit look like a walk in the park. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, said about that. For many of us, losing our European identity is painful, but how much more so would it be if our UK union broke up without most of us having any say whatever.
Finally, I support the fresh look at the constitution and our constitutional arrangements advocated by Gordon Brown. I hope that the Government will engage openly in such an approach.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I, too, offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Fraser on her excellent maiden speech, as well as to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on her poignant speech. Both noble Baronesses will, I am sure, make valuable contributions to this House. It is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, whose work on the Brexit legislation was so powerful.
I also welcome the content of the gracious Speech, subject to a few concerns. I fully support an electoral integrity Bill to ensure that voters must prove their identity, as already happens in Northern Ireland and many other countries. Waiting for a major electoral fraud, rather than acting to put prevention measures in place now, does not seem sensible. Anything that we can do to become closer to the operations of our devolved nations seems a sensible idea.
The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is also welcome, as the current system has failed, but we should carefully heed the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. We should be on guard against overriding the central feature of our constitution: that Ministers are answerable to Parliament.
On other matters, I support the aims of the online safety Bill, which must include proper protection for consumers against the increasing problems of investment or pension scams. UK Finance reported a 32% increase in 2020, with billions of pounds being lost. The pandemic has fostered lower interest rates, higher household savings and a rising use of online platforms. All this has been a gift to scammers who have increasingly moved online, with 85% of all fraud estimated by Action Fraud to be cyber-enabled in the year to June 2020. I hope the Bill will impose legal duties on internet giants to verify the legitimacy of the financial products that they advertise on their sites and to remove fake sites and scam adverts as soon as they are notified of such harmful content.
I welcome the reintroduction of the Environment Bill and the Government’s commitment to the green agenda, but I also hope noble Lords will ensure that this legislation contains proper measures to protect our waters and waterways from pollution with waste and sewage, imposing duties on firms to control their effluent release by law.
I have to express immense disappointment that the Prime Minister’s radical, sustainable proposals for long-term social care reform, which are so many years overdue, are still awaited. I had hoped that after the pandemic there would be urgent action to remedy the failures of our social care system. There is no silver bullet and the decisions are difficult, but if we count ourselves as a decent country then we must look after our most vulnerable. There is cross-party recognition of the urgency.
In the year to March 2021, our broken social care system saw overall numbers of deaths in those relying on domiciliary care increase in England by 50% year on year, while in Scotland it increased by 70%. This was not due to Covid; most of the excess deaths were from other causes, as many isolated elderly people fell through the cracks. Tens of thousands of people also died in care homes, highlighting the problem of a disjointed system. Care homes were used as an overflow service, discharging people without adequate PPE or resources to protect them and others around them.
We need a national system of contributions towards care costs. We must no longer tolerate a second-class system of social care, relative to health, which forces widows with dementia to pay their full costs while millionaires with cancer can have all their costs met by taxpayers.
Overall I welcome the Queen’s Speech, and I hope noble Lords will work together across the House to ensure that these measures are effective for the general public.
Lord Taverne (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to discuss democracy. Our democracy is in danger and very few Conservatives seem to care. It is in danger when we cannot trust our leaders and when voters cannot make fair judgments because government statements may be falsehoods.
In the most outspoken and undiplomatic language that I have ever heard, Sylvie Bermann, the former French Ambassador to London and an ardent anglophile, declared that our Prime Minister is “an inveterate liar”. Every Conservative MP and anyone who accepts that honesty is vital to democracy should read The Assault on Truth by Peter Oborne—as already mentioned, a conservative journalist who voted leave—which lists the catalogue of Johnson’s untruths and broken promises. In Johnson’s first job as a journalist on the Times, he was sacked for inventing stories. When he became an MP and a shadow spokesman, he was sacked for lying about an affair with a female colleague on the Spectator, a charge that he had vehemently denied as
“an inverted pyramid of piffle”.
However, his lack of concern for truth became a vital public concern once he was leader of the leave campaign and then of the Conservative Party. One untrue statement in particular may have influenced the results of the referendum. It was the claim that Turkey was about to enter the European Union, enabling millions of Turks to invade Britain. The claim was widely publicised and believed although there was no possibility of Turkey joining; several EU members had declared that they would veto its application, and Britain could have done so as well. On “Channel 4 News”, Michael Crick challenged Johnson about Vote Leave’s campaign material in the referendum. One poster featured a British passport depicted as an open door alongside the slogan:
“TURKEY (population 76 million) IS JOINING THE EU. Vote Leave”.
Crick suggested that that claim was absurd. Johnson twice stated:
“I didn’t say anything about Turkey in the referendum”.
Not only must he have known as leader what Vote Leave’s message was but in the week before the referendum Johnson, Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart—now the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart—had declared in a joint public letter that
“the only way to avoid having common borders with Turkey is to Vote Leave”.
Johnson solemnly pledged, as we have heard, that no British Prime Minister would ever countenance a border in the Irish Sea and that there would be no checks on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Both now exist. The DUP feels betrayed, Arlene Foster has lost her job and the survival of the peace agreement may well be threatened.
Perhaps the most dangerous threat to democracy, however, is Johnson’s assault on the independence of the judiciary. The Attorney-General, supposedly guardian of the rule of law, actually declared, presumably with the consent of her boss, that the courts should not be allowed to overrule politicians. She threatened to limit the powers of the Supreme Court. Why? Because it declared illegal Johnson’s attempt to prorogue Parliament. She has threatened to reduce the role of judicial review, one of the most important legal developments to control ultra vires actions by government. Indeed, there is an ominous talk of a Bill
“to defend the judiciary from being drawn into political questions”.
Nowadays, blind loyalty is what pays. When eminent Tories rebelled to rule out a no-deal Brexit they promptly had the Whip withdrawn. On the other hand, a loyal Johnsonite such as Priti Patel can breach the Ministerial Code with impunity even when an independent inquiry finds her guilty of bullying.
Whenever anyone questions Johnson’s integrity, the riposte is, “Look, he wins elections”. That is true, but perhaps we are nearing a tipping point. It may be the Electoral Commission’s investigation into who paid for the renovation of No. 10 or public reaction to the chumocracy and the awarding of lucrative contracts to friends and wealthy donors. The public may grow more intolerant of sleaze; a recent poll found that 37% already think that Johnson is corrupt. As a schoolboy, Johnson said that he would be king of the world. He may yet become the king of sleaze.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and Lady Merron, on their excellent maiden speeches and welcome them to the House. I welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech to strengthen and renew the constitution. There are many separate constitutional issues where renewal and strengthening are urgently needed.
I would like to address the outcome of the Scottish election last week and its implications. The First Minister claimed it to be a landslide and a mandate for a referendum. The landslide amounted to a gain for her party of one seat while the mandate, which she had said earlier would be triggered only by an overall majority, was now to be founded on the support of less than 32% of the Scottish electorate. She now claimed that that represented the democratic will of the Scottish people.
It is clear now that there is no case and no preponderant settled wish for a referendum, either now or in years to come—and there is certainly no mandate for one. The Scottish Parliament is almost entirely unchanged from the last one, so its mandate is to rescue Scottish education, to rebuild the sick health service, to save the neglected Scottish economy and all the other responsibilities that are devolved to it and badly need its attention.
But there does remain an unsettling malfunction in the relationship between Scotland’s devolved Administration and its United Kingdom parent. It flows in origin from the Scotland Act 1998 and later variations, and from the structural failures, in several respects, of the Scottish Parliament to deliver open and effective democratic government. The problem will fester if nothing is done. The relationship between the two has to be improved but, until now, there appears to have been a depressing blindness within government to the need for a new approach to change the atmosphere —through many and various initiatives, to be sustained over years, to build mutual good will and understanding. Precious words alone are not enough.
Nothing of substance has been done over the past few years, despite painful advice from many sources including, for example, from your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, to which my noble friend Lord Norton just referred, and more recently from an excellent study by my noble friend Lord Dunlop, who I am delighted to see will speak shortly. Just recently there have been signs that the Government have begun to take on board the nature of what is needed, with their commitment to foster a culture of collaboration and co-operation between them and the devolved Administrations. I do not underestimate the nature of that challenge, but I welcome the emerging clarity of purpose that the recent election has triggered.
I will make two points—positive, I hope—about which I feel strongly. First, there is a constitutional problem over all this, but it is a British problem, not just a Scottish one. It centres on the strength of the United Kingdom and the need to revitalise its bonds with all its parts. It can do that only if the union itself is reinvigorated. If it is not, serious problems could lie ahead. A prominent part of future debate ought to be about the damage to the rest of the United Kingdom that the secession of Scotland would cause. It would surely be deep and far-ranging, with geostrategic implications, problems for defence and security, international status, foreign affairs and soft power, to name but a few—and of course all the familial links formed over the centuries. So the United Kingdom has every right and duty to be deeply involved in any future separatist referendum, should there ever be one.
My second point is that the design and implementation of any future referendum ought to require the full involvement and approval of the United Kingdom’s Parliament. That should include the requirement that a referendum could take place only after the electorate had been made fully aware of all the implications—social, economic, financial, right across the board—of Scotland leaving the UK and how the Scottish Government proposed to address them. That can be done only after negotiations have been conducted and the broad terms of secession settled. It is essential that the people of Scotland know and understand what they would be voting for, which would bring an essential realism to so crucial a decision.
But it could all be avoided. Since Brexit, our nation is now able to reclaim its identity in full. It is vital that we develop it now in such a way that all parts of the United Kingdom feel that they continue to belong here.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the result of the elections for the Scottish Parliament, it is incumbent on Westminster to listen. The first priority is to have a meaningful mechanism for regular joint consultation, at the highest ministerial level—that means led by the Prime Minister—between the four Governments of the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom is to remain united, the present spasmodic ministerial meetings will not do.
As one of the architects of Welsh devolution, from as early as 1953 to 1999, and as Attorney-General, I had the privilege of presenting the Wales Bill, in both languages, to Her Majesty for signature. A wily commentator at the time said, “It must be legal, because the Attorney-General is doing it”. On that basis, I yield to no one in my defence of the right of devolved Governments to decide their own policies in devolved fields. My maxim always is: once powers are devolved, there can be no reversal.
I am, however, surprised by the comparatively minor differences between each country in their policies to deal with the pandemic. We hear constantly about the reliance on data—meaning scientific data. I would have thought that there are no national boundaries to the spread of infection and that, more likely than not, the scientific evidence should be similar. Where is the stubbornness—at Westminster or elsewhere?
Turning to Scotland, I well remember, when I was Welsh Secretary, Willie Ross, my Scottish counterpart, claiming that it was Scotland’s oil. The way that the price of oil has gone up and down should make anyone caring for the economic welfare of his country be wary of building his house on the product of sand and at the mercy of the whims of Middle East sheikhs. It is beyond dispute that more is spent per head in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the recent election, the spending promises made bore no relation to equality of spending throughout the United Kingdom. Instead, they bore a striking relation to Charles Dickens’s Eatanswill election.
It seems, from Mr Michael Gove’s press conference in Glasgow, that Westminster plans to throw money at the Scottish problem. I say immediately, having had the Barnett formula imposed on me as Welsh Secretary, that, if any money goes to Scotland, Wales is likely to demand something similar. The Government are on a dangerous course of reversing devolution if they intend to spend directly in devolved areas. Any new expenditure should be funnelled through, and agreed with, the devolved Governments—otherwise it would be another manifestation of Eatanswill. Ms Sturgeon is right to put another referendum to one side for now. What is proposed is the second referendum in a generation.
I make two further points. First, for years in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere, I have advocated a royal commission or similar mechanism to examine, inter alia, the results of the working of devolution and make proposals for the future governance of the United Kingdom. Secondly, in my recent published book, written in Welsh, I came to the conclusion that, if the demand for a Scottish referendum prevails, I could not see why the Scots should not be given the opportunity to have one. Having a referendum does not, by a long chalk, mean that far-sighted Scotsmen would vote to leave when the economic strength of Scotland is properly weighed and the question of currency and cross-boundary trade is clarified.
Ms Sturgeon may need to be reminded of today’s House of Lords Library calculation: over 2,600,000 people voted for non-unionist parties and over 2,700,000 for unionist parties—a margin against of nearly 50,000. The immediate task is for the Government to make it clear beyond doubt that only through a Section 30 order can a legally binding referendum be permitted, as opposed to the cardinal events in Catalonia in Spain.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, with his authority and perspective from a devolved part of the United Kingdom. The topics that we are asked to address today, from the gracious Speech, need our urgent consideration. I listened with much interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, picking apart some of the suggestions, and I hope that the Minister will be able to fill in a little more about what rebalancing the Executive, legislature and judiciary might entail.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for introducing the question of the purpose of the House of Lords. Once again we are entering a period where our concept of what purpose the House of Lords is meant to serve will be vital. We have always had in the other place a House of the people. My understanding is that the original criteria for membership of this House meant that it was to be composed of those with experience of administration. I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I sum it up as a gathering of the bishops, the barons and the beaks.
