House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Baroness Boothroyd
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I have the sad duty to inform the House of the death of Baroness Boothroyd, Speaker of the House from 1992 until 2000. I know all Members will wish to join me in expressing our deep sadness on the loss of this groundbreaking parliamentarian. She was a dedicated and illustrious servant of this House. We send our condolences to her family and to her many friends.
Not only was Betty Boothroyd an inspiring woman; she was also an inspirational politician and someone I was proud to call my friend. When she was first elected as the Member for West Bromwich in 1973, there were fewer than 30 women MPs; when she was elected Speaker, 19 years later, women still made up less than 10% of the total of all MPs. To be the first woman Speaker was truly groundbreaking, and Betty certainly broke the glass ceiling with panache.
The sad part is that she was from Yorkshire—I am from Lancashire, so there was always a friendly rivalry between us, but from my point of view it was heartening to hear a northern voice speaking from the Chair. She stood by the rules and had a no-nonsense style, but any reprimands were issued with good humour and charm. Betty was one of a kind, and she was a sharp, witty, formidable woman. I will miss her.
I know Members will wish to pay tribute to her, and there will be an opportunity to do so tomorrow. In the meantime, I invite all Members to join me in a minute’s silence to remember, with respect and affection, a great servant of this House, Betty Boothroyd.
A one-minute silence was observed.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
I pay tribute to the life of the noble Baroness Boothroyd, who has sadly passed away. As the first and only woman Speaker, she blazed a trail for women, showing us that a woman’s place is not only in the House of Commons but at the top. Her legacy will live on and long be remembered in this place.
I know my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) is passionate about ensuring that people with special educational needs and disabilities get the support they need. I completely understand the complexities of a rural constituency, as I represent one myself, and it is why this Government introduced additional payments for small and remote mainstream schools, which are currently benefiting 23 schools in Rutland and Melton. More recently, in the autumn statement, we announced an extra £2 billion pounds for schools next year and the year after, meaning we will be spending more on schools than ever before, including £400 million to support high needs budgets from next April.
Alicia Kearns
I thank the Government for that investment in 23 schools in my constituency. However, the families my team and I support are sometimes waiting 40 weeks for a special educational needs assessment, which is a far beyond the six-week statutory period. So may I invite the Secretary of State to meet my local councils and schools in order to understand why we have so many difficulties in rural and small councils?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for that. All of us will be aware of the huge impacts that long waiting times for diagnosis for autism and for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can have on children in our communities; many of us will see such cases in our surgeries. To address this, last year we invested £13 million, with a further £2.5 million this year, to improve autism assessment pathways. NHS England is developing national guidance to improve access to autism assessments and we are also committed to looking at improving data on ADHD assessment waiting times to help improve access. I am sure that she will join me in welcoming my Department’s SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—and alternative provision improvement plan, which we will be publishing within the next week.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
A special school in Oxfordshire is one of dozens of schools that in the past few years have had to close because their buildings were deemed unsafe for pupils. Last week, it was revealed that 39 schools have partly or fully closed for that reason since the general election. With the House of Commons Library confirming that money to maintain school buildings has been cut by 4% in real terms, how will Ministers assure parents of children in both special schools and mainstream schools that their children are safe and that buildings are fit for purpose?
Gillian Keegan
Obviously, it is always important that our children are in safe schools, and we always take action as soon as possible if any concerns are raised within a school. £15 billion has been spent on the condition of school buildings since 2015, but there are also additional funds for adding capacity. We have a lot of work ongoing in this area—not only school rebuilding but condition assessments, with structural engineers in some schools right now, to make sure that we have all the information and data we need to ensure that all our schools are fit for purpose.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
The NHS long-term plan will give children with special needs in residential special schools access to sight checks. In addition, my Department trialled a new scheme in mainstream schools last year, Glasses in Classes, which provides a spare pair of glasses for every child who needs one. I look forward to hearing from Durham University and the University of Bradford, which will be publishing their findings on that in due course. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who is responsible for children, families and wellbeing, will continue to work closely on this issue with her counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care.
David Simmonds
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. My recent visit to the Eden Academy in my constituency illustrated the importance of vision to achieving educational outcomes. What plans are there across Government to ensure the availability of sufficient and appropriate eye testing, so that children in SEND day schools are able to achieve the best possible educational outcomes?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, as this issue is really important. My nephew has Down’s syndrome and wears glasses, so I know of its importance, and it was a privilege for me to support the Down Syndrome Act 2022 when I was in my previous role. Free NHS sight tests are available for all children under 16 or under 19 and in full-time education. Children can be supported to access high-street services or referred to the local eye service. The NHS is evaluating its proof-of-concept sight testing programme in special schools, and that evaluation will inform decisions about the funding and delivery of any future sight testing model.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for that response. I was a recipient of those glasses as a four-year-old—that was not yesterday, of course, as everybody will be aware! I went to school at four and had my eyes tested, and I got those circular NHS glasses that people will remember. The point I am making is that early eyesight testing is important. What is being done with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that any glasses prescribed are stylish and able to be worn, and would not in any way disadvantage a person, especially a young person?
Gillian Keegan
I do indeed remember those glasses, which I believe were available in blue and pink at one point. As I said, all children have access to free NHS sight tests, and voucher schemes are in place for glasses as well. In addition, we have Glasses in Classes and the programme in SEND schools, which are being evaluated. It is vital that young people can see when they are trying to learn to read and take in all that knowledge.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
The tragic death of Brianna Ghey will be at the forefront of all our minds. An investigation is ongoing and we should not assume the facts of the case. However, I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathy to her family and friends.
Schools should be safe, supportive and calm places where children are taught to respect each other and staff. The Government are clear that bullying is unacceptable. Since 2016, we have provided a total of more than £5.5 million to a number of anti-bullying organisations, including the Anti-Bullying Alliance and others, to support schools to tackle bullying.
Kim Johnson
I thank the Secretary of State for her response. According to research from Stonewall, students identifying as transgender are more likely to report having a bad experience at school or at college as a result of bullying. Can she commit to ensuring that schools and colleges are obligated to record incidents of transphobic bullying, and providing guidance on how to support students to report such incidents?
Gillian Keegan
All schools are required to have a behaviour policy, which will include anti-bullying, and Ofsted holds them to account on that. We also recognise that issues relating to sex and gender can be complex and sensitive for schools to navigate. I am currently working with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities to develop guidance to support schools in relation to transgender pupils. It is important to consider a wide range of views to get the guidance right and we have committed to holding a public consultation on the draft guidance prior to publication.
Dame Angela Eagle
May I take this opportunity to add my thoughts and condolences to the friends and family of Baroness Boothroyd? Voting for Betty to become the Speaker was the first vote in which I ever took part in this House. In the five years that that Parliament took up, I think that it was the only vote that we won.
Research shows that LGBT+ young people are twice as likely to be bullied as their peers in school. For trans pupils, this can be even worse. The Secretary of State’s predecessor promised last September to issue draft guidance on supporting trans pupils. It still has not appeared, so can the Secretary of State tell us when this guidance will appear, as pupils need it and teachers are crying out for it?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know that that guidance is very much required and that schools are waiting for it. We are working on it—I am working on it right now with the Women and Equalities Minister—but it is very important that we get it right and have a long consultation on it, because, as we know and as we have seen, this is quite a sensitive topic, and we do need to treat it very sensitively. We are working on it.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
At least 80% of schools now have children with trans identities, up from just a handful a decade ago. Vulnerable children, especially those who are autistic, have been abused or are in care, are significantly over-represented among children who report gender distress. But instead of safeguarding these children, many schools continue, possibly unlawfully, to encourage or affirm their transition, leading them down a potentially irreversible path towards sterility and exploitation. This is the safeguarding scandal of our generation, yet the Department still has not produced this guidance for schools, despite the reports of Dr Hilary Cass. What are the delays to this safeguarding guidance being produced?
Gillian Keegan
I would not say that there are delays, but we are working right now to get the guidance right. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also be speaking to the Minister for Women and Equalities to make sure that all the views are represented. It is very important that we protect victims of bullying and hate-related bullying, including those who also have special educational needs. As we know, there are many crossovers between those who are different for different reasons and get an increased amount of bullying, and we must do everything we can to stop that.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Alongside young people’s academic recovery, surely supporting their mental health and wellbeing must be a priority in all of our schools. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this Government are investing an extra £7 million this year to train senior mental health leads for schools and colleges?
Gillian Keegan
Yes, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have been investing in senior mental health leads in each school. On top of that, mental health support teams are being rolled out across schools. I think it is about 26% of schools at the moment, and the target is 35% by 2024-25.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
Since the introduction of the phonics screening check in 2012, in which every six-year-old is tested on their ability to read simple words, the proportion reaching the expected standard has increased from 58% to 82% in 2019—before the pandemic. England has risen from joint 10th to joint eighth in the international survey of the reading ability of nine-year-olds in the Pearl study, in which we achieved our highest ever score. There is, of course, more to do to ensure that every school is teaching phonics as well as the best schools. That is why we have invested £40 million in the English Hubs programme, which spreads best practice in the teaching of reading.
Andy Carter
I was at Park Road Community Primary School in Warrington on Friday morning, seeing phonics in action. Studies have shown that 80% of children with dyslexia do not have the condition identified before they leave school, and unfortunately too many find themselves in alternative provision because behavioural issues start to develop, stemming from a lack of understanding of a child’s learning style. Does my right hon. Friend agree that early screening and earlier intervention can level the playing field and enable them to develop skills in a way that is suited to their learning style?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Early identification of any special educational need or support requirement is critical to improving the outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, including those with dyslexia. We already have a number of measures to help teachers do that, including the phonics screening check and statutory assessments at the end of key stages 1 and 2.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Hungry children cannot learn, which affects their reading standards and their chances in life, and there is a clear link between undernourishment and lower academic attainment. The Scottish Government have committed to free school meals for all primary school children. Is it not time for the UK Government to consider doing the same thing?
Nick Gibb
Of course, it was this Government who introduced the universal infant free school meal, which means that 1.25 million children in infant schools are receiving a free school meal. We have increased from 1.7 million to 1.9 million the number of children eligible for free school meals, so thanks to this Government something like a third of children today are receiving a nutritious meal at lunchtime in our schools.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
We are working with colleagues across Government and put employers at the heart of local skills systems, with the roll-out of 38 local skills improvement plans. These employer-led plans will help ensure that skills provision better meets the needs of employers, and we are also ensuring that apprenticeships, T-levels and higher technical qualifications are all employer-led qualifications.
Dr Spencer
At a schools and skills meeting that I hosted a few weeks ago in my constituency, bringing together businesses and school leaders to enhance opportunities, a representative from a special educational needs school reminded us of the importance of these opportunities for all children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that work and training opportunities are essential for those of all abilities and all ages, including those with special educational needs or living with disabilities?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is a champion of schools and skills in his constituency. He is absolutely right to have a passion for making sure that children with disabilities or special educational needs have a chance to climb the skills ladder of opportunity. We are investing £18 million to try to help those SEND students with employment opportunities, as well as ensuring that careers guidance helps them at every step of the way to get the career chances that they deserve.
Mark Menzies
This Friday, pupils from Carr Hill school in my constituency will attend an event celebrating BAE Systems and CREATE Education’s Inspiring Lancashire programme. More than 2,000 pupils have participated in the programme over the past year. It has introduced them to the digital skills that are vital to Lancashire’s continued success as a hub for high skilled, well-paid technical jobs. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage businesses to get involved in education and skills?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is a champion of skills as well. It is very good news that that school is promoting careers and working with BAE, which does so much for apprenticeships. Some 90% of schools and colleges are now part of our careers hub. I am very pleased that Lancashire has had 10,000 apprenticeship starts since last year and was an early adopter of T-levels.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Some 740 people from Hull West and Hessle have had their university applications accepted, and 35 of them will attend higher education in the constituency, which will help us meet our local skills needs. The Department for Education’s own equality impact assessment, published in February, stated that the rise in student loans and grants
“will overall have a negative impact for students”.
I believe in equality of opportunity, as does the Labour party, but it is impossible when students face insurmountable financial barriers to learning. When will the Government ensure that all students have the financial resources that they need to succeed?
Robert Halfon
We have to be fair to students and fair to the taxpayer. Many people do not go to university but pay their taxes. We have increased to £276 million—a £15 million increase—the money given to the Office for Students from which universities can draw down to help students who face financial difficulties. We have frozen the loan—in 2025, it will not have had an increase for seven years. Students who face difficulties can also get bursaries from universities.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, am mourning Betty’s death today. We were friends even before I got into Parliament. What a feisty woman, right to the end. Were it not for her, you would probably still be wearing a wig, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I know that is your own hair, Mr Speaker.
I think the Minister is being entirely complacent. A huge number of young people in our country, when little children, are identified as clever, bright and really intelligent at primary school, up to the age of 11, but when they get to big school they disappear and do not achieve very much. Why is that, and why have this Government done so little to rectify it since 2011?
Robert Halfon
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s narrative. In my area of skills, more than 5 million apprenticeships have started since 2010. Over the past decade we have invested in skills in a way that we never had before—over £3.8 billion. We have massively improved our schools, and I think 88% are now rated good or outstanding. We have a narrative in which we are delivering on education and skills. I completely reject what he said.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
Raising academic standards is at the heart of the Government’s education agenda. We routinely assess the impact on student attainment of a range of factors, including the cost of living. The schools budget will increase by £3.5 billion in 2023-24, combined with a £4 billion increase in the schools budget for this year. That amounts to a 15% increase in just two years. The pupil premium is rising to about £2.9 million in the next financial year, and it is supporting schools to improve outcomes for disadvantaged students.
Mr Sharma
The children at Dormers Wells Junior School in my constituency wrote to me about the challenges that they face with the cost of living crisis. Children should not have to worry about their next meal or about going back to cold and dark homes, but as this crisis marches on, pupils are increasingly exposed to those harsh realities. To combat this pressing situation, will the Government commit to starting new breakfast clubs in primary schools and to creating bursaries for the families most affected by the cost of living crisis?
Nick Gibb
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about these issues. The Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable households, with £26 billion of support announced for 2023-24. That is in addition to the £37 billion of support for households to deal with the cost of living this year. The Government are also committed to continuing the support for school breakfasts. In November last year, the national school breakfast programme was extended, and the Government are providing up to £30 million under the programme, which will support something like 2,500 schools.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The cost of living is not the only impact on pupil attainment. Around 4,500 children every year are diagnosed with cancer, and prolonged absences from school and the ongoing impact of treatment mean that they can expect worse educational outcomes. Currently, provision of access to education, health and care plans is not universal for children with cancer, and it can be long-winded and patchy. What thought has been given to automatic entitlement to EHCPs for all children with a cancer diagnosis, and will the excellent Minister meet me to discuss the issue?
Nick Gibb
I will of course meet the excellent former Minister to discuss this important issue. Of course, the special educational needs and alternative provision improvement plan will be published shortly, but I do share her concern. One issue that has come out of covid is that more remote learning is now available at home for children who are unable to get to school for whatever reason, and that will of course apply to children in hospitals as well.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Energy bills have jumped 300% in some schools, forcing many I have spoken with to increase class sizes, strip back their curriculum and make impossible decisions on what resources or staff members to cut to balance the books. Does the Minister accept that the cost of living crisis made in Downing Street is having a direct impact on the quality of education that children across the country are receiving?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Member may have missed the autumn statement, but we added £2 billion to next year’s school funding, meaning that it will rise by £3.5 billion next year. By 2024-25, we will be spending record amounts in real terms and per pupil on our schools. We take education extremely seriously and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education said earlier, that is resulting in standards rising in our schools, with better reading, better maths, better attainment, higher quality and a higher proportion of schools graded good or outstanding—88%, compared with 68% when the Labour party left office in 2010. Of course, as I said earlier, we are also providing households with £26 billion of support for 2023-24.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
First, on behalf of SNP Members present, I join other Members in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd. I did not know Betty personally, but I am certainly well aware of her legacy, and I pass on our condolences to her family.
The Chancellor has recently received an unexpected £5.4 billion surplus due to higher than expected tax receipts. We know that hungry children cannot learn effectively, and the Scottish Government have committed to providing free school meals for all primary school children in Scotland. What discussions has the Minister had with Treasury colleagues, and indeed the Chancellor, on using a tiny part of that surplus to provide free school meals for all children in England?
Nick Gibb
Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has frequent meetings with the Chancellor. Indeed, in her first few weeks in office she achieved an extra £2 billion of funding for our schools, bringing the increase next year to £3.5 billion. As I said earlier, the Government have extended free school meals to more children than any other Government over the past half-century. We remain committed to ensuring that the most disadvantaged children continue to be supported.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
We support the right of parents to educate their children at home, provided that is suitable. We know that there has been a rise in the number of children off-rolling since the pandemic. We remain committed to introducing local authority registers and will legislate for these as soon as possible.
Ms Rimmer
An increasing number of children are being educated at home, partly as a legacy of the covid pandemic. I am sure that many of those children are receiving a good education. However, local authorities still have a duty to ensure that resident children are receiving a suitable education. It is essential that local authorities are notified of children who are being educated at home, but at the moment there is no legal obligation for them to be notified by the parents. Given that we are talking about those children’s futures, will the Secretary of State ensure that any form of register is introduced sooner, rather than later?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Lady is right, and this is an issue that the Government take very seriously. The Minister for Schools and the Children’s Commissioner for England recently chaired a roundtable on children missing in education, and we are engaging with local authorities and building a clearer picture through use of data, as well as establishing better attendance data across schools and trusts. We are committed to legislating at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s answer but, as she will know, having a statutory register of children not in school has been a very long-standing recommendation of the Select Committee. I believe that recommendation is supported across the House, so can I urge her to make sure that legislation comes forward at the first available opportunity, delivering on what I think the Secretary of State has already said is her top legislative priority?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. This is a really important area. As I have said, we are working in the interim to do a lot of things regarding data to make sure that we can keep track of attendance. We are seeing what we can do in the meantime, but I absolutely commit to legislating at the earliest possible opportunity.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
We spend close to £11 billion on children’s services, helping some of our most vulnerable children through challenging times. In addition, we recently set out an ambitious package of reforms, the “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy, backed by £200 million, and our improvement and intervention programme is working, with 58% of local authorities now rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted, compared with 36% in 2017.
Selaine Saxby
Given the issues surrounding Devon’s children’s services, is it possible to look for a granular solution that recognises the differences between the more urban south and the rural north of the county; one in which more localised solutions such as the northern opportunity area can be considered, as well as expediting the Government’s promised funding safety valve?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my hon. Friend, who has raised this issue consistently on behalf of her constituents. It is important that we see an improvement in children’s services in Devon, and I recently met the council leader and the chief executive to stress how important that is to us. Nothing is off the table, and I reassure my hon. Friend that the safety valve case remains open and still under discussion.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I represent a cross-borough constituency, so unfortunately I have to see two of everything, deal with two of everything, and experience two of everything. The differences between the children’s services of my two local authorities could not be more stark. I appreciate that the Minister has said that children’s services have improved, but how do we get those councils that are stuck in a rut to improve far more quickly, so that children in both parts of my constituency have the best life chances?
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. That is exactly what our reforms are hoping to do. We have set out things such as a new national framework and are looking at things like the agency cap. [Interruption.] Somebody has just mentioned our record; as I have just said, in recent years we have managed to increase the number of local authorities rated as good or outstanding from 36% to 58%, and we will continue to do everything we can to improve that.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
It is critical that secondary education on the Isle of Sheppey improves. Following Ofsted’s judgment that the island’s only secondary school was inadequate, the Department for Education and the incumbent academy trust, Oasis Community Learning, have mutually agreed to transfer the school to another trust. That work is underway, and in the meantime Oasis is continuing to work to improve the academy.
Gordon Henderson
The Isle of Sheppey, which makes up 40% of my constituency, has just one large academy split across two sites, two miles apart. Sittingbourne, on the other hand, has five good secondary schools. Because of the lack of choice on Sheppey, many parents send their children to the mainland. That results in 1,000 children being bused to the mainland every day, which is putting enormous pressure on Sittingbourne’s schools. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents on Sheppey deserve the same quality of secondary education as is offered to those on the mainland? If so, will he support my campaign for the current Isle of Sheppey academy to be replaced by two schools, one specialising in academic subjects and the other offering a vocational and technical curriculum?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend and I have discussed the provision of secondary education on the Isle of Sheppey on many occasions, and I pay tribute to him for his strong advocacy for higher school standards in every part of his constituency. He makes compelling arguments about the school being on two sites, which are two miles apart. The combined school has a capacity of 2,400 pupils —more than enough for two schools. Currently, the Oasis Academy Isle of Sheppey is being moved to a new multi-academy trust, and I look forward to working with that new trust and my hon. Friend to ensure that we are delivering the quality of secondary education that he wants for his constituents and that parents in his constituency are demanding.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Government missed their secondary teacher recruitment target by 40% this year, meaning that more and more children on the Isle of Sheppey and across the country will be taught by non-specialist teachers and will be attending schools that are woefully understaffed. In the midst of a teacher recruitment and retention crisis, does the Minister really think that removing a quarter of teacher training providers will help address that crisis?
Nick Gibb
The accreditation of teacher training providers resulted in 179 very high-quality teacher training providers being accredited. A number failed the accreditation, but we want to ensure consistency of teacher training in our system. In terms of teacher recruitment, there have been challenges with secondary education teacher recruitment this year post covid. Recruitment is a problem right across the economy, not just in teaching, but prior to the covid pandemic we were recruiting near to our targets, and in primary education we exceeded those targets.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
This is an area that the Secretary of State, given her former role in the Department of Health and Social Care, and I, as a former Minister for disabled people, take seriously. Getting our educational offer right for children with special educational needs and disabilities is hugely important, and I will be responding to the SEND and alternative provision Green Paper within the next week.
Vicky Foxcroft
At my surgery, I met a constituent who is a teacher at a SEND school. She broke down in tears as she told me how they are struggling to support their pupils because their budgets are stretched to breaking point. In Lewisham, increased need is costing £5 million a year more than the council’s SEND budget. When next week—if I heard that right—will the Government finally follow up on their Green Paper and publish their plans to fix this mess? Those vulnerable children and their families need proper support.
Claire Coutinho
I will be responding to the SEND and AP Green Paper within the next week. We have increased funding massively in this area—it is up by 50% in the past three years. I struggle to think of another area of government that has risen that fast. This is about spending well and making sure that all the pupils who need help can get it as soon as possible.
Dr Mullan
We struggle with SEND provision in Cheshire, both in terms of special school places and support for children in school. Can the Minister outline the steps that the Government have taken to increase provision to build on the upcoming expansion of Springfield School in my constituency, and also join me in congratulating the school on its amazing achievement of being named school of the year last year in the national schools awards?
Claire Coutinho
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Springfield School on its outstanding achievement—he has often bent my ear about the head, Lisa Hodgkison, and the tremendous work she is doing there. We are investing £2.6 billion to increase the number of specialist school places across the country.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
We have a range of programmes designed for adults to upskill. Skills bootcamps are free flexible courses of up to 16 weeks, offering learners the opportunity to develop skills with the offer of a job interview, and we delivered 16,120 training places over the last year, 2021-22. Following the commitment of £550 million at the spending review in autumn 2021, we are making thousands more training places available.
Andrew Jones
Harrogate College in my constituency can, in certain circumstances, contribute towards childcare to help adults study, when that is a factor preventing them from upskilling. Will my right hon. Friend be reviewing what more can be done to remove any barriers that prevent adults from renewing and updating their skills?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is a champion of Harrogate College, and I do not think he will have any problem with his college doing the things he has described, because it has been recognised as having an outstanding adult learning programme. It has been allocated more than £400,000 from the adult education budget this academic year to help the adults in the non-devolved areas, including Harrogate.
Antony Higginbotham
The advent of areas such as artificial intelligence, automation and robotics means that the jobs of tomorrow could look very different from the jobs of today and require very different skillsets. In Lancashire, the new institute of technology that is being established will be key to that. It will bring together Burnley College and the University of Central Lancashire from my constituency, as well as providers and employers from all over the counties. For opportunity to be shared equally, however, we need to ensure that those already in work have the chance to develop and reskill for the future. Will my right hon. Friend confirm how the Government will ensure that IOTs benefit adult learners looking for opportunities to reskill?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight institutes of technology; we are investing £300 million in 21 around the country, which is an example of the Government’s investment in skills. He will know that the Lancashire and Cumbria IOT is a collaboration between further education colleges, universities and employers driving an employer-led curriculum to meet local skills needs in science, technology, engineering and maths. IOTs are involved in the regeneration of areas such as Blackpool and are expected to commence delivery from September.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
All hon. Members agree that the skills agenda is vital for the future of the economy, but the loss of the European social fund has been devastating for skills providers. Surely the Minister agrees that the UK Exchequer should match the ESF money lost across all four home nations.
Robert Halfon
These matters are, of course, for the Treasury, but I am proud that the Government are investing £3.8 billion extra in skills over this Parliament, as well as £2.7 billion in apprenticeships.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Polling has found that 46.4% of workers said that they would learn a new skill if it were free for them to do so, but colleges and educational institutions do not have the funding to put on the courses required. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade about the economic benefit of upskilling the workforce? What plans do the Government have to do that?
Robert Halfon
We are upskilling the workforce all the time—that is behind the Government’s approach. We are investing in resources, as I mentioned, and £3.8 billion extra is being spent on skills during this Parliament. We are investing in recruitment, FE resources and bursaries for FE college tutors in key subjects, such as STEM. Everything that the Government are doing—investing in quality qualifications and resources, and working with business—is to ensure that our country has the skills that we need.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
YouGov polling published today shows that 40% of workers want to learn a new skill to get a better job, and almost as many want to see more investment in skills. The Conservatives have had 13 years to deliver, yet almost 4 million fewer adults are taking part in training now than in 2010 and part-time study has plummeted by 50%. Given their pitiful record on this important agenda, is it not finally time for a Labour Government to take the reins?
Robert Halfon
I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s question; he is a thoughtful shadow spokesman. As I have already highlighted, we have a proud record on skills in this country. We have had more than 5 million apprenticeship starts since 2010 and we are developing high-level, prestigious vocational qualifications in the T-levels and higher technical qualifications. We are offering free level 3 courses to thousands of people, as well as the bootcamps that I mentioned earlier. Whichever way we look, the Government are giving young people and adults a skills ladder of opportunity, at the top of which is job security and prosperity. That is possibly why—
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
Improving parents’ access to affordable childcare is a Government priority. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to deliver the childcare choices campaign to raise awareness among parents and providers of the Government-funded subsidies available to support families.
Theresa Villiers
With the Budget coming up, will the Government look at how reducing the cost of childcare could help productivity by supporting women who want to go back into the workplace and bringing back over-50s who may have retired early partly to look after grandchildren?
Claire Coutinho
My right hon. Friend is right that childcare is about supporting women and parents into the labour market. We want to support families and are exploring options to achieve this. The Government have delivered a huge amount on childcare, including doubling the 15-hour entitlement for working parents of three to four-year-olds to 30 hours and introducing 15 free hours for disadvantaged two-year-olds.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
On Saturday, I met a constituent who was about to return to work from her maternity leave after having her second child. Her childcare costs for a three-year-old and a one-year-old will be £2,700 a month. Spiralling childcare costs are an unbearable cost of living pressure for many families, so what discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury about tackling this unsustainable pressure, and can parents and providers expect to see the urgent change that is needed in the forthcoming Budget?
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I understand that it is a challenging time with the cost of living and with childcare. I would say it is the Conservative Government who have done the most of any party to expand hourly entitlements. We expanded the hours for three to four-year-olds, we have introduced 15 hours for disadvantaged two-year-olds, we have introduced the holidays and activities fund—by the way, 70% of those participating in 2021 said that they had never been to anything like that before—and we have doubled the number of families in recent years who have taken up tax-free childcare.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Last Friday marked one year since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. All of us in the House should be proud of the support our country has provided to Ukrainians, both at home and abroad. I want to take the opportunity to thank all of our schools, colleges and universities for their steadfast support of children and young people fleeing this horrific conflict. To date, our schools have welcomed over 20,000 children from Ukraine, and in my own constituency we have welcomed over 245 children. By coincidence, one of them won my recent Christmas card competition—a very talented six-year-old called Anastasiia, whom I met along with her mother at St Joseph’s primary school in Chichester. She is thriving, which is testament to the incredible role our schools are playing to support children who have lived through something that none of us could imagine. Our nurseries, schools, colleges and universities have stood up for the people of Ukraine, and this Government and this country—and this House—will always stand with Ukraine.
Afzal Khan
I recently met students at Manchester University who are deeply concerned about the quality of student housing and, like all of us, are feeling the incredible strain of the Tory cost of living crisis. The Government’s failure to properly manage student maintenance loans will mean that students are £1,500 worse off in real terms. Can the Secretary of State tell me why the Government are punishing students like this?
Gillian Keegan
Of course, we always want to support our students, and we have been increasing the maintenance loan. We have kept the fees flat as well, and we have increased the hardship fund. However, I know this is a concern, particularly in some big cities where housing costs have gone up and where perhaps there is a shortage of housing available for students as well. We do urge universities to act on this, because we have seen some crunch points where there is not enough housing, which can create pressure on students’ budgets.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
Employers have developed 660 high-quality apprenticeships, including 150 in the engineering and manufacturing sector. Where employers identify the need for new and emerging skills, including in green jobs, they can work with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, which stands ready to work with employers to introduce new apprenticeships. I would encourage JCL Glass to speak to the institute about this.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
May I begin by joining the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State in recognising the tremendous contribution of everyone right across education in welcoming Ukrainian refugees to our country, and reiterate our commitment, right across the House, to facing down Russian aggression?
Last week, the Leader of the Opposition set out that spreading opportunity through reform of our childcare and education systems will be a central mission of the next Labour Government. By contrast, the Prime Minister fails to identify education as a priority for his Government. Can the Secretary of State explain why?
Gillian Keegan
I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has finally recognised education, because every other speech he has given did not mention it at all. The education of our children is vital, and standards and quality are also important. Since 2010, we have been making sure that the standards of our education for children give them the best opportunity to thrive in life. We have increased access to free childcare, and we have changed school standards, ensuring that all our kids are doing much better in much better schools. We have increased the number of good and outstanding schools, and increased skills training. We have introduced T-levels, we have introduced apprenticeships—we have done endless things, and every one of them has been done to increase quality.
Mr Speaker
I remind Front Benchers that many people want to get in at topical questions, which are meant to be short and punchy. Can we set the best example?
Bridget Phillipson
Will the Secretary of State explain to parents why after 13 years of Conservative Governments, her Department escalated the risk of a school building collapsing to “critical—very likely”?
Gillian Keegan
Absolutely. We take the condition of schools very seriously, and we will be publishing data. We have collected a lot of data on schools—1.2 billion lines of data—and every time a school is identified as having a risk, it is acted on immediately.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
I am so sorry to hear about the position of Keya. There are things we are doing, including increasing access to specialist school spaces and improving the offer in schools, and I will be setting out more detail within the next week.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is concerning to hear that the Home Secretary is considering changing visa rules significantly to reduce the period that international students can remain in the UK post-graduation. When the post-study work visa was previously withdrawn, huge damage was done to the higher education sector. Will the Minister assure the House that he will oppose such short-sighted and reactionary policies from the Home Secretary?
Robert Halfon
Immigration matters are for the Home Office, but I am proud that we have a target of 600,000 international students every year. We have exceeded that target, and they have ensured that the economic worth to our country is £25 billion.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Gillian Keegan
Obviously I cannot comment on bids, but I thank my hon. Friend for meeting me to discuss his ongoing campaign to open a new sixth form in Bolsover. I share his passion for wanting every young person to have a wide range of opportunities to fulfil their potential, whether that is through T-levels, apprenticeships or higher technical qualifications. The next generation must have the skills to thrive.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Gillian Keegan
Let me take the opportunity to thank all those working in this sector. I know they do incredible work, and it is difficult with the spike in inflation and the rising cost of energy. We always monitor the situation and sufficiency of places. We have spent £3.5 billion in each of the past three years, and we have provided support with energy bills. We are focused on halving inflation, but we recognise the challenges and will always do more. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
The new energy bills discount scheme will mean that any schools facing energy costs above the price threshold will receive a discount on their bills until 31 March 2024. In addition, the extra funding announced at the autumn statement, £2 billion, will help schools manage higher costs, including higher energy bills. The core schools budget will total £58.8 billion by 2024-25, the highest ever level in real terms per pupil.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Last month Carla, a parent in my constituency, suffered a serious head injury after a large piece of cladding flew off the school building, striking her on the head. Thankfully, Carla’s injuries are not life-threatening, but we need to ensure no other parent, staff member or child is put at risk in that way. According to leaked Government reports, school buildings in England are in such bad disrepair that they are a “risk to life”. Instead of waiting for the inevitable to happen, will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue?
Nick Gibb
I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue. The ratings she refers to reflect increased numbers of structural issues identified through our continued monitoring and surveying of the schools estate, and the age of that estate. We can and do improve the life expectancy of school buildings by careful maintenance and upgrades over time. That is why we have a 10-year rebuilding programme, allocate significant capital funding each year, and provide extensive guidance on effective estate management. Whenever the Department is made aware of a dangerous building, immediate action is taken.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend is passionate about securing an excellent education for all his residents. The funding will help many children in mainstream education, but with dyslexia early identification and teacher training is key. I will be setting out more details in the response to the special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision Green Paper.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State and her Department aware of the severe financial crisis engulfing the University of East Anglia, one so severe that the vice-chancellor has today resigned? This will have a dramatic impact on the regional economy. We could be looking at up to £45 million-worth of projected debt and 30% job losses. As such, will the Secretary of State or the Minister agree to meet me and a delegation from the University of East Anglia to discuss this most critical issue as soon as possible?
Robert Halfon
Yes, I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman sooner rather than later.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Nick Gibb
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his commitment to reading and congratulate Skerne Park Academy on its Reading Lobster scheme, which I am keen to learn more about. Anything that promotes a love and habit of reading for pleasure can only be a good thing—and, as I say, the world’s your lobster.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
According to the Department’s own figures, in 2022, 5,400 children’s social workers left the profession. That is 9% up on the previous year. What are Ministers doing to address this crisis in retention and recruitment in children’s social work?
Claire Coutinho
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that recruitment and retention is key. We set out plans in our reforms a couple of weeks ago, including looking at what we are doing on agency workers, An additional £3.2 billion was set out in the autumn statement to go into adult and children’s social care.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I was pleased when a new construction and engineering skills centre was built on Chartmoor Road in Leighton Buzzard, but it has failed to deliver. We need 1 million engineers and a quarter of a million construction workers. Will the Department ensure it keeps an eye on such projects so that they deliver for the people who need them?
Robert Halfon
We have had a huge increase—15.7%—in construction apprenticeship starts over the past year. On the college my hon. Friend refers to, we are working closely with Bedford College Group and Central Bedfordshire College to ensure that employers in Bedfordshire continue to benefit from the wide range of skills offers available.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Earlier this month, a serious racially aggravated assault took place outside a school in Surrey. Last week, I was informed of a further assault that took place at a school in Kent. Could the Secretary of State say what additional safeguards will be put in place to protect children, and how the senior leadership in schools will be held to account if they fail to protect students from racial discrimination?
Gillian Keegan
The recent violent incident in the vicinity of Thomas Knyvett and the incident in Medway were absolutely abhorrent. Children’s safety and wellbeing is the Department’s highest priority, and schools and colleges have a duty to safeguard. Since the incident, the Department has been in regular contact with the academy trust and local authorities. A police investigation is ongoing in one of those cases, and the academy trust is working with the relevant authorities to undertake a thorough review into what happened.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
My staff member Callum Dineen has been campaigning to improve mental health policies at universities following the tragic suicide of his close friend Theo Brennan-Hulme. I thank the Universities Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for meeting Callum on this sensitive matter. Callum has been particularly focused on information sharing in a mental health crisis, which is a policy that Universities UK has recently endorsed and one that we feel would have helped Theo. Can the Minister inform the House of the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that those policies are being adopted in universities?
Robert Halfon
I had a very moving meeting with Callum. The story of the loss of his friend is absolutely tragic. There are serious mental health problems among some students across higher education and universities, and there have been some tragic episodes. We are investing £15 million to support students’ mental health and are strongly supporting the students’ mental health charter. I have asked Edward Peck, the vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent, to work on these issues.
Mr Speaker
Order. I say again to Ministers that Question Time should be short and punchy; it is not an opportunity for Ministers to roll on and read out pages of articles. Question Time is for Members to ask questions, so please help me to help them do so.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
A headteacher in one of my schools said that there were material errors in the assessment and review of the infrastructure parts of their bids for funds from the school heating programme. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the bids are properly assessed?
Nick Gibb
Officials will give detailed feedback when a school fails to secure a bid through the many different bidding schemes for capital. We spend a huge amount of money on capital funding in our schools—about £13 billion since 2015. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady, the school and officials to go through what went wrong with that bid.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the tragic incident that occurred in my constituency on the icy lake in Kingshurst, where four children tragically lost their lives. Will she agree to meet me to discuss my campaign to educate children on water safety, to avoid such tragedies in future?
Gillian Keegan
Yes, I am committed to seeing what we can do to improve that, and I will definitely meet my hon. Friend.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I recently had a meeting with headteachers from across north Shropshire, who were clear that they had two top issues: recruitment and retention of staff, and the fact that rural schools receive less funding than their urban counterparts. Can the Secretary of State tell me what she is doing to help schools in rural areas with those two big problems?
Nick Gibb
On recruitment, we have increased the bursaries for this year from £130 million to £180 million, to provide £27,000 bursaries for the shortage subjects. In the national funding formula we have changed a number of elements to give more money to small schools in rural areas through the sparse funding component.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that families with first-hand experience of special educational needs—such as my constituents the Murphy family, who are in the public gallery—have the opportunity to have a say directly and influence SEN policy and provision, given decisions will affect them on a daily basis?
Claire Coutinho
I welcome the Murphy family—hello! Co-production is incredibly important; that is how we have designed our response to the SEN paper. We will continue to consult at every opportunity.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We know from leaked Government documents that there is a £13 billion backlog in school repairs. Some cases are deemed to pose a risk to life. Is the Schools Minister aware of any school buildings that are at risk of collapse?
Nick Gibb
We have been conducting some of the biggest surveys of the fabric of school buildings in this country, which is why we are able to identify risks in our schools. Whenever we are informed about a risk to a school, we take immediate action, which can mean that certain buildings in a school are no longer used. We then send in surveyors, specialists and experts, and remedial action is put in place. We take these issues extremely seriously.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is there a danger that the Government’s proposed legislation on freedom of speech in universities could be weakened or undermined by a requirement first to exhaust internal processes of appeal, which can be protracted?
Claire Coutinho
We have sent the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill back to the Lords with the tort unamended. We will continue to look at everything we can do to make sure that the Bill is as strong as possible.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree that early years stimulation is vital? When will she do something about bringing back children’s centres and Sure Start?
Gillian Keegan
I will do even better than that. We are introducing family hubs, which have a lot more utility and will be much more useful to those who need them.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Councillor Dave Evans and his team, led by Lisa Lyons, Vonni Gordon and Steven Orchard, for getting Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s children’s services from “inadequate” to “requires improvement”? That is an incredible turnaround, but obviously there is still a way to go.
Gillian Keegan
I am very happy to congratulate Stoke-on-Trent City Council and the many other councils that have made that turnaround possible. That is very important, as we build on the work of Stable Homes, Built on Love.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the steps that she is taking to progress talks with the National Education Union to ensure that there is no more disruptive and damaging strike action?
Gillian Keegan
I am quite surprised that this question did not come up earlier. On Tuesday of last week, the Government made a serious offer to the leaders of the National Education Union and the Royal College of Nursing to pause this week’s strikes, get around the table and talk about pay. This is an offer for talks about all areas in dispute, and we could not have been clearer. It is a serious offer; it was accepted by the Royal College of Nursing, and I urge the education unions to do the same. They have yet to formally respond, although statements have been circulating on Twitter and TV indicating that they are not prepared to pause their plans.
Points of Order
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 6 February, the Middlesbrough Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2023 was laid before the House. Last Friday, Middlesbrough Council voted not to consent to the creation of the development corporation. Many people understood that to mean that the establishment of the corporation would not happen, but this very day, as a result of the negative procedure, the corporation will still come into being—notwithstanding the opposition of the duly elected council, which will lose its publicly assembled and funded assets and lose its planning powers in favour of a non-elected, unaccountable board hand-picked by the Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen.
Have you had any notice from the Government as to whether they intend to proceed with the corporation, Mr Speaker? Alternatively, how may I secure a statement from the Secretary of State to clarify the position?
Mr Speaker
The answer is no, I have not, but I am very grateful to the hon. Member for notice of his point of order. As he knows, it is not a matter for the Chair, but I note that he has prayed against the instrument; he may also wish to put in for an urgent question. The outcome may not be favourable, but at least he has got his point on the record.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the matter of slavery reparations to the Island of Grenada, and the wider Caribbean? As you may be aware, today the Trevelyan family is launching a £100,000 fund in Grenada, announced by the BBC journalist Laura Trevelyan and her family earlier this month, in response to the family’s discovery that they had benefited from the slave trade and the massive British Government compensation paid to slave owners—but not to the slaves—in the 1830s. As a son of both Britain and Grenada, I believe that the Trevelyan family’s actions are to be applauded, but I cannot find any evidence of a single, solitary statement to the House on this pressing matter, or any record of British Ministers’ having the same conversation directly with nations such as Grenada. What action can I take to ensure that that happens?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of what he was going to say. As he knows, it is not a point of order for the Chair, but he has certainly put his views on the record, and I am sure he will not leave it at that but will pursue it through other means which he feels will be satisfactory, such as parliamentary questions. The matter will be pursued with great vigour: that I can myself guarantee.
Bill Presented
Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jonathan Gullis, supported by Priti Patel, Sir Robert Buckland, Mr Simon Clarke, Brandon Lewis and Brendan Clarke-Smith presented a Bill to make provision about the extension of pensions automatic enrolment to jobholders under the age of 22; to make provision about the lower qualifying earnings threshold for automatic enrolment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March and to be printed (Bill 255).
Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill
Monday 27th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023 View all Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Everyone has a different reason for being passionate about education, but most of us can point to that time in our lives which changed our lives: the excitement when maths began to make sense, the thrill when we found a subject that we really loved and were good at, or the pride that came when a life-changing teacher showed that he or she believed in us. I have spoken in this place before about my first moment of that kind, when my teacher, Mr Ashcroft, stayed late after school to help me take extra O-levels in engineering and technical drawing, which he continued to do for two years. His belief in me changed my life. Thanks to Mr Ashcroft, I was able to be accepted for an apprenticeship in a car factory, which was the golden ticket to a different life. But I have spoken less here about the second moment, and the third, and the fourth. I was lucky in that my education started there, but did not end there.
I have been lucky enough to benefit from truly lifetime learning throughout my jobs. I was able to go back and study in both my 30s and my 40s. From that, I have learnt a simple truth: offer people a hand up, and they will take it. However, while we excel at educating people in their younger years, too often we do not offer the same support once they are off the beaten track. Education is an opportunity—it is the ultimate levelling-up tool, the closest thing that we have to a silver bullet when it comes to improving lives—and it is always good to have more than one shot, as many things will change throughout our working lives. We have pledged to level up the country so that everyone gets the education that will enable them to seize the opportunities that come their way. I take that pledge extremely seriously, and that is why I am so proud to present this Bill to Parliament today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I applaud the Secretary of State for presenting a Bill which I think everyone in the House will welcome as a positive move. The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—who is sitting beside the Secretary of State—has often promoted young people whom I would describe as white Protestant males who do not achieve educational standards. He has frequently said that it is his purpose to make a difference. Is that also the purpose of the Secretary of State?
Gillian Keegan
Absolutely. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that, as someone who went to a comprehensive school in Knowsley, a deprived white working-class area. Most of my schoolmates did leave school without many qualifications, and this is exactly the kind of opportunity that will be there for them many years later. They will be given that helping hand and, hopefully, take it.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I, too, applaud my right hon. Friend’s educational support for people throughout their adult lives, but does she agree that it should also apply to those who are neurodiverse? People do not stop being neurodiverse when they leave school, which is why this support is needed throughout their adulthood.
Gillian Keegan
Absolutely. It is important that lifelong learning continues to be accessible to many people. Sadly, we have heard of cases where people are not diagnosed during their time in school, and it is even more important that those opportunities are always there for them.
The Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill is one step further in our mission to revolutionise access to higher and further education with the introduction of a lifelong loan entitlement, otherwise known as the LLE. As the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), says, the LLE will ensure that everybody has a flexible travel card to jump on and off their learning journey, as opposed to being confined to a single ticket. It is hard to overestimate the transformative effect that this legislation could have. Through the Government’s wider skills agenda, we have built the engine to help to transform our technical education system. We are doing this by expanding the number and quality of apprenticeships, by growing technical routes into work and by creating innovations such as boot camps. These reforms mean that the engine is ready, but it needs accelerator fuel and that is what the LLE is. It is the way we will deliver on a simple promise: if you back yourself, we will back you.
The Bill will adapt the student finance framework, making different types of study more accessible and more flexible. This is chiefly because it will enable meaningful fee limits to be set on periods of study shorter than a year. It will no longer be the case that the only ticket to further or higher education is through a three-year degree. Money talks, and there is often talk about parity of esteem. This system delivers parity of esteem. What this means in practice is that modules and short courses, as well as traditional degree courses, will be priced according to the amount of learning they contain. This will create a fair, more flexible system and go a long way to encourage more people into post-18 education.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
We are talking about lifelong learning, but we are now expecting people to work until they are 67, so is there going to be an age limit on this loan?
Gillian Keegan
Subject to the consultation, there will be. I think that there are some age limits at the top end in the student loan scheme today.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was just talking about a fair price and a new method for calculating a maximum level for tuition fees. Does she agree that some people have been receiving higher education that has not been value for money over the past 20 years or so, and that this reform will make sure that people get what they pay for and get value out of their education?
Gillian Keegan
Yes, there have been occasions when some people may have felt that the value of the course they were on did not match the aspirations or expectations they had on their way into it. Obviously it can help if courses are shorter in length and there are more options to get to the career routes that many people are seeking.
As someone who studied part-time at college and at university I really appreciated the flexibility, but too often the system today tries to fit people into a box rather than adapting to their needs. That is why this legislation and the flexibility it brings will be of special benefit to students who need flexible study options—for example, those from disadvantaged groups or those who have caring responsibilities. Let me give some extremely practical examples. Take Alice, who is ambitious and wants to move into management but has not yet got the skills to do so. By using the lifelong loan entitlement, Alice can fund a module of learning to take that important next step, studying part-time so that she can stay in her job, earning while she is learning.
What about Ed? He has worked for the same company for 20 years and feels as though he is stuck in a rut and going nowhere. Luckily, Ed can use his LLE to enrol on a course that focuses on a growth area of the company he works for. He hops in and out of the training when he can and he is eventually able to break out of his rut and get himself promoted. Finally, Amy uses her LLE to study for a three-year degree to build a career in engineering, but because after 10 years in work, new technologies mean that she is not as skilled as she needs to be, she uses her remaining LLE entitlement to do a module that refreshes her skillset. She is then able to get a better job that makes use of that.
Mrs Drummond
What about carers? Will they still be entitled to carer’s allowance while they study?
Gillian Keegan
I am afraid my hon. Friend is a little ahead of me. This is a subject of the consultation, to which we will respond before Report.
Our education system should have this kind of flexibility at its heart, and through the LLE it will. The fee limits for all courses are currently set per academic year of a full course. Without action, the fees for modules or short courses could be set too high, which would put anyone who wants to study flexibly at a disadvantage, wasting our golden opportunity. It is the polar opposite of what the LLE should be trying to encourage.
This Bill addresses the lack of fairness in how learners choose to study, by introducing a new method for calculating fee limits. This Bill will do three key things. First, it will enable tuition fee limits to be based on credits, which are already a popular measure of learner time and will enable fee limits for all types of courses to be set consistently and appropriately.
Secondly, this Bill will introduce the concept of a course year, rather than an academic year. This will allow charges for short courses and modules to be set with greater accuracy. Finally, this Bill will allow the Secretary of State to set a cap on the total number of credits that can be charged for each type of course. This will prevent modules from being premium-priced.
Ultimately, this Bill will help to ensure that everyone, no matter their background or career stage, will have access to life-changing skills and training. The LLE will transform access to post-18 education and skills, and it will provide learners with a loan entitlement equivalent to four years of post-18 education, which is £37,000 in today’s fees. Learners will be able to use the LLE over their working lives. It will be available for both modules and full courses in colleges, universities and institutes of technology.
Aaron Bell
I welcome the commitment to four years because, to follow up on my earlier intervention, some people may feel that their three-year course did not set them up for the world of work as well as they would have liked. Does this mean such people will be entitled to one further year, with a loan, to reskill themselves to get the job they want?
Gillian Keegan
Yes, absolutely. That is why we sometimes see people take a level 4 or 5 apprenticeship course after completing their degree to get the skills that are useful in the workplace. Both full-time and modular options will be available.
The LLE will help people to get the skills they need for the jobs of the future, to build the energy resources, to lay the broadband fibre, to deliver the high-quality social care and to train the teachers and nurses we need. Some of us were fortunate enough to have the right opportunities at the right time, but others were not so lucky. That is what I want to change, because everyone should get that opportunity, regardless of where they are from, the decisions they have taken or even the courses they have chosen in the past.
We believe that the LLE will create a more streamlined lifelong funding system that benefits everyone—learners, employers and the economy. It is estimated that at least 80% of the workforce of 2030 are already in work today. They will need the opportunity to upskill and reskill over their career to progress and adapt to changing skills, needs and employment patterns. The LLE presents everyone with life-changing opportunities to get the skills training they need to retrain, upskill and progress.
I assure my hon. and right hon. Friends that we have consulted widely on how the LLE will work, who is eligible and how to support them. We are considering the contributions to this consultation, and we intend to publish a full response ahead of Report on the wider policy and design of the LLE. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) has a great interest in this, I am sure.
As we move forward to delivery from 2025, we will continue to talk to representatives from across the education sector, as well as key delivery bodies, such as the Student Loans Company, to create a flexible and streamlined system that responds to the needs of the economy.
Too many businesses are struggling to find people with the right skills for their job vacancies, while school leavers and learners are often baffled by a skills system that is complex and bureaucratic. That means that companies cannot find the workers they need, people cannot progress and the country is stuck in a productivity quagmire. We have people who want to work and companies that want to hire them, but we need the LLE to ensure that the workers of today have the skills for tomorrow. We need learners to be able to upskill and retrain flexibly throughout their working lives as their circumstances and needs change. By offering funding for shorter periods of study, the LLE will help those who may have been put off studying because they thought the fees were too high or the living costs would be too expensive.
This legislation supports the Government’s pledge to introduce the LLE from 2025, building on the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022. It also furthers Sir Philip Augar’s independent review of post-18 education in 2019, which included the recommendation that the Government introduce a lifelong learning allowance. Through the LLE, we aim to introduce a more streamlined, efficient and flexible learning system that is fit for the future and brings further and higher education providers closer together. The LLE will transform access to post-18 education, presenting opportunities to retrain, progress and excel throughout an individual’s working life.
This Bill may seem small and technical, but its impact will be far-reaching. We need more coders, doctors, nurses, teachers, technicians and builders—more of most things—and I am certain the British people will answer the call, if only we give them the tools and training to do so. Establishing the LLE may be one small piece of legislation, but it is one great step for life chances and social justice. I am a Conservative because I believe in equality of opportunity—because I believe that what matters is where someone is going, not where they have come from. For that reason, I commend this Bill to the House.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State. I share a lot of her view on the importance of lifelong learning and how it transform lives, and the passion with which she spoke about that. The policy areas that unite us in this House are few and far between, but as she demonstrated in her remarks, the principle of lifelong learning elicits widespread support across the House. That is because we all recognise the transformational potential of education and the fact that it should not be capped simply by virtue of a person’s age or life stage. My view, and that of the Opposition, is very much that education is an investment not just in the individual, but in human capital and society, and, de facto, in our economy. We all probably know a Mr Ashcroft, as the Secretary of State was describing; we have all been touched by someone who felt that they should perhaps be widening their skillset through their lives or careers.
The world is clearly changing fast. With the fourth industrial revolution, net zero and changing demographics on the horizon, the need for a flexible multi-skilled workforce is more important than ever before. The CBI estimates that nine in 10 workers will have to retain and reskill by 2030 as result of the digital changes seen in the world of work. Likewise, the Climate Change Committee estimates that 300,000 additional jobs will be created if we are to meet our decarbonisation targets by 2030. Many of those jobs will require skills not yet being taught—or skills that perhaps should have been taught in recent years—if we are to catch up on achieving our objectives .
For too long now, the drive for more widespread adult education—lifelong learning and reskilling—has been, at best, lacklustre. The Government have sat on the sidelines and overseen a decade of decline in skills. On adult learning, for example, a survey by the Learning and Work Institute revealed that only one in three adults self-reports any participation in learning—that is the lowest in 22 years. Between 2009 and 2019, Government spending on adult education fell by 47% and, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, adult education and adult apprenticeships will still be 25% lower in 2024-25 compared with 2010-11.
We often talk about the lost decade of wage growth, and that is a fact, but it is pretty hard not to see it as a lost decade of skills growth as well. Indeed, the Learning and Work Institute quantifies that loss as up to 4 million learners, which is a pretty damning indictment of the Government’s skills agenda for these past 13 years. Indeed, part of the problem in recent years has been the lack of priority and focus in the Department, as deckchairs have been shuffled, reshuffled and shuffled again. The figures are well known. We have had five Education Secretaries in the past year, a succession of Ministers responsible for higher education and a seemingly constant shifting set of responsibilities between Ministers. There has been a fatal lack of consistency at the heart of the Department. It must be particularly challenging for the Secretary of State to be witnessing that at first hand. That may well explain why there is a widespread lack of awareness among employers of the Government’s skills reform programme. Four in five employers said that they were unaware of the Government’s plan to introduce lifelong learning entitlement.
Having listened to the Secretary of State’s opening speech, however, I note her determination finally to kickstart the lifelong learning agenda, and I commend her for the work that she is doing. I commend, too, the work of the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, both from the Back Benches and as Chair of the Education Committee. It was my former colleague, Gordon Marsden who, as MP for Blackpool South, really started this agenda, recognising the need for lifelong learning in the form of Labour’s Lifelong Learning Commission report in November 2019. Labour is fully committed to supporting the Government in delivering lifelong learning, continuing the important work that Gordon Marsden put together.
None the less, there remain some significant questions over the Government’s stated policy. In a slightly unusual way, what we have before us is merely a frame with no content—an exoskeleton without a body, as it were. The Government launched a consultation 12 months ago on how the lifelong learning policy should be framed, which included who should be eligible; whether maintenance should be provided; what courses should be covered; what courses should be exempt; what changes to the regulatory framework are required; what incentives, support and guidance are needed to encourage prospective students; how students can stack up their credits or modules; and how course quality assurance is monitored. However, despite that, the Government have failed to publish their consultation response ahead of introducing this legislation, denying Parliament the full picture when scrutinising the Bill—and that consultation closed 10 months ago, in May last year.
The Cabinet Office regulation rules, published in 2018, state:
“Government responses to consultations should be published in a timely fashion.”
Ideally, that is within 12 weeks—I guess that is three months—of the consultation. If not, they should
“provide an explanation why this is not possible.”
I ask the Minister this: why has the response to the lifelong learning consultation not yet been published? When does he expect to publish it, and what explanation can he give for the delay?
This is important, because this skeletal Bill’s skeletal impact assessment states:
“A full and detailed quantitative assessment of impacts on learners, providers, employers, the Exchequer and the wider economy and society is…not possible because of two key sources of uncertainty”—
namely, broader lifelong learning entitlement policy and behavioural uncertainty. The impact assessment goes on to say:
“As some aspects of the broader LLE policy are still in development, it is not yet possible to accurately estimate these familiarisation costs.”
As a cherry on top, we are promised that an enactment impact assessment will be published after the Bill receives Royal Assent. One would have thought that the two sources of uncertainty—broader LLE policy and behavioural uncertainty—would have been addressed by the consultative process and the learnings from the pilot programme. But no, for some reason those are being kept from this House. That may have something to do with the fact that only 33 applications for student finance were made for the Office for Students short course trial, which is widely considered to be a failure.
Call me old-fashioned—I have only been in this place for six years—but I prefer to debate the policy underpinning parliamentary Bills and their potential impact while we still have a chance to get it right. It is incumbent on all of us to try to deliver the best legislation. That is in all our interests, particularly given the unanimous support for the principle behind this Bill. Instead, we, the sector and prospective students are waiting on tenterhooks for the final publication of the consultation response before we can make any well-informed assessment of the Bill and how it will interact with the broader lifelong learning policy offer.
In anticipation of the Minister delivering the much-awaited consultation response in the coming days, I will move on to our concerns about the principles of the Bill as drafted and about lifelong learning policy. Given the importance of getting the lifelong learning policy right for boosting the UK’s economic growth, productivity and workforce potential, there remain significant questions related to the deliverability of this reform. The Minister is committed to delivering lifelong learning by the 2025 academic year. However, as he well knows, it takes a considerable amount of time to make changes to the student finance system, the admissions system and the design of new courses. As a fellow pragmatist, does he genuinely believe that it will be delivered by the start of the 2025 academic year, or will it be delivered in a limited form?
Delivering that could prove groundbreaking in changing the post-16 education landscape, and Labour would continue to tailor it if in government. To borrow a sporting metaphor, the pitch needs to be rolled. That includes the need for more clarity on who will be eligible. Universities UK, the representative group of 140 universities, has called for broad and consistent eligibility criteria to ensure that as many future learners as possible can upskill and retrain in the future. Given this Government’s previous form on proposals to limit access to higher education, whether directly or indirectly, what plans does the Minister have to extend this policy offer to as many people as possible, including those who are most hard to reach? Ultimately, as I have said, education is an investment in people. Therefore, the lifelong learning entitlement should be viewed through the lens of educational empowerment, rather than restrictively controlled and micromanaged. Many of us have concerns about how this is going to be managed and delivered, particularly through the OFS.
Given the scale of the challenge and the reforms to the student finance system, it is also important that the Student Loans Company is adequately prepared to deal with this new funding model. I, and indeed the sector, have noted that there is little to no information on the financial cost for the Government in the event that the Student Loans Company requires a redesign in any document attached to the Bill. That could be significant, surely. Given that the SLC funnels £10 billion-worth of public money into supporting students undertaking higher education courses, what assurances can the Minister give the House that adequate preparation has been carried out to ensure that the SLC is prepared for the coming change?
The Bill gives a surprising amount of power to the Secretary of State to decide what fee method applies, the type of courses and activities it applies to, and the maximum amount of funding available for each module or course. Understandably, that has raised eyebrows. With so much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, depriving Parliament of the ability to hold the Government to account adequately, there are few brakes to prevent them from unilaterally deciding to redefine the nature of a credit or a module, and to make compliance with that change contingent on future funding. I am sure that the sector would therefore warmly welcome greater clarity in the Bill on key concepts such as credits and modules. That would go a long way to assuage such concerns, whether or not they are well founded.
It is also widely recognised among providers that running modular provision is more expensive, not least because of the need to provide additional wraparound support, including onboarding, mental health support and academic writing support. Clearly, it is important that a minimum fee level is set to prevent students from being unfairly charged more for modular study than for a traditional academic year of study. However, in the light of the financial pressures on institutions, what plans does the Minister have, if any, to address the cost burden for providers delivering those courses? Failure to understand how that will work on the ground runs the risk of providers shying away from running such courses because of their prohibitive expense. The Government’s own impact assessment stresses as much, stating:
“Some providers could receive less tuition fee income per student if some types of learners that are currently studying longer courses instead choose to study in a modular fashion”.
It would be deeply concerning if the policy behind the Bill further eroded the financial sustainability of the sector, and damaging to the UK’s economic outlook if providers ended up opting out of modular study. It is therefore vital that sustainable and adequate funding be available to providers, and that fees be proportionate to a full qualification with support to deliver wraparound support and high-cost modules. That is also why consultation and dialogue with the sector are so important during the setting of fee limits. In that vein, what plans does the Minister have to ensure that, when setting those limits, the Secretary of State has properly consulted those in the sector charged with delivering this model of teaching?
Finally, let me touch on how the policy underpinning the Bill will engage with the current regulatory landscape. Sector bodies and universities are clear about the need to minimise additional burden. As a result, it is important that the Bill builds on existing regulatory and quality-assurance mechanisms. That is important for employer and student confidence in the system. It is somewhat ironic therefore that the Government are currently validating the de-designation of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education from the Office for Students. That could leave a quality assurance black hole when we most need an experienced quality assurance body. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what plans he has to ensure that regulatory burden is kept to a minimum during the implementation of LLE, and how modular-based courses will be assessed for quality harmoniously across the sector.
Although the Bill is the flimsiest piece of legislation, we will not oppose it. We will wait for the Government’s response to the consultation. I urge the Government to publish the consultation document way before Committee stage, so that we have access to it and can properly scrutinise the legislation in the context of the consultation and the Government’s response. On that basis, we will not oppose the legislation.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I very much welcome the Second Reading of this important legislation and the broad principle of extending the Government’s support for further and higher education to more people through a lifelong learning entitlement. It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful and constructive contribution from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who raised some genuinely valid questions. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education for the briefing he provided ahead of the debate to members of the Education Committee, which I chair.
The Bill is an important step in the journey to create what my right hon. Friend has often described as the ladder of opportunity, and it should benefit people across our country and at every stage in life. Making level 4, 5 and 6 qualifications more widely available, and encouraging HE institutions to offer greater flexibility to those pursuing them, are both worthwhile aims. This legislation, if done right, should stimulate greater competition and innovation in the market for lifelong learning. It has been welcomed by the Open University, which has been a pioneer in this space, and it has long-term potential to transform the skills landscape for learning through life.
I generally make it a rule not to bang on too much in this House about my predecessor but two as Member for Worcester—my late father—but I will make an exception in this debate. My late father, who never had the opportunity to pursue his studies beyond what we would now describe as level 2, set out an ambition in his Macmillan lecture about 40 years ago for people to be able to pursue education through their lifetimes. He envisaged a society in which people would be freed by the technological revolution then getting under way to pursue opportunities for education and advancement at any stage in their career. He summarised that opportunity under the heading “Athens without the slaves”—a piece of hyperbole that was much ridiculed at the time and that is commemorated in a lovely Times cartoon we have in the downstairs loo at my mother’s house—which I think recognises the intrinsic value of pursuing education.
My father’s was a generation in which higher education was a luxury withheld from the vast majority of the population.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I am very much enjoying hearing about my hon. Friend’s father’s views, and I look forward to reading his lecture. Does my hon. Friend agree that many people just do not appreciate education when they go through it the first time round, in the years to 16 or 18? They might have bad teachers, or they might have other things going on in their lives, and they cannot see the relevance of what they are doing in the classroom. Many people would like another opportunity at education later in life, which is why this Bill is so important.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are those who perhaps did not relish being in the classroom at the time. There are also those who go through their whole lives regretting not having had the opportunity to pursue further studies and feeling that they have somehow missed out on something. This Bill should provide a solution for both groups.
As I was saying, in my father’s generation, higher education was available to the few; it was a luxury withheld from the vast majority of the population. However, his generation also recognised that there should be no limits to where aspiration and hard work could take an individual. In his case, they took the lad who left school at 16 and who took his insurance exams while doing his national service to success in finance, politics, the Cabinet and eventually the House of Lords. However, he always recognised that, in missing out on the higher studies and university education that so many of his peers had enjoyed, he and many of his generation lost out on something of real value. He wanted to create the opportunity for people to study later in life, and to keep open the offer of vocational and academic study to adults throughout their lives.
Aaron Bell
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), I am very interested in my hon. Friend’s father’s reflections in his Macmillan lecture. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we stand on the cusp of another scientific and technological revolution, with artificial intelligence, green jobs and so on, the need for lifelong learning is more urgent than ever?
Mr Walker
I do, and I think that that point has been well made from both sides of the House. With the fourth industrial revolution, there are opportunities for people to reskill—something that the Bill can well support.
The Bill has the potential to be an important step in recognising the vision my late father set out, ensuring that people like him in future generations have educational opportunities that were simply not available in previous generations. Allowing universities to spread the cost of a degree over more units and to have more flexible start dates should allow more people to pursue high-level studies flexibly and on a part-time basis. That, in turn, will help to meet the clearly expressed requirement from employers for more qualified people at level 4 and above.
Making the low-interest loans that are currently available to undergraduates accessible to more people in later life, and for a greater range of courses, should ensure that many more people have the opportunity to pursue studies at a stage in their career that might suit them. That would help people wanting to skill up in order to return to work, and also those for whom the only option for higher study is part time alongside continuing to work. Allowing units of progress on qualifications to be retained and transferred should allow more people to achieve higher qualifications over time than has been the case, and enable learners for the first time to lock in progress with their studies, in a way that was not possible under an all-or-nothing approach. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s analogy of a travelcard, rather than a one-way ticket, is a very good one in that regard.
I recognise the broader range of skills challenges that we face—I perhaps expected to hear more from the Opposition on that topic. My Committee will shortly be publishing our report on post-16 qualifications, and I am also looking forward to supporting the work of the all-party parliamentary group for students on the cost of living for students, which is undoubtedly a matter of significant concern. However, I am strongly in support of what this legislation sets out to do, and of the drivers behind it. I do have a few queries, though, which I hope the Minister can answer fully in his closing remarks.
First, my Committee has recently heard from a range of organisations across the university sector with concerns about the burden of regulation they face from the OfS. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the requirements of the Bill will not be overly onerous and that, rather than increasing the burden of regulation, it will set out to create new freedoms for an independent sector to innovate and compete. Secondly, given that the scope of the legislation covers qualifications at levels 4, 5 and 6, what roles do Ministers envisage for the FE sector, and for partnerships between higher education and FE, as providers for lifelong learning under the new arrangements?
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, given that the Government have consulted on the details of their proposals but have not yet responded to their own consultation, when can we expect to see the Government’s full response? I join the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington in urging Ministers to bring that response forward before Committee stage, if at all possible. It would be very helpful for the House’s scrutiny of the Bill if it were able to see the details of that response and how the Bill will operate, rather than the framework itself.
However, the legislation is very welcome in its intent, and I look forward to the Minister’s responses to my questions. As Chair of the cross-party Education Select Committee, I welcome the Government’s intention to support lifelong learning by extending the benefits of student finance to more people. I look forward to supporting the Bill’s Second Reading.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Education Select Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).
Mr Deputy Speaker,
“adult education must not be regarded as a luxury for a few exceptional persons here and there, nor as a thing which concerns only a short span of early manhood, but that adult education is a permanent national necessity, an inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore should be both universal and lifelong”.
That is not a quote from one of the many briefings that was sent to me ahead of the debate. It comes from Arthur Smith, who was the master of Balliol College, Oxford, in his foreword to a report commissioned by David Lloyd George’s Government in 1919. This Bill is trying to fulfil an ambition outlined more than a century ago by a Liberal Prime Minister—one that, sadly, successive Governments of all colours have failed to deliver.
As we have already heard, there is consensus on all sides of the House about the need for a revolution in adult education. That cannot be understated, given the pace of economic and societal change before us. Research from the Confederation of British Industry predicts that, as a result of changes in the world of work driven by digitalisation and the transition to a green economy, 25 million workers will need to upskill by 2030, and 5 million will need to retrain completely. The 2022 business barometer, which was put together by the Open University with the British Chambers of Commerce, found that 78% of UK organisations suffered a decline in output, profitability and growth as a consequence of the lack of available skills.
Liberal Democrats see investment in education and skills not only as an investment in our country’s future, but much more than that. It is about helping people to maximise their potential, nurture their creativity and develop their interests and talents, so I share the Secretary of State’s ambition that, no matter a person’s background or what path they have trodden, we all deserve equality of opportunity. That is the reason I am a Liberal. The Secretary of State says that it is the reason she is a Conservative. Maybe we can hammer it out over a drink sometime, and I might persuade her to cross the Floor, because as we have seen, it was a Liberal Prime Minister who originally set out that ambition.
However, I fear that the Government’s investment in lifelong learning over recent years does not meet the scale of the ambition that the Secretary of State has outlined. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, total adult skills spending in 2024-2025 will still be 22% below 2009-10 levels. The number of students taking non-degree undergraduate courses at higher education providers fell from 330,000 in 2007-08 to 110,000 in 2021-22, most of whom were part-time learners. We are promised that the lifelong learning entitlement will change that, and that it will be flexible, unified and high-quality, with parity between technical and academic routes. We are promised that this Bill will underpin the LLE scheme by providing a credit-based method for calculating the fee limit for whole courses and individual modules. While I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for their commitment to the cause, I agree with many of the comments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), that it is plain to see that this Bill is not the century-in-the-making panacea we have all been waiting for.
Many questions remain unanswered in what the shadow Minister described as a skeletal Bill. First, we are debating the Bill in reverse. Parliament is meant to debate and approve the policy framework and then let the regulations deal with the technical details. This Bill does the opposite—it sets out the mechanism through which an LLE will be delivered without setting out any of the major policy decisions about how it will work. As we have already heard, the LLE consultation was published more than a year ago, but we are yet to see the Government response. The hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), who is no longer in her place, asked the Secretary of State how old someone would have to be to access the loan entitlement. How will maintenance support work? There are no details in the consultation. Will the repayment terms for these loans be the same as for 18-year-olds going to university when many of these learners will have only 20, 15 or 10 years left in their working lives? Will the equivalent and lower qualifications rule be abolished?