There is also a desire for continuity. As the Senior Deputy Speaker reminded us today, this is important when we consider the innovations in our experience of a virtual Parliament and whether they are worth preserving and, not so far in the future, the changes that will be brought about during the restoration and renewal programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to the Act of Union 1707. My ancestor then was president of the council of the Scottish Parliament, which promoted the Bill which became the Act of Union. This, as we have learned, prompted the Scottish Lord Chancellor of the day to wind up the proceedings with the words “Aye, there’s ane end of ane auld sang”. As it is, history has not proved him correct, and since the establishment of the devolved Scottish Parliament the song is coming back again. For better or for worse, my family has been involved in various renderings of that song from the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, which was resisting the depredations of Edward I, the Battle of Flodden, the signing of the Scottish National Covenant in 1638, which was resisting the insistence of Charles I, and so on. Even more recently, my grandfather was involved in bringing together two strands of Scottish nationalism to form what has now become the Scottish National Party.
The presence of hereditary Peers in this House can be traced back to this early history. In those days, the need to own property meant that Members had a connection to and could represent all parts of the country. They were required to provide military support to the Crown. Not only that, in the absence of any civic structure, they provided the planning and direction of construction and development, rudimentary concern for the needs of the local population and, in the early days, the dispensing of justice. Their presence gave an element of continuity. Whatever offices of state or other monetary income they received could be seen to have some bearing on all these responsibilities. The weakness of this system, which some noble Lords may like to remind me of, is that some tended to go for self-aggrandisement first. We have only to look at the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to see how rigorously we now police the safeguards in this regard and see that they are maintained. Fortunately nowadays many of these functions have been taken over by institutions that are answerable to some portion of the public at large and can be judged for their effectiveness.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is concerned first and foremost with the excessive numbers in our House. What is not settled is what elements of the historical attributes should be reflected in the second phase of the reform. That is what I, as one of the elected hereditaries, am waiting to hear. Perhaps the ex-politicians like to feel that they can provide this. That may be true for ex-Ministers, but the recent role of many who come in from that source has been largely as observers and commentators from the sidelines. I, of course, realise that the position of hereditary Peers on their own may not be a great priority for my noble friend—
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
—but, as we go into other constitutional questions, it may well come into play and some discussion of the purpose of this House will be essential.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Government have stated their intention to introduce several measures relating to the constitution. These include a review of the constitution, repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and legislation to improve the integrity of elections. In its 2019 general election manifesto, the Conservative Party said that it would aim to restore public trust in government and politics. To do this, it said, it would establish a constitution, democracy and rights commission and repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The Government have also said they will introduce measures relating to the integrity of elections.
In its manifesto, the Conservative Party said that it would establish a constitution, democracy and rights commission to examine the broader aspects of our constitution and said that the commission would look at, first, the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts; secondly, the function of the royal prerogative; thirdly, the role of the House of Lords; fourthly, access to justice; fifthly, the balance between the rights of individuals, national security and effective government; and, finally, judicial review.
The commission was announced in the December 2019 Queen’s Speech . However, in evidence to the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in December 2020, the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, stated that this work would now be carried out in a series of independent reviews rather than in one commission. He further stated that the Independent Review of Administrative Law, set up in July 2020, and the independent review of the Human Rights Act, which started in December 2020, were to be the first pieces of work in this series and said that this change of approach was called for by Covid-19.
One determining factor that led us down this path was the importance of postal votes. Since the election, the Covid-19 emergency has had the potential to have, in effect, put back any work on these important issues. There was also the benefit of having individual focused reviews involving people with particular expertise on specific questions. The review panel has issued a call for evidence and has scheduled a series of public events to be held in universities across the UK. It aims to produce its report, which will be submitted to the Lord Chancellor in the summer of 2021.
Finally, the Lord Chancellor stated that the other work streams will be announced to take forward other elements of the commission on the constitution, democracy and rights.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Merron and the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, on their truly excellent maiden speeches. They have a great contribution to make to the House.
Listening to the gracious Speech, I had one big thought. The Government have a very carefully calculated electoral strategy, which we have already seen working, to some extent, in the local elections last week. The big question is: given the challenges post Covid, post Brexit and facing the technological revolution, do they have a coherent national strategy for the United Kingdom?
I was most impressed by the speech yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, who really underlined the point that the gracious Speech was a missed opportunity. There is no commitment on social care, yet the Government are going to legislate on cancel culture—something of which, as chair of Lancaster University for seven years, I never had a single instance to deal with. There is no mention of employment rights, which are absolutely critical in the changing labour market of today and the future, but the Government want to legislate to suppress voting through the introduction of compulsory identification. Are these really the key national priorities?
On Brexit, there is no indication whatever of how we are going to build the new sources of competitiveness to counter the trade losses we are already suffering. In the first three months, our EU trade was down 19% more than our trade with the rest of the world. There is an example—the vaccine example—of how public/private partnership can do this, but there is no mention of that in the Queen’s Speech.
The Government will say, “Oh yes, we do have a big idea, and that’s levelling up”, but they are going about it the wrong way. The paradox of the Government’s policy is that they think you achieve levelling up by top-down action; it is a contradiction in terms. They are setting up all these new pots of billions, to be run by Whitehall departments, which will incorporate the directly political priorities of Ministers concerned about how they hold marginal seats.
I see this in Cumbria. Labour has lost four of the six seats it held in Cumbria, and we are now being showered with grants through the towns fund and all these other funds that the Conservative MPs are trumpeting. But there is no evidence that this Whitehall-driven approach can achieve the result of lessening inequalities between different parts of the country. I see the noble Lord, Lord True, smiling, but I am sure he agrees with me.
The way forward is to empower local institutions, to give mayors the powers they need and to create new, strong unitary authorities, which is what we hope to see in Cumbria. But this Government show no interest in this devolution agenda and are hitting local authorities harder. I am on Cumbria County Council. This year, we suddenly had £10 million taken out of our highways budget, just like that—no publicity, of course, from Mr Rishi Sunak. This is what is happening. When you look at the projections for public spending in the next few years, it is clear that local authorities will have to pay the price for these new funds that will be established. This centralisation is the wrong approach.
I think Gavin Williamson gets a very bad press, on the whole. I admire the fact that he is making a priority of further education, but the way to make sure that increased resources are spent well on further education is to align training policies with the needs of local areas and their employers. That means strong local institutions, not the kind of top-down approach that the Government are going in for.
I see not a strategy here but politics, and I think it is a great shame that a Government with a majority of 80 feel that they have to stoop to that.
Lord Dunlop (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as independent reviewer of the UK Government’s union capability.
There is no doubt that the Scottish election results have once again put the union at the heart of our deliberations. Strengthening the union requires urgent attention. However, in searching for solutions, care should be taken not to overreact or adopt drastic changes which could inadvertently destabilise the relationships between the nations and regions of our country.
For all the excitable commentary, the reality is as it was five years ago. Basic questions about the implications of independence remain unanswered. In 2016, Nicola Sturgeon launched a national conversation to build a consensus for independence, yet it can be said with certainty that no such Scottish consensus exists today. The make-up of the Scottish Parliament is much the same as before, as are the broader political calculations. There will not be another independence referendum unless and until those wishing one think that it can be won. For those of us who care about the union, the task is to ensure that that day never comes.
In recent months, remedies offered have ranged from bringing power back to the centre, to offering Scotland so-called devo-max, to proposing federalism, involving the creation of an English Government and parliament. Each brings significant problems. While some may regret it, devolution is popular in Scotland. It is hard to believe that more “Whitehall knows best” will appeal to moderate, middle-of-the road Scots. Nor is the issue that the devolved institutions need more powers. The Scottish Parliament is already one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. Scotland already has devo-max. Indeed, many of the Scottish Parliament’s powers remain unused. To go further is not necessary and would risk fatally hollowing out the union.
A new tier of English Government, that most people in England do not want, crystallises why federalism will not work here. There is no example anywhere in the world of a successful federation where one part represents over 80% of the whole. It is also hard to see how this idea changes for the better the political weather in Scotland.
A better approach is to concentrate on making devolution work more effectively for all the UK. Devolution is not a failed project, but it is certainly an unfinished project. Over 20 years ago, devolution represented a substantial change to the way in which our country is governed, yet all the attention since has been on the powers of the devolved institutions. The implications of devolution for the centre of UK Government have been neglected. Devolve and forget is, as we have heard, a phenomenon we all recognise. Devolution has been a centrifugal force. The need now is for equivalent reform at the centre to provide better means for bringing the country together.
Covid has demonstrated beyond doubt that, while different tiers of government have distinct responsibilities, each depends on the other to be successful. What is true of a health pandemic is also true when it comes to tackling climate change, economic challenges and many other issues.
What is needed? First, a culture change is needed at the centre of Government, creating a Whitehall more responsive to the distinct needs of different parts of the country. There is no single silver bullet. My report for the Government identified a package of interlocking reforms. Secondly, a transformation is needed in the way the UK Government works with the devolved institutions. The creaking machinery for managing intergovernmental relations needs overhauling, to be less of a fractious talking shop and more a forum for joint decision-making in areas of common interest. I was encouraged by proposals that the Government published alongside my report. It should now be a priority to get this package agreed with the devolved Administrations. It seems to me that all the outstanding areas of disagreement are eminently resolvable.
In conclusion, the UK is the most successful multinational state in the world. It has for centuries been a beacon for people across the globe who have come here to make this beautiful, quirky and argumentative island their home. The UK has succeeded because it has felt for most of its existence like a shared endeavour of four nations. Our mission now is to build once again a co-operative union—a modern, inclusive United Kingdom fit for the 21st century. I am confident that we can.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Singh, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Lilley.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate both maiden speakers, whose excellent speeches showed what valuable contributions they will make to our deliberations, and it is a privilege to follow the very thoughtful remarks of my noble friend Lord Dunlop. I want to discuss the Northern Ireland protocol. It was negotiated in haste in the 100 days between Boris Johnson becoming PM and the EU’s deadline for the UK leaving with or without a deal.
We all knew that the protocol, though better than the previous backstop, which the Commons rejected with historic majorities, was full of internal contradictions and unresolved issues. The Government and Parliament none the less accepted it, because it contained a mechanism for resolving those issues—the joint committee, which has unlimited powers to rewrite the text and in which both parties are committed to negotiate in good faith to uphold the peace process and respect the integrity of one another’s internal markets. If that does not work, Article 16 allows us to override the protocol, as does Clause 30 of the withdrawal Act. However, the EU has refused to revise one word of the protocol, even though it is causing communal tension and economic dislocation. It insists that all goods for the EU must submit to, and usually prove compliance with, every one of the single market regulations, whose titles alone fill 73 pages of the protocol. It argues that the huge problems this will create can be avoided by the UK adopting that legislation throughout the UK.
It is now as clear as daylight that the EU cynically sees the protocol simply as a lever to force the UK as a whole to align with its single market legislation, past and future. But the EU conceals that objective behind three excuses, and it is time we challenged them. The first is that the protocol is necessary to protect the peace process. If anything, the reverse is true. It was always absurd to say that checks on goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic would threaten the Good Friday agreement and possibly even the peace, whereas checks on the far larger volume of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain would have no such consequences. Now we see that invoking the threat of violence as a reason not to have even virtual checks on trade with the Republic has directly provoked violent demonstrations against the Irish Sea border.
The EU’s second excuse for its intransigence is that the protocol is necessary to protect the integrity of the EU internal market. This raises several obvious questions, which I hope the Minister will answer or put to the EU. Why are checks on goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, even those destined to remain in Northern Ireland, necessary to protect the integrity of the EU market, whereas no checks at all are needed on goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland to protect the integrity of the UK internal market? During the prolonged grace period, have any actual threats to the EU internal market emerged, threats to the health and safety of EU citizens? If not, why not prolong the grace period indefinitely? Is it credible that trade in non-compliant goods across the border with the Republic and onwards into mainland Europe would be remotely profitable? Will lorry-loads of Dyson vacuum cleaners, lacking the EU’s misleading energy labels, be smuggled over the border then shipped to Holyhead, across Britain to Calais and onwards to Paris? I think not. Either smuggling of non-compliant goods will be small-scale and local, which would be nothing new, or, if large-scale, impossible to conceal, easy to stop at their destination or be apprehended by trading standards officers when they reach the shops on the continent. The largest item of cross-border trade is alcoholic beverages, on which duty rates have long been different north and south of the border, yet this has been successfully managed without checks at the border, so why not other products too?
The EU’s third excuse is that it is necessary to put these restrictions in place on GB trade now, since, in future, British and EU rules may diverge. But, surely, measures would only be needed, if at all, for the minority of products where rules diverge; then only for consignments at risk of crossing the border into the Republic; and then only if the divergence introduced is a potential threat to the health and well-being of citizens of the EU.
In short, it is time to debunk the case for implementing the protocol until it is slimmed down to focus on tangible, not imaginary, problems.
Lord Elder (Lab)
My Lords, I also congratulate the two new Members of your Lordships’ House on their outstanding contributions, and we look forward to hearing from them again in the future—I hope in a rather fuller House in the not-too-distant future, when we get past the current Covid problems, when the atmosphere will be somewhat different.
I will speak a bit about Scotland. The last referendum, which rejected independence, was said by the then SNP Government to be a “once in a generation” event. Generations seem to be getting rather shorter. We are bound to have a further vote—I understand that—but I want to try to set out the context of what the next vote should perhaps look at.
I have always been in favour of devolution; unfortunately, the SNP Government are not, and not just because they believe in independence. I believe in devolution and that as much power as possible should have been moved from London to Edinburgh—it was—and from Edinburgh to local government and other organisations, but it certainly has not been. They have not just left it where it was; they have dragged everything back into the centre, and that is just bad government.
It is always very uncomfortable if you are from one party and find that a bit of the country voted for someone else, but, for goodness’ sake, if they are running their own local services, why should they not have their own people doing it? It seems to me that that is an essential flaw in some of the things that the SNP stand for: they want to have all their power centralised—end of story. That needs to be stressed, and stopped.
The referendum in which I was most closely involved was the one that set up the Scottish Parliament. It was preceded by a White Paper that was written at great speed—although, in fairness, we had been drafting it in opposition for about 20 years—and that set out, in great detail, the powers and responsibilities of the new Parliament and how it was going to operate. My concern about another referendum is that it will simply be on the issue of whether or not Scotland wants to be independent. Unless it is backed up by equally detailed papers, saying what the powers and consequences will be, I do not see how Scotland can genuinely make a decision.
This will sound as though I am trying to put obstacles in its way, but, for goodness’ sake, if Scotland is going to be independent, there must be something produced by the Government that says things like: what the currency will be; how the undoubted budget deficit that the Scottish Government, like every other Government, will have will be financed; who will be issuing the paper; who will have the central banking role; what the border will look like; how trade going to Europe will cope with two borders—it has had trouble with one; and some of the fishery matters. It seems to me that all of these things have to be spelt out. That is not with a view to trying to block things; it is to say that, actually, Scotland is an intelligent country—we have been through all sorts of things and are the home of the Enlightenment —and, for goodness’ sake, we ought to be honest and straightforward about the consequences of some of the things that will occur. It seems to me that that is the absolute bare minimum that we should stress.
We should also find out what on earth we will do about defence. I say that because there are an awful lot of defence assets in Scotland. Some people do not regard them as assets, but, considering Rosyth, Faslane, Coulport and the RAF bases in the north-east, is Scotland really going to say that it will turn its back on NATO? Is it really going to say that, if it is an independent country, it will stop co-operating on defence with the rest of the United Kingdom? Where does that leave Scotland? It does not naturally come to mind as a neutral country; that is not what our historic reputation suggests. This is a huge issue that is difficult for a lot of people to face up to, but, for goodness’ sake, we have to be realistic.
Of course, finally, there is the matter of EU membership. I have always been very sceptical about the EU’s enthusiasm for encouraging bits of countries, even former member countries, to join separately. There are an awful lot of bits of European countries with histories as long as Scotland’s: Catalonia, the Basque country and lots of Italy and other places, which would really quite like to be there as separate states. For that reason, Europe’s enthusiasm for accepting Scotland as a separate state will not be as great as Scotland would like to think.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl) [V]
The first thing to point out is that we have had a remarkable series of speeches circling around the fact that there is a jigsaw puzzle here and all its parts are connected. Brexit appears in all of them, the four nations appear in all of them, but above all there is the problem that it is very hard to put the jigsaw together.
I was very impressed that a number of people, unusually, mentioned a former parliamentarian who is not currently in either Chamber: Gordon Brown. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned him, as did a number of others. I say that because we need to find people with creative ideas who could be acceptable to all sides in pulling some things together, particularly north of the border.
We all know that one of the common factors in the problem is that there is a very considerable dislike for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom north of the border, and in other places as well, even though he wins in England on an English nationalist ticket. This is going nowhere, and it is not good for the future of the union or Britain’s prosperity more generally. So, we have to find a way to get a group of people together with credibility on all sides to, for example, make the point in Scotland that it is all very well to have rhetoric from the SNP, but it is 50:50 there.
Nothing is being said about the British Army, which has always had very well-respected Scottish regiments. Nothing is being said about the euro; if Scotland joined the EU, that could mean joining the euro. Nothing is being said about Faslane—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, will say something about how that could work. Therefore, we have to be able to get people who can draw things together. It is not necessarily a parliamentary process, although clearly Parliament will be very involved. It has to be a task force which can talk to people in all parts of the United Kingdom. I think this is now going to work.
On the European dimension—this point has not been made—it is not all or nothing. It will take two or three years, but some version of the European Economic Area, as with Norway, is now a very obvious thing to investigate further. There would of course have to be negotiations and discussions about EFTA, the EFTA Court and the European Court of Justice, but on one or two major things such as the internal market—we were within seven votes of Parliament voting in favour of it—we similarly saw that people do not want an all-or-nothing approach to borders, migration and many other factors.
This crisis is impossible, of course, if we say that it is impossible to put the jigsaw together. But if people work together bit by bit to see how they can help with the total jigsaw puzzle, I think there is little doubt that we can make some progress.
The Prime Minister, for as long as he is there, will have to give way—and if he wants to retain the United Kingdom, he will have to do a U-turn on his rhetoric about English nationalism. It might go down well for the moment, with Covid and so on, but, when we get out of the trough of Covid and look at the state of the economy, it will not be a pretty picture. We have to get some people together who can get an agenda that will work, including talking to people who at the moment they are not talking to.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak today as chairman of the European Affairs Committee’s new Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. The appointment of that committee is a welcome demonstration of the House’s commitment to and engagement with Northern Ireland. In view of recent community tensions and political developments, that engagement is more important than ever. The committee’s membership includes immensely experienced Members from Northern Ireland and Members committed to Northern Ireland from across the House, a number of whom have spoken in today’s debate, and it is a privilege to chair it.
To scrutinise the protocol and consider its impact on the people and businesses of Northern Ireland is not a straightforward task, and recent events have shown how immensely sensitive the protocol is. As proposed by the Liaison Committee at the end of last year, our committee will monitor the protocol’s political and socioeconomic impact on Northern Ireland and its impact on the UK/Irish relationship. In that context, I much welcomed last week’s announcement that the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference established under strand 3 of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement will meet next month for the first time in two years. We shall also scrutinise the EU legislation, amended and new, that will apply to Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland-related work of the governance bodies established under the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. We will hope to produce our first report by the Summer Recess, based on evidence from community, business and political figures—including, we trust, from the noble Lord, Lord Frost.
When I mention that I am now chairing a committee of your Lordships’ House on Northern Ireland, I tend to be asked “Gosh, what is the solution?” I reply that, as so often in life, that is surely the wrong question. The right question, at least for now, is how to reduce the tension and risk of conflicts in Northern Ireland, including this summer, so the different communities can experience the economic and political conditions that they deserve. When the conversation moves across the Irish Sea, I am asked about the solution for Scotland. I should perhaps refer speakers to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. One thing that the last few years have taught us is that it is surely a mistake to hold a referendum without a clear analysis of the economic and political implications, whatever the result. That is surely just as if not more important than the date of a future referendum or the Supreme Court’s view of its legality.
I hope that the United Kingdom will remain united, but I suspect that the price of that will need to be a far more intelligent devolution to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—and, indeed, to the great cities and regions of England. One day I hope that the reform of this House will properly reflect that diversity and devolution.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and Lady Merron, and congratulate them on their excellent speeches today.
I want to make some comments on events since the referendum and their impact on essentially constitutional matters. I am sure that many of those who voted in the referendum to stay in the EU are subsequently shocked, or at least disappointed, by the behaviour of France and the EU. Many expected Brexit to lead to a new era of co-operation with Europe, but the ideologues in Brussels do not do friendship—you are either under their control or their rivals, to be undermined and exploited. Breaking up our union is now an important objective of theirs. The PM has so far refused to respond blow by blow to behaviour by the EU. We have had the astonishing threats made by the EU to confiscate vaccine shipments contracted to the UK, the EU’s counterproductive demonstration in respect of AstraZeneca, a ban on the export of shellfish, threats to disrupt the City of London and, especially, the irresponsible dealings with the Northern Ireland protocol.
Our Government have bided their time, first at least to see the trade and co-operation agreement ratified and signed off. Now Britain can fight back and commence. Ironically, the opening of the eyes of British citizens to the EU’s appalling behaviour has slashed British citizenship ratings of the EU. The UK Government now have the support of a substantial proportion of British citizens to take tough measures if necessary and if they see fit. It is now clear that we need to diversify our economy away from Europe as quickly as possible. We need to set taxes and regulations to maximise our global competitiveness regardless of whether this triggers EU retaliation.
The EU is regulating itself into digital oblivion and its moral authority is crumbling on the back of its behaviour. Amazingly, Macron and Merkel are now in discussions with Putin about collaboration on Sputnik, a Russian vaccine, less than a fortnight after the head of the EU vaccine task force stated:
“We have absolutely no need of Sputnik.”
While Sputnik has still to be licensed, the AstraZeneca vaccine has already been licensed by the European Medicines Agency. Macron and Merkel have continued to criticise AstraZeneca on unsubstantiated safety grounds. At the same time, Brussels-based Eurocrats have criticised the UK for blocking EU access to AstraZeneca.
The current politics of Europe are of the EU backing a belligerent France against the UK, even though we continue to behave as if France is an ally. We have had a continuing sequence of hostile gestures and behaviour from France and the EU, with, latterly, the vindictive blackballing of Britain from the Lugano Convention and the EU’s refusal to recognise the important regulatory vehicle of equivalence for the financial services industry.
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have chosen to speak in today’s section of the debate on the humble Address rather than next week on defence, as I place the maintenance of the integrity of the union as the highest priority of all the issues confronting Her Majesty’s Government today.
Other noble Lords have spoken on the importance of the maintenance of the union between England and Scotland, but I wish to focus on Northern Ireland as an integral part of our United Kingdom. Apart from England, where I was born and live, Northern Ireland is the other part of the United Kingdom in which I have lived and worked for extended periods of my life. Self-evidently, I have not spent time in Ulster for fun but as a member of the British Army, seeking to secure the safety of the people of Northern Ireland and to secure that Province as an integral part of our United Kingdom.
With that objective in mind, it has been profoundly depressing to have heard both the outcome of the Ballymurphy inquests on Tuesday and the Government’s response to those judgments thus far. That it should have taken three months short of half a century for 10 families in Ballymurphy to be told definitively that their loved ones were not gunmen, as previously alleged, but innocent members of the community is nothing short of a scandal. Sadly, it is a scandal matched by the Government’s slow response to these inquest findings. Perhaps the Minister, in answering this debate, will explain why the Prime Minister felt unable to follow the example of Mr David Cameron in offering a full and unqualified apology in the House of Commons, as he did after the publication of the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday. To do so only in a telephone call to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is just not good enough. Self-evidently, the 10 families were not on that call, although I am aware that the Prime Minister has now written to them.
If the objective of retaining Northern Ireland within our United Kingdom is the goal, we should look to the future, not the past. We should look for ways to ease tensions between communities and build trust. With that in mind, I believe that we can learn more from the collapse of the trial of soldiers A and C than we can from the Ballymurphy inquest and the calls for the soldiers concerned to stand trial. As the trial of soldiers A and C showed, information, recollections and statements made 30, 40 or nearly 50 years ago invariably constitute inadmissible evidence, which is why another way to seek the truth about unsolved deaths and attacks must be found. Of course the pursuit of truth leading to justice is an inalienable principle and no one is above the law, but where truth cannot be reached effectively through a criminal justice system due to a lack of admissible evidence for whatever reason there must be another way.