Those are basic questions about the nature and structure of the LLE that the Government do not seem to be any closer to answering as yet, but they will make huge differences to the effectiveness of the programme. The lack of any detail on how to support students with living costs, particularly during a cost of living crisis, seems to me a significant oversight, which is made even more unforgivable by the fact that the Department is increasing undergraduate maintenance loans by just 2.8% next year, when inflation is running at more than triple that rate.
I question whether the Government have correctly identified the major problem they are attempting to address through this Bill, because I am not sure they have made the case that the LLE is something that aspiring learners actually want. The Department for Education sought to prove its concept by making student finance available for 104 courses, yet according to Wonkhe, just 26 of those courses are advertising a future start date and just 33 students have applied for student finance as part of that trial. That was backed up by a survey last year by Public First, which found that telling people about the LLE made no statistically significant difference to whether people would retrain. I do not believe that reveals a lack of demand for lifelong learning, but it does show a considerable lack of interest from the public in this mechanism for financing it.
The most commonly cited reason for not showing an interest in the scheme is not wanting to take on debt. Seeing as talking about our predecessors is in vogue, I will say that was the conclusion my predecessor, the former Member of Parliament for Twickenham, Sir Vince Cable, came to in 2019 when he commissioned an expert panel of university, college and adult education leaders to explore alternatives for financing lifelong learning. They found that most mature students have work, a mortgage or family responsibilities, and so are unlikely to be attracted to a scheme requiring them in effect to pay a higher rate of tax for the rest of their working life to participate in further study.
The commission recommended giving every adult a personal education and skills account—what the Liberal Democrats have nicknamed a skills wallet. The skills wallet is not about just bolting modular learning on to the existing higher education fees system, as this Bill proposes, but would offer central Government grants throughout life to incentivise learning at all levels and would leverage private and public investment from employers, local government and learners themselves.
The Government’s consultation says that a learner’s account will show their learning balance “like a bank account”, so why not operate it like a bank account with tax breaks to incentivise individuals to save for retraining? Many short courses are being paid for by employers, so why not make employers’ contributions as commonplace as a workplace pension? Local, regional and central Government could also incentivise retraining during a downturn or following the collapse of a large local employer by topping up the accounts of affected workers.
Tom Bewick, the chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies said:
“The LLE Bill has the potential to be the most radical entitlement to adult education, skills…and retraining…ever introduced.”
But he goes on to say:
“Grants and maintenance support will also be required.”
I fear that the ambition of Education Ministers for the Bill and its scope have been shackled by the Treasury.
David Johnston
The hon. Lady is making an interesting case, but does she accept that some people do not want further or higher education and will not benefit from it? People talk about the archetypal bus driver who has not done such courses—of course, sometimes they will have—and ask why he should have to pay for other people to do them. I can see that the measure could be important for low-income families, but does she accept the principle that people who want to do the course should have to contribute themselves?
Munira Wilson
I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but equally, we are ambitious about making sure that the whole population, or many parts of it, are reskilling and are ready for the jobs of the future, and for people from low-income backgrounds, loans are a real barrier to putting themselves forward for additional courses. The skills wallet, as in our 2019 proposal, would be a grant given at various points of someone’s lifetime between the age of 25 and 55, with top-ups from local or national Government or employers and some tax breaks to go with it. That is an innovative and pluralistic way of funding that ambition, particularly given the challenges that we face as a country to fulfil the skills that we need for us to thrive and grow, which seems to be a cross-party ambition.
I fear that the narrow scope of the Bill will prevent amendments that probe the big policy choices that await the Government before LLEs are rolled out in 2025, but I hope that Ministers will answer the following questions as the Bill progresses. Will the Secretary of State consider putting the notional hourly value of a credit in the Bill so that modules cannot be devalued by a future Government looking to save money? Universities UK and other stakeholders have raised concerns that clause 2 may allow the Secretary of State to set differential fees based on subject of the course. Ministers should bring forward amendments in Committee to ensure that that is not possible and protect universities’ institutional autonomy.
How will Ministers ensure that learners have access to high-quality careers advice before they get their loan entitlement? David Cameron promised Islamic-compliant student finance in 2013. It is unacceptable that, 10 years later, it has still not been introduced. Will the LLE also be blocked off to Muslim students? Will the equivalent or lower qualification rule be abolished to give learners more flexibility in what they study? Will the Government support the Liberal Democrats’ plan to restore maintenance grants so that university graduates from low-income backgrounds are not punished by having to pay back more of their loans for longer?
This is a pivotal opportunity to shape lifelong learning in this country, and it is desperately important given the digital and green revolutions that are already under way. If we want to ensure that we as a country are at the forefront of capitalising on these opportunities, we need to equip people with the right skills, so these plans need further thought and further detail. We will rue the day if, in another 100 years, Arthur Smith’s ambitions have still not been fulfilled.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be able to participate in this Second Reading debate. I should begin by congratulating the Secretary of State on her excellent speech, and on her passion for opportunity and excellence. I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on his speech, including his memories of his father. As someone who knew his father very well, and who went to some of his lunches when we had discussions about these sort of things, it brought back happy memories. [Interruption.] Ah, the Secretary of State is still here. I just wanted to say congratulations to her on bringing forward this Bill. I know she is passionate about opportunity, excellence and the fact that everyone should have a chance to develop themselves.
Many of us on these Benches have, over many years, been persistent in campaigning for lifelong learning and greater educational opportunities, irrespective of people’s backgrounds or situation. We have also praised our further education sector—the colleges—and I know the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, who is his place, has been a champion for the colleges. I believe that inspirational teachers, parents, role models, friends and school facilities are very important in encouraging young people, teenagers and people in their early 20s at college or university to go on and make something of themselves, but that is not enough. They need additional opportunities later on in life.
As someone who was a schoolteacher and subsequently, and more importantly in respect of this Bill, a college lecturer, I know from personal experience, as well as from constituency involvement, of the many students who, for many and various reasons, have not had the opportunity to continue in training, education or college courses. Their ambitions and their careers were stymied because they did not have that opportunity. When I was out of Parliament between 1997 and 2005, I was privileged to meet and to teach students at Bexley College, which at the time was led by the inspirational principal Dr Jim Healey. I taught women returners, the unemployed, those who wanted qualifications, those who needed qualifications to advance in their jobs and those who wanted to change careers. In particular, I was dealing with Institute of Personnel Management courses. They were good opportunities, but they were limited in scope—they did not go far enough—and now we are addressing that situation.
I would like to praise the Open University. I think we should do that, because it has done fantastic work in offering modules, degrees, courses and education at a high level with greater flexibility for students in relation to both age and time. However, this is not enough, and that is why we need other ways of ensuring that people obtain qualifications below degree level.
In today’s rapidly changing world, it is essential that we have a skilled, educated and motivated workforce to meet the challenges of modern Britain. We must never forget that we never stop learning—all of us, throughout life, are continuing to learn—particularly in the technological age we are in. When I left Parliament in 1997, we were still using electronic typewriters. We did not have computers or mobile phones, and it was a bit of a shock when I came back in 2005. Fortunately, however, I had been at a college, Bexley College, where I was able to do some courses, so I therefore understood and could do the basics. I still cannot type very well, but that is a different matter.
Aaron Bell
I am learning a lot about my right hon. Friend’s history, which I am finding very interesting. On Friday in the Chamber, we discussed the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill, which the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) brought in. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that these measures encouraging more mature students back into education go hand-in-hand with the reforms the Government are making to flexible working, which mean that people can continue to learn while they are earning and broadening their skills?
Sir David Evennett
I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point.
Lifelong learning is important; learning is not just for the young. Opportunities should be there for people to re-enter the world of learning and training throughout their individual working life. It is good news, therefore, that the Bill creates the flexibility for individuals to decide what and when they wish to study over their working life in order to progress their life, increase their skills and make something more of themselves. I particularly welcome the lifelong loan entitlement, as it will improve access to education and certainly accelerate the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Everyone should be afforded the opportunity to reach their full potential irrespective of their background or the lack of opportunity they had at school or college. People in established careers should also have an equal opportunity to pursue further studies. As a product of social mobility—like many colleagues on both sides of the Chamber—I am a firm believer that access to education should be fair and available to all who choose to look for and pursue it. The loan will enable those trapped in unemployment or low-paid jobs to undertake further study. That will improve their skills and employability, and their opportunities throughout life.
Research by Universities UK suggests that 35% of those who considered part-time education in the past 10 years did not enrol because of their personal life or their employment situation. We have to change that in modern Britain, and that is what the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Department are doing. My constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford will be delighted to know that they can pursue further studies to suit their own pace, time and opportunities, without paying a premium for doing so.
I am keen for the simplification of the higher education system to enable wider and easier access. Research by the Department for Education suggests that the complexity of the student finance system and the difficulty in obtaining information for mature students are major factors that deter people from going back into study. The lifelong loan entitlement will offer a system that is easier to understand—my goodness, in today’s society, don’t we need things that are easier to understand, because of the complexities of life? [Interruption.] I see Mr Deputy Speaker is agreeing with me, and he is young by comparison. Things such as clearer detail on financial entitlements will no doubt encourage more people to study. I hope the Secretary of State will agree that to get the full benefit of the scheme, we must embark on an education and information campaign, targeting those who will find it of particular interest and benefit. It is no good thinking they will just find out; we have to go out there and sell it.
I am concerned, of course, by the skills gap that is plaguing our economy, particularly in this time of considerable economic challenge for our nation. In August 2022, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that 80% of small firms were facing difficulties recruiting applicants with suitable skills. As I go round my borough and constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford, a number of businesses say that they cannot get staff who have the necessary levels of training or education. People do not have the opportunity to obtain further qualifications, and therefore those businesses cannot get the necessary skilled workforce.
We must endeavour to ensure that the UK remains an attractive investment proposition, with its skilled and talented workforce. I believe we have the people in this country, but they need the opportunity, training and skills development. We can then be No. 1 again in so many fields and be competitive across the world. We cannot afford to fall behind our counterparts, which is what we seem to have been doing. The lifelong loan entitlement will address that skills gap by enabling employees to continue to upskill as they progress through their careers.
For many, it may be more sensible to learn over a period of years because they have other commitments—families or other interests—in their lives. They may wish to develop practical experience first, and there is nothing wrong with that. People do not necessarily want to go on a three-year university course. They may not be ready for it or feel that the time is right. As our economy continues to shift towards greater automation, it will be crucial for employees to develop more technical skills. Low-skilled jobs will be those most at threat from automation, so we must equip those currently working in such jobs with the skills to ensure that they can thrive in an increasingly technological economy and society.
The Bill will be of huge benefit to all our constituents and all the countries in our United Kingdom, bringing the skills that employers want and that employees need. The result, hopefully, will be the happier and better paid workforce that we are looking for.
I believe, in all honesty, that the Government have done a considerable amount over the past decade or so and have a good record on education. I listened to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), whom I respect. I always listen to him with great interest because he is measured and reasonable—though usually wrong. But he is a nice chap, and he put forward some thought-provoking ideas for us today. That is why the Bill needs cross-party support, including from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) of the Liberal Democrats. I am not going to get party political—the Liberal Democrats always like to do that. We are trying to be constructive.
On technical education, over the last few years we have introduced T-levels, so that all people can access a world-class education. I did the old traditional A-levels. I enjoyed them and they suited me. As we have heard, I am not very good at technology. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) will let me forget it. Nevertheless, young people can gain skills via the revamped T-levels. High quality is the key. Everything we do in education has to be high quality, not substandard. I therefore passionately support what the Government have done with T-levels, practical learning and industry placement. It is the best of both worlds.
Aaron Bell
On high quality, does my right hon. Friend recognise, from the independent Wolf review, that at least 350,000 young people were let down by courses that had little or no labour market value? That is what we need to change. As well as bringing forward lifelong learning, we need to ensure that all courses, whether for undergraduates of traditional age or older, offer value for money.
Sir David Evennett
Absolutely. I would also highlight the £490 million in extra funding that the Government are delivering to boost training and upgrade colleges and universities across the country. I must praise my own college, Bexley College, which has now merged into London South East Colleges under the successful and inspirational leadership of Dr Sam Parrett CBE. She is a brilliant and dynamic woman who is driving the agenda we desperately need. The Government’s extra funds will boost colleges’ training and upgrade colleges. This particular college is very good. It is an amalgam of several colleges in south-east London. There is a buzz and it is looking to the future. The traditional old-fashioned FE colleges were good in their day, but their day was yesterday, or even before that, when the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester was in government in the 1980s. The Government are also investing £350 million to renovate further education colleges, which is welcome.
Mr Robin Walker
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I could not resist the opportunity to welcome the progress being made on new science and tech labs at Worcester Sixth Form College, which I visited just the other day. The college has been transformed by successive small investments under this Government, while under the Labour Government it got the promise of a complete rebuild under Building Colleges for the Future, which then got cancelled when they ran out of money for their programme. Is that not an example of how we can invest more effectively and productively for our college estate?
Sir David Evennett
My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point. I think we would all agree that what we need is upgrading and progress, rather than pie-in-the-sky ideas. We must get practical.
The other thing I want to highlight is that colleges in local areas should provide for local needs, boosting the skills that are necessary in that area. The skills needed in my area of south-east London are probably different from those needed in Worcester or in other parts of the country. The Bill creates a new duty for further education colleges, sixth-form colleges and designated institutions to ensure that the provision of further education is fully aligned with local needs and requirements. This is another way to ensure we have the employment and opportunities for young people and not so young people to make a real contribution to their community, and to strengthen the accountability and performance of local colleges and the businesses involved in helping the programme forward.
There is a lot to be pleased about in this small Bill, and I look forward to debating it in Committee if I am privileged enough to be put on it by the Whips, though I do not usually blot my copybook. We will discuss certain bits of the Bill and we will all have ideas for how to tweak it, but we must be grateful to the Government for putting forward an excellent, necessary and most welcome Bill that will support the introduction of a lifelong loan entitlement from 2025 and promote a culture of upskilling and retraining.
The Bill will help to open up higher and further education by introducing new methods and limiting the fees that can be charged based on credits. That is really positive, good news. Students will therefore be charged a proportionate amount depending on the number of credits studied, encouraging more people to study by taking advantage of the flexibility that the scheme will offer. We have seen flexibility in work because of covid and changing work patterns. Many people have found that to their liking, and many businesses have as well. Flexibility must be the word for our era, because it gives opportunity to so many more people.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I obviously welcome that the fees charged will be limited, but I presume that the colleges will be able to choose the packages that they offer, so is there a danger that they will be less inclined to offer modules if they cannot charge extremely exorbitant rates for them?
Sir David Evennett
I know that my right hon. Friend has a touch of cynicism. I am an optimist, and I believe that the colleges will want to take up the opportunity, because that will show the success of what they are doing. They are part of the local community, so they need to get real. We will have to discuss that point further. I encourage my right hon. Friend to beat the drum in the colleges in his constituency and to tell them that it is their civic or local duty—whatever we want to call it—to do these kinds of things. But we should be wary of what he says.
The Bill is the key to the Government’s skills revolution and it will support our businesses, long-term productivity and job creation. That is particularly important as we deal with the difficult times of the cost of living crisis and other things we will face in the future. We need to make the most of our opportunities. I welcome the Bill; I look forward to it passing into law and to the opportunities it will give so many people across our country for more studying, more career development, more skills and, hopefully, a more successful career.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am grateful for being called to speak in this important debate. The Bill is somewhat technical in nature, but its objectives are to be welcomed and applauded. We need to ensure that its provisions are implemented as soon as practically possible and that, thereafter, they deliver the desired outcome. The Bill is vital to address the skills crisis that this country faces. Moreover, we need to ensure that people from all backgrounds and of all ages have every opportunity to realise their dreams and to pursue their chosen careers; that businesses of all sizes can recruit and retain staff with the necessary skills and expertise; and that the stubborn productivity gap that has plagued the UK economy for so long is at last vanquished and eliminated.
In East Anglia, there are exciting opportunities emerging in a wide range of new industries: zero-carbon energy production, life sciences, and food and agriscience. However, a skills mismatch is holding back those sectors, and if we do not address it, businesses will go elsewhere and we will have lost a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not only to revolutionise the local economy for the benefit of local businesses, local people and local communities in East Anglia, but to benefit the whole of the UK, not least the Treasury.
I will not go into detail on the provisions of the Bill, because the Secretary of State has already done so. I shall focus instead on why the Bill is needed, why it is welcome and what more needs to be done if it is to have the desired impact. It is first necessary to put the Bill in context. In February 2018, the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), announced a post-18 education and funding review. Sir Philip Augar’s report, which was published in May 2019, described post-18 education in England as
“a story of both care and”—
I am afraid—
“neglect”.
The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 subsequently provided the framework for embedding lifelong learning in our tertiary education system.
The Government have quite rightly recognised the problem and the need for action. They are to be commended for introducing a comprehensive framework that can deliver much-needed reform, but I do feel a sense of frustration that the challenges are not being tackled more quickly. At times, I feel we need to be more radical and send a clear message to communities, people and businesses that wholesale change for the better is on the way.
Why is the Bill necessary? It is part of a drive to embed lifelong learning in our education and training system. The need for a lifelong learning culture is clear. Given the ageing population and the lack of people with the technical skills needed by employers, as well as technological change and the need to move rapidly to a net zero economy, we need every adult to have the capacity, motivation and opportunity to carry on learning throughout their life.
We have an ageing population. By 2030, the population aged 60 is projected to have increased by 42%, while the population aged 14 to 64 is forecast to have grown by just 3%. That has critical implications. First, people living longer might choose to work longer and must therefore be able to upskill and reskill. Secondly, those who are out of work might well benefit from accessing education and training to support them to be healthy and active in retirement. Thirdly, the pressure on public finances that an ageing population brings requires us to ensure that people of working age who are out of work or underemployed can upskill and retrain as quickly as possible.
We must address the challenge of climate change, which will lead to dramatic changes in the world of work. New and emerging sectors, jobs and working practices will require upskilling and retraining a very large number of people. The target of net zero by 2050 requires a radical shift in the response from our skills system—a challenge that I am afraid is not currently being met.
A fourth industrial revolution is taking place in information and communication technologies. Artificial intelligence, virtual reality and robotics are profoundly changing how people work, learn, communicate and live. That will require smarter and more agile ways of living and working. People will need higher, more specialised and socialised skills. As a result of the changes in the world of work driven by digitalisation, by the fourth industrial revolution and by the transition to a green economy, CBI research predicts:
“Nine in ten workers will need some form of reskilling by 2030”.
The Bill should not be considered in a vacuum or in isolation. If it is to be a success, it must form part of a comprehensive package of measures. Let me briefly list five of them. First, there is the need to ramp up participation in adult education. Since 2004 participation rates have almost halved, from 29% to just below 15%, which means that millions of people are missing out on opportunities to retrain and upskill for a new job or career and employers are unable to fill key vacancies. Secondly, there is a need to address the consequent low levels of employer investment in work for skills. While much recent reform has rightly focused on the role of employers in the skills system, there has at the same time been a decline in the amount of investment on the part of employers themselves.
Thirdly, we need to address the situation whereby the least advantaged suffer the most and have the least opportunity to advance. At a time when more jobs require education at level 3 and above, only 60% of young people reach that level by the age of 19, while 15% fail to reach level 2. The number of people taking higher and intermediate and technical college courses is lower than it should be, given both the current skills shortages and those that can be predicted owing to retirements and economic change in the coming years. Those who do participate are far more likely to be well educated and better off. The poorest adults, with the lowest qualification levels, are the least likely to access adult training, despite being the group that will benefit most. They must not be left behind.
Fourthly, there is poor co-ordination across the education system. Further education, higher education and apprenticeships are currently treated as distinct systems in their own silos, which makes it hard for employers and others to access the overall system. There is insufficient alignment across welfare, skills and economic strategies, and that needs to change. Fifthly and finally, there has been a neglect of level 4 and level 5 provision. Sir Philip Augar’s review notes that the small number of level 4 and level 5 students translates into persistent skills gaps at technician level. That gap, I am afraid, makes England an international outlier, with our numbers declining.
What else do we need to do? As I have said, the Bill is to be welcomed, for it has a vital role to play, but it is only one piece of the jigsaw. We need more detail on the lifelong loan entitlement ahead of its introduction in 2025. It has the clear potential to be a game-changer, introducing a stronger lifelong learning culture in England. However, there are issues of detail that need to be addressed, as well as wider issues relating to how it fits into the whole tertiary education offer, including further education and apprenticeships.
As the Bill progresses through Parliament, three big systems issues need to be borne in mind. First, there is a need to instil a new lifelong learning culture. Arguably, the biggest hurdle when it comes to the success of the lifelong learning entitlement will be the issue of how quickly a new culture of lifelong learning can be developed. Secondly, there needs to be clarity on the role of employers and how the lifelong learning entitlement will work with the apprenticeship levy. Employers are central to the working of the new system being developed as part of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, and it is important that they are fully involved in the development of the lifelong learning entitlement. Thirdly, there is a need for changes in regulations to develop a coherent post- 16 education and skills strategy that is properly aligned to wider Government policies, redressing the inefficient competition that exists across the system and setting out a co-ordinated approach to an expanded lifelong education service. This should include legislation to introduce a new tertiary post-16 commission.
In addition, I have two concerns that must be addressed when the Government publish their response to the consultation carried out last year that we have heard about. First, there remain questions about eligibility and who will be entitled to access the lifelong learning entitlement. This includes rules around equivalent or lower qualifications. Secondly, the matter of maintenance support needs to be addressed. The Government are still considering how maintenance support will be adapted for the lifelong learning entitlement. This will be crucial for mature learners, who often have family commitments and caring responsibilities.
As I have mentioned, there is a danger that the lifelong learning entitlement becomes something used by well-educated people to add a year after a degree rather than by people who do not yet have a level 3 education. The pathways from lower levels need to be strengthened with better funding and maintenance support at level 3 and below, with universal credit recipients being given every opportunity to access training without loss of benefits. It is important that the provisions of the Bill are accompanied by the necessary careers advice and guidance, so that those who need it most can take full advantage of the opportunities that will become available. A strategy is needed that sets out how the lifelong learning entitlement will fit into the careers advice and guidance for individuals to access throughout their lives.
If the Bill is to be successful, it must be accompanied by systemic change, and if the House will bear with me for a few minutes I will briefly outline what the ingredients of this change might be. They could include: a 10-year education and skills strategy; a new tertiary education system with a joined-up approach to regulation and oversight; the creation of a maintenance support system that enables everyone to have a fair and reasonable standard of living while studying training at college, across both further and higher education; the reform of the benefit entitlement system so that people who would benefit from attending college while unemployed do not lose out; and ensuring that the whole education and skills system is sustainably funded. For too long, the college system has been the Cinderella service of the education system. Significant improvements have been made, but more work is still required. Finally, we should have a support fund for providers branching into new resource-intensive areas at levels 4 and 5.
In conclusion—I think you will be pleased that I have come to this point, Mr Deputy Speaker—this Bill is to be welcomed, but it is only one part of a wide range of policies and initiatives that must be provided so that all people, whatever their backgrounds, are able to realise their full potential. If we do this, it will in turn enable businesses to prosper and allow the economy at last to move into top gear, eliminating that stubborn productivity gap. This is what is needed if we are to deliver sustained economic growth and meaningful levelling up. As the Bill moves forward, I would urge the Government to consider reasoned amendments—I know my right hon. Friend the Minister will do so—to quickly bring forward any necessary enabling and secondary legislation, and to work collaboratively, not only across this House but with universities, colleges, employers and, most of all, those people that we represent, to whom this Bill gives the opportunity to realise their full potential.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and to speak in what has been a very good debate. I thank the Secretary of State for her opening remarks. It is a shame that there are not more Opposition Members here, but it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the speeches from the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who are no longer in their places. They both raised thoughtful points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, and I am sure the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education and the Secretary of State will have heard them and will consider what more we can do in Committee.
I also pay tribute to the speeches of the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett). I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (David Johnston) and for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) in due course.
As I said in my maiden speech, if I can remember back that far, education is
“the greatest tool of social mobility that we have.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 78.]
To echo the Secretary of State, I am a Conservative because I believe in equality of opportunity and in the famous ladder of opportunity that I am sure the Minister will mention in his closing remarks.
In my maiden speech, for which I believe you were in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, I went on to talk about young people making the very best of themselves. In truth, I should have widened it out because it is not just about young people; everyone should have the opportunity to educate themselves. I understand that we cannot offer the LLE to, say, 70 or 75-year-olds because there would be no return on the investment, but I hope that 55-year-olds, or even 60-year-olds, might benefit from lifelong learning, because they still have so much to offer.
I spoke on Friday about an 82-year-old in Chesterton in my constituency who wanted to know whether there are opportunities for flexible working in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I am sure plenty of older people are looking for opportunities not only for flexible working but to go back to college to get themselves more skills, perhaps while they are working. This Bill will go some way towards that.
I also said in my maiden speech that levelling up is about education, and not simply funding for local areas, although the funding I have secured for Newcastle-under-Lyme—more than £50 million for the borough from the future high streets funds and through the town deal—is incredibly welcome. I am glad the vice-chancellor of Keele University chairs our town deal board.
As I always say to schools, colleges, universities and businesses alike, levelling up is not simply about throwing in money, knocking down buildings, building new buildings and applying a lick of paint; true levelling up comes from the investment our businesses make, the investment we make in our public services and, most of all, the investment we make in our people.
That starts before school in the first 1,001 days that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) talks about and continues through nursery, primary school and secondary school and into further and higher education, which is the point at which it often seems to stop. If people do not have the opportunity of a forward-thinking employer that pays for training, they often do not continue to grow their skills. They obviously gain experience, but they do not have the opportunity to go out and learn new skills that might allow them to take their career in a new direction. I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill offers the opportunity of lifelong learning to people who may have studied to some degree or who may have dropped out of university, so that they are able to go back and put right what they perhaps once got wrong, or once did not value as much. They will then be able to redirect their career and perhaps their and their family’s entire future.
For too long, young people have been encouraged towards unsustainable degrees. We have a fixed model, pushed under the Blair Government, of three-year courses that all charge the same fees. When that Government introduced tuition fees, the original idea was that different institutions would charge different amounts, but that is not how the free market resolved the problem. It was apparent that if a provider charged less than the maximum —originally £1,000, and later £3,000 or £9,000—it would be advertising itself as inferior, and no provider wants to do that because they all want to have the badge.
In practice, of course, there are inferior courses and universities that are not as good as others, yet people are paying the same for every course at every university. There is no proper market signal to young people as to what is valued in the marketplace and the world of work. The Bill introduces a new method to make sure that students access courses at a fair price, and pricing modules and short courses proportionately will go a long way towards getting the market signal out to our young people, and to older people who take advantage of lifelong learning, as to what is valued.
Sir Julian Lewis
I recall some of these debates and it was predicted at the time that the universities, in particular, would behave in precisely the way my hon. Friend has described. I am a little bit concerned about the people who did a course that was not really viable in terms of qualifying them for a practical career. How, if at all, will they benefit from this legislation, given that, presumably, they may have used up their three years’ worth of learning allocation?
Aaron Bell
I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend was in the Chamber earlier when I intervened on the Secretary of State on precisely that point. This comes with a four-year entitlement. It is not perfect and people will have used up entitlement; I discussed this last week in the Tea Room with the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, who is in his place. The flexible loan is worth £37,000 at today’s prices—four lots of £9,250. Those who did a three-year course and found it did not do much for them may have the opportunity to do a one-year course now. When people are a bit older and wiser, they can often get as much out of a one-year course when they really want to do it as they did in three years when they were at university and perhaps were too busy in the bar, on the football pitch and so on. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and thank him for sharing his experience of those debates from back in the early days of the Blair Government. However, I do think that the Minister and the team in the Department for Education have considered this point, and I think it is one reason why they have set this at four years rather than three.
I also welcome the investment we are making in skills training more generally, and I will talk a little more about that in a moment, because I want to speak about the further and higher education institutions in my constituency. I am lucky, as it is blessed with both a fine further education establishment, Newcastle and Staffordshire Colleges Group and, specifically, Newcastle College, and a higher education institution, Keele University. It is genuinely positive for the area, if not for my re-election prospects, that we have a university in my constituency. If we could make sure the next election takes place during the holidays, I would be extraordinarily grateful, although I know that is not in your gift, Mr Deputy Speaker. I always enjoy going to Keele University and speaking to the students, even if they do not always vote the right way at the ballot box. [Interruption.] I see the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), heckling me from a sedentary position.
Keele University is very integrated now into Newcastle-under-Lyme, in a way that it has not always been, partly because of the involvement in the town deal that I spoke about earlier, with the vice-chancellor as the chair. As part of that, Keele University is going to be opening a digital society centre in the centre of Newcastle-under-Lyme. The science and innovation park at Keele is also a huge benefit to the constituency. We manufactured the vaccine on that park; the AstraZeneca vaccine was manufactured by Cobra Biologics, which has since been taken over. A number of small businesses are also going on there, through the Denise Coates Foundation, which has funded a school of management there. All of that is essential to levelling up, having more money in our local economy and more wealth generated locally and spent locally, supporting our high street and helping us to get the growth we want in our local economy.
I will speak a little more about Keele in a moment, but first let me speak about the Newcastle and Staffordshire Colleges Group. I am delighted to say that it is becoming an institute of technology—sadly, it is in Stafford, not Newcastle-under-Lyme, but that is by the by because it will be open to people from both areas, which are very much connected. Ours was the first FE college anywhere in the country to be rated outstanding across the board by Ofsted. I wish briefly to raise a point about T-levels with the Minister. I know that the college welcomed them, and it currently has 2,259 learners studying level 3s, mostly in applied general things, mostly on BTECs. That cohort is considerably disadvantaged compared with the one doing A-levels at the college; they are eight times more likely to have education, health and care plans, twice as likely to have a learning difficulty or a disability, and 33% more likely to be economically disadvantaged and in receipt of a bursary. The college has written to me as it has concerns about the transition to T-levels and the speed with which it is occurring, and I think there are a number of practical concerns. The college is very much in favour of what the Government are doing but it has a number of practical concerns. If the Minister would be willing to meet people from the college, either on a visit, which I know he would be keen to do, or virtually in the meantime, that would be welcomed by the excellent principal, Craig Hodgson, who has written to me about those concerns. I am very blessed to have that further education establishment in my constituency, as it is changing the life chances of many of my constituents. It is also well engaged with local businesses, as it offers apprenticeships as well. Having such a good further education provider in my constituency is a fundamental part of what will help to level up Newcastle.
Let me speak a little more about Keele University, which, as I have said, is also in my constituency. A total of 31% of home undergraduates are in receipt of financial support due to low household income. That places the university 27th out of 122 English higher education institutions, according to the Office for Students. It does very well on non-continuation—keeping disadvantaged people in university—but it acknowledges that it has more to do on attainment. According to the most recent figures that I have available, in 2017-18, only 14% were mature students, and the university wants to do more about that. I am sure that the Bill will encourage more people to study at what is an excellent university in Keele. It is so excellent, in fact, that it was voted Britain’s best university, as ranked by students. It has 96% graduate employability, which is very encouraging.
I will, if I may, briefly mention Staffordshire University, which, although it is in neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent, is attended by a number of my constituents. It has a different profile: some 24.5% of its students are in quintile 1of the income deprivation affecting children index; and 50.5% of its students are mature, of whom 35.5% are full-time—that compares with 21% nationally. The university is incredibly well set up to deal with lifelong learning. There are a number of disadvantaged people in Stoke-on-Trent who did not even get GCSEs, let alone A-levels or go to university, and I hope that some of them will take advantage of the opportunities that this Bill presents.
Let me cite some figures that were provided by UCAS, for which I am grateful, to give the overall picture in my constituency. In the last cycle, there were 730 applications to higher education institutions, 600 of which were accepted. Of that, 135 were studying locally, which I think is mostly at Keele. Those numbers are lower than average. I would like to see them higher, again, to see us do better, but 28.1% of those were aged 21 plus, which is above the latest national average of 23.8%. That is encouraging, as it shows that mature students in Newcastle-under-Lyme are already taking advantage of the opportunities through UCAS.
The Bill also sits alongside our record in education in general, and how we are using education to improve people’s life chances to help level up their opportunities and outcomes. I welcome T-levels, despite the aside from the college that I mentioned, because they are a technical qualification that will help people. They provide practical learning for those who do not necessarily want to study A-levels. We have also delivered lots of money on different fronts—£490 million to boost skills training and upgrade our colleges and university, £432 million of which will fund state-of-the-art university and college facilities at 100 providers, and a further £57 million will support 20 specialist higher education providers to deliver a wider range of specialist courses of the highest quality. We have invested £350 million in renovations for further education colleges across the UK. We have brought forward £200 million of that to renovate 180 providers. That means that colleges have started immediate work in repairing and refurbishing their buildings.
Importantly, given the context of Putin’s war in Ukraine, we have provided £500 million for energy efficiency upgrades for schools and colleges, which will help them to save on their bills. A primary school will receive, on average, £16,000, a secondary school, £42,000, and further education groups approximately £290,000 each, which is very welcome and will help to make sure that we have energy efficient buildings, saving ourselves and the providers money in the long run.
We have £3 billion in the National Skills Fund that we have established. That helps individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises to access high quality education and training. Although that is not completely in the scope of the Bill, it is important that we engage with businesses at every stage on what they want. I had representatives from businesses down here just last week to attend a roundtable meeting, and they told me that their two challenges are land and planning and then skills in the local population. Therefore, everything that we can do—whether it is through apprenticeships, through training on the job or through the opportunities that the Bill will provide for people to acquire new skills, possibly taking a year out and possibly while working part time—will be welcomed by businesses in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
It is not just money that we need. We are also requiring further education establishments to provide for local needs. The Bill creates a new duty on further education colleges, sixth-form colleges and other designated institutions to ensure that the provision of further education is fully aligned with local needs. That will be considered on an annual basis to strengthen accountability and performance, so if an area is falling behind, there will be scope for it to catch up. Finally, we need to reform initial teacher training in further education, which is part of the cycle that I spoke about earlier. We need the best quality teachers. At the moment the system is a bit too fragmented, so we need to make it easier to navigate and it needs to have high-quality, clear standards throughout. We need to ensure that public funding for teacher training goes only to high-quality providers following the standards that we and employers want to see.