After several meetings with the former Attorney-General, Sir Geoffrey Cox, I believed that a process of questioning by investigators of potential witnesses to a death or a serious crime could be based on a presumption not to prosecute unless new and compelling evidence was produced. Such an arrangement could have benefited civilian and military personnel equally, and allowed families, as in Ballymurphy or in Bloody Sunday, to discover the truth and gain closure to their anguish. However, the flaw in this approach—certainly for veteran soldiers—is that, under the Good Friday agreement, the Westminster Attorney-General gave his prosecuting authority up to the Northern Ireland prosecuting authorities. In Northern Ireland, experience shows that there is a predisposition to test evidence in court even if it is thin, thus questioning with a presumption not to prosecute will not work.
I am therefore now drawn to the Northern Ireland Office’s preferred option of the introduction not of an amnesty but of a qualified statute of limitations. By this, the investigation into any alleged crimes—potentially committed by civilians and soldiers alike—that took place before the Good Friday agreement was signed in April 1998 should not be subject to prosecution. In this way, I believe that witnesses would be more open, the likelihood of reaching the truth would be increased and closure for families would be more likely to be achieved.
In a pure sense, this is far from ideal; indeed, I would describe it as the least worst option. However, it is better than a stalemate and a continuing cause of tension between communities and a cause of anxiety to military veterans. I am told that all parties in Northern Ireland are likely to oppose such a statute of limitations, but I believe that the Westminster Government must be robust on this issue. I am also told that the Dublin Government would oppose it, but I respectfully remind the Irish Government that this is exactly what they used on 7 November 1924 as the way to end the acrimony following the civil war of 1922-23 in Ireland immediately following independence. So there is a successful precedent.
Finally, it is to be welcomed that the future of Northern Ireland has returned in recent years from the streets to Stormont and from the bullet to the ballot box, but lingering legacy issues arising from the Troubles stand in the way of a better future. The least worst option of a qualified statute of limitations is one way to tackle this problem and let more truth increase the chance of reconciliation.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after that illuminating and inspiring speech from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on their maiden speeches.
Before I go any further, I want to comment on the fact that a number of noble Lords—mostly on the Opposition Benches—have today accused the Prime Minister of repeatedly making remarks of an English nationalist character. I offer this House to pay from my own pocket £1 for every postcard I receive of an authenticated remark by the Prime Minister that could be characterised as English nationalist. I was delighted to read the gracious Speech, not only because of the admiration and affection we all bear towards Her Majesty the Queen and the monarchy she embodies at the pinnacle of our constitution, but because there were particular items of legislation that I was very pleased to see. One, for example, seeks to bring within bounds the astonishing growth in judicial review over my adult lifetime. Where has this come from? Who has ever voted for it? Is it not time that we had a statute and a debate about its extent and scope? The Government must be held to account in cases of alleged law-breaking, but a great deal of judicial review consists of challenging procedural failings by public bodies of no great moment, often in pursuit of a political objective such as the prevention of infrastructure investment, the principle of which has been approved by this Parliament. This is an abuse and I hope that the legislation will curb it.
The Government’s commitment to strengthening the union is heartening, but it requires careful thought. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, indicated, there is a draft Bill doing the rounds—happily not one promoted by this Government—that would form the basis for a federal United Kingdom. Its proponents invariably describe this as “saving the union”. The union of which we speak is not just any old collaborative arrangement; it is a very specific thing, 300 years old and tested by history and usage. It is a union of Parliaments, producing a single overarching Government. That is why a commitment to the union is also necessarily a commitment to this Parliament. I will fight to defend this union and its Parliament, but to replace it with an ahistorical and, in my view, unworkable federation between one large member and three small ones is not to save the union but to scrap it and start again. In any referendum that might arise to support such a proposal, there is a material risk that England would not vote for it.
There are better ways to strengthen the union. In my view, Parliament has a right and duty to ensure that the quality of the NHS is of uniformly high standard across the United Kingdom. That is not true today in Wales or Scotland. An independent UK-wide audit of health outcomes would be a valuable inclusion in the health and care Bill.
When we turn to Northern Ireland, we have a case where a majority wish to continue as part of the UK. Yet without any democratic assent or accountability, the Northern Ireland protocol places the Province under the laws and jurisdictions of a foreign power—a power that, as my noble friend Lord Lilley points out, proclaims peace but is increasingly revealed as happy to impose disruption on Northern Ireland as leverage over a UK that has expressed a clear and democratic wish to escape its orbit. For how long can this continue?
I do not doubt the ferocity of this Government’s commitment to the union and I applaud it, but I look forward to seeing it given practical effect in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it has been a very good debate. I shall concentrate on the union and the constitution, but I want to connect those two things, because a solution to the union would require substantial constitutional change, especially in the status and composition of your Lordships’ House. I start with a very famous saying, that if you want to preserve something you value very much, you have to change it—you have to change things all the time. While we are all for the union, we forget that the union itself has been changing within the last 50 years.
When I arrived in your Lordships’ House in 1991, the question of the nations was not as high on the agenda as it is today. The Scottish Constitutional Convention, the big public discussion, made us all aware that there was genuine dissatisfaction in Scotland. We do not even mention the fact that Wales was integrated without any Act of Parliament, and so was Ireland. Let us start again and say: we will have a union, a different union from what we have at present, and a better union.
I have studied the history of many newly independent nations, and it is never a good strategy to answer a demand for greater independence or greater devolution by saying, “Oh, it will ruin you economically.” That argument works the wrong way. People get riled up when you think their national feeling is just a matter of pounds, shillings and pence. We have changed quite a lot since 1991. Indeed, the Labour Government of 1997 onwards legislated on devolution. The time may have come—it has come—to look at the whole question again.
When we are looking at the question of the union, we must also see that we have parliamentary reform. Many noble Lords have said today that the problem with the House of Lords is that it needs reform and recomposition. We have heard many reports on how to do that. A Bill put before Parliament by the 2010 to 2015 Government was unfortunately rejected by the House of Commons, which did not allow it time. That House of Lords Reform Bill is a good example to go back to, because a committee of both Houses of Parliament deliberated on it carefully. Lord Richard, whom I still remember fondly for his campaign for House of Lords reform, chaired it. I think we have to go back to a committee to see what kind of proposals we can get through.
It is a question not just of the hereditary Peers but of the other unelected Peers. We have to change the structure of the House not just to admit the principle of elected Members but to make the House of Lords representative of all parts of the union. That is a fundamental and important part of any scheme of union or constitutional reform we may have.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate our maiden speakers on their excellent contributions to the debate. We are really delighted to have them with us. In this final speech from the Back Benches, I will say a few words about the threat to the union from the Scottish National Party.
I am an Englishman, born and brought up in England. None the less, like many of us, I have connections with other parts of the UK; my mother has Scottish connections. Indeed, I remember vividly that, when I was made Health Minister in the John Major Government, the Chief Medical Officer at the time was Kenneth Calman—subsequently Sir Kenneth Calman, chairman of the Commission on Scottish Devolution. He came into my office and said, “Minister, are any members of your family medical professionals?” He was clearly fishing. I said, “Well, yes, there are quite a few actually; indeed, one of my relatives is a GP in Cambuslang”—if that is how you pronounce it. I said, “Not only that, my mother is part Scottish”, and mentioned her maiden name. He said, “Do you realise, Minister, that your mother’s family are hereditary physicians to the Lords of the Isles?” I have no idea whether this incredibly venerable position actually exists except in his romantic imagination. I assume all Scots are romantic by nature; perhaps not.
The SNP is, of course, a serious threat, but I believe we have a number of positive things going for us. The first is time. One year, maybe two or three years, is the sort of time we have available to come back with some strategy—and, my heavens, we need to do that.
Secondly, the economic penalties of independence have become much more apparent. One is well aware from the Brexit debates that things like Project Fear and all the rest of it matter little when questions of emotion come into play. But on any sensible analysis, the situation for Scotland is far worse than the UK’s was in relation to the European Union. For example, the whole question of currency or the funding of the public sector are issues which did not face the UK when we left the European Union. I think we can also use these obvious problems to flesh out exactly what they mean by independence. There are many unanswered questions which we should force them, on the defensive, to answer. Surely we cannot have another debate as ignorant in many ways as the Brexit debate was; surely we have learned something from that.
Thirdly, there is the opportunity to change the terms of the debate. The Prime Minister started this with his call for all four leaders to meet to discuss post-pandemic planning—team UK, et cetera. Gordon Brown followed this up with a suggestion of a meeting of national and regional leaders, and this could be built on. After all, we have the great advantage of the unwritten constitution; we can do things with it without having to go through the due legal process of a written constitution. So why do we not make this meeting of the four leaders of the four nations a regular occurrence with a regular agenda, going through the various capital cities, with a different chairman each time? Obviously, there are dangers in this. There are risks involved in that sort of thing—for example, the opportunity for grandstanding. We all know what politicians are like. There is the opportunity for needless disagreement, point scoring, et cetera. Indeed, some people may simply not turn up. There are also problems for the UK. If we are serious about giving this sort of influence to the four leaders, it will inevitably impinge on things which are, at the moment, purely UK responsibilities. They will have influence in other areas beyond devolution and the devolved powers.
But if we are serious about working as four nations together, this is an opportunity to build up something which has really creative potential—the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, made a similar point just now. If we can get everyone to understand that there could be a productive and co-operative balance between the four nations and that there is a better alternative, both in terms of security and the balance of freedom and security against the upheaval and uncertainty offered by the SNP, there is something here which could be sensibly put forward.
Finally, we should also remember that, even after all this time and all the work by the SNP to change opinion, it is still 50:50 between staying and leaving. Indeed, I saw recently in an opinion poll that independence is only eighth in the list of priorities of the Scottish people. So with the possibility of leaders like Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson and a whole host of excellent MSPs in Scotland, we have the opportunity of setting out a clear way of co-operating between the four nations—but we have to start on it very soon.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I found the opening speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, extraordinary. There were more than 10 minutes on the wonders of Brexit and then three and a half minutes on the Government’s constitutional agenda, but this country faces a major constitutional crisis. Many noble Lords have talked about the threats to the union, and those threats are real and growing, but the Prime Minister’s casual dismissal of the conventions of constitutional behaviour, his insistence that as “the people’s Government”—based on 43.5% of the national vote in December 2019—he and his Ministers can push back parliamentary scrutiny and sweep aside reasoned criticism, is taking us away from constitutional democracy.
The measures in this Queen’s Speech betray the promise of the Conservative manifesto 16 months ago. Many of us, as the noble Lord, Lord True, will remember, welcomed the commitment that:
“After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the Courts; the functioning of the Royal Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords … In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions”.
There is no need for the noble Lord, Lord True, to confirm that the Government have ditched any idea of encouraging a wider or open debate about modernising our constitution and rebuilding public trust. This Queen’s Speech talks about renewing democracy and the constitution, but what it proposes is to tilt the bias of our electoral system further in favour of the Conservatives, to revive prerogative powers and to curtail judicial review.
Many noble Lords have noted the promise that the Government will
“restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts”.
So I ask the Minister to tell us what he considers to be the proper constitutional balance between the Executive, the legislature and the courts. Which is the direction in which the Government think they should now tilt that balance—further towards the Executive, or further towards scrutiny? My noble friend Lord Tyler quoted Lord Hailsham’s warning of 45 years ago that the Prime Minister’s dominance over Parliament when there is a single-party majority is not constitutional democracy but “elective dictatorship”. Of course, Lord Hailsham said that when there was a Labour Government in power. Much of this Government’s behaviour—breaking the Ministerial Code repeatedly, making increasingly partisan public appointments, undermining the neutrality of the Civil Service, attacking the BBC and the universities as institutionally left-wing—makes sense only on the implicit assumption that the Conservatives will now be in power permanently. A Conservative Opposition would be outraged by this assertion of executive dominance by a Government of any other party.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave us another of his familiar lectures on why this House should not stand in the way of a Conservative Government. I remind him that the figures on Lords votes by Session between 1997 and last year show clearly that the highest proportion of government defeats came in two Sessions when he himself was Leader of the Opposition. What he is saying is that the Conservatives have the right to rule and others do not. So I ask the Minister to tell us what he understands by the term “democracy”. Are constitutional limits on executive power unnecessary checks on the people’s will, as interpreted by the Prime Minister, or are they an essential part of democracy? We know that young Boris wanted to become world king, but that does not justify giving him unaccountable power now.
There is nothing in the Speech about local democracy either. The Times leader on Tuesday voiced the almost unanimous expert view that
“the most effective response to regional inequalities lies in giving local politicians the power to set their own priorities.”
Yet Ministers hand out money from the centre to favoured constituencies, while local elected politicians are bypassed as brutally as local public health officers were in handling Covid-19. Does the Minister consider that local democracy is an important part of constitutional democracy or not?
Jacob Rees-Mogg, in the Telegraph on 10 May, celebrated
“a Parliament which now wields the full power of its sovereignty … again.”
To the contrary, the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, who campaigned in the referendum to restore parliamentary sovereignty, wrote in the House magazine some weeks ago that
“the attempts by parliament in 2019 to claim sovereignty for itself”
were “remarkable”, and that its
“reassertion by the entity that ultimately holds it in a democracy—the people—took place in the general election in December of that year”.
The Prime Minister asserts that he heads the people’s Government against the disaffected metropolitan liberal elite, to which Nicola Sturgeon replies that she represents the people of Scotland on 48% of those who voted there—a higher percentage than that which voted Conservative across the UK. So, it is a more legitimate claim, with one populist nationalist trumping another. If the SNP lacks a mandate, as several noble Lords have argued, then Boris’s mandate is weaker still.
I have just reread the Public Administration Committee’s 2004 report, Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament, which was critical of the Labour Government then in power. The noble Lord, Lord Hague, and Lord Hurd gave evidence in favour of limiting executive powers, including giving Parliament a much greater role in scrutinising public appointments and approving reorganisations in Whitehall. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill takes us in exactly the opposite direction but then, of course, the Conservatives are back in power and intend to bend the rules further to remain so.
The Conservative manifesto promised to make sure
“that every vote counts the same—a cornerstone of democracy.”
The electoral integrity Bill will do no such thing. There are several million UK citizens missing from the register, predominantly young people—a far larger problem than voter fraud. Most votes in most seats are wasted under the least representative voting system in the democratic world. But the focus here is on discouraging people from voting, following American Republican tactics on voter suppression.
In some ways, the US Republican Party seems to have colonised much of the British right. The Government are also presenting a freedom of speech Bill, which closely follows recommendations from Policy Exchange. But the Policy Exchange publications rely heavily on US examples of university behaviour, including references to extreme right-wing US sources. This is cultural war, imported from the United States and, for all I know, partly financed from the United States, since Policy Exchange does not publish where its funding comes from.
President Biden, in his first and sober address to Congress two weeks ago, warned:
“The question of whether our democracy will long endure is both ancient and urgent”.
He went on to say
“if we are to truly restore the soul of America—we need to protect the sacred right to vote.”
Democracies can decay or slide towards authoritarian rule. In the 1990s, I spent much time in Budapest as a visiting professor at Central European University. I met many young post-communist politicians; I even shared a platform with Viktor Orbán, then the bright hope of Hungarian liberals. Once he gained power, he found that attacking foreigners, immigrants and the European Union, capturing the public broadcaster and independent media, and bending the rules on political competition was the best way to stay in power and reward his friends with public contracts. It could not happen here, could it? But the American Republicans have almost abandoned any acceptance of constitutional democracy—a once- proud party, taken over by an egotistical narcissist—and too many Conservatives still follow the lead of the American right.
Constitutional democracy is a delicate construction. It requires careful checks and balances to limit executive power. It requires honest men and women in politics, particularly in the governing party, to insist that standards are upheld and rules not broken. This Queen’s Speech fails to address these broader aspects of our constitution. Yes, we need a commission on the constitution if we are to hold the UK together, to strengthen our democratic institutions and to regain the trust of our disillusioned electorate.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I send my most profound and real congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, who delivered a speech which everybody who heard it thought was absolutely first class. It took on serious issues and addressed them brilliantly. I think we all share her view that we should do everything in our power to allow other people to shine, and I strongly welcome the second choreologist into the House of Lords.
I say a special, very personal and admiring welcome to my noble friend Lady Merron. We were in government together. I do not want to shock noble Lords, but in politics there are some people who are not that great and some very good people, who fight the good fight all the time. My noble friend is one of those, who I saw with my own eyes fighting the good fight in government for Lincoln. I know her grandparents would be proud of how well she has done, because she is their granddaughter, but they would also be proud because of the exceptional things that she achieved and will achieve. She is so welcome here.
Before I come to the contents of what the noble and learned Lord said, I shall mention two matters. First, on the House of Lords, I draw attention to my noble friend Lord Grocott, who is in his place. He made the point that we shame ourselves in this House by going on with the by-elections for the hereditaries. We make a profound mistake by thinking that we have to go on with them. The form of legislation adopted in Section 2(4) of the 1999 Act was that the hereditaries would stay and the Procedure Committee would then make arrangements for there to be by-elections. It was not mandatory; the legislation did not say that was the way it had to be done. It is plain what was envisaged at the time.
My noble friend Lord Grocott was not there at the time but I was, as was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who I am glad to see in his place and who is an accurate describer of the position: he said that the purpose was to be a guarantee of the second stage. I have tragic news for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and everybody else in the Chamber: the second stage is not coming. How do I know that? We have had six general elections since the 1999 Act and a botched attempt at Lords reform by the coalition Government, which was rejected. It is over.
It is open to us now as a House to say, legally, that we do not need to go on with this anymore, and I strongly urge the House to look at that because I have more bad news for it: the Commons will not agree to the change in hereditary by-elections. It is time for us to do it. The deal that was done allows that to happen once the second stage is not going to happen, which it is not. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord True, in his place because he, too, was a witness to the events that occurred at the time.
That is all I want to say about the House of Lords, except that I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about what a bad loser the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, turned out to be. He defeated a Government whenever he was in opposition and then complained when we did it. Keep going, I say to the Cross Benches, in showing the Government what is wrong. That the Government are getting defeated all the time is not a constitutional problem; the problem is the appalling quality of what is coming in the form of legislation. Perhaps the way to avoid defeats is to look at that, rather than at the fact that people are saying no to the Government on a regular basis.
I shall mention one other point, which was made by my noble friend Lady Quin. She said that we need to look again at what form any referendum would take. I do not mean whether or when we should have one but that the terms of referendum, the particular majorities needed, the thresholds required and what triggers them need to be looked at again. I strongly agree with her on that.
I move on to the constitutional issues in the Speech, and, goodness me, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, made a most extraordinary speech—it was not a bad speech at all, but a speech of Walter Mitty, living in an alternative universe, where absolutely everything in the garden is rosy. “By the way”, he said in the final two minutes, “this is what we have done on the constitution”. In a skilful advocate’s trick, he said nothing of value, because there is nothing of value on the constitution, except one thing, in this Queen’s Speech. I strongly commend him for spending absolutely no time on the constitution because there is almost nothing there.
Perhaps I may identify what is there. First, there is the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I support that; it is a good thing. If you had to make a judgment about the quality of the Government who produced that Act, you would give them, on the constitution, gamma minus. The big problem, as has been said repeatedly, was that the Act gave effect to a deal to ensure that the Lib Dems would not be cast out to darkness before the end of the five years of that term. The consequences were put best by my noble friend Lord Grocott: the question of the House of Commons retaining confidence in the Government was thrown out of the window as a result of the provision of a formula through which confidence could be lost, and so when it was obvious that confidence had been lost—which it was during the May Government—they did not then resign as they should have done. Instead, they referred to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which set out mechanistic standards. It is a thoroughly bad Act.
I strongly agree with my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, whose report published today on the effect of Covid on Parliament I strongly commend. I agree with her that we need to look closely at the terms of the repeal Bill, to ensure not that we cannot go back to what was there before—I think we can, legislatively—but that what happened in the period between 2017 and 2019 does not become in any way a precedent for what constitutes a Government losing the confidence of the House of Commons. Three times the Government’s major piece of legislation or activity was rejected by the Commons by a massive majority. The situation reached was that that did not constitute a loss of confidence in the Government. That completely poleaxed our constitutional system at that point. Nobody should be able to say, after the passage of the new Bill, that that could happen again. You therefore have to scrub the precedential effect of those three votes in the Commons.
It is absolutely obvious that the rebalancing Bill is the revenge on the Supreme Court for its judgments on the Prorogation. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked: whoever agreed democratically to judicial review? Those who agreed to it were the people, because what they get from it is the Executive being held to what Parliament has decided. Some 99% of judicial reviews are the courts saying to the Government, “You haven’t done what Parliament said and, if you want a democratic system in which Parliament passes Acts that are then given effect to, you have to have judicial review”. Otherwise, who is there to ensure that what Parliament wanted is put into effect? That is how it has worked. No one in this House, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the Front Bench giving effect to what the Government want, would want to reduce Parliament’s views being given effect to. The rebalancing Bill is thoroughly pernicious.
The Government set up the Faulks committee. I was worried that it would do what the Government wanted but, to its great credit, it did not. It said no to any significant restriction of judicial review. So what happened? This Government simply rejected, in reality, the wishes of the Faulks committee because it said that judicial review worked well. And now what is happening? The Government are proposing in this Bill to make it much easier to oust judicial review.
We will end up in a position like the Bill dealing with the 0.7% aid figure: there is a Bill that says it is the duty of government to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid but there is a clause saying that this is not justiciable in the courts at all—although there is a very big question as to whether or not that will work in the courts. Now the Government want to pass a Bill that says, “Henceforth we will promise to do things”, but with a bit of small print saying, “Actually, we will not give effect to them”. The rebalancing Bill is dangerous and should be resisted.
The electoral integrity Bill is Orwellian in the awfulness of its description, as everyone has said. The electoral integrity Bill requires you to produce photographic ID. There was one conviction in 2019, as everyone knows, but in the test, 800 people could not vote because they could not produce photographic ID. It is an absolute outrage. Let us have Ruth Davidson here as quickly as possible to use obscene language to describe how awful that Bill is. It is shaming that the Government are willing to produce a Bill that is plainly intended to rejig the system against Labour. People will not trust the electoral system if they go on behaving like that. It is much more serious than we make it sound, because it indicates that the Government are willing to tamper with the electoral system, as they tried to do in 2011. As someone said, that attempt was scotched in the end because it was a bad Bill. This is another bad Bill.
So what have we got? We have three things: one is the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, and the Government get some marks for that; the rebalancing Bill is a thoroughly nasty piece of legislation, designed to punish the judges; and the electoral integrity Bill is laughable in the way that it is described and dangerous as far as the system is concerned.
Everyone in this debate has agreed that the Government should be focusing on devolution and ensuring the continuation of the union. What is there in the Queen’s Speech about that? There are words to the effect of “We wish to preserve the union”. I do not doubt the sincerity of that, but there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to address that issue beyond that assertion. My noble friends Lady Crawley, Lady Wilcox of Newport, Lord Anderson of Swansea, Lord Elder and Lord Liddle, and my noble and learned friend Lord Morris, rightly identified the danger to the union at the moment. They all said, one way or another, that the Government need seriously to rethink devolution and address the issue, or the union is in danger of being lost.
The three issues that the Speech should have addressed are: first, the union; secondly, making sure that there are proper checks and balances on the Government, by which I mean the courts, the enforcement of the Ministerial Code and the independence of the Civil Service; and, thirdly, something to ensure a proper degree of regional autonomy. Those are the three things that should have been addressed, but there was none of it. The threat to the constitution is serious, but the Government have proposed to do nothing about it.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege as always to close another outstanding debate in the House of Lords, although, if noble Lords will allow me, I thought aspects of the personal attack on my right honourable friend the Prime Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in terms that would have been ruled out of order in the other place, would probably have been better suited to the Twittersphere than to your Lordships’ House.
Given the large numbers who have spoken, I will not be able to name all individually in responding, but I assure noble Lords that I and my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart—who, with consummate respect for the House, has sat right through the debate—have heard all the speeches individually and will reflect on them individually. Given the time available, I cannot accept the offer from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in his interesting speech to explain the term “democracy”. I have to say to him that I probably would not select the Chamber of the House of Lords as the obvious lecture theatre.
I was also amused that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, devoted two minutes and 28 seconds of his speech—on the basis of a rather questionable construal of the 1999 Act—to committing the Labour Party to an all-appointed House in perpetuity, as their future House of Lords. If that is the new Keir Starmer appeal to the nation, bring it on.
We have had differences in this debate, but I think what everyone has shared or would share is the admiration and delight in seeing Her Majesty once again grace our House this week so soon after her sad loss. The Crown is, and will remain, the keystone of our constitution and the literal embodiment of what, please God, we will always be able to call our United Kingdom. I will come directly to that United Kingdom about which so many noble Lords have spoken with such great passion and profound knowledge. We will study the speeches and all suggestions that have been made very carefully.