In conclusion—I know that a couple of other Members wish to speak—as I said at the start, I believe in equality of opportunity and in giving people the tools they need to make more of themselves. My people in Newcastle are ambitious; indeed, all of our constituents are ambitious. They want to stretch themselves, learn new skills and make a better life for themselves and, above all, their families. As I have said, education is at the core of that. It gives people and their children the opportunity to make more of themselves, and this Bill is all about expanding that opportunity and making it available to more people—more than I considered in my maiden speech, to be honest. It will ensure that opportunities are available, with Government support and the help of teachers, lecturers and everyone else who works in the sector. I pay tribute to them, because they have been through a very tough time with covid and have had to work very hard to get back on track. This Bill will be a shot in the arm, giving them more keen students who have actively chosen to go back into learning. That is exactly what teachers and lecturers want—those are the people they want to work with. This Bill is about expanding opportunity, regardless of people’s background, previous educational history and age, and I commend it to the House.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous). There have been a number of good speeches, but I was struck in particular by a couple of things said by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who is no longer in his place. First, he spoke of FE having been a Cinderella service for a long time, and secondly, he addressed the risk of affluent people using the Bill’s provisions to get a qualification additional to those they already have. I will talk about the issue of access, which I think chimes well with my hon. Friend’s comments.
Before I entered this place in 2019, I ran charities for disadvantaged young people. Those charities pretty much worked with young people aged 16 to 25—a couple of them went all the way down to age 10, but the bulk of young people I worked with in the 16 years before becoming an MP were aged 16 to 25. I am therefore quite familiar with how the system pushes people to do three-year university courses at the age of 18. Indeed, they are set on that path before they even get to that point, because at 16 they have to choose the courses that will set them up for their desired university course. For example, if someone is not studying chemistry at A-level, they will not be admitted to a medical course. We put people on a narrow track at a very early age.
There are all sorts of debates about the international baccalaureate and whether we should study a broader range of subjects. If students are to follow the university track at 18, however, they have to pick subjects at 16, and school visits will often be to universities rather than to colleges and employers. The UCAS system—I am really glad that we are changing this—makes it incredibly easy for people in year 12 and moving into year 13 to apply to university. There is one form, on which they list five universities. The process could not be much simpler, although there are difficult things to do to put the form together. Everything says to young people, and to adults, “There is a slip road at this point, but if you miss your junction”—to mix metaphors slightly—“that is it. You will be set on an incredibly long road without the opportunity to come off at the next junction or go back and find that junction again.” That is what our whole system has done for a long time, and it has been quite instructive.
I do not say this as a criticism, but the two big influencers of young people—parents and teachers—reinforce that message. That is not a criticism, as I say, because we all have to do better in that regard. Parents often want their children to go to university, even if they did not go themselves. My parents wanted me to go to university, but I was the first generation in my family to do so. For many people, going to university is held up as the aspirational thing to do, and the alternatives are not seen in the same aspirational way, which they should be.
Most teachers did exactly what we are talking about: they got to 18, went to university, did a teacher training qualification, and joined the profession. So it is the thing that they are most familiar with, too.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the influencers —be they teachers or parents—who inspire individuals to go to university. A point that needs to be considered relates to the initial teacher training market review that the Department for Education has just carried out, affecting teacher recruitment. Twelve universities—including Greenwich University, which covers Universities at Medway, and the University of Durham—have been removed from teacher training opportunities, affecting more than 4,492 future teachers. If we are to inspire the younger generation to go to university, we need outstanding teachers and a spectrum of universities from across the country providing that training. Does he agree that it is absolutely right not only that we get the right teachers, but that such reviews take into account the excellent work already being carried out by teachers across those institutions?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not know enough about why those universities have been removed, so I will not comment on that, but a point to which I will come later is the importance of outcomes for young people and adults. Whatever the qualification that they are studying, we have to judge the outcome that they go on to, rather than just saying, “Well, you have to go to university or you will have to do this sort of thing instead.”
Apprenticeships, as well as higher technical qualifications, which I know the Bill will enable people to do through the lifelong learning entitlement, do things that teachers and parents are not familiar with, which is quite important. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and others have talked about the importance of careers advice. The truth is that there are very few examples of good careers advice anywhere—be it in the state sector or the private sector, for the young or the old. A lot of our decisions are based on anecdote, or being told what not to do rather than what to do, without understanding the full range of available options. One thing that we have to do is to help parents and teachers understand the range of options that are available to young people. If they knew about them, they would probably be more open to promoting them.
Aaron Bell
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters. I completely agree with his point about careers advice. Does he agree that what is perhaps needed at the ages of 16 to 18 is better advice about what courses to take and what will open up the most doors? A lot of people aged 16 to 18 have no idea what career they want to take up. I know that I, for one, did not.
David Johnston
My hon. Friend makes another important point, and it leads me incredibly nicely to the point that I was just about to make.
I understand the motive behind the Labour party’s desire for 50% of young people to go to university. It was not a malign motive. Labour believed that that was aspirational and that it would help us compete, but it has clearly had a number of negative consequences. One of the most important—this goes to my hon. Friend’s point—is that we have told people, “The most important thing you can do is go to university at 18. It doesn’t particularly matter where you go to university or what you study. The most important thing is that you go to university, because we want all young people to go to university.” Thanks to a whole range of organisations, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has done great work on this issue, we now know that people who graduate from a number of institutions will earn less than they would have done had they just got a job. In 2020, the IFS found that about 20% of people who go to university—one in five—earn less than people with similar grades who just get a job.
We might dislike that that is the case—we might wish that every university or subject gave people the same earnings outcome—but when I worked in this field, people could choose from 60,000 university courses, which of course do not all give the same outcomes. Certain universities—particularly Russell Group ones—give people higher earnings, as do particular courses, such as medicine, engineering and maths. The charities I worked with overwhelmingly supported disadvantaged young people, and the truth is that it is usually those people who do not get the advice they need and who pay large amounts for courses that do not add to their employability outcomes. They do not get good information, advice and guidance at a young age from school or from parents, in the way that a middle-class child might. That is one big way in which the 50% target has prioritised quantity over quality.
Sir Julian Lewis
I thoroughly endorse the direction of my hon. Friend’s thoughtful argument. Does he agree that, even at the Russell Group university end of the spectrum, there has been a serious issue with grade inflation? So many people—a large majority, I think—are now awarded first and upper second-class honours in institutions where, 20 years ago, one in 10 might, if they were lucky, have got a first-class degree, that it becomes difficult for employers to pick out people for the right reasons and for the right jobs.
David Johnston
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Part of the reason why that has happened is that young people feel, “I’m making an investment here. I’m paying £9,000 a year. I’m not doing that for you to give me a 2:2 or a third at the end of it.” There has therefore been this pressure on universities—often, unfortunately, with the threat of legal action from parents who can afford it—to inflate the grades people are given. This is another unintended consequence.
People will say, “Look, it’s not just about the money you can earn after your degree,” and that is the case, but because we as individuals are making that investment at that age, we understandably want to see an impact on our earnings. However, another problem is that lots of people will never pay back the money they have borrowed, and that is a huge liability for the taxpayer. Some taxpayers have been to university themselves, and some have not, but they will all incur this cost. We lend money to people to go to university, but if they do not earn enough to be able to pay it back, the taxpayer will not get a return on that investment. At the moment, we are on course for only a quarter of people to fully pay back their student loans. That is a huge amount that the taxpayer is investing unnecessarily in something that I hope we will change through this Bill.
As has been touched on, it is also the case that the three-year, full-time model for people aged 18 does not suit every young person. Lots of the young people I used to work with at the charities I ran had caring responsibilities, either for younger siblings or ill relatives. Perhaps a member of their family had unfortunately died, and those young people therefore had greater responsibilities, or they needed to work alongside study in order to supplement the family income. As such, again, we need greater flexibility, and that is before we come on to the technological change that we are expecting. We will see some of the most radical technological change that the country has ever known, and lots of the jobs that we train people for today will become obsolete. A person might make a decision at 18 about the particular course they want to study for a particular job, and in 20 years find that that job is obsolete and that they need to retrain for something else. That is why the Bill will be so important.
As an aside, lots of jobs should not need a degree anyway—we have slipped with the 50% target, I am afraid. In order to make the lives of employers easier, we have applied a higher and higher degree threshold to weed out people when we make selection decisions. If everybody has a degree, we end up starting to ask for master’s degrees, so we have entry inflation, not just grade inflation. Above all, that target has contributed to the disparity of esteem between academic and vocational courses. As has been touched on, this is a limited, smallish Bill, so giving people the equivalent of £37,000 in today’s money to enable them to train themselves across their lifetime, at some point in the future when they decide that they need to study for qualifications that they do not yet have, is so important for what we are trying to do: create that parity of esteem.
The Bill will promote lifelong and modular learning, and set limits on course and module fees based on credits. It will also achieve subtle things. Going back to the point about the whole system being geared towards one particular model, changing from an academic year to a course year is hugely important, because when everything is geared towards academics, we are continually reinforcing the message that the academic model is the only one for people.
We know that lifelong learning has a huge number of benefits. We know it will help with earnings; for some considerable time only about one in eight of the people who are in low pay have escaped that low pay a decade later. That has been true for decades, and part of that is about progression. By the way, that is partly the job of employers —they need to have good strategies for progression —but it is also about allowing adults to train in things they are not able to do, so that they can get more skills and therefore get more money.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I came into the Chamber after the hon. Gentleman had started his very good speech, so I hope he will forgive me. Is he trying to reinvent the individual learning accounts, which were an early attempt by Tony Blair’s Government to create that lifelong pattern of learning and open up opportunities? I was Chair of the Education Committee at the time, and unfortunately that Government found out very quickly that that scheme could be scammed, and it collapsed. Everyone said that the Government should have brought it back, even Mr Deputy Speaker, who used to be one of my students. Even he believed in that scheme, but it has never been resurrected.
David Johnston
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am a politician, so I would never try to reinvent the wheel, but I think what we are trying to do in this Bill is learn from some of the problems that the Government at the time had with that situation, because lifelong learning is so important and people will need to retrain. People cycle in and out of work, and we will need to train people for jobs that none of us has even considered. Developed economies such as ours are historically bad at retraining people for new technology—it is not just a UK problem; it is a US problem too. All the developed economies find that difficult, so the Bill is an important way in which we can help people. That is before we consider the health and wellbeing advantages of lifelong learning, which are also well documented.
The Bill is set in the context of a couple of problems with which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education is familiar. One is access. It is still the case that access to certain universities is not what it should be. Disadvantaged young people find it difficult to get into certain universities, and we have to make better progress on that—some universities are still dominated by those from private schools, and that matters for everything we are training people for—and ditto the situation with international students. Some universities have made much better progress on getting international students rather than low-income students. They do that because it gives them a lot more money, but universities need to be making a good contribution to social mobility at home.
With this lifelong learning entitlement, I hope the Minister will, as with everything else, be applying two tests. First, what are the outcomes for people who undertake certain courses? I am agnostic about whether it is level 4 or level 8 and whether it is academic or vocational; the thing I care about most is whether the course helps someone get a better outcome than they otherwise would have had if they had not done that qualification. That unfortunately has not been the case with lots of the university courses that people have done at 18. The second test is simply this: do disadvantaged young people or older people who have been disadvantaged get their fair share of the courses that will really help them to have those better outcomes? Across degrees and apprenticeships, too often it is the most affluent and the most privileged who take most of the spaces on the things that will give the best outcomes. All that being said, this is an important Bill that is trying to get us to that parity of esteem, and I am very pleased to support it.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), who I genuinely believe could speak for an entire day on this subject and still enthral the entire Chamber. I completely love this focus on lifelong learning. Whether short courses, long courses or life-enhancing learning, it is hugely important not only to the individual, but to the country. I am pleased that we finally have a Government who are committed to all forms of learning, jobs and sectors. I give credit to the Department for Education and all the officials in the Box as well, because I know how hard they have been working.
I did not go to university; I left home at 15 and did not do particularly well at school. I got a job as a legal secretary, and then I worked my way up. I went to night school, carried on and qualified as a solicitor. I was quite embarrassed about all that. I did not tell anybody. I remember going out with barristers and their saying, “Just give this up. It is hard work. You are going to work all day and studying at night. You are teaching aerobics as well in the evening to pay for all the law school fees. That looks like hard graft, why don’t you just go to uni?” I used to fumble around and stumble in my explanation as to why I was learning in the way I was. That was because the entire country and the Labour party for a long time had focused very much on getting 50% of youngsters into university, and there was not a lot of chat about the rest of us.
We know that a lot of parents are often very supportive of further education colleges, but mainly for other people’s children, because many families, many schools and many quarters still consider that university is the only way forward. Let us fast-forward to me as a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed candidate in Stroud. I got chatting to those at the amazing further education college, South Gloucestershire and Stroud College. I spoke to people at all our secondary schools, and I met bright and ambitious young people. On the doorsteps, I kept meeting people who had qualified through further education colleges, and I was learning all the time about these great careers. Often they were running great big departments or leading the way in their individual industries, but they tended not to talk about how they had qualified, often because they had been written off by the time they had got into colleges. We drop that part of our lives.
I started bothering Education Ministers about further education and skills, and I started a campaign called #FEFriday. I basically bang on about further education every single Friday on all my social media. What I have learned from all that is just how valuable everything that goes on in our colleges is and how important our lifelong learning programmes are. I remind everybody that during the pandemic the professions that people missed the most were the chefs, hairdressers, childminders, those in beauty and those in construction. We should remember when we were not allowed plumbers in our houses, and how much trouble that caused. I absolutely welcome this Bill, the focus on lifelong learning and finding a way to support that financially.
Similar to other Members, I have questions for the Minister that I know he will deal with about the funding behind the Bill for our colleges and how much that will help them. They have a real crisis in recruitment. They are seeing other colleges and other sectors providing golden hellos and cash to recruit and retain staff, which FE colleges cannot offer. Similar to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), I am interested to see how this Bill works alongside the apprenticeship levy, which we could have another very long debate on, and how we are ensuring that we are seeing reforms.
I want to hear—not necessarily today—a little more about the polling and work that the Department has done to look into the perception of taking on more debt, because when I was growing up I did not want to get into debt. That is the reality for lots of people in my communities. That is why I worked to learn, and it is why I made sure I was teaching those aerobics classes to pay my fees.
Aaron Bell
Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the contributions about debt, particularly, I regret to say, from Opposition Members, have been very unhelpful? I have found that the best advice has often come from Martin Lewis, who is very widely trusted on these things. Going to university or taking on any course, as people could under the Bill, should not be seen as a debt in the traditional sense of the term; it operates for UK-based people much more like a graduate tax than actual debt, and that framing is far more important, because that will encourage people into learning, rather than discourage them.
Siobhan Baillie
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we look into how these things work, we see that it is not a debt, but very much an enabler. However, we know that many people feel that it is a debt. I want to understand how the Department has looked at this issue and how we deal with those concerns going forward.
In the final minutes I have, I want to make two separate points: first on green skills, then on employability. I wrote an article some time ago that set out and argued that net zero cannot happen without know-how, but we have effectively got a green skills emergency. There is a challenge to reskill those who work in existing industries that will be affected by the transition. Fossil fuel production in the North sea, for example, created skilled and well-paid workers who are sorely needed to make the transition successful, but they need to have a skills bridge to make sure they are being retrained for future industries. I am interested to know how the lifelong learning entitlement can help that.
The second issue with the skills emergency is educating our young people. We have a huge skills gap for our future workforce, which urgently needs closing. I did some work with the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) to create a nature GCSE and engage people. My main message to young people when I go into schools is, “Do not lie down on motorways or glue yourselves to stuff. Do your STEM subjects and make sure you are learning well, because if you become scientists, you will be fixing the environmental challenges that we have today, and you will be the saviours of our future.”
I encourage people to look at the Onward report, “Green Jobs, Red Wall”. I work closely with the Onward think-tank, and it is excellent. I will run out of time if I go through that report, but alongside the Bill, it is important that the Department for Education works with other Departments to ensure that the landscape is set up so that we educate, encourage people to gain skills and encourage people to take on more courses. However, unless we get the factories up and motoring and unless we get the seed investment into some areas of tech, the jobs will not be there, so I ask the Department for Education please to work with other Departments.
On employability, I started the all-party parliamentary group on the future of employability in direct response to the calls of employers in Stroud, which are echoed around the country, about recruitment issues; the calls of potential employees who are feeling burnt out post pandemic; the high number of people with mental health issues; and the millions of people on welfare. I have also been fighting the good fight on childcare, because we have a huge group of economically inactive people—mainly mothers—who are not working at full tilt.
I had been looking at the issue and I spoke to a good friend, Ronel Lehmann, who started an employment company called Finito. It is his job to get people work ready, so we put our heads together and started the APPG, because I passionately believe in the power of work doing good. I can see that thousands of people are no longer work ready, that many millions are not working at full tilt, and that people do not feel that they have a place in the workforce because they do not feel that they can engage.
All the evidence tells us that work is the fastest route out of poverty. It gives us a reason to get out of bed and it is good for mental health and for relationships. It is also good for children to see their parents have a routine and a sense of purpose. We do not always have to like our jobs—there are days, even though it is a great privilege to be here, when we do not like our jobs—but we have to send a strong message to the country that, “Work is good for you. Work will help not only you and your family, but the country.”
Having a focus on lifelong learning, on employability and on ensuring that we are getting people work ready and into a job—and that once they are in a job, they can transition into a more responsible part of that job or to a new job—is the quickest way for people to feel sustained and fulfilled. I look forward to working with the Minister, and I believe passionately in what he and the Secretary of State, who is now in her place, are trying to do. I am genuinely ambitious for every single person I meet, and I think the Front-Bench team from the Department for Education feel exactly the same, so I wish the Bill Godspeed and I look forward to making sure that it happens.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Minister.
Matt Western
I have benefited from training courses and adult education throughout my career, as I am sure many hon. Members have. Although some of the skills that I developed may not have been directly relevant to my employment at the time, they proved incredibly useful later in life. Like the Minister and the Secretary of State, I am therefore a deeply committed believer in the power of lifelong learning.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who participated in the debate, although perhaps I will not refer to them all in my summing up. I was particularly interested to hear some of the historical perspectives from a century ago, or perhaps 40 years ago—certainly I remember Peter Walker from my youth. They give context to the fact that some of these challenges have been around for some time, and show how important it is that we address them collectively.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who is not back in his place, rightly raised the issue of productivity. I am particularly concerned about that and about how the performance of the UK economy has fallen back. As far as I am concerned, it is not a puzzle and there are easy ways to resolve it. The fact is, however, that our relative productivity is 20% behind that of France. He also raised questions about eligibility and maintenance support, especially for carers, which are concerns that the Opposition share.
I was interested to hear the discussion between the hon. Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) about debt. Of course, we have to put that in the context of debt for students being raised to £9,250, and the impact of that. We are now in a situation where maintenance loans are relatively frozen, which is frustrating, because it reduces the breadth and opportunity for people and reduces young people’s access to education.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) had certain queries and asked about the burden that might fall on the sector, which is a real concern that I also picked up on. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) echoed my concerns about the mechanism of the Bill and the fact that there was no actual policy within it. She asked whether the Government would now abolish the ELQ rule, which is one of the many questions that we will put to the Government in Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for raising individual learning accounts. They were put forward by the Labour Government, but there were concerns and difficulties with them when they were introduced, because of some of the fraud that they led to.
As I alluded to in my opening speech, the need for lifelong learning is greater than ever. We have been on a slippery slope of economic decline for too long, with UK GDP per capita growing at an average annual rate of 0.5% in real terms between 2010 and 2021, according to the World Bank. The Labour party is resolute in its determination to reverse that trend, so much so that it is one of our guiding national missions. In that vein, we are prepared to support the Minister throughout the Bill’s passage, assuming that we see fuller detail in due course.
As I said in my opening remarks, however, there remain far too many gaps, questions and uncertainties at this critical stage. We have a frame, but the real work is yet to be done. In essence, it is a promise—not an empty promise, but a promise that needs substantiating. Many questions have been asked in this debate, such as about the fee setting for modules and courses; the quality and how the Government plan for that to be determined; and, in particular, the role that the OfS will have.
Many of those questions would be resolved if the Minister were prepared to finally publish the LLE consultation response. I raised many questions in my opening remarks that I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister about shortly, but my lasting message is to please publish the response to the consultation as a matter of urgency. I look forward to working with the Minister to flesh out this most skeletal of Bills, and I hope that we can work constructively in future.
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
I thank the shadow spokesman for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for the constructive way in which he has approached the Bill, and the shadow spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I knew Gordon Marsden well—he was my opposite number when I last held this post a few years ago. He is a good man and he knows the subject inside out.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington asked about the consultation response. We have said that we will publish it before Report stage. He will know that it is not specifically aligned to the measures in the Bill, but about the wider policy of the LLE. He wants us to introduce the LLE at speed, which is exactly what we are trying to do, but we want to do it carefully and to make sure that we respond to the consultation following all the submissions that we had. As I say, it will be published by Report stage, if not before.
Matt Western
The Minister is a decent individual, so I ask that we have sufficient time to consider the response before Committee, given that it has been 10 months since the consultation.
Robert Halfon
I repeat that the consultation will definitely be ready by Report stage, if not before; I guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that it will be ready by Report.
The hon. Gentleman asked about fee limits. He will know that the Secretary of State can set fee limits as a result of the Higher Education Act 2004. The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 built on that and allowed for flexible and modular learning. That legislation has long roots in the Augar report as well, so the Government have clearly set the direction of travel.
We will be having regular consultation with stakeholders as well. The hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington and for Twickenham asked about the hourly value of credits in the Bill. The Government feel that the number of learning hours in a credit is an area that should continue to be governed from a quality standards perspective, rather than from a fee limits perspective, and we have legislated accordingly. In the Bill, the credits are used to signify the total amount of learning time that a student would ordinarily be expected to spend to complete a particular course or part of a course. However, I can assure both spokespeople that further details on the number of learning hours associated with credits will be set out in the regulations. Where providers choose not to use credits in this way for certain courses, these courses will have the fee limit determined using a default credit value, but they will face no penalty or reduction overall as a result.
To turn to my successor as Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) spoke quite interestingly about his father. I have read a book about his father, who was a very good man. My hon. Friend talked about the burden of regulation, and our intention is to simplify regulation, not to add to it. Of course, those institutions that offer the LLE will be registered with the OfS. He talked about partnerships between further education and higher education. I absolutely agree, and I think this policy will rocket-boost that. There are already examples, and I can give him the great example of Nottingham Trent University and the college in Mansfield. I repeat that the consultation will be ready by Report.
I have answered some of the questions of the hon. Member for Twickenham, but on the point about the equivalent learner qualification, I can only say that we will be able to tell her when the consultation has been published. However, I hope she will not be unhappy with that, and I appreciate her support. Again, on maintenance, I envisage a similar system to what exists now for the current student loan system, but the full details will be in the consultation on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a very important speech, and he is passionate about further education and about championing it. He is absolutely right about employer investment. That is why we introduced the apprenticeship levy—it is not part of the Bill and it is separate, but it is very important—so that we would have business investment in skills. He talked about the disadvantaged, and he is absolutely right. They will be able to do modules and flexible learning, and they will have more access to courses they want to do than they otherwise would have had. One of the reasons for the decline in part-time learning is the three-year loan, and they will be able to do short courses or modules of courses. [Interruption.] Of course, I will give way. Sorry, I thought somebody was asking me to give way, but it was just my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) being very noisy, as usual. I used to work for him many years ago, so I can say that. This will be published in the consultation, but the LLE, as has been highlighted, will concentrate on levels 4 to 6 and it will have a phased approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) talked powerfully and spoke about good outcomes for students. Of course I will meet his new college group. On local business involvement in qualifications, that is entirely why we have the local skills improvement plans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) made a brilliant speech, as is his wont. He will know that we have introduced UCAS for apprenticeships and hope to expand that over the coming months and years. He is right that we should not just have been saying, “University, university, university”, but “Skills, skills, skills”.
I am delighted, as I say, by the positive response to the Bill. Universities UK has said that it is a welcome step with a more flexible system of opportunity at its heart, and I thank all Members who have spoken. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, the Bill is a major step forward in our mission to revolutionise access to post-18 education and skills through the introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement.
I want to respond to an additional point about the number of adult learners. That number has increased by 4.3% from 2021-22 to 2022-23, and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington will know that many adults are now doing apprenticeships and different kinds of adult learning skills.
The Bill has just three clauses, but in supporting the LLE it will transform lives. It will transform the lives of working people on low incomes, it will transform the lives of carers who need to balance their commitments alongside study, and it will transform the lives of anyone who wants to upskill in their existing career or propel themselves into a new one. The LLE will enable access to modules and courses in a way that has not been possible before. It will provide individuals with a loan entitlement equivalent to four years of post-18 education to use over their working life. Regardless of background, income or circumstance, people will have access to a flexi-travelcard to jump on and off their learning as opposed to being confined to a single advance ticket. This is not just a train journey; it is a life journey.
The Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill brings in the next piece of legislation to support delivery of the LLE from 2025. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, the Bill has three core elements. First, it will enable limits for tuition fees to be based on credits. Currently, tuition fees are set for complete years of full courses only. This change means that short courses and modules will be priced appropriately in comparison with and alongside longer courses—for example, degree programmes.
Secondly, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, this Bill introduces the concept of a course year. Currently, tuition fee limits are based on academic years of study. This change will allow fee limits to be applied more accurately to courses that are not aligned with traditional academic years.
Finally, this Bill allows for an overall maximum chargeable number of credits for each type of course. Currently, a maximum can only be set in relation to an academic year. This will prevent students being charged excessively for their studies. In sum, the Bill will lay the groundwork to ensure that fee limits are the same for a learner who completes a qualification by studying each individual module at their own pace as it would be for them to study a typical full-time course across three academic years.
Sir David Evennett
Does the Minister agree that the Bill will be transformational? By enabling people to change careers, change skills and develop talents throughout their working lives, it will make people’s lives better and their opportunities much greater?
Robert Halfon
My right hon. Friend, who made a brilliant speech, is absolutely right. We will also be resourcing this in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) wanted with our extra spending on skills and further education colleges. I also thank her for her important speech.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.]
Robert Halfon
I just want to answer some other questions that the Labour spokesman asked first.
To be clear, as part of the pathway towards the LLE, the Government will stimulate the provision of high-quality technical education at levels 4 and 5 through the HE short-course trial that he talked about, with 22 providers. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Could I ask Members to be quiet, because we cannot hear what the Minister is saying and he is not able to hear where interventions are coming from?
Robert Halfon
We will keep the student finance system under review to ensure it is delivering value for money both for students and the taxpayer. The forecast costs for the LLE, which the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington asked about, will be outlined in a future spending review. He also asked about the QAA. It released a public statement in July 2022 requesting to step down from its position as the designated quality body. We are currently consulting on the de-designation of the QAA as required by the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. That consultation closes on 3 March.
Alun Cairns
I am hugely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Clearly, this is a devolved area of policy in the nations of the UK, but what discussions has he had with the devolved Administrations? Students from all parts of the UK clearly cross borders quite frequently, and there will be implications—not only for funding, but for a whole range of issues affecting those impacted by this Bill.
Robert Halfon
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We will be able to explain further once the consultation paper has been published, before Report.
Mr Robin Walker
My right hon. Friend will know that the difference between the Report and Committee stages can often be a few days. Sometimes in this House it can even be a few hours. I am sure he will recognise that it would benefit the House enormously in its scrutiny if Members could have sight of the Government’s response to the consultation ahead of Committee, when we will debate the detail of the Bill. I know he cannot make that commitment right now, and I appreciate the commitment he has made to bring it forward before Report, but will he give every consideration to whether that response could be brought forward any faster in the passage of the Bill, so that the House can give the most effective and positive scrutiny to what, as we have heard today, is a good idea in principle? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Once again, there are clearly important interventions being made. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members want to hear those interventions, and the answers as well. I urge all colleagues to listen to the remaining part of the debate. Even though there is an important statement coming, we want to hear the interventions and answers.
Robert Halfon
Of course I will consider the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and others across the House. We will try to get the consultation out speedily, but it will be published by Report.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that as we look to educate people perhaps in middle age into new skills and to improve their higher education for the future, it would be good to ensure that we get the sort of skills we need as a country, and to have a form of workforce planning? As we know, we are short of doctors and nurses, but there are others areas such as welders, life sciences and so on where we have great hopes and needs for future industry. Does he think there is a way of directing that sort of effort in a more planned way?
Robert Halfon
That is exactly what the Government’s programme is doing. We are investing in employer-led qualifications—that is exactly what this is about—and the LLE will enable many millions more people to have access to get on the skills ladder of opportunity.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As people look to retrain in later life, can we ensure that our armed forces have the support they need after serving their King, Queen and country, if they need to retrain after they leave the armed forces?
Robert Halfon
The beauty of the Bill is that it will enable anyone to retrain and do long courses, short courses or modules at a time of their own choosing, building up credits along the way. Those who leave the Army will be able to do that kind of skilled retraining.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that as well as the Bill and Government support, the £6.6 million of investment in Cadbury College in King’s Norton in my constituency will ensure that people have the facilities and resources to give people the skills they need for later in life—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Once again it is getting very noisy, and we are not able to hear the Minister’s answers. I urge colleagues to listen to the answers that the Minister is giving.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could make an inquiry into whether the loud speakers are turned up. Although there is some noise in the Chamber, it is actually rather quiet coming out of the speakers in our Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think the situation would be helped—I can still hear a lot of noise, even when I am speaking—[Interruption.] Perfect. I urge colleagues to keep the level of noise down, and then we will be able to hear what the Minister is saying.
Robert Halfon
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook). He has hit the nail on the head. On the point of order, it is never quiet when my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is in the House.
Finally, let me respond to one of the questions from the hon. Member for Twickenham regarding how the student loan repayment mechanism will work compared with now. We are building the LLE on a proven system, consciously designed both to support students pursuing higher education, and share the cost fairly with the taxpayer. Like the current student loan system, repayments will be linked to income not interest rates or the amount borrowed.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions today, and I hope to have addressed as many points as possible. I reiterate the significance of this Bill. It is a further piece of the jigsaw of the transformative reforms that will improve our skills system and revolutionise how and when people can and do access study. That sentiment is echoed by the sector. Professor Tom Bewick of the Federation of Awarding Bodies emphasised the Bill’s
“potential to be the most radical entitlement to adult education, skills training and retraining (delivered at the point of need), ever introduced.”
The reforms are a step forward, providing everyone with a ladder of opportunity to get the skills, security and prosperity they need.
The Government are not only expanding high-quality opportunities, the rungs of the ladder, which encompass careers, quality qualifications, skills and lifelong learning, but through the Bill and the LLE we are building the top rung of the ladder—social justice—by expanding access to quality lifelong educational opportunities that for the most disadvantaged pupils will mean levelling up productivity and employment, improving the skills pipeline and supporting people into fulfilling and lasting careers. I know hon. Members will join me in supporting that greater flexibility in our post-18 education and skills system, removing barriers to ensure that everyone is empowered to access further and higher education when and how it suits them. The Bill will promote equality and access to education, whether students are undertaking a degree or a module of a degree, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 28 March 2023.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Wood.)
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Northern Ireland Protocol
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
Before I begin, I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd, who passed away yesterday. She was a remarkable woman who commanded huge admiration and respect as the first female Speaker of this House. She was as firm as she was fair and she presided over many historic moments in this House, among them the debates on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Her passion, wit and immeasurable contribution to our democracy will never be forgotten.
Mr Speaker, let us also send our very best wishes to Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell and his family. He is a man of immense courage, who both on and off duty has devoted himself to the service of others. This House stands united with the people and leaders of all communities across Northern Ireland in condemning those who are trying to drag us back to the past. They will never succeed.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Northern Ireland protocol. After weeks of negotiations, today we have made a decisive breakthrough. The Windsor framework delivers free-flowing trade within the whole United Kingdom. It protects Northern Ireland’s place in our Union and it safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. By achieving all this, it preserves the delicate balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It does what many said could not be done: removing thousands of pages of EU laws and making permanent, legally binding changes to the protocol treaty itself. That is the breakthrough we have made. Those are the changes we will deliver. Now is the time to move forward as one United Kingdom.
Before I turn to the details, let us remind ourselves why this matters. It matters because at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the reason it has endured for a quarter of a century is equal respect for the aspirations and identities of all communities, and all its three strands. But the Northern Ireland protocol has undermined that balance. How can we say the protocol protects the Belfast/Good Friday agreement when it has caused the institutions of that agreement to collapse? So, in line with our legal responsibilities, we are acting today to preserve the balance of that agreement and chart a new way forward for Northern Ireland.
I pay tribute to: our European friends for recognising the need for change, particularly President Von der Leyen; my predecessors for laying the groundwork for today’s agreement; and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary for their perseverance in finally persuading the EU to do what it spent years refusing to do: to rewrite the treaty and replace it with a radical, legally binding new framework.
Today’s agreement has three equally important objectives: first, allowing trade to flow freely within our UK internal market; secondly, protecting Northern Ireland’s place in our Union; and thirdly, safeguarding sovereignty and closing the democratic deficit. Let me take each, in turn.
Core to the problems with the protocol was that it treated goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as if they were crossing an international customs border. This created extra costs and paperwork for businesses, who had to fill out complex customs declarations. It limited choice for the people of Northern Ireland and it undermined the UK internal market—a matter of identity, as well as economics. Today’s agreement removes any sense of a border in the Irish sea and ensures the free flow of trade within the UK.
We have secured a key negotiating objective: the introduction of a new green lane for goods destined for Northern Ireland, with a separate red lane for those going to the EU. Within the green lane, burdensome customs bureaucracy will be scrapped and replaced with data sharing of ordinary, existing commercial information. Routine checks and tests will also be scrapped. The only checks will be those required to stop smugglers and criminals. Our new green lane will be open to a broad, comprehensive range of businesses across the UK. I am pleased to say that we have also permanently protected tariff-free movement of all types of steel into Northern Ireland. For goods going the other way, from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, we have scrapped export declarations; delivering, finally, completely unfettered trade. The commitment to establish the green lane is achieved by a legally binding amendment to the text of the treaty itself. This is fundamental, far-reaching change and it permanently removes the border in the Irish sea.
Perhaps the single most important area of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is food. Three quarters of the food in Northern Ireland’s supermarkets comes from the rest of the UK, yet the protocol applied the same burdens on shipments from Cairnryan to Larne as between Holyhead and Dublin. If it was implemented in full we would see supermarket lorries needing hundreds of certificates for every individual item, every single document checked and supermarket staples like sausages banned altogether. More delays. More cost. Less choice. Today’s agreement fixes all this with a new, permanent, legally binding approach to food. We will expand the green lane to food retailers, and not just supermarkets but wholesalers and hospitality, too. Instead of hundreds of certificates, lorries will make one simple, digital declaration to confirm that goods will remain in Northern Ireland. Visual inspections will be cut from 100% now to just 5%. Physical checks and tests will be scrapped, unless we suspect fraud, smuggling or disease, so there will be no need for vets in warehouses.