The people of these islands have, as people across the world have, faced sore trials these last 15 months under the scourge of Covid. Parliament has assented to measures without constitutional precedent in peacetime. We all hope we can now see a path back to normality in every sense, including the constitutional. Next week, this House will debate what part noble Lords—I hope—are ready to play in that. As we have come through this crisis through the genius of science, the heroism and dedication of so many, and the forbearance of all, we have done so better as one United Kingdom, deploying the pooled resources of our historic union.
The response has thrown into sharp relief the collective strength of that union. Our shared values, beliefs and interests are rooted in mutual respect, as my noble friends Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Norton of Louth and others have said. As we chart a sustainable recovery from Covid, the Prime Minister is determined to build back better from this pandemic in a way that levels up and brings every corner of the United Kingdom closer together.
Recovering from the worst public health emergency in over a century is not going to be quick or easy. We need to be remorselessly focused on getting people back into work, getting businesses back on their feet, getting hospital waiting lists down and helping our young people—our future—catch up on the education they have missed.
These are challenges the United Kingdom faces together, and must face together as a family of nations. I so agree with many noble Lords that our collective priority now should be on tackling them together, not stoking old divisions or restarting an all-consuming constitutional debate. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean made strong criticisms of the role in office of the SNP, and that is a legitimate attack. But during the pandemic there is no question but that we were stronger as one United Kingdom. We were able to do more together by drawing on the particular skills of great shared institutions such as the NHS, the Armed Forces and the Civil Service, the unique power of the UK Treasury to support families and businesses in need, and the scientists behind the world-leading vaccine programme that is helping to bring us out of lockdown.
Politicians have worked closely across the devolved Administrations—as we have heard is necessary from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and others—in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation for the common good, and this Government remain committed to doing so. I therefore strongly agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie in her splendid and perfectly modulated maiden speech about the spirit we now need. I give her the assurances she asked for. In fact already, since the elections, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has invited the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, to a summit meeting in the coming weeks to address the shared challenges of recovery. Working together on that should surely be the priority for all. That was the sense I felt in your Lordships’ House today.
Some noble Lords spoke about one particular part of our union, Northern Ireland. This year, as my noble friend Lord Caine—a great unionist—reminded us, is the centenary of Northern Ireland, and therefore of the United Kingdom as we know it today.
The last time we had a State Opening of Parliament, the UK was still in the European Union. We are now constitutionally free of the EU and have exploited that freedom in the vaccine rollout. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, my noble friend Lord Lilley and others that we recognise the issues raised on the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. The protocol is a unique and delicately balanced solution to a unique and sensitive set of problems. To operate effectively and safeguard both the Belfast agreement and the progress of the past 23 years, about which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, spoke so movingly, the protocol must be given effect in a pragmatic and proportionate way, as my noble friend Lord Frost reiterated this week.
That is why we are working through the structures of the withdrawal agreement to seek to resolve the outstanding issues. Discussions in recent weeks have begun to clarify those issues and some positive momentum has been established, although difficult issues remain. Our aim is to find common-sense risk-based approaches that enable us to agree a pragmatic way forward that substantially eases the burdens on Northern Ireland. This is how we will protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, as the protocol itself requires. Of course, as we have set out publicly, if that does not prove possible, we will consider all our options in meeting our overriding responsibility for sustaining the peace and prosperity of everyone in Northern Ireland.
Now that the ratification of the TCA is complete, the first meetings of the TCA committees, including the Partnership Council, will be agreed with the EU. As co-chair of that council, my noble friend Lord Frost will update Parliament on those meetings. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that we will work closely with the DAs, including on implementing the TCA where that involves matters of devolved competence.
The union is a living, breathing, political, cultural and economic success story, as many noble Lords have said. I think that, in their heart of hearts, the majority of people in every part of this kingdom know that to be true, and are proud both of what we have achieved together and of us as diverse nations. We are—indeed, I am—full of hope and ambition for our common future.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart highlighted when he opened this debate, the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment—one made also by Her Majesty’s Opposition—to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. I express my own satisfaction in that; I hope that it will command support across the House. I think I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, got there first with a Bill; I look forward to his support for the legislation as we take it through. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill will restore tried-and-tested constitutional arrangements that were in place long before the experiment of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which ended in such discord and confusion. The Bill will return us to the long-standing constitutional norm whereby the House of Commons can force an immediate election by withholding confidence and a Prime Minister can request a Dissolution of Parliament from the sovereign.
One effect of the Bill, which I respectfully suggest was not recognised fully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will therefore be that, even on the advice of the Prime Minister, a Dissolution will return power to the hands of the supreme authority in our democracy—the voting public—during critical moments for the country, preventing the kind of stalemates that we have seen lately in Parliament from paralysing democracy. Some have claimed that this will give an unfair advantage to an incumbent. However, 1951, 1974 and 2017 are just three examples that suggest otherwise; as I well remember, precious little was gained by clinging like limpets to the rocks in 1997 or, indeed, 2010.
The glory of our constitution, which has enabled extraordinary social change and progress peacefully, is its flexibility. As my noble friend Lord Horam reminded us, conventions play a great part in that; they operate effectively when they are commonly understood and there is tacit agreement that they should be respected irrespective of the political exigencies. This being the case, the Government outlined their understanding of the conventions that underpin Dissolution, again as part of their response to the valuable report of the Joint Committee so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, that ensured that this Bill received comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny before it was introduced. Your Lordships will continue to have an important role to play in building consensus on conventions. I look forward to what will be fruitful discussions.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked, as they are wont to do, about the commission on the constitution. As I have said before, work is being carried forward in a series of in-depth workstreams, one of which was the independent review of administrative law chaired by my noble friend Lord Faulks. The Government will bring forward legislation relating to judicial review; that legislation is intended to protect the judiciary from being drawn into political questions and to preserve the integrity of judicial review for its intended purpose. It honours a commitment that this Government made in their manifesto.
The independent review panel identified some areas where the balance of the way in which the rules currently operate should be looked at. The government consultation probed some further areas where that balance could be said to benefit from a fresh perspective. However, I take this opportunity today to reassure noble Lords that the Government are absolutely committed to upholding the rule of law, which means that the courts should be and will remain able to hold the Government to account in the manner set out by Parliament. The government consultation closed on 29 April, and my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is currently considering the responses received and views expressed and, following that consideration, final decisions will be taken on which measures are suitable for inclusion in the Bill. Upholding the rule of the law will be central to those considerations.
Upholding the integrity and legitimacy of elections must also be among the prime concerns of any democratic Government. As stewards of the United Kingdom’s world-renowned democratic heritage, it is our responsibility to keep it in touch with modern times. I completely reject the conspiracy theories launched first in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and taken up by others, which were rebuffed with brio by my noble friend Lord Hannan and with great measure by my noble friend Lord Empey. The measures that will be brought before Parliament are intended to ensure that our democracy remains secure, fair, modern and transparent. They have participation by British citizens at their heart and will maintain public confidence in our elections.
Public trust in the electoral system is critical. The elections Bill is aimed to reinforce the integrity of the system in the modern age. It addresses a very real potential for electoral fraud, preventing harvesting of postal votes and delivering on our manifesto commitment to extend to the rest of the UK the proven practice in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, told us, of a requirement for voter identification at the polling station.
We have heard claims today that asking voters to provide ID at polling stations would suppress votes and deny certain communities their democratic rights, and we reject that absolutely. It is not supported by the evidence. Yesterday we published the findings of a survey of 8,000 electors from across Great Britain, which found that 98% of people have a relevant form of identification document. When Labour in 2003 introduced the system in Northern Ireland, the then Minister said that if they believed that voters as a result of the measure would not be able to vote, they would not introduce it. They considered it rationally and introduced it.
The Government are absolutely clear that all those who are eligible to vote must and will be able to do so. The legislation will set out that a very wide range of identification will be accepted, even if it has expired, as long as the voter is still identifiable. There is no new national ID card, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that the Government have no intention to introduce one. In the limited cases where a voter does not possess such identification, councils will have a legal obligation to provide a free, local voter card.
We will continue to work with local authorities, the Electoral Commission and civil society organisations to ensure that we address any concerns and that these requirements are clearly communicated. That is vital. However, lack of identification opens up a clear opportunity for fraud in our system and that cannot be acceptable. Every person’s right to vote is theirs alone.
In securing our polls, we can also make them more inclusive. The Bill will therefore ensure that electors with disabilities can be better supported to exercise their right to vote. It will remove the arbitrary barrier to participation by overseas electors, removing the 15-year limit and making it easier for them to vote. It was not entirely clear to me from the opening of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, whether Labour is opposed to the principle of overseas voting. At times it sounded that way. The Bill will also make sure that the rising levels of intimidation we are seeing in public life do not deter candidates from participating in public life, by introducing measures to better protect against abuse.
We will protect the integrity of the democratic debate, increasing the transparency of political campaigning through the introduction of digital imprints.
A number of noble Lords spoke about the future role and place of the House of Lords. I have already praised the expert and invaluable role of this House as a revising Chamber. I hope there is broad agreement that our overriding goal is to offer clear and candid challenge and scrutiny rather than to obstruct. As was said, we are a House of revision, not of opposition.
It is important that the way this House is constituted continues to reflect that role and the primacy of the other place as the elected Chamber. Every Government draw their authority from their ability to command confidence in the other place, which itself holds primacy in our Parliament on the basis that it commands the confidence of the electorate, expressed at a general election.
We do not propose any reform of your Lordships’ House in this programme. The Government will not support any Bill that may come forward for piecemeal change this Session. We are committed in our manifesto to looking at the role of the Lords, but any reform needs careful consideration.
Some of your Lordships complain of the size of this House, although, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde reminded us, even with remote voting, Divisions do not reach the fabled 600. It pains me to stray on to a sensitive area but, given retirements and other departures —and indeed the age of many Members—some new Members are essential to maintain the customary expertise and vibrancy of the Lords.
Your Lordships have a vital role in scrutinising and revising legislation, while respecting, as this House must, the primacy of the other place and the conventions between the two Houses. Last Session, fresh from your Lordships’ struggles to obstruct Brexit, the House defeated an elected Government 96 times. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out, this was, in a new Parliament’s first Session, bookended by stunning electoral mandates for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. This was the largest number of defeats for 45 years, and more than all the defeats your Lordships inflicted on the entire Government of Gordon Brown. No doubt, this is a matter on which some may reflect beyond today’s debate.
Her Majesty’s gracious Speech paints a bright future for the whole of this United Kingdom, including proud parts of our country that have been too long taken for granted and ignored. Outside the European Union, having turned the corner on the pandemic and with the economy tipped to grow this year at the fastest rate since the war, the Government will be able to target money for investment where it is needed most, to create a better future for overlooked families and communities that were in danger of being left behind. Our duty to those who are or who feel left behind involves us all in this House, and here I profoundly agree with the moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. She touched the spirit, which we should always seek to do.
Again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I hope that in the Session to come we will all join in our common aim to create a safer, healthier United Kingdom for generations to come and to project our values—which so many millions of our citizens proudly affirm—around the world. I look forward to discussing these and other matters further with your Lordships in the weeks and months ahead.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s confirmation of a statutory inquiry into the Government’s initial and ongoing handling of the pandemic is welcome. I think that all of us, especially the bereaved families of the almost 130,000 people who have died and those suffering physical and mental health consequences, need answers, as well as assurances that, where there have been mistakes, everything that can be done will be done to ensure they are not repeated.
Yet the language in the Statement about when this process will even start could have come straight from the mouth of Sir Humphrey Appleby in a “Yes Minister” script. I quote: “when the time is right”, “in due course”. All that is missing is “in the fullness of time”. I appreciate that the terms of reference need to be agreed and the appointments made to conduct the inquiry and support its work, but why on earth would there be such a long delay even to start the process? I do not understand the logic in delaying for at least a year until—a very imprecise timescale—“spring 2022”. We have all watched Ministers squirm at the Dispatch Box as they try to explain what they really meant when they said that something would be ready by spring and it is not ready even though it is August.