Of course, to deliver this we need to reassure the EU that food imports will not be taken into Ireland, so we will ask retailers to mark a small number of particularly high risk food products as “not for EU”, with a phased roll-out of this requirement to give them time to adjust. More fundamentally, we have delivered a form of dual regulation for food, the single biggest sector by far for east-west trade and one of the most important in people’s lives. Under the protocol, retail food products made to UK standards could not be sold in Northern Ireland. Today’s agreement completely changes that. This means the ban on British products like sausages entering Northern Ireland has now been scrapped. If it is available on supermarket shelves in Great Britain, then it will be available on supermarket shelves in Northern Ireland. We still need to make sure that goods moved into Northern Ireland do not risk bringing in animal and plant diseases, but that is clearly a common sense measure, never opposed by anyone, to prevent diseases circulating within the long-standing single epidemiological zone on the island of Ireland.
That brings me to the treatment of parcels. If the protocol was fully implemented, every single parcel travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be subject to full international customs. You would have needed a long, complex form to send every single parcel, even a birthday present for a niece or nephew, and you could only have shopped online from retailers willing to deal with all that bureaucracy, with some already pulling out of Northern Ireland. Today’s agreement fixes all of this. It achieves something we have never achieved before: removing requirements of the EU customs code for people sending and receiving parcels. Families can, rightly, send packages to each other without filling in forms, online retailers can serve customers in Northern Ireland as they did before, and businesses can ship parcels through the green lane—all underpinned by data sharing by parcel operators, with a phased roll-out and time for them to adjust.
No burdensome customs bureaucracy. No routine checks. Bans on food products: scrapped. Steel tariff rate quotas: fixed. Tariff reimbursement scheme: approved. Vet inspections: gone. Export declarations: gone. Parcels paperwork: gone. We have delivered what the people of Northern Ireland asked for and the Command Paper promised—we have removed the border in the Irish sea.
To preserve the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, we also need to protect Northern Ireland’s place in our Union. The Windsor framework is about making sure that Northern Ireland gets the full benefit of being part of the United Kingdom in every respect. Under the protocol, in too many ways that simply was not the case. Take tax. When I was Chancellor, it frustrated me that when I cut VAT on solar panels or beer duty in pubs, those tax cuts did not apply in Northern Ireland. We have amended the legal text of the treaty so that critical VAT and excise changes will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. That means zero rates of VAT on energy-saving materials will now apply in Northern Ireland. Reforms to alcohol duty to cut the cost of a pint in pubs will now apply in Northern Ireland. Because we now have control over VAT policy, we can make sure that the EU’s plan to reduce the VAT threshold by £10,000 will not apply in Northern Ireland, nor will the SME VAT directive that would have brought huge amounts of EU red tape for small businesses.
We are also making subsidy control provisions work as intended. Already, just 2% of subsidy measures in Northern Ireland fall within the scope of the EU approvals under the protocol. Nevertheless, today’s agreement goes further, addressing the so-called reach-back of EU state aid law by imposing stringent new tests. For the EU to argue that we are in breach of its rules, it would now have to demonstrate that there is a real, genuine and material impact on Northern Ireland’s trade with the EU. That is a much higher threshold than in the protocol, limiting disputes to what the 2021 Command Paper called
“subsidies on a significant scale relating directly to Northern Ireland”.
We have also protected the special status of agriculture and fisheries subsidies in Northern Ireland, which will be completely outside the EU’s common agricultural policy. All that means that the problem of reach-back is fixed.
As well as tax and spend, the UK Government have a responsibility to protect the supply of medicines to all its citizens, but our ability to do that was constrained by the protocol. The biggest problem is that drugs approved for use by the UK’s medicines regulator are not automatically available in Northern Ireland. Imagine someone suffering with cancer in Belfast seeing a potentially life-changing new drug available everywhere else in the UK, but unable to access it at home. When the current grace period ends in 2024, the situation will get worse still: expensive and burdensome checks on all medicines; companies having to manufacture drugs with two completely different labels and supply chains; and pharmacies needing to check every package with complex scanners.
When 80% of Northern Ireland’s medicines come from Great Britain, those frictions pose a serious risk to the supply of medicines to the people of Northern Ireland. To fix that, today’s agreement achieves something unprecedented: it provides dual regulation for medicines. The UK’s regulator will approve all drugs for the whole UK market, including Northern Ireland, with no role for the European Medicines Agency. That fully protects the supply of medicines from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, and once again asserts the primacy of UK regulation. The same medicines, in the same packs, with the same labels, will be available in every pharmacy and hospital in the United Kingdom. Crucially, dual regulation means that Northern Ireland’s world-leading healthcare industry, which brings much-needed jobs and investment, can still trade with both the EU and UK markets. This is a landmark deal for patients in Northern Ireland. It is a permanent solution that brings peace of mind.
The protocol banned quintessentially British products going to Northern Ireland. When people wanted to import oak trees to mark Her late Majesty’s platinum jubilee, the protocol stood in their way. It suspended the historic trade in seed potatoes between Scotland and Northern Ireland. If implemented, it would create massive costs and bureaucracy for people travelling around the UK with their pets, disrupting family life and our family of nations. That is why today’s agreement will lift the ban on shrubs, plants and trees going to Northern Ireland. It will lift the ban on the movement of seed potatoes—particularly important for Scottish businesses. We will deliver that by expanding the existing UK plant passport scheme.
When it comes to pets, we have made sure that people from Northern Ireland will have completely free access to travel to Great Britain. A pet owner travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland just needs to make sure that their pet is microchipped and then they will simply need to tick a box when booking their travel. Whether it is lower VAT rates, lower beer duty, jubilee oaks in garden centres, seamless travel with pets, seamless trade in seed potatoes or the seamless supply of cutting-edge medicines, all that is now available for everyone, everywhere in the United Kingdom.
The Windsor framework goes further still, by safeguarding sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland and eliminating the democratic deficit. Fundamentally, the protocol meant that the EU could impose new laws on the people of Northern Ireland without their having a say. Some Members of this House, whose voices I deeply respect, say that EU laws should have no role whatsoever in Northern Ireland. I understand that view and I am sympathetic to it, but for as long as the people of Northern Ireland continue to support their businesses having privileged access to the EU market, and if we want to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland—as we all do—there will be some role for EU law. The question is: what is the absolute minimum amount necessary to avoid a hard border?
Today’s agreement scraps 1,700 pages of EU law. The amount of EU law that applies in Northern Ireland is less than 3%, and the people of Northern Ireland retain the right to reject that 3% through next year’s consent vote. However, that consent vote is about the whole protocol so it cannot, by its nature, provide oversight of individual new laws. It does not address the No. 1 challenge to sovereignty made by the protocol: the EU’s ability to impose new or amended goods laws on Northern Ireland without its having a say. To address that, today’s agreement introduces a new Stormont brake.
The Stormont brake does more than just give Northern Ireland a say over new EU laws; it means that it can block them. How will that work? The democratically elected Assembly can oppose new EU goods rules that would have significant and lasting effects on their everyday lives. It will do so on the same basis as the petition of concern mechanism in the Good Friday agreement, needing the support of 30 Members from at least two parties. If that happens, the UK Government will have a veto. We will work with the Northern Ireland Assembly and all parties to codify how the UK Government will use that veto.
Let me tell the House the full significance of that breakthrough. The Stormont brake gives the institutions of the Good Friday agreement a powerful new safeguard. It means that the United Kingdom can veto new EU laws if they are not supported by both communities in Northern Ireland. Yes, it is true that until now the EU had refused to consider treaty change; we were told that it was impossible, and that EU negotiators would never consider it. The Stormont brake has been introduced by fundamentally rewriting the treaty—specifically, the provisions relating to dynamic alignment. That is a permanent change and it ends the automatic ratchet of EU law. If the veto is used, the European courts can never overturn our decision.
The EU has also explicitly accepted an important principle in the political declaration. It is there in black and white that the treaty is subject to the Vienna convention. This means that, unequivocally, the legal basis for the Windsor framework is in international law. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for his support in negotiating this point. It puts it beyond all doubt that we have now taken back control.
From the very start, we have listened closely and carefully to views on all sides of this debate. I am grateful to many Members of this House, the communities of Northern Ireland and the voices of business and civil society for putting forward their suggestions. I want particularly to thank the Northern Ireland business groups that I have spoken to. I hope in today’s agreement they recognise that we have addressed their concerns. We are delivering stability, certainty, simplicity, affordability and clarity, as well as strengthened representation for the businesses of Northern Ireland.
I also want to speak directly to the Unionist community. I understand and have listened to your frustrations and concerns, and I would not be standing here today if I did not believe that today’s agreement marks a turning point for the people of Northern Ireland. It is clearly in the interests of the people, and those of us who are passionate about the cause of Unionism, for power sharing to return.
Of course, parties will want to consider the agreement in detail, a process that will need time and care. There are, of course, many voices and perspectives within Northern Ireland, and it is the job of Government to respect them all, but I have kept the concerns raised by the elected representatives of Unionism at the forefront of my mind, because it is their concerns with the protocol that have been so pronounced.
What I can say is this: our goal has been to ensure the economic rights of the people of Northern Ireland under the Act of Union and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, placing them on an equal footing with the rest of the UK with respect to tax, trade and the availability of goods. We have worked to end the prospect of trade diversion, removed any sense of a border for UK internal trade, removed routine customs or checks for goods destined for Northern Ireland, removed thousands of pages of existing EU law and introduced a UK veto on dynamic alignment, through the Stormont brake. We have created a form of dual regulation where it works and is needed the most, in sectors like medicines and food retail. We have delivered unfettered access to the whole UK market for Northern Ireland’s businesses, and we will take further steps to avoid regulatory divergence in future. We have secured a clear EU commitment and process to manage future changes with a special goods body.
All of this means that Northern Ireland’s businesses have continued access to the EU market, as they requested. It means that we have protected the letter and the spirit of Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee in the Belfast agreement, with the Stormont brake creating an effective cross-community safeguard. There are two distinct economies on the island of Ireland, and that will remain the case. Today’s agreement puts it beyond all doubt that Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market and the United Kingdom is fully restored.
I want to conclude by directly addressing the question of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. As I and my predecessors always said, the Bill was only ever meant to be a last resort, meant for a world where we could not get negotiations going. As the Government said at the time of its introduction, our
“clear preference remains a negotiated solution”.
Now that we have persuaded the EU to rewrite fundamentally the treaty text of the protocol, we have a new and better option. The Windsor framework delivers a decisively better outcome than the Bill, achieving what people said could not be done and what the Bill does not offer. It permanently removes any sense of a border in the Irish sea. It gives us control over dynamic alignment, through the Stormont brake, beyond what the Bill promised. The Bill did not change a thing in international law, keeping the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and leaving us open to months—maybe years—of uncertainty, disruption and legal challenge. Today’s agreement makes binding legal changes to the treaty itself and is explicitly based on international law. Unlike the Bill, it is an agreement that provides certainty and stability and, crucially, can start delivering benefits almost immediately for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland.
Of course, the House would expect to be informed of the Government’s updated legal position on whether there is a lawful basis to proceed with the Bill, so I am publishing it today. It says that because we have achieved a new negotiated agreement, which preserves the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the original and sound legal justification for the Bill has now fallen away. In other words, neither do we need the Bill nor do we have a credible basis to pursue it. We will therefore no longer proceed with the Bill, and the EU will no longer proceed with its legal actions against the UK. Instead, we will pursue the certainty of a new way forward with the Windsor framework.
Let me just remind the House of the full breadth and significance of what we have achieved today. We have achieved free-flowing trade, with a green lane for goods, no burdensome customs bureaucracy, no routine checks on trade, no paperwork whatsoever for Northern Irish goods moving into Great Britain and no border in the Irish sea. We have protected Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, with state aid reach-back fixed, the same tax rules applying everywhere, vet certificates for food lorries gone, the ban on British sausages gone, parcel paperwork gone, pet paperwork gone, garden centres now selling the same trees, supermarkets selling the same food and pharmacies selling the same medicines. We have safeguarded sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland, with the democratic deficit closed, the Vienna convention confirmed and thousands of pages of EU law scrapped. With the Stormont brake, we have safeguarded democracy and sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland.
That is the choice before us, Mr Speaker. Let us seize the opportunity of this moment—the certainty of an agreement that fixes the problems we face, commands broad support and consensus and offers us, at last, the freedom to move forward together. That is what the people of Northern Ireland deserve; that is what the Windsor framework delivers. As a Conservative, a Brexiteer and a Unionist, I believe passionately, with my head and my heart, that this is the right way forward—right for Northern Ireland, right for our United Kingdom. I commend it to this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to make sure we get everybody in—this is a very important day. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the briefing that I was given earlier this afternoon.
I would like to start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd. As Speaker of this House, she was at the forefront of a generation who smashed the glass ceiling for female politicians. She was an inspirational woman and a dedicated and devoted public servant who will be missed by all who knew her. My thoughts and the thoughts of the whole House are with her very many friends and family.
The Good Friday agreement and the peace and prosperity that it brought to Northern Ireland are among the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government, but we in the Labour party have always recognised that this achievement does not belong principally to us. It belongs to the people of Northern Ireland, who, over a quarter of a century, have overcome differences that once seemed insurmountable and have shown that they can work together to build a better future for themselves and for the generations to come.
I had the privilege of working for a number of years with the Police Service of Northern Ireland so that it could serve and represent both communities, but it is the police officers themselves who carried out that change. They helped to make the peace of the Good Friday agreement stick. I was deeply saddened by the shooting of DCI John Caldwell. Our thoughts and the thoughts of the whole House are with him, his family and his colleagues. DCI Caldwell’s shooting is a reminder that we must continue to strive for peace, and that we in the House must take our obligations under the Good Friday agreement and to the people of Northern Ireland as seriously as they do. It is in that spirit that I have made it clear for some time that if the Prime Minister were to get an agreement with the EU, and if that agreement were in the interest of this country and Northern Ireland, Labour would support it, and we will stick to our word. We will not snipe, we will not seek to play political games, and when the Prime Minister puts this deal forward for a vote, Labour will support it and vote for it.
The protocol will never be perfect—it is a compromise—but I have always been clear about the fact that if implemented correctly, it is an agreement that can work in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. Now that it has been agreed, we all have an obligation to make it work. The moral core of the Good Friday agreement is simple. All people of Northern Ireland have the right to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British or both, and freely participating in the economic life of the UK or the Republic of Ireland is an essential part of that. That is why it is good that the deal before us will see fewer unnecessary checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The red and green lanes proposal is a good one. It will make life easier for business, and it will enable the people of Northern Ireland to participate more freely in the economic life of the UK. It has our full support. The protocol will continue to ensure that there is no physical border on the island of Ireland. That is essential because, as we all know, any physical border would be a source of tension—a physical manifestation of new barriers between communities in Northern Ireland and the economic life in the Republic.
This agreement will allow us to move forward as a country, rather than being locked in endless disputes with our allies. It will improve our diplomatic standing, which has been damaged by the Government’s previous threats to break international law. I am encouraged that the Democratic Unionist party has said it will look carefully at the measures it contains. However, we must be honest: this comes with trade-offs. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) told the people of Northern Ireland that his protocol meant no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind on goods crossing the Irish sea after Brexit. That was absolute nonsense. It was a point-blank refusal to engage with Unionists in Northern Ireland in good faith, let alone take their concerns seriously, and it inevitably contributed to the collapse of power sharing in Northern Ireland. I have to say that as the Prime Minister listed all the problems with the protocol, I did rather wonder whether he had forgotten who had negotiated it.
I urge the Prime Minister, when presenting what this agreement will mean in practice—and it will take time for everyone to read it and carefully consider it—to be utterly unlike his predecessor. I say to him, “Do not pretend that the deal is something it is not. Where there are trade-offs to be made, argue the case for them. Treat Unionists with the respect of frank honesty, not the contempt of bluster.”
In this year of the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, we must once again embrace compromise and put division behind us. This deal is not perfect, but because we recognise that the UK agreed to the protocol and has an obligation to make it work, because we recognise that for the protocol to work there will inevitably be trade-offs, and because we always recognise that peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland are hard won, Labour will support the Windsor framework. I hope that in the coming days others will come to support the agreement in the same spirit, and will join Labour in voting to make the protocol work, in voting to face the future, and in voting for country before party.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments and his support. I agree with the substance of what he has said. I would just say to him that at this moment in time, the right thing for all of us to do is not to look back, but to look forward to the brighter future that we can see for Northern Ireland.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of trade-offs, but I would talk of balance, and the delicate balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is important that we respect the aspirations and identities of all communities. That is what the protocol had unbalanced, and that is what the Windsor framework restores. I do believe, hand on heart, that the changes we have achieved and the framework we now have in place will enable balance to be restored to the people of Northern Ireland. This framework puts them in control of their destiny, it secures their place in the Union and it safeguards their sovereignty, and on that basis I hope we can look forward to a brighter future for everyone in Northern Ireland.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
Let me first associate myself with the remarks made by both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about Baroness Boothroyd—an outstanding Speaker—and about DCI John Caldwell.
The Northern Ireland protocol, negotiated and signed by the Government in December 2019, adopted the European Union’s preferred proposal of a border down the Irish sea. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Secretary and all their teams, on all the work they have done to achieve this negotiated settlement, which will make a huge difference. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best move now is for everyone, across the House, to support the settlement, because that is in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend, and join her in paying tribute to the Northern Ireland and Foreign Secretaries. They deserve enormous credit for the framework that we have achieved today. I also pay tribute to her for all her work on this topic over the years. She has kept safeguarding the Union at the top of her mind throughout, and I agree with her: what should be at the top of all our minds at this moment are the people of Northern Ireland and what is in their interests. I hope that when people have the time and space to consider the Windsor framework, they will see that this is the best way in which to move forward and build that better future in Northern Ireland.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I think I am the group leader, but I will take “spokesperson” as well.
Glass ceilings are there to be broken. Betty Boothroyd did not just break a glass ceiling; she shattered that glass ceiling. In that regard, she has my utmost respect, and my thoughts and condolences are with her family members. My thoughts are also with the police officer in Northern Ireland who was so tragically and appallingly shot in recent days, and I join Members on both sides of the House in saying that I sincerely hope he is able to make a recovery.
Let me turn to the agreement reached today. One would be forgiven for thinking, on the basis of what the Prime Minister has said—in the Chamber and, indeed, earlier today—that this had absolutely nothing to do with him: that all those problems were nothing to do with the Conservative party or with him as a Government Minister. So what happened a couple of years ago? Were they simply being opportunistic when they put this in place? Were they incompetent when they put this in place? Or were they simply duped into believing that something was oven-ready when it clearly was not? I have no doubt that the public will draw their own conclusions.
Broadly speaking, however, I am fully supportive of the agreement, for three simple reasons—three simple and interwoven reasons. It seeks to safeguard peace in Northern Ireland, something that we all know is incredibly important; it seeks to protect the Good Friday agreement, which I think everyone in the Chamber would agree is incredibly important; and, of course, it seeks to provide a pathway back to the ability of the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland to sit. It is not for me to pontificate about democracy in Northern Ireland, but I sincerely hope that those parties involved will be able to come to an agreeable conclusion, and I know that the Prime Minister shares my view in that regard.
But while all of that is good, we cannot and should not forget the damage that has been done by leaving the European Union. Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster —[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not have to believe me; what they should do is read the reports of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which outlined that there would be a 4% hit to GDP as a result of Brexit. Or perhaps they should reflect on the fact that the trade deficit between the UK and the EU is at its highest level on record. Perhaps they could listen to the private sector and to those businesses that are unable to trade, unable to get the workforce they require and unable to get the goods they need. Or perhaps they could listen to the public sector, which is facing severe problems as well, many of which are driven by workforce shortages. Indeed, many of problems that face all our NHSs across these isles come from the fact that we have significant staff shortages in social care. Each and every one of those points is a result of the disaster that has been leaving the European Union, and I find it astonishing that we have a situation where the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Conservative party are hand in glove when it comes to their position on Brexit.
Finally, we have heard the Prime Minister speak at length about the integrity of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it was reflected upon by the Leader of the Opposition as well. There might be a scintilla of truth in that argument, but what this deal does not do is create parity for the nations of these isles. I see the Northern Ireland Minister sitting there; he was very positive about this in an interview earlier on. This deal means that businesses in Northern Ireland have access to the single market, whereas businesses in Scotland do not. I do not begrudge that to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, but I regret that Scotland does not have those same opportunities. On that point, can the Prime Minister clarify why Scotland is at a significant disadvantage in that regard on his watch? Does he not agree that the only way for Scotland to have access to the single market and the customs union, and the only way for Scotland to rejoin the European Union, is to rid itself of Westminster?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the new agreement that we struck today, the Windsor framework, and in particular for his acknowledgement of the sovereignty that it provides for the people of Northern Ireland to have a say in their own destiny. That is something that was asked for and something that has been delivered. He is also right to say that it is not for any of us to opine, and we will give the parties and communities in Northern Ireland the space and time they need to consider the detail of the Windsor framework. More broadly, without engaging in the broader debate that he raises, I am a passionate Unionist. I will always believe that our Union is stronger when we are together, and that Scotland, alongside Northern Ireland and Wales, will always be part of what makes this country great. We will fight, day in and day out, to protect that Union.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition helpfully said that people in Northern Ireland might regard themselves as Irish, as British or as British and Irish. A large number would also describe themselves as Northern Irish. The beginning of the framework document states:
“The Northern Ireland Protocol has been the source of acute political, economic and societal difficulties”,
and the last sentence talks about the
“shared desire for a positive…relationship”.
Constituents will say that this agreement resolves some of the known problems about the protocol and some of the ones that have become obvious since then. It is about 50 years since a Unionist MP was a Minister in the UK Government. I hope that this agreement makes it possible for that to happen again.
The Prime Minister
I thank the Father of the House for his support and his observations. He is right about the agreement that we have struck. It resolves the problems that we know about, but it also puts in place structures and mechanisms to resolve anything else that might come down the line, because it is important that there is close dialogue not just with the European Union but with communities and businesses in Northern Ireland. That is something that they have asked for, and as a result of this agreement, they will have new engagement and new ways to make their voices heard, so that we can continue to make sure that we do the best for them and their communities in Northern Ireland.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, I should like to add our voice in tribute to the late Betty Boothroyd, who was my first Speaker and a wonderful woman who brought so much to this House. I also want to add our sympathy to the family of DCI Caldwell. He continues to be in our prayers. I was pleased to stand with the other leaders and with the Chief Constable in Belfast on Friday and to be clear that the people who perpetrated this evil have no place in the future of Northern Ireland.
I believe that our judgment and principled position in opposing the protocol in Parliament and at Stormont have been vindicated. Undoubtedly, it is now recognised that the protocol does not work. When others said that there could be no renegotiation and no change, it was our determination that proved what could be achieved. I would like to thank the Prime Minister and his predecessors for their work and engagement to date on this issue. In broad terms, it is clear that significant progress has been secured across a number of areas, but we also recognise that there remain key issues of concern. For example, there can be no disguising the fact that in some sectors of our economy in Northern Ireland, EU law remains applicable in our part of the United Kingdom.
My party will want to study the detail of what has been published today as well as examining the legal text, the political declaration and the Government’s Command Paper. Where necessary, we stand ready to engage with the Government in order to seek further clarification, reworking or change as required. My party will now assess all the proposed outcomes and arrangements against our seven tests, outlined in our 2022 Assembly election manifesto, to determine whether what has been published meets those tests and whether it respects and restores Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom.
In this regard, I agree with the Prime Minister that the issue of sovereignty is crucial. Article 6 of the Act of Union—the very basis of the Union itself, the economic union of the United Kingdom—was seriously undermined by the Northern Ireland protocol and its implementation, and that needs to be resolved. Some £65 billion of the £77 billion of goods manufactured in Northern Ireland are sold within the United Kingdom: we sell the overwhelming majority of what we produce within our own internal market. I want an assurance from the Prime Minister that not just now but in the future the Government of the United Kingdom will protect Northern Ireland’s place within that internal market and not allow the application of EU law to put barriers in the way of our ability to trade with the rest of our own country.
The Prime Minister
First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive engagement that I have had with him and members of his team over recent time? As I said earlier, I have tried hard to listen, in particular to the concerns of the elected representatives of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, because I know that it is they who have had the most concerns over the protocol. At the forefront of my mind throughout all the negotiations has been resolving the issues that those communities are grappling with, which they have raised with me and the Government. I believe very strongly that the Windsor framework does resolve those issues, but I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman and his party, and other Unionist communities, will want to take the time to consider the detail. I respect that, and we will give them the time and space to consider that and stand ready to answer any questions and provide any clarifications.
I also can tell the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the objectives that he and others have set out, that I believe the Windsor framework will ensure the free flow of trade within our United Kingdom internal market, including unfettered access for Northern Ireland producers to the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe it secures Northern Ireland’s place in the Union and makes sure that citizens and businesses can benefit in the same way everywhere across the United Kingdom.
Lastly, as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted to me on previous occasions, it ensures and safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland so that they are in control of their destiny. I believe what we have achieved today provides a basis for the parties in Northern Ireland to consider the detail and hopefully move forward so that together we can build a better future for Northern Ireland. I look forward to doing that with him.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues have strained every sinew these last weeks and months to arrive at today’s position. They are to be congratulated. The agreement demonstrates that, when committed minds do politics seriously, serious and beneficial outcomes can be delivered for the benefit of all in our country.
While agreeing entirely with my right hon. Friend that the parties, particularly those in Northern Ireland, need the time and space to study the detail and to work out all the implications for those in Northern Ireland, Northern Irish business wants and the good people of Northern Ireland most certainly deserve quick certainty. If there are to be votes in this place on any element of the Windsor framework, as announced today, will he commit to ensuring they take place speedily in order to ensure certainty and peace of mind for all who either live in Northern Ireland or who wish Northern Ireland well?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend knows this subject well, and he is rightly passionate about it. I thank him for all the valuable work that he and his colleagues have done over the years as we considered and concluded these negotiations.
As I said earlier, Parliament will of course have its say and there will be a vote, but we need to do that at the appropriate time in order to give people the time and space to consider the detail. My hon. Friend makes an important point that the benefit of this framework and agreement is that it can start to provide that certainty and those benefits to the people and communities of Northern Ireland very soon. That is why we have concluded these negotiations and want to start delivering the benefits for people on the ground as quickly as we can.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join others in paying tribute to our late, great Speaker, Betty Boothroyd. Like me, Mr Speaker, I am sure you remember with fondness when you caught Speaker Boothroyd’s eye and when she brought you to order.
I also send my party’s thoughts and prayers to DCI John Caldwell and his family and thank him for his courage and bravery.
Like others, the Liberal Democrats will now closely study this deal, but I welcome the spirit of partnership and compromise between the UK Government and the European Union in the formation of the Windsor agreement. What consultation will the Prime Minister now undertake with all of Northern Ireland’s political parties, including the Alliance party, on the Stormont brake? Can he reassure us that the operation of the Stormont brake will not undermine the economic stability and certainty or the political stability so desperately needed in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will continue to engage with all parties and communities in Northern Ireland—that is the right way to proceed—particularly with regard to the operation of the brake. That is set out in the Command Paper, and we look forward to discussing it, and how to codify it, with the Executive, the Assembly and the political parties as we move forward. That is something we are very happy to do.
Just so the right hon. Gentleman is clear, the Stormont brake is based on an existing Good Friday agreement mechanism. The petition of concern mechanism is well established in Northern Ireland as a cross-community safeguard, which is why we have chosen it as the appropriate mechanism for this particular purpose. As I say, we will continue to engage with all parties to make sure we get it absolutely right.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I join the tributes to John Caldwell, who was shot in front of his son while loading footballs into his car after training kids at a football match in Omagh last week.
I welcome the Windsor agreement and the Windsor framework, and I believe today marks a critical moment in ending three years of instability that has affected communities throughout this most fragile part of our country. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his team for all they have done to secure this. Does he agree that we now need to give the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and all the other Northern Ireland parties the time, space and encouragement to restore power sharing and to ensure that political decision-making in Northern Ireland can start as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour not just for the job he did as Northern Ireland Secretary but for his continued passion and devotion to the people of Northern Ireland. I also thank him personally for the support and advice he has given to me in helping us reach the framework today. I wholeheartedly agree with him, and I hope we can move forward with time and space to build a better future for the people of Northern Ireland. I know that is what he wants to see, and I join him in wanting to see it. We stand ready to work with everyone to bring about that outcome.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the negotiators on this very significant achievement. I also congratulate the Prime Minister on his statement, in which he was so frank about the manifest failings of the original Northern Ireland protocol negotiated and signed by his predecessor, which made today’s deal so necessary. Does he agree that the European Union has moved a long way in these negotiations? And does he agree that everyone in this House looks forward, as soon as possible, to the restoration of power sharing in Northern Ireland, because that is in the best interests of the people of that part of our United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right that we have had constructive and good negotiations with the European Union, and I pay tribute to President Ursula von der Leyen for the leadership and vision she has demonstrated in trying to find a way through to help us resolve these issues. She and her team deserve enormous credit for displaying that vision, leadership and creativity. I wholeheartedly agree that the people of Northern Ireland need and deserve their institutions to be up and running. I think that is something on which all of us in this House agree, and we all want to see it happen as soon as practically possible.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I start by unreservedly congratulating my right hon. Friend on what seems to be a spectacular negotiating success. With the Windsor framework, he has succeeded in delivering a deal that eliminates the issues of the Irish sea border and addresses the practical issues in Northern Ireland on food, pets, plants, parcels, medicine regulations and tax rules. Above all, it introduces the extraordinary mechanism of the Stormont brake. I am unaware of any such mechanism in any international agreement, and it seems to me to be a brilliant piece of negotiating insight and imagination. As we do not all know the detail, can he explain to the House exactly how this mechanism will work and what its limitations will be?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm words, which mean a lot coming from a Brexiteer with such long-standing credentials. As someone who has done the job, he knows how difficult these things are, so it means a lot to me and the Government to have his support, for which I thank him.
The brake will work on the basis of the petition of concern mechanism. That mechanism is part of the Good Friday agreement institutional framework, which is why we believe it is the right cross-community safeguard to use. It will be applied to the goods rules in annex 2 of the protocol that were the main cause of concern. It is there for those rules that cause significant and lasting damage and change to the everyday lives of ordinary people in Northern Ireland. Once the emergency brake is pulled, it will give the UK Government a veto. It is a very powerful cross-community safeguard that ensures sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is part of why this agreement is the right one for the people of Northern Ireland.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I associate myself with the remarks about Betty Boothroyd, and I join colleagues, particularly my colleagues from Northern Ireland, in sending our love and support to the Caldwell family and every single PSNI officer in uniform today standing up for our peace and democracy.
Although we have some concerns, particularly on the Stormont brake—we will study the detail of this as we go—we are happy that things seem to have moved today. There has been an awful lot of talk, particularly today and in recent months, about the concerns of the DUP and the Unionist community. It is important to remember that the majority of people in Northern Ireland opposed Brexit and want to see the benefits of dual market access properly utilised. Does the Prime Minister agree it is important that his Government now support that dual market access and promote it to international investors?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his engagement with the Secretary of State and myself in recent weeks. He is right: there is a balance to be struck, and the Good Friday agreement is about respecting that balance—it is about the aspirations and identities of all communities in Northern Ireland. That is what we have sought to achieve with the Windsor framework. As I outlined, something we have heard loud and clear from businesses in Northern Ireland is that they value their access to the single market and they value, as all of us do, not having a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That is something we have had to bear in mind as we considered these negotiations, but I believe we have struck the right balance and the framework means that this agreement can command the support and consent of communities right across the spectrum in Northern Ireland. I look forward to working with him and his party to deliver it.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
May I, too, send my best wishes to, and align myself with the comments of others about, detective chief inspector John Caldwell? What happened is a stark reminder of the courageous and special work that all PSNI officers do every day that they are working, to keep all people in Northern Ireland safe. We owe them all a great debt for that work.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my Front-Bench colleagues on the phenomenal focus they are putting on ensuring that we can secure a deal that, as I know we all hope, can restore power sharing in Stormont. Getting back to having good governance in Northern Ireland by elected representatives in Northern Ireland is key for people there.
Another key area for the citizens of Northern Ireland is access to goods, as my right hon. Friend has rightly outlined. Will he confirm for the House that in this deal we will be able to secure the free flow of trade not only for Northern Ireland businesses into Great Britain, but for Great British businesses into Northern Ireland? Regulations were preventing some goods from moving, and it is great to know that the Great Yarmouth banger will be able to get back on the supermarket shelves, where required, in Northern Ireland. However, for many businesses it was the administrative burden of moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, not just the regulatory one, that needed to be removed in order to allow them to see this as an economic benefit and therefore protect the structural integrity of the UK internal market.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the work he did on this topic in his role as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It was invaluable in paving the way for my colleagues and I to take forward that work and bring it to a successful conclusion today. He is right to highlight the administrative burden of moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I am confident that with the new green lane, based on using existing ordinary commercial data and data sharing, in place of the bureaucratic customs arrangements that were there hitherto, we have taken an enormous step forward. It delivers what businesses have asked for. We have worked closely with the business community in Northern Ireland to deliver it, and I am confident that as they study the detail, they will see that it provides that smooth flow of their goods around the United Kingdom, as it should be, and ensures Northern Ireland’s place in our UK internal market.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the document contains a number of references to the need for “cross-community support”, and the Prime Minister has repeated that phrase a number of times in his statement and in responses. He will be aware that over the past 25 years one significant development has been the number of people who identify themselves as Northern Irish, as distinct from either British or Irish. Will he give the House some indication of how he is going to gauge the opinion of that 20% of the population who identify themselves in that way but might not necessarily be represented by a political party?
The Prime Minister
My approach, and indeed that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is to engage with all communities, all parties and all business groups in Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is about balance. It is about respecting the delicate balance that exists in Northern Ireland—that was at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As I think the right hon. Gentleman has seen, we have gone out of our way to talk to and listen to everybody, respecting, of course, the particular concerns of the Unionist community. But this framework, this agreement, I believe gets that balance right. It respects the aspirations and identities of all communities in Northern Ireland, which is why I believe it is the right way forward.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that, as ever, the devil lies in the detail of the papers that have been published this afternoon. May I seek his assurance that the Government will respond to the democratically correct questions that naturally arise on the substance and procedures involved? In particular, I am thinking about the making of EU laws and the European Court; the Joint Committee and its procedures; and the Stormont brake, not to mention the whole context of sovereignty in this entire process under section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020? Would he also be good enough to indicate how long a timeline he is proposing for the questions and answers that will be required, and how long that might take?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the engagement he has had, with me in particular, and the advice he has provided. Section 38 of that Act was a testament to him, and it reasserts the sovereignty of this Parliament in matters of international law and he was right to do that. I hope we can strengthen that provision as we consider how best to make sure we protect the Act of Union and Northern Ireland’s place in it. As for questions, I am happy to move as quickly as he is able to provide the questions for me and I look forward to engaging in that dialogue with him.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
My party can give a broad welcome to this agreement. There are some positives in it that address a range of challenges that have been clear for some time. However, for us, the key test is the preservation of Northern Ireland’s dual market access. In that regard, my party has massive concerns about this potential Stormont brake. Does the Prime Minister understand that there are real dangers that this process could add more instability into the Assembly, and may I stress to him that the petition of concern is controversial, given its abuse in the past? This also creates uncertainty for businesses regarding ongoing single market rules, particularly with a view to investment into Northern Ireland. So will he meet our party to discuss this in more detail in order to clarify what is potentially being proposed?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the engagement that he and his colleagues have had with me and the Secretary of State in recent weeks, which has been helpful. Of course, I can assure him that I look forward to talking to him again very soon to explain the Windsor framework in detail. He makes a good point: many people, communities and business in Northern Ireland value their access to the European Union single market and rightly value not having a hard border on the island of Ireland. We have strived to protect that in this agreement while ensuring Northern Ireland’s place in our Union and protecting and safeguarding its sovereignty. I believe that the Windsor framework does get that balance right and I look forward to having that conversation with him.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
Let me say at the outset that our thoughts and prayers are with the police officer who was attacked by people calling themselves the “New IRA”. There is nothing new about people who are callous murderers or attempted murderers; these people are still the IRA and they always will be, as they were in the days when I served in the Province.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on negotiating this excellent agreement. Part of the reason why the EU has moved was perhaps the threat of the Bill coming through this House. Clearly, the EU has woken up and smelt the coffee, realising how bad this was going to be for it and for the Republic of Ireland. Does he think that was part of the reason why he got such an excellent deal with the EU?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the Bill did create the conditions for us to have the negotiation that we did, but, as the Government were clear about and said at the time, our preference was always a negotiated outcome if one was available. Today, we have achieved a negotiated outcome that provides the certainty and stability that we need, and resolves the issues we set out to resolve. It safeguards Northern Ireland’s sovereignty, protects its place in the Union, and guarantees and provides for the free flow of trade around the UK internal market. It is because we now have the Windsor framework, this new agreement, that we no longer need the Bill and we will no longer proceed with it. This agreement can start bringing benefit to the people of Northern Ireland as quickly as possible.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain, I believe that, over the past few years, the state of the relationship between London and Dublin has been of great concern to many of us and to the hundreds of workers in this place who are Irish or of Irish origin. We need to look to the future and to learn from what we see. The Prime Minister talks about the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. That includes strands 2 and 3, which, if fully implemented, offer us great potential to embed some of this agreement and to look to the future. Will he now commit his party—other Members here can join in—to making sure that the operations of strands 2 and 3 and our co-operation with the Irish Government go forward in a much better way?
The Prime Minister
The Government are committed to all strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I have talked a lot about balance and about making sure that we get that balance right. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), for the incredible job that they have done not just with the agreement, but, in particular, in addressing the issue that the hon. Lady has just raised. I also wish to put on record my thanks to the Irish Government for the role they have played and the support they have provided us throughout this process. We look forward to continued, positive and constructive dialogue with them. That is what my colleagues and I will do as we make sure that we capitalise on all strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Northern Ireland has a precious and integral place in the United Kingdom. It certainly seems to me, reflecting back over the past five years, that if this deal had been on the table at any point in that time, those of us who are Brexiteers, those of us who are remainers and those of us who are Unionists would have jumped on it. I heartily congratulate the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State on their excellent work and negotiation. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that, in his view, this Windsor agreement now fully restores the Act of Union and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend particularly for her support given her long-standing credentials in this area and the passion with which she believes in our Union. I am grateful to have her support. I can give her that assurance: this absolutely does meet the requirements and is consistent with the Act of Union and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We have worked very hard to get to an outcome that does, and I am really pleased that the Windsor framework delivers for her and for everyone else in Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the 18-minute confession that the Prime Minister undertook about the damage that the protocol, which his Government signed, has done to Northern Ireland. May I remind him that, although he talks about 1,700 pages of EU law being removed from Northern Ireland, hundreds of thousands of pages will still remain? Border posts are still being planned, and the Prime Minister has admitted that future EU laws will apply to Northern Ireland unless, under paragraph 52, his Government decide not to proceed with law changes for the United Kingdom as a whole, or he vetoes EU proposals in a Joint Committee. Can he understand why we do not have confidence in that and why we still fear that our position within the United Kingdom will not be restored by this agreement?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, the border posts are there to deal with checks in the red lane. That was something that was always envisaged. It is something that we always said that we would do. It is right that people should not be able to try to smuggle goods into the Republic of Ireland via Northern Ireland. That is why those posts, those inspection facilities, are there. The investment in them is to make sure that we can do those checks properly, as we assured the European Union that we would do. Part of having a functioning green lane is having enforcement of the red lane.
To his broader point about EU law, less than 3% of EU law applies in Northern Ireland. It applies with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. As he knows, the consent vote next year allows them to remove all of those laws and to have a new approach, but it is there because, as we have heard, there is a balance to be struck, and Northern Ireland’s communities and businesses value not having a border on the island of Ireland. They value their access to the single market. We are in a position where we have the minimum amount of law required to fulfil that purpose. I believe sovereignty is important. I believe that those laws and the new ones that come through should come through only with the consent and oversight of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why the Stormont brake is so powerful: it puts power in the hands of the Assembly, of him and his colleagues, to decide what is best for Northern Ireland. That is what sovereignty means to me. It means giving Stormont the ability to say no, and I hope that he will give this framework the time and consideration that it deserves.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for publishing both the White Paper and the legal text on the same day, which will materially assist the whole House. As a former Chancellor, he knows well that, on Budget day, the Government put a good gloss on whatever they are putting to the public. We then have to read through the Red Book to check on the fine detail. He has worked very hard on this agreement, so can he assure me and the whole House that when we go through the Red Book—or, in this instance, the detailed legal text—we will not find any nasty surprises that will materially undermine the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I am pleased that we were able to publish all the documentation. I know that that was important not just to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), but to other colleagues as well. It is the right thing to do and, as I have said, I wish to give everybody the time and the space to consider the detail of the Windsor framework. I believe that it meets the objectives that we set out to achieve: it provides for the free flow of goods within the United Kingdom; it ensures Northern Ireland’s place in our Union; and it safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. I look forward to engaging with him and his colleagues over the coming days to answer his questions and provide any clarifications. I am confident that, when he goes through the detail, he will see that this is a good agreement. It is the right agreement for Northern Ireland and for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is a way for our United Kingdom to move forward together.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I associate myself with the comments and sentiments that have been expressed to the families of Betty Boothroyd and DCI Caldwell?
The people of Northern Ireland have been through so much. This is a welcome opportunity to make progress, but, as the Prime Minister no doubt knows, clearing up the mess that other people make can be a never-ending job. The House of Lords is currently debating a Bill that will delete more than 60 areas of regulation that are not covered by the protocol. That is a process that the EU has already said will start a trade war if it goes through and that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission says undermines the Good Friday agreement. It covers issues such as electrical safety, food standards and farming standards. In order to support what he has presented to the House today, will the Prime Minister confirm that all remaining retained EU legislation will be retained in Northern Ireland itself, using the powers that he has and that Stormont currently cannot exercise? If he does not, how can anybody have confidence that we will avoid the regulatory divergence and that trade war which could undermine everything he has presented today?
The Prime Minister
The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is passing separately to these arrangements, but these arrangements provide for the appropriate sovereignty in Northern Ireland for the Stormont Assembly to have that say. It is more than a say; it is an ability for the Assembly to block new EU goods laws as they come down the pipe if Assembly Members are not happy with them. As the hon. Lady will see in the Command Paper, we have also committed to a range of other things to ensure that we protect against trade and regulatory divergence, including dialogue with businesses in Northern Ireland and also with the European Union. As she studies the detail, hopefully she will be reassured that we have protected properly against that.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s comments on Betty Boothroyd, who was my first Speaker when I arrived here—she will be greatly missed—and also his comments on the brutal attack on DCI Caldwell?
I commend my right hon. Friend and his team for their diligence and hard work in pursuing this matter regardless of the obstacles that lie in their way, including the reluctance of the EU to admit anything about the problems that have been taking place. For me, having served in Northern Ireland and lost friends who never came back from Northern Ireland, the restoration of the Good Friday agreement is, at the end of the day, the No.1 item. However, when I was looking through the details, I noticed that the Stormont brake is not quite as defined as it might be. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could clear this up. One phrase says that it can be used only if there is
“significant impact specific to everyday life”.
Who makes that decision as to what is significant? Secondly, can the EU demand countermeasures if the brake is deployed?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and pay tribute to his service. I know that this is a topic that he rightly cares about.
I am happy to clarify. It is for us to make the determination whether the threshold has been met. It is right that there is a threshold. The ability to block new law is a serious mechanism and it should not be used for trivial reasons. It should be used for those new laws that have a significant and lasting impact on the everyday lives of people in Northern Ireland. That is the right trigger, and it is one that we are in control of deciding. It is equally appropriate that if we do that, the EU will have the right to take appropriate countermeasures. That is there in black and white. Obviously, those have to be proportionate. I do not think that anyone could disagree with that. This is a very powerful mechanism, and I am pleased that we were able to reach resolution on it, because, as I have said, it ensures that we have restored sovereignty to the people of Northern Ireland.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
There is, of course, much to welcome in today’s statement, but I must press the Prime Minister on a specific point. In his statement, he casually mentioned the burdens on shipments between Holyhead and Dublin. He failed to mention that, pre-Brexit, about 30% of all trade through the port went on to Northern Ireland from Dublin. That trade is reorientating as we speak, in real time, aggravating the already devastating impact of Brexit on the port of Holyhead. Can the Prime Minister clarify whether this new agreement will guarantee seamless trade between Northern Ireland and Wales via Dublin? If not, will he recognise that green lanes will disadvantage Welsh ports?
The Prime Minister
This is about ensuring the free flow of goods within our United Kingdom; that is what the green lane is there to do. It was always going to be the case after we left the European Union that sending things to the European Union from the UK would be different. What this agreement is about is prioritising trade within the United Kingdom’s internal market, and the green lane that we have delivered through this framework does exactly that.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Who will decide which EU laws will apply in Northern Ireland, and on what basis will they make that decision?
The Prime Minister
Going forward, when the Executive are up and running, as I hope very much they will be, it will be for the Assembly in Northern Ireland to decide. For those goods rules in annex 2, which are the ones of most concern, the Stormont brake will apply. There will be a process of scrutiny and if 30 MLAs from two parties use the petition of concern mechanism to trigger the Stormont brake, that will allow the UK Government to veto the goods rules. That is why this is important: it will be the institutions of Northern Ireland that will get to make that decision.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
May I, too, add my sincere comments to those of others on the attempted murder of DCI Caldwell? He and his family are known personally to me. I thank the Prime Minister for his comments. I hope, in fact, that the Sovereign will make a statement about the attempted murder of a police officer in Northern Ireland. I think that would be appropriate and fitting.
The Prime Minister has quite rightly indicated that trade is important to all of our United Kingdom. Paragraph 47 of the framework focuses on veterinary medicine for all our animals. Our agrifood sector is huge. It feeds multiples of millions of people here in GB, but half of the product lines are at risk. Paragraph 47 states:
“As part of the agreement, we have put in place a grace period”,
but it will expire in less than a year and a half. Prime Minister, that is utterly useless for our agricultural sector. That will actually make it more difficult for our farm businesses. Also, if we move any livestock from County Antrim to Ayrshire and fail to sell them at the marts, we will have to leave them there for at least six months. That has not been addressed. If the Prime Minister were to move cattle from Yorkshire to Lancashire and was told that they would have to stay in Lancashire for six months, he would not be amused. Our farmers in Northern Ireland are not amused. It is our single largest trade. Will these issues be fixed, or is this a failed process already?
The Prime Minister
I join the hon. Gentleman in supporting our farmers, whether in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in Yorkshire. Actually, the agreement we have reached on veterinary medicines lasts three years, until the end of 2025, which provides us with the time and space to agree a more permanent solution with the European Union. As today’s framework demonstrates, we are more than capable of doing that, as we have resolved all the other issues that were in front of us.
I also point the hon. Gentleman to the solution that we have reached on human medicines, which I think everyone will agree are vital, where we have achieved a form of dual regulation, which ensures the full availability of medicines across the entire United Kingdom, with the UK regulatory authorities being the ones in charge. I think that that is what he should look to, alongside all the other things we have solved today, to have confidence that between now and three years’ time, in 2025, we will put a permanent footing for vet medicines on the table.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and commend him and his entire team on what they have achieved. He seems to have won some jaw-dropping concessions from the EU without giving anything in return.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that alongside the benefits that this agreement will bring for the people of Northern Ireland, it can form the basis of further co-operation with our EU friends on issues that will matter to the entire United Kingdom, including trade and investment, science and illegal migration?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support and also for his invaluable advice over the past few weeks. I agree with him. He is right to highlight illegal migration in particular, as well as economic co-operation. That is a priority for this Government, as we have demonstrated. The Home Secretary is working with the French and that co-operation is yielding benefits. We continue to want to do more of that, and I know that he will support those efforts.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I echo the words of solidarity from many across the House for the Caldwell family and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and the rejection of extremist throwbacks; the people of our region are sick and tired of them.
We all want simpler post-Brexit trading arrangements, so we sincerely welcome this progress and commend the Prime Minister on taking a much more constructive approach than his predecessors. I reiterate that there are many political outlooks in Northern Ireland and it is a fact that most people, most parties and most business representatives value our single market access, our high food standards and our 1998 agreement. So that we can maintain the huge opportunity of the protocol, will the Prime Minister commit his Government to championing loudly our unique dual market access, working to prevent vexatious use of the Stormont brake, and keeping a focus on restoration of the Stormont Executive, to allow those who genuinely believe in democracy and consensus to get back to serving the people they were elected to serve?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her support and for the way in which she and her colleague the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) have engaged with me and the Secretary of State over recent weeks. We appreciate it and will continue to do it. She makes a really important point. Northern Ireland is in the unique position, not just in the United Kingdom but in the entire continent of Europe, of having privileged access to two markets. As we look forward, we all want to see greater prosperity and opportunity and more growth in Northern Ireland. We can build on this framework to deliver more investment and jobs. That is the prize available to us. I know that my colleagues are determined to work with all businesses and parties in Northern Ireland to deliver that, but the hon. Lady is right that the precondition for that is a functioning Executive, and we continue to work very hard to see that come about.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his whole negotiating team, whose quiet confidence and competence have led us to an agreement that, frankly, many people would not have thought possible? Will he say something specific about the role of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the Joint Committee, which will be key to boosting transparency and accountability? In general terms, I hope that this new tendency to under-promise and over-deliver becomes the hallmark of the whole Government.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support, which means a lot to me because the topic of Brexit is something that he has thought and done a lot about over the years. He is absolutely right. There was a fair feeling among communities, parties and businesses in Northern Ireland that there simply was not enough engagement and representation on how arrangements were being implemented on the ground. We have fixed that with today’s framework. There are a range of new structures and mechanisms for that engagement to take place, including for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to attend sessions of the Joint Committee that concern the Windsor framework and anything else in Northern Ireland. That is a positive step forward and ensures that we will be able to make this work on the ground. He is absolutely right to highlight it.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Whatever disagreements we all have, it is good to hear the Prime Minister today paying respect to the principles and the detail of the Good Friday agreement. On our membership of the European convention on human rights, which plays such a central role in that agreement, can he confirm that under his Government, we will not leave the ECHR?
The Prime Minister
The UK is and will remain a member of the ECHR. Today’s agreement is about the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—the hon. Lady was right to highlight it—and restoring the balance in that agreement. I am pleased that the Windsor framework restores that balance, and I thank her for her support.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s comments concerning Betty Boothroyd and DCI Caldwell—we all wish him a speedy recovery.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, along with his entire negotiating team, on the massive strides that he has been able to make on this complex and difficult issue. I, for one, wish him well with this agreement. The Stormont brake is critical to the agreement. I am particularly pleased that it represents cross-party consensus. Leaving aside the current reasons why Stormont is not sitting, the Prime Minister will be aware that in the past, Stormont has not sat for other reasons used by one or other party. If that were to be the case in the future, is there a default mechanism if the Stormont brake cannot be exercised?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support and for the advice that he has provided to me and the team. This is obviously an area that he knows well from his own experience, and we very much valued his input. The Stormont brake is there to be exercised by the Stormont institution. A precondition for its use is that the institution is up and running, and that is what everyone in this House wants to see. That is another good reason to get the institutions up and running: so that sovereignty can be restored to Northern Ireland. I look forward to discussing with the parties how the brake should work, but it is important that we get the institution up and running so that people in Northern Ireland have the representation that they need. The Windsor framework delivers that ability, but it is ultimately for the people and parties in Northern Ireland to take it forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman is my Prime Minister, so I say this with great respect: this is about more than just solar panels and sausages. It is crucial that the Windsor framework that he has referred to does not become the Windsor knot for us Unionists in Northern Ireland. Does he understand that any deal must include the cessation of European Court of Justice interference in UK sovereignty—in other words, the real power must lie with Westminster, not Brussels—the cessation of the state aid prohibition, and the cessation of customs protocols within the UK that are determined by Europe, and must respect the seven tests set by the DUP and supported by the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister can strike no deal, ever, without bringing the majority of Unionists on board. Pushing another deal through this House without Unionist buy-in will offer no result other than another failed deal.
The Prime Minister
I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes the time to study the deal in detail, and that he will see, after he has done that, that it delivers against the objectives that I set out, because it means that we can have smoothly flowing trade within our UK internal market; it means that we have protected Northern Ireland’s place in the Union; and it means that we have restored and safeguarded sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. I know that he shares those objectives; this agreement delivers them. I look forward to engaging with him and his colleagues as they study the detail, so that we can hopefully move forward together. I am confident that this is a good basis and a good agreement for the people of Northern Ireland.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and the Government are to be warmly commended for their statecraft in achieving a significant deal with significant movement from the EU, which I think now understands the primacy of strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement—north-south—as well as strand 3, east-west. Does he agree that this framework now gives a clear basis in international law for the Government to press ahead in bringing forward some of the measures in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 that were clearly in conflict with the international law obligations under the old protocol?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an excellent point. He will remember that the Government had to drop from the UKIM Bill certain provisions guaranteeing unfettered access for Northern Ireland producers into GB because they were in conflict with our international obligations under the protocol. I am pleased that today we can announce, as it states in the Command Paper, that we will legislate to put in statute unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s producers into Great Britain. That is something that the Windsor framework makes possible, and he is absolutely right to highlight it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister is to be commended for tackling one aspect of the mess left behind by his predecessor but one, but of course, we should not forget that the Prime Minister himself, and most of his colleagues, voted for that mess.
It is important to be clear about the role of the European Court of Justice in this framework. EU President Ursula von der Leyen said this afternoon that the European Court of Justice will still have the “final say” on EU law and single market issues. That is correct, isn’t it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, as a simple matter of fact, the European Court of Justice is the final arbiter on matters of EU law. That is what the President said; she is right. That is simply the legal fact of the case.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
May I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s personal achievement—ably supported by the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary—in securing this deal?
It is wholly wrong that the European Commission damaged scientific research by blocking the UK’s association with the Horizon and Copernicus programmes, and nuclear co-operation through Euratom, which have nothing whatever to do with the Northern Ireland protocol. Mrs Von der Leyen indicated earlier today that the EU had changed its mind and its position on this. Is that my right hon. Friend’s understanding? If so, scientists and engineers will welcome that. Will he implement a viable UK alternative should delays persist?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. He is right to highlight the many areas of co-operation that we can and should have with the European Union. Science and research is one, but illegal migration, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) brought up, is another, and there is a whole range of possibilities around energy security, climate change and others.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) is also right that we should always reserve the ability to have a UK alternative to Horizon. That is something that the Government said we would do, and I know that he has fed in about how best to do that. I look forward to having that dialogue with him.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I associate myself with the remarks about the death of Baroness Boothroyd, as well as about DCI John Caldwell, and his young son, who witnessed that horrific attack. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with them.
Much has already been said in this House about the Stormont brake and the power that it has. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Stormont brake not only has the ability to end dynamic alignment with EU law, but gives Unionists or anyone else the opportunity to meaningfully impact whether the legislation applies in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly the point of the Stormont brake. It is based on the petition of concern mechanism—a Good Friday agreement institution—and requires 30 MLAs from two parties. If it is triggered, that provides the UK Government with a veto over that particular law. Obviously, as I have committed to, we will consult with parties in Northern Ireland and with the Assembly about how best to codify how the UK Government use that veto, but the hon. Lady can absolutely have that assurance.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
May I join others in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd, who was a wonderful Speaker and was very popular in my area, which she lived nearby?
Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK-EU Partnership Parliamentary Assembly has been supportive of the negotiations? I know that our membership in this place, in the other place and in the European Parliament will be delighted with this outcome. On the legal side, does he agree that to have put the underpinning for the protocol in international law rather than in EU law is a big step forward, as are the dispute resolution changes with arbitration and that Northern Ireland courts will decide cases rather than anyone else?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his chairmanship of the partnership from our side. He and they do valuable work, and I have been grateful—as have the Secretaries of States—for their support during this process. He makes an excellent point: it is a significant development that the Vienna convention on the law of treaties is in the political declaration. It reaffirms the international basis for the treaty. I thank him for his support of that. He is absolutely right about the importance that we should attach to it.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
At the risk of adding to the sense of repetition this evening, let me say that this is all really good news—hurrah! I congratulate not only the Prime Minister but the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary. I particularly single out the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who has shown that compromise may be costly but it pays enormous dividends. I am grateful to him and the whole team.
May I urge the Prime Minister to take up a suggestion made a few years ago by one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is not in her seat? At the beginning of triggering article 50, she said she wanted to have an EU-UK security treaty. Given many of the issues facing the whole continent at the moment, is this not precisely the time when we should look forward to such a treaty?
The Prime Minister
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He is absolutely right to shower praise on him. Not only has my hon. Friend been instrumental in providing the intellectual underpinning for many of the arrangements that we have adopted in the green lane, but his diplomacy—particularly with the Irish, but also with the parties in Northern Ireland—has proved invaluable in getting us to the point that we are at today, and I thank him for it.
More broadly, as we have heard previously, there are many areas of co-operation that we can have with our European friends and partners. Particularly over the last year, the co-operation with regards to Ukraine in terms of our security—whether it is sanctions policy or providing support—has been positive and invaluable. Hopefully that is something that we can build on.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
As a Member of this House who was born and raised in Omagh, may I send my love and prayers to DCI John Caldwell?
In my hand I have my Omagh school notebook from when I was six. The entry for Thursday 13 December that year says:
“Last night a bomb went off in the police barracks. Gillian’s house has no glass in her windows.”
I thank my right hon. Friend for the words he said about not looking back. We must move forward and put those things behind us. May I congratulate him on an extraordinarily bespoke deal that sorts out the practicalities but also preserves the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her work but also for her comments just now, which were powerful and moving. She is right that we must look forward, and we will not let those who want to take us back be successful. Stability in Northern Ireland is important, and it is about the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as she knows better than many. We have strived very hard to restore that balance with the Windsor framework. I believe that it does that, and I look forward to working with her and colleagues from across the House so that we can look forward to a brighter future for everyone in Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister and colleagues right across the House for their care and concern for DCI John Caldwell and his family.
The Prime Minister knows that it is good to talk. He will recall that when we met in November last year, I acknowledged that he had good ideas around the friction in trade, but that I highlighted my concern around the democratic deficit and constitutional harm. Anyone who reads tittle-tattle on a Sunday—yesterday—may recall that I had similar concerns just 10 days ago. However, I genuinely acknowledge that on both constitutional harm and the democratic deficit, progress has been made.
Over the coming weeks and months, as we look to engage with our community and with communities and businesses throughout Northern Ireland to test, probe and tease out the tense aspects of the implementation of this framework agreement, I hope the Prime Minister will recognise that, for us, ratification is important. Does he recognise that, having had so many false dawns and failed starts over the last four or five years of political commitments from the Government side of the House, ratification will need to occur before we can take any final decisions?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and also for the engagement that he has had with me and the Secretary of State. It is good to talk. There has been plenty of that, and it has been extremely valuable in reaching today’s framework and agreement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will give him and his colleagues and community the time and space to consider the detail, and that I will work with him to answer any questions that they have and to provide any clarifications that I can, so that we can, hopefully, move forward together. I believe that that is what he and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to do, but he is right, and I acknowledge the frustrations that they feel about what has gone before. I hope that today means that we can start a new chapter as we look forward and build a brighter future for Northern Ireland together, and I welcome doing that with the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on an exceptional achievement, because we have resolved something that was difficult and we have done it in accordance with law. I am glad to see the Attorney General here, because the fact that we have acted in accordance with international law is immensely important.
Will the Prime Minister turn his mind to one other, small matter—Gibraltar? I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary here. If we can resolve the issues over Northern Ireland, we can now swiftly move, with his support, to resolve the few remaining issues over Gibraltar. A few adjustments and good sense are required so that it can get itself into a better position in terms of our relationships going forward.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words of support and assure him that the Foreign Secretary, in particular, is intensely engaged with his counterparts in Spain to try to find a resolution on the issues that are outstanding. I also join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Attorney General for the support and advice that she has provided to us throughout this process. It has been invaluable. She and the previous Attorney General have done exceptional work on this tricky issue, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is pleased with today’s outcome.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Although I welcome the progress that has been made today, the years wasted by recent Governments in arguing with the Unionist parties instead of negotiating with them to bring about a deal mean that many communities in Northern Ireland have been ravaged by poverty, debt and the rise of paramilitary gangs preying on ordinary people who just want to live their lives. Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that the new protocol will begin to repair the damage that has been done and restore peace and prosperity for all communities in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I do believe that the new arrangement we have made—the Windsor framework—provides the basis for peace, prosperity and stability in Northern Ireland. That is why I have brought it forward and why we have worked so hard on it. As we have done so, we have strived very hard to respect the identity and aspirations of all communities in Northern Ireland. Balance is at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Windsor framework restores that balance and ensures that we can move forward positively together.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In difficult negotiations, the late, great Ronald Reagan used to say, “Trust but verify,” which I took to mean, “Be optimistic but have a reserve plan.” It sounds as if the reserve plan here is the Stormont brake, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara) said, that might not apply if, for any reason, Stormont was not sitting. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that there is a plan B that would work under all circumstances?
The Prime Minister
This is incredibly important. What we should be focused on is Stormont being up and running. The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve their institutions to be functioning for them. I think it is entirely right that we have vested this power—this sovereignty—in the institution that represents them and do not exercise it on their behalf. Instead our priorities should be getting the institutions back up and running so that sovereignty is restored and the people of Northern Ireland are in control of their destiny.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
We welcome this, and I commend the achievement that helping mitigate the disaster has represented, but can I dig into the Stormont backstop? I am concerned that in fixing one problem, there is a recipe for further instability going forward. If the petition of concern is the model for what the Stormont backstop is going to be and, as we all admit, there are concerns about the petition of concern, what scope is there going to be for the Secretary of State, going forward, to rule on the—let us be blunt—reasonableness of any such petition? Then, when it gets to the joint committee, in what scenario can that joint committee overrule the petition? If the petition is, at either stage, seen to be politically or legally automatic, surely that cements more problems into this than we are solving tonight.
The Prime Minister
I just assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a well-defined process for the exercise of the Stormont brake. He is right: there should be, because it is a very serious step. It is a serious and powerful mechanism; it should not be exercised for trivial reasons. It is there to deal with new or amended laws that provide significant and lasting change and impact on the people and communities of Northern Ireland. That is a test that rightly should be met, and there is a defined process for how that has to happen, with consultation that rightly should take place. But ultimately, if that petition of concern mechanism is used—and again, I believe that is the right mechanism to use; it is a Good Friday agreement framework that provides for cross-community safeguards —then the UK Government will have a veto. I believe that as the hon. Gentleman engages with the detail of how that mechanism works, he will see that we have struck the right balance between having something very powerful, but making sure that there is a well-defined and appropriate process leading up to that point.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am not sure that our opinion on mainland Britain is vital in all this. It is a pretty obvious point, but it all depends on our colleagues in the DUP, because unless this exercise gets Stormont up and running, it is pretty futile—indeed, it might be downright dangerous. When the Prime Minister provides space for the DUP in the next few weeks, will he undertake that he will not just listen to their concerns, but if there is something that can get this over the line—a further clarification or a change—he will take that back to the Commission? I can assure him that many of his colleagues on the Government Benches are watching the DUP very carefully, and we will go where they go.
The Prime Minister
With the greatest respect, I would say to my right hon. Friend that this is also about the people of Northern Ireland. It is about the communities in Northern Ireland and the businesses in Northern Ireland. Whatever happens with the politics, those people will benefit from this agreement, because they are being impacted by the implementation of the protocol, and this framework ensures that we have resolved their concerns and the challenges that they face. They must be uppermost in our mind, and I hope very much that this framework does provide the basis for parties in Northern Ireland to move forward together positively to consider power sharing, as I hope they will look forward to doing. But this agreement, first and foremost, is about the people in Northern Ireland and the benefits that it will bring to them, and I hope that it will have my right hon. Friend’s support.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
This agreement is clearly welcome, but the Prime Minister must recognise that the Government’s approach prior to this point caused damaging uncertainty, put Britain’s reputation at risk, and undermined business confidence. He must want to do everything possible to make amends for that. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill continues to generate massive uncertainty with its regulatory cliff edge, so in this new spirit of renegotiating decisions and taking a more mature approach, will the Prime Minister also commit to reconsidering the Government’s approach on that issue?
The Prime Minister
No. It is that approach—talking about it in the hon. Lady’s terms—that creates the uncertainty. It is a perfectly reasonable thing for the United Kingdom to re-examine all the retained EU law that we inherited and decide which bits are for us to keep, which bits are worth scrapping, and which bits are worth amending. That is entirely the appropriate course of action for a sovereign nation, and in doing that, we can provide benefits to families, businesses and communities across the United Kingdom. That is what this Government will deliver.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Having spent two years at the Home Office working on the plans to implement the Northern Ireland protocol in full if it had been needed, there are some welcome aspects to this agreement, although there are of course other areas that will need to be studied in further detail. The green and red lanes are welcome. One thought that comes to mind is that there is an EU team based at Belfast port—in fact, that team is hosted in a Home Office facility, because it did not have anywhere of its own. What role does he see that team playing, because, as we are aware, there will inevitably be some attempts to abuse the green lane? Who would take the lead on the law enforcement approach to that, and decide whether that sort of action is taken, to ensure that this is about responding to genuine concerns and that it does not become a way, as we have seen at other borders with the EU, to put checks in place that we would feel were an undue burden?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point from his experience as a Home Office Minister. He is absolutely right that we need to enforce these lanes; that is the assurance that we have rightly provided, and that is why we have those facilities there. What I can say to him is that there are not any routine checks as goods move from GB to NI. Any checks that there are will be because we have reason to suspect smuggling or other criminality, based on intelligence or other risk analysis. That is why we will be intervening, but those checks will not be routine: they will be risk and intelligence based, to deal with exactly the problem that my hon. Friend has highlighted. If we are going to have a functioning green lane, it is right that we enforce that properly.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I join the tributes to the late Betty Boothroyd, and also to the outstanding bravery of DCI John Caldwell in Omagh last week.
When the Prime Minister was at the press conference with Madame von der Leyen this afternoon, he indicated that
“We all collectively share an ambition to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that’s why there’s a role for EU law in Northern Ireland”.
This is the umpteenth time that this mistake has been made by successive Prime Ministers. There will not be any possibility of a so-called hard border, not because of mark 1 of the protocol or mark 2 of the protocol, but because of the 300-mile land border that has over 280 crossing points, making a hard border an impossibility. Does the Prime Minister agree with what I told him last week: just as years ago, the representatives of nationalism in Northern Ireland needed to be content with governance arrangements in Northern Ireland, equally now, the representatives of Unionism have to be content with governance arrangements going forward?
The Prime Minister
I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I have spent a lot of time, care and attention listening to, and engaging with, the concerns of Unionism in Northern Ireland—their concerns with the protocol—and they have been uppermost in my mind as we have gone through these deliberations. I have strived and tried my utmost to deliver against those objectives, and I believe that this framework does that.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the role of EU law. I would say to him, his colleagues, and everyone else that that is the reason why it is there, but ultimately, it is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. He knows, as I do, that a consent vote will happen next year that provides approval for that set of arrangements, but I recognise that that is a blunt mechanism, an all-or-nothing mechanism, and it is right that we have greater sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. The Stormont brake delivers that. It allows the Assembly—it allows 30 colleagues from two parties—to decide on the new EU laws, annex 2, that were put in the tests of his party. If those are laws that the hon. Gentleman feels are unacceptable, there will be an ability to block them, working with the UK Government. I think that is a powerful safeguard for Northern Ireland sovereignty. It is something that I hope he gives time and consideration to, and I look forward to engaging with him and his colleagues on it over the coming days and weeks.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
First, I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister about Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell and his family.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on the personal commitment he has made to this process, and in particular on being the first British Prime Minister in over a decade to attend the British-Irish Council, unlocking precious good will through that process. The diplomatic efforts that he and his team have made have been phenomenal. Will the Prime Minister ensure that, as we hopefully reap the fruits of this process through the restoration of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, he maintains that personal engagement in Northern Ireland affairs that is so crucial and continues to listen to the concerns of Northern Irish Unionists, to no detriment to the nationalist community?
The Prime Minister
Can I thank my hon. Friend for his support? It is an area that I know he knows well, and I can give him that assurance. We will continue to engage, as we have done, with all communities and parties in Northern Ireland. I have paid particular attention to the concerns of the Unionist community and their elected representatives from all parties in this process, because I believe that is the right thing to do. Ultimately, I can give him the assurance that I will continue to be personally involved, committed and engaged with this topic because I am Prime Minister for Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I am Prime Minister for the United Kingdom—and it is a responsibility I take incredibly seriously.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
If I understand the so-called Stormont brake correctly, is it not the case that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have more power over how EU single market rules apply in its territory than the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments have over how UK internal market rules apply in Wales and Scotland?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has recognised how powerful the Stormont brake is. It is absolutely right given the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland that it does have that sovereignty. It was missing. There was a democratic deficit, given the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, and I am glad that the Windsor framework and the Stormont brake eliminate that democratic deficit and restore the appropriate and right sovereignty to the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on the progress he has made on what is a very difficult issue. For clarification, can I ask him this? If there is a manufacturer in Northern Ireland whose products have no intention of being exported—they will remain in the internal market—does it obey UK standards, or does it have to obey EU standards?