The Prime Minister embraced a new watchword in his Statement. He said “caution”—which we do not often hear in statements from him and which we know is not a word that comes easily to him, but he is clearly very aware of the dangers of new variants mutating and of a third wave of infections next winter. Given that, why not start the inquiry process as soon as possible in order to learn the lessons as soon as possible? If it is the case that delays in implementing lockdowns or other measures meant that the virus spread or mutated more quickly, leading to more lives being lost and more restrictions being imposed for longer, including lockdowns, and if that will help avoid a third wave this autumn or at least help us understand how better to respond, surely the work of the inquiry must be undertaken as quickly as possible. The last thing we need now is a further pause in learning from any mistakes.
I hope that the noble Baroness does not repeat the reasons given in the Statement for this delay. The Prime Minister basically says that it because of the burdens that the inquiry would place on the National Health Service. I can understand that, but surely it applies more accurately to the wholesale NHS and public health reorganisation that the Government are about to embark on than to an inquiry which so many in the National Health Service support.
I hope that I am wrong on this—I have said that I want to be proved wrong—but can she give me an assurance that there is no attempt to delay the report beyond a general election, given that, at the same time, plans have been announced to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act? If the noble Baroness is able to give an assurance on that, that would be really helpful and would give a lot of reassurance to colleagues.
The noble Baroness knows that there is increasing concern about a rise in cases of the so-called Indian variant of Covid within the UK, including the highly transmissible B.1.617.2, which has now spread rapidly in areas of the north-west of England and elsewhere. Can she tell the House something about the impact that this is likely to have on the Government’s road map out of lockdown, including the national restrictions that are due to be lifted next Monday?
Are Ministers considering a return to tiers and maintaining or increasing restrictions in Covid hotspots? She will understand why I am asking—it is deeply concerning to people living in these communities, many of whom, in the north-west at least, have remained subject to restrictions throughout most of the past 14 months.
Will she also say something tonight about the latest increases in surge testing and surge vaccinations? Are there now plans to extend this further than Bolton and, more recently, Blackburn? Until now, we have seen vaccines rolled out at the same pace across the whole of England, on the advice of the JCVI, but extra doses of the vaccines have now been given to Blackburn with Darwen in Lancashire to extend the vaccine rollout to all over-18s in the area. Is this part of a new surge vaccination programme to deal with the rise of the Indian variant, and will that be rolled out in other areas where the variant may crop up?
Could she also tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the impact that not adding India to the red list for international travel has had on the arrival of this variant in the UK? Why did the Government not implement a comprehensive hotel quarantine policy when the variant was evident in other countries that were transporting visitors to the UK?
The Government have repeatedly pledged to be driven by data, not dates—yet we do not yet know the full extent to which many variants, including those identified in Brazil, South Africa and India, impact on vaccine effectiveness. A lot of the information is very positive and encouraging, but it would be helpful to know what research the Government are doing and how accurate some of that information is. Is she also able to say what information and advice the Government have received regarding the potential risk? Can she update the House on the rollout of booster doses that will be available later this year?
On a related matter—she may want to write to me about this; I am quite happy with that—it would be helpful to have an update on the Government’s plans for addressing the persisting disparities in vaccination uptake among different ethnic groups. She will share our concern on this issue. It has particularly affected the social care workforce, which has had a lower take-up.
More broadly, with the World Health Organization referring to the shocking disparity in vaccination rates between countries, and Chris Whitty saying that the prevention of new variants involves the need to get on top of the pandemic, I ask what role the UK is playing in leading the global response? One Minister said very early on that none of us is safe until all of us are safe, and we obviously want to see an international rollout of the vaccine.
All of us are desperate to get to a place where the virus is behind us and we can accelerate the return to living and working more normally. However, we need to do this safely, and our understanding of what did and did not work at the start of this pandemic is an urgent and essential part of that process. So we welcome the inquiry and think that it is the right decision to take, but it needs to be started sooner than next spring.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I begin by apologising to the House that, in order for me to get home tonight, I have to be on a train at King’s Cross at 8.03 pm. Therefore, I may have to leave before the end of all the supplementary questions, for which I apologise. I will undertake to watch them tomorrow morning.
For some time, we on these Benches have been calling for a committee of inquiry to be established to examine the actions of the Government in handling the Covid crisis and to consider what lessons can be learned for the future, so the fact that the Government are now setting one up is very much to be welcomed. However, I am somewhat dismayed at the proposed timescale. In response to the Prime Minister’s Statement, the relatives of Covid victims have strongly argued that we need to be learning lessons now, not at some distant future date—and they are surely right.
The Government’s argument in favour of delay until next year is that we should not distract people who are
“in the heat of our struggle against this disease”.
However, without being complacent, by the autumn, unless the vaccines prove ineffective against any new variants that might by then emerge, we will not be in the heat of the struggle as we have seen it in recent months. In any event, there are many aspects of the inquiry—such as the planning, procurement or decision-making processes within government—that could easily be investigated now, without jeopardising the NHS’s ability to manage a further wave. To delay starting the inquiry by a year is simply unjustified.
The lengths of public inquiries vary; the 69 held since 1990 have varied between 45 days and 13 years. The average was two and a half years. It is therefore highly unlikely that this inquiry will be conducted and concluded before the next election. This will mean that the Government will avoid any accountability for their actions, for by the time we get around to the following general election, people and events will have moved on. More importantly, such a long timetable will enable the Government to hide behind the fact that the inquiry is ongoing, and delay making the changes needed to avoid repeating some of the errors of the past 15 months.
The Government’s mind is clearly made up on the timescale, but I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Leader of the House could be a bit more specific about some aspects of it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked, when the Government say “spring 2022”, what is their definition of “spring”? Also, can the Minister specifically deny rumours from within Whitehall that civil servants working on the inquiry have been told to expect it to start next July? Have the Government any thoughts on how long the inquiry might last? Will they set even an indicative deadline for it to report?
Will they encourage the inquiry to produce interim reports on specific aspects of its work that could be completed first—an approach adopted in some other, analogous inquiries? For example, it would be sensible to know at the earliest possible moment what went wrong in the planning for the pandemic. We need those lessons to be learned before the next one arrives. It would also be sensible, and possible, to have an early report on procurement practices to ensure that the excesses of the last 15 months are never repeated. Can the noble Baroness give any indication of who might lead it? If she cannot, can she give us any indication of when we might know? Yesterday, it emerged that the Department of Health and Social Care has already concluded an internal inquiry which the Government are refusing to publish. Why is this, and will they now do so?
The urgency of the inquiry might not be so great if we felt confident that the Government had already learned the lessons of the past 15 months, but I am afraid that we do not. I will take just two examples. First, the delay in implementing the stricter measures that were urgently required in the autumn has been replicated by the delay in adding India to the red list. This has led to a large number of travellers from India entering the UK while the virus was rampant in that country, and to its inevitable importation here. We need a timelier approach to dealing with such new threats. The inquiry could explain why that has been lacking until now.
Secondly, the central test and trace system is now being disbanded, with most of the central PHE staff having been sacked, leaving open how any future surges will be managed. We need an ongoing, effective test and trace system to deal with new variants and localised outbreaks. The inquiry could shine a light on how that might be achieved.
Finally, on the creation of a UK commission on Covid commemoration, I completely agree that a national memorial in St Paul’s Cathedral is a good idea, but I gently suggest to the Government that the best memorial of this crisis would be a commitment to paying properly those staff working in the NHS and social care, whose dedication has been phenomenal and without whose efforts the effects of the pandemic would have been even more destructive.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I am afraid that I will not be able to go into the detail of the inquiry that both have asked for, but I will do my best to give the information that I can. The inquiry will begin its work in spring 2022. I do not know where the noble Lord got July from, but even I accept that that stretches the word “spring”. It will be funded by the Government.
The noble Lord asked about details. It will be for the chair of the inquiry to decide how to deliver it. They will be independent and will deliver it in line with the terms of reference and in accordance with the requirements set out in the Inquiries Act. That legislation sets out, for instance, that the chair will be appointed by the sponsoring Minister. It will all be done on a statutory basis, with full formal powers.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about timing. I am well aware of the differences of views on timing, and I understand calls for things to move forward. However, we believe that this is the right timescale, because the end of the lockdown will not be the end of the pandemic. The WHO has said that the pandemic has reached its peak globally, so we are certainly not through it. As the noble Baroness rightly said, we are uncertain about the effect of future waves, and new variants continue to present risks. We believe that a premature inquiry risks distracting the NHS, as the noble Baroness said, and Ministers, officials and departments from the ongoing response. An inquiry could not operate at sufficient pace to assist us in making the judgments that we might need to make in the medium term. So we believe that spring 2022, when we are on the other side of the pressures of this winter, which I hope will be far fewer than last winter, is the right time to start the inquiry. We are committed to that.
I will also say that we are continuously learning. While there has not been an inquiry, our whole approach in responding to the pandemic has been to draw up and develop plans based on experience. It is wrong to suggest that we are totally blind in what we are doing; we are learning lessons.
The noble Lord asked about the informal review. As is standard practice across departments, an informal lessons-learned review was carried out by DHSC officials to inform future working, so that we continually learn and improve our approach. It was not a formal or overarching review of the pandemic, but an internal, departmental ways-of-working review.
The noble Baroness rightly asked about the Indian variant. Cases have risen and we are watching it closely. We are assessing the threats but, at this stage, there is no evidence that the Indian variant is resistant to vaccines. This is something that we will keep under review. We are continuing to deploy surge and community testing efforts to find and isolate cases where there is evidence of community transmission, in addition to the comprehensive work under way to track and trace all contacts of cases.
The noble Baroness asked about the road map. At this stage, we are continuing with it and the next step is on Monday. We will keep things under review, but the road map remains the programme that we intend to follow, at this point. Having gone through the pandemic, as all of us have, I cannot make categorical commitments. All I can say is that the road map remains the programme that we are pursuing.
While we have been successful in closing vaccination disparities between different ethnic groups, I will write to the noble Baroness with the latest data, as she asked. I do not have it to hand.
The noble Baroness also asked about booster shots. As we complete the programme for first vaccinations, we are ramping this up. We are working with our current vaccine suppliers and new ones, such as CureVac, to work out which vaccines will be effective as boosters. We signed an agreement for a further 60 million doses of Pfizer, which will be part of the booster programme. That work is in train.
The noble Baroness also rightly asked about the global picture on COVAX. She and the House will know that we are one of the biggest donors to COVAX and we are working through it to ensure global access to vaccines. We have contributed £540 million, which has helped over 70 middle-income and lower-income countries receive doses. At the virtual G7 meeting in February, we encouraged other donors to give more money. At the G7 summit later, we will continue to play that role.