The Prime Minister
It will depend on what the manufacturer is producing. For a large chunk of manufacturing goods, there are no international or EU standards; they are all produced to UK standards, whether that is clothing, furniture, bicycles, homewares and the like. The other 3,500 manufacturing goods standards are all international standards. Even though the standards may be named as EU, they are all the same as the ones we have in the UK, because that is what the EU and the UK committed to in the trade and co-operation agreement. If my hon. Friend looks at those 3,500 manufacturing standards, I think he will find that there are only 11 that are different between the EU and the UK. That is 0.3%. In most of those cases, the UK standards are higher, as it turns out, than the EU ones. This is a good framework and a good deal for manufacturing in Northern Ireland. I have spent time engaging with those businesses. They value their dual market access and they value unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom. They want the free flow of goods within the UK internal market. This framework delivers for them and it delivers for the businesses of Northern Ireland.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister gave a devastating critique of the Northern Ireland protocol, negotiated by his predecessor but one, who is conspicuously absent today. Clearly the Prime Minister was right, so this agreement is good news, but can I press him a little further on an earlier answer that he gave? Specifically, will he confirm that the agreement opens up the door to association with Horizon Europe, and will he actively seek it, recognising its importance to our universities and our research ambition as a country?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, research co-operation is one of the many areas where we continue to co-operate with the EU. Our focus today is on the Windsor framework to ensure that we can resolve the issues of the protocol and move forward for Northern Ireland. That will be our continued focus in the coming days to make sure that we can talk, explain and clarify this particular agreement, but of course, over time, there will be a range of other areas on which we can work with the EU, including energy security and research, but also illegal migration, and I look forward to all those conversations.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
South Leicestershire is home to one of the largest logistics parks in the whole of Europe. Will the Prime Minister reassure those businesses in South Leicestershire that trade across the UK, and specifically Northern Ireland, that his Windsor framework will allow for smoother trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The smooth flow of trade around our UK internal market is central to what this framework delivers. It builds on the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) put forward some years ago. I am pleased that we have been able to put those into practice in the delivery of our green lane, and I know that the cause of the Union is one that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) cares passionately and rightly about, and I am pleased that this framework strengthens our Union.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
Before I start, I would like to pass on my thoughts and prayers to DCI Caldwell’s family at this time, as well as to the wider PSNI family, who I know are fearful of what might happen. I do not put this as being any accident; I think the timing of such incidents is crucial to what we are discussing here today.
I just want to ask the Prime Minister about the green and red lanes. I enter a country and I always see a border. At a border, there are green and red lanes, and I still have the perception that I am at a border, because of what I can see, irrespective of being told that there are green and red lanes, and that does cause concern.
There is another aspect that I have real concern about. I am glad that this is called a framework and that it is not an agreement as such. A framework is something that has to be built and added to whereas an agreement is something that is written in stone and cannot be changed, which is what we were told about the so-called protocol deal—those who wanted to change it were told that they could not. I am also glad that several people have been converted to taking a slightly different stance about what we had to endure and what we voted against.
I have many agricultural businesses in my constituency that took cattle backwards and forwards to mainland GB for shows or for sale. I hear today that they might be better to call a cow one of their pets, so that they can bring it back. I want to ensure that that does not happen and that we are allowed to bring back our cattle and everything else. Any involvement in the ECJ is also a major concern for me, because it means that I am still operating under laws that I have had no control about bringing forward.
The Prime Minister
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, the whole point of the Stormont brake is that he does have control over those laws. I hope that when he engages with the detail of it, he will see that we have fixed that problem and have put him and his colleagues in the Assembly in charge of their destiny and of ensuring that they are in control of their laws.
The hon. Gentleman talks about agriculture. In fact, from all the engagement and knowledge that I have of the agricultural sector, it is one where dual market access is incredibly important. He talked about cattle: he will know that the dairy industry on the island of Ireland is deeply integrated and the meat processing industry is deeply integrated. All those businesses said to me and to the Secretary of State that they wanted to ensure that there was no disruption to those supply chains back and forth between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that anything that put them in jeopardy would be a mistake for them and their jobs.
That is what this framework delivers: it ensures that we have protected Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, ensured the free flow of goods around our UK internal market, safeguarded the sovereignty of the Northern Irish people and, crucially, protected exactly those agricultural businesses and the things that were important to them. I hope that, when he studies the detail—I look forward to discussing it with him and his colleagues—he will see that we have struck the right balance and that it is the right thing for Northern Ireland, its businesses and its agricultural industry. I hope that it is something on which he will engage with me.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The Command Paper tells us that the framework,
“narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland—to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations”,
which is, of course, highly welcome. Would my right hon. Friend agree to publish a definitive list of the EU rules that will remain, so that hon. Members may consider them when assessing the impact of the agreement?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to look at that—I think that list already exists—but the key thing is exactly that: it is less than 3%. It is there in black and white—I am not pretending it is not there—and it is there for the reasons that we discussed earlier today. It is about ensuring that there is no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic and that those Northern Ireland producers and businesses that value it have access to the EU single market. Crucially, even though it is less than 3%, it is there with the consent of the Northern Irish people. That is the most important thing—it is less about whether it is 3%, 5% or 2% than whatever is there being there with consent. It was there with the consent vote next year, but that vote was too blunt.
With the Stormont brake mechanism we have ensured that it is the institutions and people of Northern Ireland who decide the laws that they want to adopt, which is the right way to approach this problem. It respects the balance necessary in Northern Ireland and it respects the needs of all communities and what businesses want. I look forward to discussing it with my right hon. Friend in the coming days.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The issues with the Northern Ireland protocol have damaged our communities, our economy and our democracy, so of course I welcome the agreement and look forward to a better working relationship with the European Union, including on science. When the Northern Ireland protocol delays meant that we could not associate with the Horizon programme, the Government committed that every penny meant for science would be spent on science. Some £2.5 billion was set aside for association with Horizon and £900 million was spent on guarantees, but, last week, £1.5 billion was quietly taken out of the budget and back to the Treasury. Now that the Prime Minister has the deal, will he commit to deliver his promises on science?
The Prime Minister
Just diverting slightly from the Northern Ireland protocol and the new Windsor framework, the Government have committed to spend £20 billion on research and development. It is a record amount. This Government have created a brand new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology because we care about it so much. I know that that is something the hon. Member will support, and that is how we are going to drive growth and prosperity in every part of our United Kingdom in the coming years.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
May I also pay my tribute to DCI John Caldwell and to his family? I hope he makes a good recovery.
I congratulate the Prime Minister and his team on doing something that many people said was impossible, with a negotiation that contains the red and green lanes, which eases the flow of goods and is in a legal framework that is fundamentally different from the protocol. Does he agree with me that this negotiation—this Windsor agreement—provides the prospect of investors investing with confidence in Northern Ireland to create new jobs, and that it is the people of Northern Ireland who will benefit from this?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is something that I know the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is specifically focused on. It is about using this framework—this agreement—as the basis to provide certainty and stability in Northern Ireland, and thereby attracting considerable private investment. That is what we are focused on delivering. That is the prize that is available for us if we can use the Windsor framework as a way to move forward and restore power sharing in Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland will have a very special place not just in the UK, but on the European continent. That is incredibly attractive to international investors and businesses. They are keen to see this resolved so that they can start investing, creating jobs and opportunities. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is keen to deliver.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Can the Prime Minister be clear with the House that this agreement does not get us any closer to being readmitted to the Horizon Europe programme—to our universities or to Northern Irish universities being readmitted to the programme?
The Prime Minister
They are two completely separate things. The Windsor framework is about resolving the issues with the Northern Ireland protocol. It is about safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, the free flow of goods around our internal market and sovereignty being restored for the Northern Irish people. The hon. Member will have heard the comments from President von der Leyen earlier today, and the Government’s position on that remains the same.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
As a Northern Ireland Unionist family member, I wholeheartedly congratulate the Prime Minister and all those involved with the Windsor framework on resolving issues that have been so damaging to the integrity of the UK and our own UK internal market, and on providing the best opportunity for Northern Ireland to thrive. So will my right hon. Friend and all the political parties in Northern Ireland now work to resume Government from Stormont as soon as possible, and before the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, so that the people of Northern Ireland get the quality and scrutiny of public services that they deserve?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of restoring power sharing and the institutions there for the people of Northern Ireland—that is what they need and deserve—but I know he will agree with me that the right thing is to give all communities in Northern Ireland the time and the space to reflect on the detail of this substantive agreement and come to a considered judgment. I look forward to engaging with those communities and parties over the coming days to have that conversation, but I hope that this can provide a basis for us to move forward positively together.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
May I welcome the change in approach, the co-operative spirit with which we have got to this point, and the positive and, I hope, pragmatic relationship moving forward? However, there is one area that has not been mentioned as a potential area on which to work with the EU, and that is agrifoods. We just need to look at the furore this week over turnips versus tomatoes to see what a difference it would make to our constituents in this cost of living crisis. Will the Prime Minister commit to looking again at a UK-EU veterinary agreement that would ease some of the supply chain issues and build on the positive relationship that I note he wants to have with the European Union?
The Prime Minister
I think that the issues we have seen over recent times have little to do with our institutional and political frameworks, and everything to do with the weather, but we are committed to agrifood innovation. In particular, our gene editing Bill is something that farmers across the UK welcome and we will deliver. It will be good for our food security going forward, and we continue to support our farmers to do that.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
This agreement is a remarkable negotiating success, with the EU agreeing to hitherto unique terms in an international treaty. While all associated with this negotiation deserve congratulation, its tone, its courtesy, and its calm and conscientious command of detail were set by the Prime Minister, and he gave our negotiating partners every reason to agree. This deal is a huge tribute to the finest qualities of his leadership.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for those warm and, I fear, over-generous words. I thank him none the less. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to colleagues sitting behind me, who have worked in private, in confidence, behind the scenes for some months to bring us to this place, supported by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. They deserve enormous credit. It is a collective achievement of minds; many Members of the House in their various ways have contributed to getting to this point. I hope that everyone around the House can now support the agreement as a basis for providing a better future for the people of Northern Ireland.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The scrapping of tariffs on steel will be welcomed by steelworkers in the Port Talbot steelworks in my constituency, but may I press the Prime Minister on non-tariff barriers? Will he confirm that quotas will also be scrapped? He will be aware that the European Union is introducing a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Will he confirm that the Windsor framework will eliminate the risk of a carbon border in the Irish sea?
The Prime Minister
The UK Government are also exploring mechanisms for a carbon border adjustment mechanism—it is something the Treasury started consulting on last year. That is one of the dialogues that we have with the European Union, and other countries are considering such mechanisms to ensure that they can work in a complementary fashion. The work for all these things is at a relatively early stage, so there is lots of development work to be done to make sure we implement them.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this historic deal, ensuring that our ongoing relationship with the EU works for all parts of our United Kingdom. Does he agree that Brexit is the beginning of our new relationship, not the end, and that with so many challenges facing us, we will continue to work with all our international partners so that all our agreements, current and yet to be finalised, work to benefit us all?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and wholeheartedly agree with him. This framework provides a positive basis to move forward. It ensures that we respect the balance of all communities, and I look forward to working with him and other colleagues to ensure that we realise the full potential of what we have achieved today.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
This is certainly an entirely different definition of an “oven-ready” deal. Instead of being good to go, it has taken years, has to be eaten in instalments, and with an interim serving of, by the Prime Minister’s own admissions, a dog’s dinner. This deal is welcome, but Government actions have done serious damage to Britain’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. Looking forward, will the Prime Minister commit today to the Government never again asking Members of this House to vote on legislation that breaks international law?
The Prime Minister
The Windsor framework provides a legally sound sustainable basis on which to move forward. It brings enormous improvement to the situation in Northern Ireland. It safeguards Northern Ireland’s position in the Union, but it also ensures that it is in a framework of international law. The points made about the Vienna convention are important and are there in the political declaration. That allows businesses, families and communities in Northern Ireland to plan with certainty for the future, and for the brighter future that it can be.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment and hard work and for the constructive engagement with our European counterparts. As a former sanctions Minister, I know it is crucial to work with our European counterparts to achieve what we need to achieve regarding what happens in Russia. As someone who resigned from the Government in all aspects over Brexit and the delivery of the backstop, with real concerns over sovereignty, I ask the Prime Minister this. Of course what he has tried to do must be welcomed, and he has moved the dial in a constructive way, but on the Stormont brake, the previous emergency brake under David Cameron unfolded with concerns. When the Prime Minister says that time and space will be given to consider that, and that there are details to consider, how long does he think that will be? Will he consider bringing the issue back to Parliament so that we can consider it and look at it in detail?
The Prime Minister
It is important that people have the time and space to consider that, but I hope we can move through the process with speed, not least because what we all want is a restored Executive in Northern Ireland. That is what people in Northern Ireland need and deserve, and we would all like that to happen as quickly as possible, while respecting the need for communities to discuss the detail. I look forward to doing that, and I will make myself available as quickly as possible.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for spending more than two hours on this statement. I think we all know the importance of it. On page 26 of the Prime Minister’s statement—and on various occasions—he talks about:
“The Windsor framework goes further still, by safeguarding sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland”.
Of course, 56% of the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain within the single market and are getting a Norway-style deal, with Stormont getting a direct say on EU law. Does he therefore not think there is some irony for Scotland, where 62% voted to remain within the single market, but we get absolutely zero?
The Prime Minister
I do not think the hon. Gentleman recognises the unique and specific circumstances of Northern Ireland: the fact that it shares a land border with the EU; the fact that we want to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic; and the democratic deficit that existed with regard to the application of EU law. The Stormont brake eliminates that democratic deficit and restores sovereignty to Northern Ireland. No matter what other political differences he and I might have, I hope he can recognise that that is an enormous step forward.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I join colleagues in expressing my thoughts for DCI Caldwell and his family.
This is a complex deal, with a lot detail. I feel hopeful and confident that time is being given to review the deal and that it is not being rushed. May I therefore pay tribute to the Prime Minister and his colleagues for ensuring that there is space to do that for all in this House?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. He is right: there is a lot in the agreement. That is because it is a comprehensive agreement that addresses a wide range of issues that were raised with me and my colleagues on the implementation of the protocol. That is why we have something as substantive. It is because of the hard work of my colleagues and the engagement of the European Union. It is why I can say with conviction that it does address the issues that were raised, and that it does secure Northern Ireland’s place in the Union and safeguard sovereignty. As people engage with the detail, I hope they come to the same conclusion.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much welcome the statement, in particular the sentence:
“we will take further steps to avoid regulatory divergence in future.”
Can we take that to mean that in the EU law revocation Bill we will maximise the reassimilation of EU law and minimise divergence to take full advantage of the economic opportunities for growth in Northern Ireland and in the UK moving forward?
The Prime Minister
Actually, there are opportunities to do things differently across the UK to drive growth and prosperity, whether in life sciences, financial services, fintech or other areas. We will fully take advantage of those opportunities across the UK. What that refers to very specifically is the work of the Office for the Internal Market, which we have strengthened as a result of the agreement and provided some extra detail about what we do in the Command Paper. That is the right thing to do and I think it will be warmly welcomed in Northern Ireland, particularly in the business community.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister for what he has achieved today. In 2016, if someone had said while we were campaigning to leave the EU that this is what we would have, we would have jumped at it. Am I right in understanding that what makes this truly a landmark agreement is that it is based in international law, under the Vienna convention on the law of treaties—something that many would have said would not have been achievable?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is right to take us all back some years and to ask what would we have said if this agreement had been available at that moment in time. That is a sensible way to look at what we have achieved and puts it in context. He is also right about the Vienna convention. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is no longer in his place. He advised and spoke to me about it. I am pleased that we could secure it and it does have significance of the like that he describes.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I very much welcome the Windsor framework, and I congratulate the Prime Minister and his team on securing this historic agreement. Can he confirm that the very sensible and pragmatic veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements within the framework will protect both the UK’s and the island of Ireland’s biosecurity? Can he reaffirm that the long-term availability of medicines in Northern Ireland will very much ultimately include veterinary medicines?
The Prime Minister
There was a lot in there. My hon. Friend is right that long-standing arrangements have been in place to protect biosecurity on the island of Ireland, and indeed on the respect that the UK has had for the single epidemiological zone on that island. We will continue to respect all of those things. Nothing in the framework changes that. It is something that everyone has agreed with in the past. No one has objected to it and it is right that we continue to move forward with those procedures.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The headlines of the Windsor framework make it clear that a great deal of progress has been made, and I commend my right hon. Friend for that. I look forward to getting stuck into scrutinising the detail. As I get on with the exercise of seeking to answer the question of whether this framework fully restores Northern Ireland as a full and equal part of the United Kingdom, can the Prime Minister help me to understand how it is that under the Stormont brake—unprecedented as that mechanism is—EU law is still presumed to take primacy with an option to opt out of it, as opposed to UK law being the primary law with an option to opt in to EU law, should that be right for Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend should recognise that we are talking about less than 3% of EU law. That law applies with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and it is there because it avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland—something that I think everyone agrees with. It also preserves access to the EU single market for Northern Ireland businesses—something that we have heard from colleagues and businesses that they also value. The important point is consent. That is why the Stormont brake is so important; it ensures that it is the institution and the people of Northern Ireland who get to decide whether they think that those laws are appropriate for them. It is a powerful safeguard that ensures that the UK has, if needed, a veto over laws that cause concern. That is why the Windsor framework represents such a decisive breakthrough.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Last June I was pleased to speak in favour of and vote for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, because I believed that it was a necessary piece of legislation that served as a fall-back to address the legitimate concerns of the Unionist community, and to strengthen our hand in negotiations. Given the result that the Prime Minister has achieved, on which I congratulate him heartily, we have things that we did not think were possible. Does he agree that the Bill is not only no longer necessary but has no basis in law?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will have seen the note that we published from the Attorney General. While the Bill did have a sound legal basis when it was introduced—and he is right about the impact that it had and the necessity of having it—we have achieved what we needed with the Windsor framework. It is a legally sound, durable agreement that means everyone can plan with certainty, which brings benefits far quicker—indeed, almost immediately—and removes the EU legal cases against us. As he said, we have no legal basis for proceeding with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill now that we have this new agreement. That is why it is the right way forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the ever-patient Anthony Mangnall.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
After all that has been said, I am not sure what I can ask that will be new, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will start by congratulating the quartet of negotiators sitting on the Front Bench. In the past two and a bit hours, we have seen the Prime Minister’s detail and knowledge on this subject and the care that he has taken. I hope that this will be the opportunity to unlock the opportunities, through our specialised trade committees, to do better for fishing and aquaculture, and on Horizon and Euratom. Specifically on trade deals and free trade agreements, can he assure me and all members of the International Trade Committee that nothing will impact our ability to sign future free trade agreements, and that Northern Ireland will benefit to the same extent?
The Prime Minister
That is an excellent note to end on. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. An enormous part of the Windsor framework is ensuring that, in every aspect, Northern Ireland is part of our precious United Kingdom. That is what this framework achieves. It ensures free flow of goods across the United Kingdom internal market. It protects Northern Ireland’s place in our Union, ensuring that people and businesses can enjoy the same benefits in Northern Ireland as they do elsewhere, including in trade deals. Crucially and critically, it restores and safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. It eliminates the democratic deficit. That is why I passionately believe that it is the right thing for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that, as people engage with the detail, they will see that and that it provides a basis on which we can all collectively move forward and build a brighter future for Northern Ireland.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their presence for over two and a half hours of this statement. Whatever our views, I think we can probably feel that this has been an historic occasion.
Boxing Clubs and Social Mobility
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
May I begin by declaring an interest as the proud joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group on boxing? I believe that amateur boxing is a force for social good in this country. The point and purpose of this debate is to highlight not only the fabulous work that is going on in amateur boxing clubs throughout the country, but the real social value that those clubs add.
Given the historic events that we have just been talking about, it is somewhat appropriate that my journey in boxing began—even though I was not yet born—on the cold night of 1 March 1948 at the King’s hall in Belfast, where my great-uncle Gerald “Paddy” Slavin became the heavyweight champion of Ireland. He held the title for a number of years and was No. 8 in Europe. That inspired my late dad, Barry: boxing was his main preoccupation, interest and passion, apart from his family and his children. It is for him that I stand here today.
Let me put the issue into a national context. It is right to acknowledge the great work of England Boxing, which has helped me to prepare for the debate. For those who do not know, it is the national governing body for amateur boxing in England—one of the only sporting governing bodies whose sole focus is separate from the sport’s professional and unlicensed elements. England Boxing has a new strategy in place that goes up to 2027. It has gone through rapid change, but with the support of Sport England and others, it now has an opportunity to grow and build in both competitive and community delivery. It has a membership of more than 1,000 clubs and 25,000 competitive boxers, coaches and officials, with about 150,000 recreational boxers using the clubs each week.
Alongside success in delivering medals at international championships, the sport has a significant record of delivering community programmes and activities in inner cities and local communities. Boxing promotes social mobility and inclusion, positive mental health and wellbeing, and economic growth, all of which are key objectives as the country emerges from the pandemic and tackles the cost of living crisis. The Government are developing their new strategy for the sport, which we expect later this year from the excellent Minister.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He has a very active local boxing club, and so do we in Newtownards. The boxing club in my constituency has been helping young people to train effectively and learn to channel their energy in an appropriate and helpful manner. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that clubs need to be funded to survive, in these days when their financial outgoings are far outstripping their income? With the health benefits that they provide, they deserve investment.
James Daly
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that point, which is salient to the matters that I will discuss. Funding is crucial to the work that boxing clubs do in communities throughout every single part of our United Kingdom. These are clubs run by volunteers; they need financial support to do their work. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had more time, he would talk in detail about the work that his local club is doing to change individual lives. There are not many sporting organisations, professional or amateur, that can do what amateur boxing clubs do.
Jim Shannon
Across Northern Ireland, boxing has done other things, too. It has united the two communities —my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) is an example. It is interesting that in Northern Ireland the two things at which we excel are boxing and shooting.
James Daly
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for those comments.
Grassroots and community boxing clubs offer so much more than a space to train. Not only do they provide pastoral and educational support to young people and adults in need, but they are a vital promoter and generator of social mobility and inclusion. They help to tackle criminal activity and antisocial behaviour and to deliver improvements in physical and mental wellbeing. Research published in 2020 by the sport industry research centre at Sheffield Hallam University demonstrates the crucial point that grassroots and community boxing clubs are well placed to support such ambitions. Compared with other sports, boxing can reach deep into diverse communities and appeal to men and women, young people and adults.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
In a previous life, I became involved in boxing—although not actually in the ring, so I thoroughly enjoyed it. In my community, I have found that becoming involved in boxing steers young people away from drugs and even alcohol, and in many cases that discipline continues into adulthood. It is fantastic to see what it can achieve.
James Daly
Evidence in every town in the country points to exactly that, which is why this is such an important issue. Boxing and social mobility might not normally feature together in a debate, but empirical evidence points to the value added and the way in which people’s lives can be changed. Every conversation that we have in this place should be about how individual policies and groups can change individual lives. It is difficult to think of anything that can change the lives of millions of people in one go, but boxing is doing it for thousands throughout the country.
The sport itself is in a unique position in comparison with others, in that 40% of clubs and members are located in the 20 most deprived parts of the country and 75% in the 50 most deprived. Amateur boxing clubs are in the heart of the least physically active communities in England. Sport England’s active life survey found that people from lower socioeconomic groups—LSEGs—were the most likely to be inactive, at 33%. I am not commenting on how people live their lives; I am simply identifying the places where amateur boxing clubs can make the biggest difference. Given that the overwhelming majority of LSEG communities are located in the most deprived areas, it is clear how vital English boxing clubs are in supporting young people, inclusion and social mobility.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend—if I may call him that—for giving way, and congratulate him on securing the debate. May I take up his point about inclusion and social mobility? He may be interested to know that the famous Turpin brothers, of whom he may have heard, came from my constituency. It was Dick Turpin who broke what was then called the colour bar, and his brother Randolph who won the first world title for a black boxer. As a result of the breakthrough achieved by those brothers, Asian and black sportspeople now perform in national colours for our country.
James Daly
What a wonderful thing to say! The hon. Gentleman and I probably share this experience: my father told me all about Randolph Turpin, and we would have conversations about Don Cockell, Brian London and lots of other boxers. The hon. Gentleman has just drawn attention to the wonderful story—the ultimate tale of social mobility—of two brothers and what they achieved through their passion and determination. I suggest that everyone should read about them, because their achievements were immense.
It is due to the B2022 legacy fund that England Boxing has been able to recruit a cohort of community apprentices from LSEG communities, providing them with employment, education and the opportunity to leave a legacy of their own through the projects and events that they are actively delivering to support others in their local areas. That work is also having a lasting impact on clubs by enabling them to recruit volunteers, deliver engagement events and provide social mobility to support those in the greatest need.
We have already heard of some wonderful examples, but it is only right for me to draw attention to further examples in my constituency. The ultimate example is a man who, in my area, is called legendary—and he truly is, given what he has achieved and the impact that he has had on lives. Bury amateur boxing club was established in 1936 by a man called “Pop” Jelley. His son Mick, who has been given the freedom of the Metropolitan Borough of Bury, was handed the reins about 60 years ago. Mick Jelley has been at the centre of sporting activity in Bury for all those years, finding ways of helping people who have come to him in the most disadvantaging and challenging circumstances. Mr Jelley is a true hero, and more heroes like him need to be identified and celebrated in this place. Mick is the ultimate example of what boxing can do. In 2017, he talked about his experiences, saying:
“The satisfaction does not just come from watching the boys win. It is about helping them grow as people. I have seen lads become men, grow in confidence and find their place in the world. Some have come to me as school drop-outs and gone on to become millionaire businessmen.”
Stories such as these are reported throughout the country.
That very amateur boxing club has now merged with the Bury Defence Academy. Since that partnership commenced, the sport in my area and the boxing club have grown. The Bury Defence Academy offers seven combat sports to its 400 weekly service users, and the facility is a registered charity. The sport of boxing has grown sharply in Bury, and at least 100 more people are involved in it as a result of that partnership. It has opened up boxing to all abilities and levels among boys, girls, men and women. The BDA receives funding via violence reduction units. This is a boxing club getting Home Office funding and funding from the Ministry of Justice youth sport fund. These funds are being used to combine sport with mentoring, volunteering, training opportunities, anti-gang speeches and various other things.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
In Watford, we have Anthony Joshua. I have not been fortunate enough to meet him, but I know he has done an incredible level of charity work to help the community. When I visited the NRG gym recently, I talked to a person who works there in MMA—mixed martial arts—fighting. He made the point that when young people learn that they can make money from fighting, they no longer want to fight for free on the streets. That was a really important point about antisocial behaviour. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that this is not only about tackling challenges in society and helping with mental health, but about giving people a career and an opportunity to have a ladder up.
James Daly
I could not agree more. What has been proved to me in the three and a bit years my hon. Friend and I have been here is that if we are passionate advocates for our areas and if we live and breathe and want to support positive outcomes for our local communities, there are certain outlets for doing that. The boxing club that we have been talking about is achieving that, and as an MP my hon. Friend is certainly doing exactly the same thing. I congratulate him on that.
I just want to make two further comments about Mick Jelley, because this gets to the heart of what we are talking about. In a 2022 newspaper article, Mick said:
“I’ve been running a club for 60 years. There are lots of lads who came to me and said, ‘But for you, I would be in Strangeways hotel.’”
I think we know that that means a prison.
“What we do is try to keep lads on the straight and narrow and teach them right from wrong. Some of them do go wrong, but then we try to put them back on the straight path.”
What a philosophy for an organisation to have! It operates seven days a week, 365 days a year.
The chair of the Bury Defence Academy is a man called Ifti Ahmed, another wonderful human being. He says:
“A lot of lads come here. It is a kind of refuge for them. This is a diversion that keeps them from a life of crime. We have got to think at the earliest possible stage, how do we give these guys a better life, better opportunities and something positive to aspire to? A lot of the lads have no money in their pocket and they struggle with employment, so they get involved in drugs and gangs. If you nurture them, help them and get them fulfilling their potential through something like combat sport, it’s protecting them from everything else out there.”
That is what this is all about. If we fund these organisations and these people who are doing it for nothing at the moment, just think what we could do with a philosophy and a record of delivery such as that.
There are many other clubs throughout the country, and I have to mention one in particular. I was born and bred in Huddersfield, and my father was born about 10 minutes away from the Rawthorpe amateur boxing club there. It has developed critical hubs in the local community by providing knife crime prevention workshops, mother and toddler classes and boxercise sessions for OAPs, alongside the traditional boxing outlets that it offers. There is also the Vulcan amateur boxing club in Hull, which became a food bank to feed those of its members in greatest need during lockdown, thanks to funding from the Maverick Stars Trust. For many young people, the boxing club is a sanctuary from the problems they face elsewhere. It is a hub of support that instils life lessons of discipline, respect and teamwork.
I make no apologies for repeating these things, as this work is so important. Some 63% of amateur boxing clubs in England are actively delivering community projects to try to use the sport as a hook to grow social mobility. West Kingsdown amateur boxing club in Kent has, for the past year, been delivering sessions in partnership with Parkinson’s UK to help elderly people in the area to be more active, to slow the progression of the disease, thanks to funding from Sport England. If the NHS were delivering that, we would be overjoyed and singing its praises. This is a boxing club.
Dean Russell
During lockdown a friend of mine, Nonito Donaire, a professional boxer known as “The Flash” who has won titles at many different weights, recorded a video for me to send to Filipino nurses, doctors and staff at Watford General Hospital to thank them for their work. That shows the power of boxing and the power of sport to cross borders to thank people who do not live where they were brought up.
James Daly
I completely agree.
The target audience of these projects are often underrepresented in society: women and girls—69% of projects; lower socioeconomic groups and crime prevention —67%; and disability and inclusion—41%. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will mention, England Boxing is incredibly grateful for the funding it receives from Sport England. Through the £0.5 million provided by the tackling inequalities fund and the together fund, England Boxing has supported clubs to deliver such projects over the past two years. Ethnically diverse communities make up 22% of England Boxing’s members. I celebrate and thank Sport England for that funding, but I would like to highlight what work could be done if there were the opportunity of more funding.
England Boxing and clubs throughout the country are waiting to have their potential released so that they can do the work they want to do in the community.
Matt Western
Funding is important. I have a very successful gym in my constituency that the Turpins essentially got started. Ed Cleary, who runs the gym, works across the community. We have two terrific young girls, aged 12 and 13, who did phenomenally well at the Europeans—Jaya Kalsi and Serena Mali. Another boxer, Lewis Williams, won heavyweight gold at the Commonwealth games. The important thing is that the gym is run by volunteers as a not-for-profit. They do fantastic work across the community, but they need support from the likes of Sport England, and I hope they get it.
James Daly
I sincerely hope they do. We are in a world in which it is not reasonable to demand unlimited resources for anything, but we are always looking for projects that have a record of delivery. One of the elixirs of politics is partnership between public sector funding and voluntary or community organisations, because the state sometimes does not have that anchor in the community. Boxing clubs can deliver that.
I reiterate the hon. Gentleman’s excellent point. With more than 95% of all clubs being run by just two or three dedicated volunteers with the time, skill and knowledge required to capitalise on the unique and trusted position of these clubs to support disadvantaged people who are often missed, there is rarely time for these volunteer coaches to set up and deliver a new project after opening the club for, on average, three evenings a week and then sacrificing weekends and holidays to transport and coach boxers at competitions and events. They also maintain the gym, order new equipment and deal with club administration, usually on their own and free of charge, throughout the year.
This is all taking place in buildings that I think we would all agree have substandard facilities, with club volunteers and members alike simply making do as best they can to maintain their gym. In many areas, they simply cannot find an appropriate place to have a gym in the first place. Some 66% of clubs have written rental or hire agreements in place, with fewer than half having five years or more left on the agreement, meaning that nearly 700 amateur boxing clubs have either no security or tenure or less than five years before they potentially find themselves without a home. This is about sustainability. Sport England, England Boxing and club officers throughout the country are looking to work proactively with government, local councils and local mayoralties to find ways and solutions to make sure that clubs have a sustainable future.
I would welcome a comment from the Minister on one other serious issue. We have seen an explosion in white-collar boxing, but England Boxing and the Government do not yet have the authority or legislation in place that other nations have to prevent event organisers from operating outside the rules and guidelines set by the national governing bodies of amateur boxing. Does the Department plan to tackle the issue of white-collar unlicensed boxing, given that there is no accountability to the EB, the national governing body or any specific legislation?
The other points I raise are about funding and facilities. I have a tendency to want to say when we have good people answering questions and I know that this Minister is a good man. I know that he will support such projects in his area and throughout the country. If there is a way to have a meeting to develop a relationship between the Government and EB, I know that he will be open to that and to finding ways to support the great work that is being done.
Community boxing clubs should be front and centre of the Government’s new sports strategy and levelling-up agenda. They are a vital social mobility generator and play a unique role in supporting mobility, inclusion and regeneration in constituencies throughout the country. Along with EB and many others, I am calling on the Government to fully harness the power of grassroots and community boxing clubs in their new sports strategy.
When we look at amateur sport throughout this country, be it sport for younger people or for older people, we see that the position of boxing clubs is unique. I have seen and worked with some of the greatest amateur clubs and people involved in football, cricket and all sorts of other sports, but the work being done by these clubs is overlooked and ignored. It is a wonderful thing to be able to stand here to celebrate every amateur boxing club in the country, everybody who gives their time and everyone who is working to improve the lives of just one person or 10 or 20. I pay tribute to every person and the work of England Boxing in trying to keep everyone safe while all this good work is happening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I am pleased to respond to this debate and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) for securing it. Given his family’s heritage in boxing and the experience of boxing that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) has, I am anxious to get my response to this debate right. The contributions made by Members from across the Chamber this evening show the importance that the House places on support for grassroots sport and, in particular, boxing clubs. Members have rightly mentioned the many volunteers and coaches who give up a tremendous amount of time. Many of our sporting facilities would simply not exist if it were not for people giving of their time and sometimes their own money in support of the work they do. I was interested to hear about the experiences of Mr Jelley. I was also pleased recently to visit a boxing club in Bradford to see for myself the tremendous work that was going on there, particularly with people who perhaps felt that they were overlooked in terms of their opportunities. I hope to talk more about that shortly.
All Members will agree that these clubs provide people, wherever they may be in the country, with fantastic opportunities to lead healthy lives, unlock their potential and make new friends in life. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone, no matter what their background is, has the opportunity to participate in sport. To make that possible, Sport England has, since 2019, invested more than £12 million into boxing, including £2.3 million-worth of support to boxing clubs during the covid pandemic. Like all sports, boxing has the unique ability to unite communities and connect people to those who otherwise would never have crossed their paths. The examples that we heard from colleagues from Northern Ireland particularly articulated that well.