The noble Lord rightly asked about nurses’ pay and talked about the fantastic work that they have done during the pandemic. As he knows, we have committed to providing NHS staff a pay lift at a time when this has been paused in the wider public sector. We have given written evidence to the independent pay review, which is common practice, and we are now waiting to hear back its recommendations, which I cannot pre-empt. We will consider the recommendations when they are given to us.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, the threat of SARS-CoV-2 causing a pandemic was first highlighted in this House on 22 January 2020. From the early days of scientific uncertainty related to the virus and its transmission, which possibly helped to drive much of the policy of managing the pandemic, science helped to identify drug treatments, sequence the changing genome and develop vaccines. Does the Leader of the House agree that the proposed inquiry should include as part of its terms of reference the UK’s scientific ability to help manage and, importantly, prevent future pandemics, including the surveillance of likely emerging infections? The WHO independent panel report published on 12 May makes the same point.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I am sure that many of the issues that he raises will be part of the inquiry, but it will be up to the inquiry to determine its terms of reference, the scope of requests for evidence and who to call for evidence. We are clear that it will be a thorough examination, so I am sure the issues that the noble Lord talks about will be considered.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I congratulate the Government, the Vaccine Taskforce and, of course, the NHS on the amazing vaccine rollout in the UK, but as we know, in a global pandemic nowhere is safe until everywhere is safe. Yesterday, analysis from UNICEF showed that we could share 20% of our doses with countries less fortunate than ourselves and still vaccinate all adults in the UK by July. The Prime Minister committed three months ago to share our excess doses. My noble friend referred to our contribution to COVAX, which was made seven months ago. Time is of the essence and we need to start sharing doses now. When will our excess doses start to be shared? Will it be just signing over the supply or an additional financial contribution?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend. She is right to keep the pressure on us to do this. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the UK will share the majority of any future surplus Covid vaccines from our supply with the COVAX pool when they are available, and that remains our commitment. We have been a leading donor to COVAX. At the virtual G7 leaders meeting in February we managed to encourage donors to commit a further $4.3 billion. This will be an important part of the discussions at the G7 summit that is coming up because we want to make sure that we have global access to vaccines, and that the people my noble friend rightly raises who need our help get it.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
The pandemic has highlighted the vital role that the faith and voluntary sectors play in our society, particularly in the poorest communities, but initially our engagement was not as well done as it could possibly have been. Will the Minister comment on how the Government intend to include the faith and voluntary sectors in the inquiry so that their role is guaranteed in the future?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate. As I said, it will be for the inquiry and the chair to determine the scope of requests for evidence and who to call for evidence, but as it will be a comprehensive inquiry I am sure that the views of representatives from across society, including faith groups, will be heard.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can I take the noble Baroness back to the point made by my noble friend Lady Smith? Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the reason for delaying the start of the inquiry was the disruption it would cause to health workers working in the middle of a pandemic. If that is the case, why are the Government insisting on bringing a NHS restructuring Bill to Parliament yet again? It is hugely disruptive and expensive at a time when NHS staff should be focusing on dealing with the backlog of patients who need to be treated. Will the Government delay the Bill?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I set out in my response to the noble Baroness, there are a number of factors in why we believe that spring 2022 is the right time to start this inquiry. I gave them earlier. Of course the noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to tackle the worrying backlog of people needing care from the NHS, which is why we have committed billions of pounds to doing so, including £1 billion to tackle waiting lists by providing up to 1 million extra checks, scans and additional operations. We will continue to prioritise urgent and cancer care, as well as the recovery of non-urgent diagnostics and treatment so that patients receive the best healthcare as quickly as possible. That is an absolute priority.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House did not respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the publication of interim reports from reviews and inquiries. The Hackitt review on the Grenfell fire and the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse also produced interim reports in order to save lives and protect people. The Leader of the House has admitted that we know that the pandemic is by no means over. Surely an inquiry into the pandemic should also publish interim lessons learned to save lives and protect people. Can she make sure that that happens?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am sure that, when a chair takes their place, views like that will certainly be put to them and it will be up to them to decide.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the inquiry is welcome, but we may be faced with another Covid crisis or similar long before it can deliver its learnings. For instance, the Prime Minister’s Statement refers to a high likelihood of a surge this winter. We need to know which restrictions are necessary to curb infections and which are not. I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Our members had to watch as non-essential shops were allowed to open but galleries and museums were prevented from doing so, even though social distancing is much easier to organise in those establishments. Could the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree to publish the advice which led the Government to determine that visitor attractions should not be allowed to open while gyms, hairdressers and department stores could?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
We have obviously been very clear about the tests we have put forward to be able to move forward with the road map. We have taken a whole range of advice from scientists, businesses and across government in order to come up with the road map, and we have published a lot of evidence to back up why we have taken our decisions.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Sugg said, the UK has the potential of surplus vaccines. As one of the largest donors, the UK’s commitment to the COVAX programme has been impressive, but COVAX delivery is stalling. Given the urgency of the situation in Nepal, can I simply ask my noble friend whether the Government will respond positively to the Nepali Government’s request for 2 million vaccine doses via bilateral support?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As my noble friend says, we are a leading member of COVAX, and we are certainly doing everything we can to ensure global access to vaccines. We are looking to help all our global partners—one can obviously look at the support we have given India—and I am sure we are considering all the requests we receive from countries that need our help. I can certainly assure him and other noble Lords that we take our international responsibilities very seriously, and that is why we are a leading member of COVAX and are trying to push forward to ensure that we get global access to vaccines.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a very important Commons Statement from the Prime Minister. Can I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House if she has watched, along with 17 million others, the video by Peter Stefanovic regarding the constant untruths uttered by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons? Why should we believe a word he says in this Statement?
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the only way to make ourselves safe is to make everyone safe. This means that the whole world must have access to Covid vaccines. The Biden Administration accept this logic and are supporting the TRIPS waiver proposal to the WTO for the temporary suspension of IP rights and other barriers to allow all countries—rich and poor—to produce their own vaccines. Can I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House whether the US has sought our support? If so, what response did it receive?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
All I can say to the noble Baroness is that we are in discussions with the US and WTO members to facilitate increased production and supply of Covid vaccines. There are other issues—for instance, licensing agreements—which can also boost production. We are in discussions about a range of things that we hope might be able to make a difference.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB) [V]
My Lords, I agree that there is a persistent threat of new variants and support the necessity of Covid tests for international travellers, but the high cost of these tests has been well highlighted. What measures can the Government take to ease the financial burden on individuals and families trying to book a summer holiday after such a lengthy lockdown? Surely the Government should make all Covid tests VAT exempt.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. We recognise that the cost of tests can be high, which is why we are currently working with the travel industry and private testing providers to see how we can further reduce the cost of travel while ensuring that it stays safe. We are also closely monitoring the performance of private test providers to ensure that they deliver a high quality of service to customers. If they do not provide an adequate service they receive a five-day warning, and are then removed from the GOV.UK list of test providers if they do not improve. So we are cognisant of this issue and working hard to ensure that travellers can get lower-cost tests so that they can go and enjoy a summer holiday if they have booked one.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, can the Leader tell us the current state of research into whether it is possible—or even advantageous—for a person’s second jab to be given with a different vaccine from the first? Such flexibility might accelerate the rollout programme still further and keep us ahead of the virus and its worrying variants.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend. He is right that research is currently ongoing; it has been backed by £7 million of government funding. We are expecting the first set of results soon; that will be the first outcome of this research.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I ask the Leader of the House first to answer the question put to her by the Leader of the Opposition about whether she can give a guarantee that this inquiry will finish before the next general election. My second question is: since the Prime Minister has made such a feature of the decision that this inquiry should involve all the devolved Administrations across the UK, can she tell me whether the leaders of those countries were consulted on the timetable for the inquiry, and did they agree that it should be delayed until next year?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am afraid I cannot say anything further than that the inquiry will begin work in spring 2022. But I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke to all the First Ministers about the announcement of the inquiry, and we have pledged to work with them to establish it and ensure they are involved—so, yes, conversations have been had and will continue to be ongoing.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I searched the Prime Minister’s Statement in vain for any mention of care homes or social care. We must never forget that during the first wave almost 20,000 care home residents died, representing 40% of all Covid deaths registered in that period—and that is likely to be an understatement of the true toll. So what assurances can the Leader of the House give to the bereaved families that the reasons for this catastrophic failure to protect our most vulnerable citizens will be fully investigated and the lessons learned, so that such a tragedy can never happen again?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I have said, the inquiry will be a thorough examination across the breadth of our response. Obviously, the situation in care homes has been at the forefront of our minds throughout this pandemic. It is not for me to make commitments, but I cannot believe that this would not be something the inquiry looks at. I am sure that it will be and that relatives and those who work in care homes will be called to give evidence.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I have been involved in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus. If this is to be a UK inquiry, can the noble Baroness confirm that the terms of reference will be developed with the devolved Administrations and that they will be involved, not just consulted; that they will be involved in the appointment of the chair, with a panel on which they are represented; and that they will be involved in the appointments of other members of the inquiry?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
Decisions as to whether the inquiry will comprise a panel in addition to a chair will be made in due course, but I can certainly confirm that we want to learn the lessons of the pandemic as four nations together, just as we recover together. That is why, as I say, we have already begun discussions with the devolved Administrations, because we want this to be a UK-wide inquiry. We have gone through this together and we want to come out of it together.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I congratulate the Government both on the vaccine rollout and on getting ahead with plans for an independent inquiry. I am, however, concerned by the Covid-related delays in medical treatment, both by GPs and in hospitals, with more people probably dying early or living in pain than actually dying from Covid. Will the Government ensure that the NHS returns to normal rapidly, that energetic efforts are made to reduce the backlog of operations and that all medical practitioners return to offering face-to-face consultations immediately?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I can certainly reassure my noble friend that we will prioritise, and are prioritising, recovery in NHS services to bring down waiting times and deliver the care that people need. As I have already said, this includes £1 billion to tackle waiting lists by providing up to 1 million extra checks, scans and additional operations. This is a priority and one we are working closely with the NHS to deliver.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
Can the Leader of the House confirm the nature of the discussions with the devolved Administrations? Will their leaders be equal or secondary partners in driving this inquiry to get at the truth and to prepare for future pandemics?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I have said, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been talking to the First Ministers about this, and those discussions will continue.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in 2010, 2.5 million people in England were waiting to start their NHS treatment. This reached 4.52 million in December 2019, with nearly 224,000 waiting for more than 52 weeks. Today, the number on the waiting list is 4.95 million, with 436,000 waiting for more than 52 weeks. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what the waiting list will be in six and 12 months from now, and when the Government will be able to reduce it to 2010 levels?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
The noble Lord is right to set out the challenge, but I do not think it would be responsible of me to pluck a figure. “I do not know” is the obvious answer—I do not think anyone does. All I can say is that we are working hard with the NHS to tackle these backlogs. It is an absolute priority and we should thank our NHS staff for the incredible work they have done through the pandemic and what they will be doing to help us tackle this backlog.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, in declaring my interests as stated in the register, I ask whether my noble friend is aware that organisers of festivals and other live events need more clarity now on the basis on which they can stage events planned for this summer. They are already having to meet planning and preparation costs, but they are exposed to cancellation risks for which no insurance is available on the market. Are the Government still considering setting up a Government-backed insurance scheme?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend. We are obviously aware of the concerns raised about the challenge of securing indemnity for live events. Reopening when we are confident it is safe to do so will reduce the chance of cancellations and interruption, which is why the rollout of the vaccination programme is so critical. We also want to be sure that any investment or intervention would lead to an increase in activity. At the moment, for instance, we understand that social distancing remains one of the key barriers to activity. I can certainly reassure my noble friend that DCMS officials are working across government and with the affected sectors to understand the challenges and are keeping the situation under review to determine the most appropriate and effective response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in light of the difficulties Australia and New Zealand, with their excellent Covid control track records, have had in preventing breakouts of infection from quarantine facilities, can the Leader of the House tell me how many cases of infection have been traced to English quarantine facilities, an issue of particular importance given concern about the B16172 variant? If she is unable to answer this now, could she perhaps write to me later?
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the establishment of a public inquiry in a timely manner. However, we must be mindful that we are not out of this pandemic yet. What reassurance can my noble friend give that there will be capacity in the system for second jabs, potentially booster jabs in the autumn and the annual rollout of the flu jab?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I hope that I can provide that reassurance. As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we are ramping up plans for the programme of booster shots. We are working with current suppliers but also new suppliers such as CureVac; we have signed an agreement for a further 60 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine to be used as part of the booster programme; and we are obviously working on the flu jab programme. This is very much in our minds. We are making plans and, at the moment, we are very confident that we will be able to deliver this and are taking steps to do so.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the repeat of the Statement made in another place. The purpose of any inquiry must be to establish the facts of the pandemic and learn lessons for the future. Already, we have learned through tremendous scientific co-operation—both private and public—with the Government, who have produced and procured successful vaccines. Of course, all this is for naught if we do not combat the mass misinformation that reduces the effectiveness of the vaccination campaign. With over 127,000 bereaved families mourning their loved ones, can the noble Baroness say whether the important aspect of vaccine denial, particularly on social media, should be included in the terms of reference?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I have said, the terms of reference will be published in due course, but the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. We can be proud as a country that we have done very well to stamp out some of these false stories. Take-up has been extremely high, which has allowed us to move forward with the road map and everything else. I am not saying that there are not still challenges, but a lot of work across communities, through local government and community groups, helped to ensure that we got out strong messages about the importance of vaccination, and we are seeing the positive effects of that.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Olympic Games are now just over two months away and, despite the current state of emergency in Japan and a low vaccination rate of just 3%, recent Olympic test events met all WHO guidelines and were a success. Given the bubbles that will be formed for our athletes in Tokyo, can the Government confirm that they intend to offer vaccinations to British athletes and their entourage well in advance of their departure? Is it also my noble friend’s understanding that Team GB members will need to be tested and quarantined at home or in the place in which they are staying for 10 days on their return?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I can certainly reassure my noble friend that we are considering the matter and working closely with the British Olympic Association. We also note the offer from the IOC and Pfizer to support efforts in this area, so work is ongoing.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to start tackling the NHS waiting list backlog created by Covid, but can I urge Ministers not to lose sight of the extra demands that will be created by the consequences of long Covid? We do not yet know how extensive those demands will be, and we will not resolve and deal with Covid unless we also address such needs.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We have a number of ongoing research projects, and we are really only just beginning to see the effects of long Covid and understand its impact. She is absolutely right, and I can reassure her that research will be ongoing and we will look to ensure that we can tailor proper support and help as we increasingly understand long Covid and the traumatic and terrible effect it has had on many people.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, all questions have now been asked.