Big fight nights, such as December’s Tyson Fury v. Derek Chisora or last October’s Savannah Marshall v. Claressa Shields, create exciting moments of sporting theatre. But beyond the drama at the elite level, sport has the ability to unlock potential by giving young people essential leadership and resilience skills. Throughout the debate, we have talked about the important contribution that sport makes to social mobility. Social mobility, just one of many areas in my portfolio, is one on which I am particularly keen, because unlocking people’s potential early on in life is a great thing for us to be able to do, and makes sure that we get the very best out of young people for their lives ahead.
Research commissioned by Sport England shows that for every £1 invested in community sport there is a return of £4 of wider social and economic value. That is why, as a Government, we are committed to ensuring that everyone across the country has access to high-quality provision. Last year’s active lives survey shows that, between mid-November 2020 and mid-November 2021, just over six in 10 adults—28 million—achieved 150 minutes or more of activity a week, with those from lower socio-economic groups and deprived areas more likely to be less active. We know that opportunities to participate in sport are not equal across the country, which is why we are working with Sport England to provide direct support to the organisations and communities in the areas that need it the most. Over the past 12 months, 19.2% of Sport England’s local level investment has been for projects in index of multiple deprivation 1 areas.
We recognise that we need to maintain progress in this area. This year, as my hon. Friend alluded to, we will be publishing a new sport strategy that will set out how we will continue to support people, no matter who they are or where they are from, to enjoy the benefits of participating in sport. For me personally, dealing with issues around community inclusion, bringing communities together and providing access to sport for women and girls will feature heavily in that sport strategy. It will also concentrate on addressing current disparities in participation, supporting children and young people and ensuring that everyone has the facilities that they need to be active. Helping to ensure that those from hard-to-reach communities get opportunities to play sport is something that matters to me personally, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to make progress in this area. I see grassroots sport as being key to achieving many of those ambitions.
Sport, and in particular sports such as boxing, can also play an important role in tackling youth violence, and can have a transformative impact in prevention and early intervention work with children at risk of offending behaviour. During the summer, I spent a few weeks as the prisons Minister. On a visit to a young offenders’ institute, I spoke to two individuals who, sadly, did not have the opportunities to which we are alluding. I saw that their lives now will be spent primarily in the criminal justice system. These were two particularly articulate young people and it struck me that, had they been given an alternative path to go down, they might be contributing to our society, saving our public purse a great deal of money.
Last November, the Ministry of Justice announced a £5 million sport fund to deliver “Sport for Crime Prevention” programmes. This funding will deliver grants to around 200 local projects, which deliver targeted support for children considered to be at-risk of entering the justice system due to identified need or additional vulnerabilities. The projects funded through the programme will build on some of the fantastic programmes that are already being run by community boxing clubs across the country, and I thank them for that. Schemes include the Clink to Club programme, which provides transitional support and guidance on the benefits of boxing and mental wellbeing for inmates at Brixton and Bronzefield prisons before they are reintegrated in their local communities and club.
A number of Members have also approached me about the impact of energy bills on clubs, and my hon. Friend was right to mention some of the facilities in which they operate. I recognise that this is a challenging area for those clubs. That is why we are working very closely with the sector to support it through the current challenges, with boxing clubs eligible for support under the energy bill relief scheme and its successor programme.
My hon. Friend referred to white-collar boxing. The safety, wellbeing and welfare of everyone taking part in sport is always absolutely paramount. Although there are always risks associated with participating in contact sport, it is important that robust measures are in place to reduce the risk of major injuries and health issues. We urge all boxing event organisers to work with the sport’s governing bodies to ensure that robust competition standards are in place to protect the safety of those who are taking part. I understand the issues that my hon. Friend was talking about. He asked for a meeting to discuss them further, and I am more than happy to oblige him in that request.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his comments. May I draw his attention to the Trin Centre in Cleethorpes, whose boxing academy is overseen by Andy Cox and an excellent team of volunteers? To return to the issue of sustainable funding for these organisations, could the Minister give an assurance that he will do all he can to ensure that it is much easier to get continuity of funding once an initial grant has been established? These organisations spend so much time having to complete forms and it is a complicated process. If he could do anything to streamline that process, that would be very welcome.
Stuart Andrew
Before I was elected to this House, I worked in the charity sector, so I know how complex many of those forms are and how long it takes to fill them out. That is an area I am keen to look at. I have regular meetings with bodies such as Sport England, so I will be sure to arrange to discuss that at my next meeting with them.
Sport has real power to change lives, as evidenced particularly well by colleagues across the House this evening, not just through the benefits it can have on an individual’s health, but through the role that local clubs can play in fostering relationships and breaking down barriers in communities. That is why this Government are committed to ensuring that everybody has the opportunity to benefit from playing sport and physical activity. We will continue to work to address the disparities in opportunity, both through Sport England funding and through our upcoming sport strategy, recognising the important role that sport plays in many of our communities.
Finally, I recognise the huge contribution that many of these clubs provide in the community activity to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North alluded. During the pandemic, many sporting clubs up and down the country really stood up and helped the communities in which they are based. They make a huge contribution and are more than just sporting facilities and sporting clubs; they are intrinsically at the heart of the communities in which they serve. For that I thank them, and I also thank all hon. Members for their time in this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electricity Supplier Obligations (Green Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Obligations (Green Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Sir Edward. The regulations were laid before the House on 8 February 2023. The draft instrument makes an amendment to the Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) Regulations 2014 and the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Amendment & Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2015.
The amendment removes a condition on the contracts for difference scheme that derives from the European Union’s state aid approval of the scheme. It will remove the availability to electricity suppliers in Great Britain of a partial contracts for difference scheme cost exemption, which currently allows for an electricity supplier’s cost obligations to be disproportionate to the supplier’s market share. The contracts for difference scheme is the Government’s flagship renewable electricity support scheme. It has been hugely successful in driving the substantial deployment of renewables at scale in Great Britain while rapidly reducing costs to electricity customers.
Payments to electricity generators supported by the contracts for difference scheme are funded through a compulsory levy on electricity suppliers in Great Britain, known as the supplier obligation. Individual companies contribute to the cost of these schemes in proportion to their share of the GB electricity sales market. Electricity suppliers can seek a partial exemption from these costs for renewable electricity generated in an EU member state and supplied to customers in GB.
Our aim in making the change is to address the distortion created by the exemption, and to remove the incentive for GB suppliers to import renewable electricity generated by EU member states. The exemption will continue to apply to electricity supplied up to and including 31 March 2023. The green excluded electricity exemptions were introduced as a condition of the state aid approvals granted by the European Commission to the CfD scheme.
The UK having left the EU, the Government believed it was appropriate to undertake a review of the exemptions, so that the UK could continue to ensure equal opportunity for all potential trading partners. This change is a result of that review, and it will ensure that all suppliers subject to the supplier obligation levy pay an amount that is more proportional to their market share.
The Government, in consultation with industry, see a clear rationale for the removal of the green excluded electricity exemption from the CfD scheme. The change will bring about closer alignment between a GB electricity supplier’s market share and its proportion of the CfD scheme cost. Subject to the will of Parliament, the arrangements will come into force on 1 April 2023. By removing the exemptions, we are delivering on one of the Government’s priorities, which is to address the legislative legacy of our EU membership. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
This statutory instrument is, in principle, pretty straightforward. It removes something that, as the Minister said, was a consequence of state aid discussions, which took place when the CfD first became a major instrument of renewable development in the UK. It deals with the CfD that was in place in the UK, and a potential loophole in state aid regulations. Suppliers importing electricity from Europe should not have that supplier obligation applied to them and the electricity they are bringing in from European sources.
So far, so good. I agree that since we do not now have responsibilities as far as state aid is concerned, it is really no longer relevant to continue with an arrangement that was dependent on a state aid loophole. However, that has a consequence, which the Minister alluded to: pretty much all the energy that comes in from Europe has to come in through an interconnector. In the past, suppliers on this side of an interconnector, having contracted for something to come through that interconnector to the UK, had to produce evidence of the extent to which whatever came through the interconnector would otherwise have been eligible for a payment into the Low Carbon Contracts Company. There was a supplier obligation to pay out the generators, which were getting money from the low carbon contract in respect of the strike price that they had set up for the CfD. They had to provide evidence of the power coming in to claim that there was no money to pay, as it were, for that supply coming in.
Now the opposite is the case. It appears that suppliers will have to provide evidence of what is coming in, as a renewable source, via the interconnector from Europe, to ensure that they do pay. I presume that they will be paying into the Low Carbon Contracts Company in the same way as other people who are eligible in the UK, as far as CfDs are concerned.
My first question is this: why would any company that now has to do the reverse of what it did previously—produce evidence of a green import through an interconnector in order not to pay—willingly give evidence to pay? Would the company not simply say, “We don’t know where our power comes from. It comes through the interconnector, so it might be renewable or it might not”? If the company did have to pay, rather than being exempted, the likelihood of it ensuring that it did not put any evidence in that anything had come in from a renewable source would be quite high. Nothing in these regulations suggests that the Government would require that evidence to make people pay, and there is nothing about any penalties or enforcement against bodies that did not supply that information for the purposes of paying in future. Do the Government have any view on that development possibly taking place?
The second issue, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, is that we do not have an inversion in place as far as the relationship between CfD strike prices and reference prices is concerned. That means that, instead of the normal procedure as far as CfD holdings in this country are concerned, the supplier does not get a payment out of Government in respect of the strike price. As the reference price is consistently above the strike price, or it is at the moment, the supplier has to pay back into the Low Carbon Contracts Company. The company then has a reasonable obligation to pay that money back to suppliers.
Are suppliers newly obligated to pay money into the LCC for CfDs, which were previously exempted, but also to get money from the LCCC when the general strike price is inverted against the reference price? Is that an indication that those companies might have to report what they are bringing into the country, and register that renewables have come in and that, therefore, they might be eligible to get money back, as far as their contribution to CfDs are concerned? If the Minister can enlighten us on those two points, I would be grateful, but we have no intention of opposing the instrument.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The regulations are straightforward, and I will try to keep my remarks to around 15 minutes, so that we can get to the Chamber for the statement. The Minister said that the regulations would help counteract the disincentive, or would incentivise some suppliers to import renewable energy from the continent, instead of generating it in Great Britain. I wonder how much work has been done to assess that, because I note that no impact assessment has been undertaken for the effects of this statutory instrument. I would like to know how the Government think that it will disincentivise that operation.
If we are looking at disincentivising the importing of electricity, we really need to look at the grid charging regime and not have the north of Scotland having the highest grid charges in Europe, because imports of electricity do not pay any grid charges. That is a glaring error that needs to be tackled.
I agree with the Minister that CfD has been a success story; I am quite happy to put that on the record, and to commend it, but as we move to allocation round 5, he is, I hope, aware that there are real costs and inflationary pressures, and there will be real issues with the strike rates that have been talked about for AR5. That needs to be reviewed. I will just make a plug for tidal stream energy: it should have a much bigger ringfenced pot.
Andrew Bowie
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test, made some good and sensible points on the SI and the policy. It is only right and proper that companies provide evidence that they are importing electricity. This SI was brought forward following extensive consultation with industry, and we expect companies to do the right thing. In terms of sustaining extra costs, those suppliers who have used the exemption will pay the scheme a cost in closer proportion to their market share. There are more suppliers who will benefit from this change than not. The change is considered to be very minor. The extra cost that the companies will pay will be minor, and we do not suspect that it will be in any way a disincentive for them to declare that they are importing energy.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun put on record that he considers CfD to be a success. I agree: it certainly has been a success. Indeed, we have only to look at my constituency and the number of wind turbines springing up off the coast of Aberdeenshire. On grid connections and the cost for electricity generation in Scotland, he knows that there is a trade-off, and that consumers in Scotland pay less as a result of the higher charges being placed on electricity generation. That is not to say that there are not issues that need to be addressed. I agree that there are, and we should look at them. I hear loud and clear his comments on tidal stream energy. In fact, I have been to see the exciting developments in Orkney, and I look forward to doing more on this.
Dr Whitehead
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He passed over my point about whether the suppliers will get a payout from the LCCC when the difference between the strike price and reference price is inverted from its normal position. If they will, how much will that come to?
Andrew Bowie
I am terribly sorry: I will have to write to the hon. Member on that point, but I will get an answer to him in the next couple of days, because it is important that it is answered.
I hope that I have given hon. Members the necessary assurances to approve the statutory instrument. As I said, the changes in these regulations will mean that a supplier in GB will pay a proportion of the CfD scheme cost that is closer to its market share; will remove the condition imposed on the British scheme by the European Commission; and will remove the incentive for GB suppliers to import EU-generated renewable electricity. They must be made now, ahead of the end of the scheme’s reporting period on 31 March, so that electricity suppliers and the scheme administrators can plan accordingly.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I realise that this is the big issue before Parliament today, so I shall focus on it.
Business rates are governed by a raft of secondary legislation that needs to be updated more or less annually to ensure that it reflects changes made to the rates retention scheme and to the structure of local government. The miscellaneous amendments in the draft regulations will ensure that for the forthcoming financial year, the retention scheme operates as intended and everyone receives the funding they expect.
The draft regulations make changes to four of the seven principal sets of regulations that govern the operation of the rates retention scheme. First, the Non-Domestic Rating (Transitional Protection Payments) Regulations 2013 provide for authorities to receive compensation where their business rates income is lower than it otherwise would be as a result of transitional measures put in place by Government. The draft regulations make a small change for 2023 and future years to ensure that the calculation ignores the newly introduced public lavatories relief, so that compensation is calculated and paid on the true cost of the transitional arrangements put in place following the revaluation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a tiny point to make. Do the draft regulations cover the whole of the UK, just England, or England with Wales?
Lee Rowley
I had to check, but it is England.
Secondly, the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013 provide for the day-to-day administration of the rates retention scheme. As part of those arrangements, the City of London is allowed to retain a small amount of business rates income outside the scheme in recognition of its low resident population and its limited ability to raise council tax income. The amount that the City is allowed to retain normally changes each year in line with the change to the business rates multiplier. In 2023, that multiplier is not changing, so the change before the Committee isolates the inflationary uplift and ensures that it is applied to the City offset. Without the change, the City would see no increase in the coming financial year.
Thirdly, the draft regulations make changes to the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013. Under the rates retention scheme, authorities may receive financial help if their business rates income declines. The cost of making the safety net payments is met in part by a levy on those authorities whose income is growing. The levy and safety net regulations set out in detail how such payments are to be calculated and make adjustments accordingly.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is being very good at giving way, and being fast and getting through the business as we all want to, but as a newly appointed freeman of the City of London, may I press him? I hope the measure does not mean that the City of London gets special privileges, does it?
Lee Rowley
It is an accommodation within the existing regulations, as I understand it, given that the City of London is incredibly atypical in having large service requirements but a very low residential population. There has to be an accommodation somewhere in the processes for the realities in the City of London to ensure that it can still support the services it needs to provide for those visiting, living and working within the City.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does the Minister have an estimate of the benefit to the City of London of the particular opt-out that it enjoys?
Lee Rowley
I do not have an estimate, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with it. The principle behind the change has been in place for a number of years. As a result of freezing the multiplier, we are simply seeking to ensure the continuation of the situation that would otherwise occur had we changed the multiplier.
The regulations make changes to the non-domestic rating regulations on the basis of distribution of the levy account. I said a moment ago that safety net payments made to authorities whose business rates income has declined are paid for in part by a levy on those who have experienced growth. All levy and safety net payments are made to or from a levy account. Any surplus on that account can at year end be repaid to local government or carried forward against future deficits. If it is repaid, it is distributed to authorities as set out in the basis of distribution regulations. The changes we are making to those regulations pick up the changes to the structure of local government. They also ensure that those authorities will receive a share of the £100 million surplus held in the levy account that the Government announced in the local government finance settlement that it would be redistributing back to local authorities this year.
Although the changes are relatively technical in intent, they make a number of critical changes to the administration of the business rates retention scheme. Without them, authorities would find themselves without the income from the rates retention scheme that they anticipate and according to which they have budgeted. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Hosie. Since we last addressed the topics outlined today, it seems little has changed to clarify how the policy will support local communities in the long run, particularly small and medium-sized businesses in our constituencies. High streets have been hit hard and are increasingly run-down, with hardworking business owners having to accept defeat in the face of impossible financial difficulties and short-sighted decisions made by this Government as they lurch from crisis to crisis.
While Labour has a clear plan to scrap business rates and bring in wide-reaching reforms to even out the playing field, we are still not clear what the Government are proposing. The threshold for rates relief for small businesses is still too low, at just £15,000, and online giants are still not paying their fair share of taxes, with a digital service tax not high on the agenda. How can we say to our communities that high street shops such as Marks & Spencer—known, valued local businesses—are paying more in tax than online giants such as Amazon? That is not levelling the playing field. It is ripping the guts and hearts out of our communities.
Will the Minister share any progress on implementing fair taxes for major online businesses? Will they finally be made to pay a proportionate amount back to this country in the way that our home-grown small and medium-sized enterprises do? The Minister knows well the pressures that local authorities are under. It is something we have both discussed and, at some points, locked horns on. They are working on shoestring budgets and with staffing shortages. The last thing councils need now is the administrative challenge of processing new rates without the extra resources to cope. Will the Minister confirm whether local authorities will receive extra resources to deal with the administrative burden?
In our last meeting on business rates, I made those concerns clear to the Minister. He responded by pledging to carry out new burdens assessments ahead of implementation. Can he advise me on whether the assessments have taken place? If so, would he be willing to share with the Committee and myself their findings?
Off the back of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, will the Minister please share the value of the opt-out for the City of London? The Minister also said that, if it was decided, additional support that might be needed would be provided to councils. Has any support been allocated since we last discussed the issue? As we stated in the last such session, we will not oppose the regulations, but this time we want assurances that appropriate assessments are being carried out to ensure that the strain on councils does not grow even greater and that those that need the support will get it.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, which I will try to answer in a number of buckets.
I accept that the Government and the Opposition have a different views about how to approach business rates, and I recognise that we will not resolve that this evening, but we are trying to ensure that there are regular revaluations. We committed to that, and the Prime Minister—the former Chancellor and Minister for Local Government—has highlighted in his various guises the importance of regular revaluation. I think that is genuinely welcome, and it is important that we do that.
As a result of the changes that have been made, a multi-billion pound support package is coming that will provide significant support to businesses across the country—in particular for businesses such as pubs. It is important to highlight that we need to continue the business rate system. Labour Members talk extensively about how it does not work, but less about what they would replace it with, beyond the high level. We must ensure that the system is updated, that it has a significant amount of support within it, and that it works for the long run.
The hon. Lady talked about online businesses. That is obviously a challenging issue to get right, but I gently note that as part of the revaluation, there will be a significant uplift in business rate costs for some manifestations of online businesses—warehouses and the like—so I hope that the Opposition will welcome that.
On resources, it is important to note that part of one of the four changes in the thing we are actually voting on—we obviously talk about broader issues relating to business rates regularly—a significant amount of money is being redistributed to local authorities. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for confirming that she will not press these regulations to a vote. Where money is in the system—in the levy account—and is not needed because we think we can accommodate the coming year and beyond without having to retain it, we are giving it back to local authorities, which understand better what to do with it.
On new burdens funding and the City of London, I am happy to write to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent with more information after the Committee. I am grateful for the Opposition’s confirmation that they will not oppose the regulations and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cabinet Office
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Johnny Mercer
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury asked a very good question about Northern Ireland—to which I do not know the answer, I am afraid. I will write to him with the details. The draft order has been agreed across the devolved authorities—it is important to make that clear. Elected representatives in Northern Ireland are happy that this is covered and the same effects are achieved, but to ensure that I get the answer right, I will write to him about the specific levers used in Northern Ireland to achieve the same outcome.
[Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 January 2023, Vol. 726, c. 8.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer):
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Johnny Mercer
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury asked a very good question about Northern Ireland—to which I do not know the answer, I am afraid. I will write to him with the details. The draft order has been agreed across the devolved authorities—it is important to make that clear. The Northern Ireland devolved Administration were consulted and are content for the UK Government to make this legislative change for the whole UK, but to ensure that I get the answer right, I will write to him about the specific levers used in Northern Ireland to achieve the same outcome.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Open Season for Woodcock
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 619615, relating to the open season for woodcock.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. Mark Avery, Chris Packham and Ruth Tingay from Wild Justice want the opening of the woodcock shooting season to be formally pushed back to 1 December each year. The current season is 1 October to 31 January, and the season in Scotland starts on 1 September. Wild Justice wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Northern Ireland authorities in March but is yet to receive a substantive response. The petition has received 107,916 signatures, including 76 from the Stoke-on-Trent North constituency, which demonstrates its considerable support across our United Kingdom.
There is no doubt that the resident British woodcock population is not doing well. The Staffordshire Wildlife Trust does great work in my constituency and is dedicated to protecting some of our most beautiful natural wildlife. Woodcock is the only species of wading bird in Britain and Ireland that is adapted to breed in woodland areas. The British Trust for Ornithology, or BTO, describes it as a “superbly camouflaged” bird with a habit of remaining motionless unless approached at very close quarters. There are two distinct populations of woodcocks in the United Kingdom: a smaller breeding population that is resident all year round and a much large overwintering population that arrives in the UK from November onwards.
I have held meetings with those on both sides of this debate to ensure that I make balanced and considered points on the matter. I was glad to meet with Mark, Chris and Ruth from Wild Justice, who started the petition. In addition, I spoke with Jeff Knott from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Both organisations support the measure that the petitioners want the Government to introduce.
I also spoke with Andrew Hoodless and Roger Draycott from the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, or GWCT, who argue that the ban is arbitrary and that the decline in the woodcock population is a result of bad habitats for woodcock and the deer population. Those views are shared by Jak Abrahams from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and by Tim Bonner from the Countryside Alliance. They believe that parliamentary time would be better spent on debating and scrutinising the Government’s approach to resident deer population management or the proper management of the countryside, so that we can best protect British and Irish woodcocks.
In 2015, the native woodcock was put on the Great Britain red list, highlighting its decline. Wild Justice is determined for the Secretary of State to introduce statutory measures to reduce the shooting season specifically for woodcocks. The woodcock is a magnificent species and a true symbol of the Great British countryside. As the Member in charge of the debate, I look forward to setting out the complex and nuanced arguments surrounding the length of the season and how best to protect the woodcock. Let me be clear: there is no doubt that the native British and Irish woodcock is in decline. The first breeding woodcock survey was undertaken in 2003 and estimated a breeding population of 78,000 pairs in Britain. A survey conducted a decade later, in 2013, found that there were only 55,000 pairs in the UK—a significant decline of 29%.
I will press on and highlight the arguments for and against the motion. I will start by setting out the arguments made by Wild Justice and the RSPB. Wild Justice states that it uses the legal system to get a better deal for UK wildlife, challenge Government decisions in the courts, and campaign for better and stronger laws and policies. With the native woodcock breeding population in sharp decline, Wild Justice suggests that the shooting season should be reduced by pushing the start date back. That would not end the shooting season but simply change when it starts. It is vital to stress that Wild Justice is not looking for an outright ban on shooting woodcocks, but is focused on shortening the shooting season to better protect the native woodcock population.
Despite figures that suggest that the native population has declined drastically, the pro-shooting Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust estimates that 160,000 woodcocks are shot in the United Kingdom each year. At present, the shooting season commences on 1 October in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and 1 September in Scotland, carrying on until 31 January. Wild Justice’s suggestion to push the start date back to 1 December would reduce the number of native woodcocks being shot and therefore help to reverse the tragic decline in one of Britain’s most recognisable birds. Wild Justice argues that the current shooting season dates compromise the native British and Irish population of woodcocks, because until December there is little to no migration of winter visitors from continental Europe and Asia. There is no difference in appearance between a woodcock from a forest in Britain and a woodcock from a forest in Siberia. As a result, the proportion of British and Irish woodcocks being shot is far more significant until the winter migration takes place later in the season.
Therefore, the petition put forward to us today seeks to get the Secretary of State to exercise their power to vary the close season for the woodcock. Wild Justice and the 107,000 signatories to the petition argue that that would drastically help our native birds. Importantly, it would not require primary legislation. In Great Britain, the Secretary of State has the power to vary the close season for woodcock. Similarly, in Northern Ireland the Minister has the same power to vary the close season for woodcocks there.
While conducting research for this important debate, I met Jeff from the RSPB, as I said. He argued that the concept of voluntary restraint, which the shooting lobby uses as an ostensible rationale for protection of the current season, is highly ineffective. Voluntary restraint is used by some shooting organisations to protect this majestic bird. Rather than requiring statutory measures to protect woodcocks, organisations regulate themselves and either completely prohibit shooting woodcocks or follow the guidance laid out by Wild Justice. Jeff discussed a joint statement from February 2020 in which nine shooting organisations called for a voluntary phase-out of the use of lead in ammunition within five years. Despite there being ostensible support for the statement, the SHOT-SWITCH research project showed that by 2022, 99.5% of pheasants for human consumption that were bought from retailers across the UK and from which shotgun pellets could be recovered had been killed using lead ammunition.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is doing a very good job of being fair and putting the argument across. The first thing to say is that the plural of woodcock is woodcock; there is no s. I am sorry to be pedantic, but I just thought it might be helpful. Secondly, the voluntary ban on using lead shot has not been completed yet, so it is inevitable that some lead will still be used.
Jonathan Gullis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting my spelling, punctuation and grammar—it is always good, as a teacher, to be clued up on these things, and I have shown that I need to go back to school quite urgently.
I also want to put across the point made to me: actually, we would have expected a much sharper decline in the use of lead shot. Although the RSPB will accept that, to a certain extent, because of covid and lockdown there will obviously be lead shot that still needs to be got rid of—that process will have slowed down—the reality is that it would still have expected a much more drastic reduction than the 0.5% that we have seen. It would argue that the point proves that voluntary restraint is not actually being taken very seriously by those participating. That is why the concern for the woodcock is shared by Wild Justice, which would argue that despite the informal agreement, it has not been carried forward. In fact, in the Shooting Times there has been open bragging about the shooting of woodcock outside of the agreed season, which would lean into this idea that there is currently mistrust in the system, sadly.
The RSPB argues that the lead ammunition survey makes it clear that voluntary restraint is ineffective on this issue and therefore statutory measures must be enforced to protect the woodcock. In addition to the lead ammunition survey, another indicator of the shooting communities’ reluctance to co-operate in voluntary restraint is the article in the Shooting Times, dated 25 January 2023. It clearly celebrates hunters celebrating the woodcock that they have shot in mid-November. Woodcock shooting days are even now advertised online for dates before December. That suggests that there is compelling evidence that woodcock shooting is not voluntarily withheld until December. For the RSPB, it shows that there is a partial or incomplete understanding of when the appropriate time to shoot is.
This is an important point of discussion, as we have already seen. One of the key arguments against a ban, made by those who support shooting, is that the principle of voluntary restraint means that any statutory ban is unnecessary. However, as the lead ammunition survey shows, there is little evidence to suggest that shooting organisations keep to their promises and restrain themselves from shooting woodcock.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that there is an all-party parliamentary group on lead ammunition, which I co-chair; he would be very welcome to join that group to pursue that angle.
On whether a voluntary approach is good enough, if the shooting organisations accept that there should not be shooting out of season, surely the underlying principle that shooting woodcock before 1 December is wrong has been established, so I do not understand what their objection would be if it were outlawed. I have not expressed that very coherently, but if they have accepted that it is wrong, I do not understand why they feel that it should be allowed to go ahead if people feel like it.
Jonathan Gullis
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her fine work in the APPG on lead ammunition. She hits the nail on the head when it comes to Mark, Chris and Ruth’s viewpoint: ultimately, there is already an voluntary agreement in place, which is agreed by all parties, so why would there be any objection to statutory enforcement of the shooting season?
Ultimately, everyone agrees that the woodcock needs to be removed from the red list and that we need to see population growth come back, especially as we are working towards rewilding, improving our nature and landscape, and making sure that we look after British species and see them repopulate. Ultimately, there is a win for everyone in this regard, and I completely concur with the hon. Lady. To me, her argument seems reasonable. As someone who is not a shooter, who represents an urban constituency and who did not know about woodcock until I volunteered to take on this debate, it seems like plain common sense. That is my personal opinion, but I want to make sure that I outline the opposition to the petition, because I am grateful to those who were willing to give their time to argue against it, but who obviously do not have the privilege of standing here today.
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the GWCT and the Countryside Alliance argue that climate change, natural habitats and deer population are the main reasons for the decline in woodcock. The British Trust for Ornithology largely agrees with that interpretation, saying that
“reasons for the decline are unclear but may include recreational disturbance, drying out of woodlands, increased browsing by deer, declining woodland management, and maturing of new plantations.”
To the shooting organisations, this means that it is highly unlikely that a statutory change will make any real difference.
The BASC argues that there is no evidence that shooting is responsible for either breeding range or population declines, and it refutes Wild Justice’s notion that shooting is the primary factor in the woodcock population’s struggle. The BASC argues that Wild Justice is wrong to claim that around 160,000 woodcock are shot each year. It says that that figure is based on the Value of Shooting survey from 2014, reflecting a bag estimate from 2012, and that, rather than focusing on Wild Justice’s figure, we should look to the 2022 Value of Shooting survey, due to be published later this year. All indicators point to a significantly lower figure almost a decade on, and all the evidence suggests that the vast majority of these birds come from the over-wintering migrant population, which is healthy and not threatened.
Of course, we must also consider voluntary restraint from the perspective of those who endorse it. Most shooters already act responsibly and do not start shooting woodcock until later in the season, when more birds have migrated from the continent, which helps to protect the vulnerable UK population. Additionally, many shoots explicitly forbid the shooting of woodcock, as they are aware of the vulnerability of the UK breeding population. Although there are examples of voluntary restraint not being followed, pro-shooting organisations argue that there is a minuscule number of breaches of the rules, which we must weigh up when coming to conclusions on this issue.
It is important to stress that shooters argue robustly that they have deep respect for the magnificent species that we are discussing today, and shooters provide invaluable conservation work in the form of research and improvements to the habitat for both migratory and resident woodcock all over the UK. I represent 676 members of the BASC, and I have no doubt that they are dedicated to preserving this bird. Their argument is simple: to best protect woodcock, it is more beneficial to address environmental problems. Furthermore, the GWCT points out that a statutory change to the woodcock shooting season fails to consider geographical nuances—for example, there are no native woodcock in the south-west and Wales. Therefore, should a woodcock be shot in one of those areas in mid-November, it would almost certainly be a foreign bird, especially given that native woodcock typically stay within a 30-mile radius throughout the year.
I have held discussions with Andrew Hoodless from the GWCT, who believes that Wild Justice’s focus on shooting risks taking the focus away from the real issues facing our native breeding woodcock and could disincentivise the active management of woodlands, which is what woodcock actually need. The GWCT argues strongly that Wild Justice has failed to consider some of the nuances involved in the debate on this subject; it believes that it would be more appropriate to consider a change to the shooting season when the results of the national breeding woodcock survey—to be repeated in 2023, 10 years after the last survey—are known.
The GWCT argues that to address breeding woodcock decline, a change to the shooting season should be considered as part of a package of measures, including targeted woodland management incentives, which would also benefit certain other declining woodland birds and butterflies. The argument is that Wild Justice is missing the point through its failure to properly acknowledge the significant impact of the change in habitat and that it is using shooting to score political points. Wild Justice has stated that it would like to see an outright ban on woodcock shooting, and pro-shooting organisations have argued that it is using the current proposed change to the start of the season as a test of the Government’s commitment to wildlife conservation.
The Countryside Alliance argues that the primary reasons for the decline in woodcock include the maturing of conifer plantations and changes to management practices, such as coppicing, which means there is a reduced, less diverse shrub layer and a loss of open space for woodcock to breed in. One of the Countryside Alliance’s main arguments centres on the need to dedicate focus on local deer populations. It points to a study that vividly illustrates the demonstrable impact that browsing by deer can have in the habitat that woodcock live in. The Countryside Alliance feels that parliamentary time would be best suited to debating sustainable deer management or the impact that habitat degradation has on the native woodcock population and wider biodiversity.
Lastly, I will outline the importance that shooting has to the economy of our United Kingdom. Research from shooting organisations suggests that shooting contributes £2.4 billion to the UK economy. Crucially, people who shoot contribute around 3.9 million working days on conservation every year. It is game shoots on farms and estates that create the revenue and the reason to invest in creating and caring for the biodiverse habitats that benefit woodcock and many other species. That would not be the case if the land was used for commercial farming. The combination of managed woodland, predator control and biodiverse habitats is the secret to a healthy woodcock population, not the changing of the shooting season.
It has been immensely interesting to hear other points of view, and it will be fantastic to see colleagues in the Chamber representing different perspectives. I appreciate Members’ willingness to contribute to this timely debate. Before I conclude, I will quickly offer my own view on the matter. Given that there is already pre-agreement between those who shoot and those, such as Wild Justice, who want to see conservation work, I do not see why we cannot come to a statutory agreement that the shooting season should take place from 1 December. When a bird is placed on the red list and is in decline, it is the responsibility of UK law makers to ensure we protect and preserve those animals, allowing them to repopulate as quickly as possible. Then, when the bird is moved off the red list, we can have an open conversation about whether to change the shooting season back to the current informal agreement.
The preservation of our wildlife is really important to my constituents. Although my constituency is in a city, it is one of the greenest cities in the United Kingdom, and I am proud to represent it. I hope that I have done justice to the petitioners in putting their views across, as well as being fair and balanced to the other side. I look forward to hearing what colleagues have to say.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline. I thank the Petitions Committee for this debate and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for outlining the arguments around this issue so eloquently. Those who regularly attend debates on nature and the climate emergency will know that, like many in my constituency, I am a great supporter of our environment and protecting species in decline. Although I am a biomedical scientist, I am intrigued and fascinated by all life, and recognise the value that our natural world offers in so many ways.
We are here to talk about woodcock. I am here to lend my support to the petition, which 370 of my constituents signed. I thank the campaigners, including Wild Justice and others, for raising awareness of the issue and helping to bring this matter forward for debate. While the migratory population of woodcock is not declining, the native population has reduced by a horrifying 19% in the last 10 years, and by 29% since the 1970s. We should see those figures in the context of the large-scale species decline that is characterising the twin nature and climate emergencies. Last year, Living Planet reported that global animal populations experienced an average decline of nearly 70% in the last 50 years. The woodcock in the UK is clearly at the sharp end of that global trend and, as the “State of Nature Report 2019” highlights, 41% of species in the UK have reduced in number since the 1970s. Since the year 1500, 133 species have vanished altogether. We should be doing all we can to ensure the woodcock does not join them.
That means taking measures such as moving the open season for woodcock to December to reduce the number of native birds that are shot, as outlined in the petition. It also means proactive approaches and measures to protect and extend the habitats that support the species. As the name suggests, the woodcock inhabits woodland, so it is vital that we do all we can to revitalise these habits. By the end of this Parliament, the Government have set themselves a target of planting 30,000 hectares of woodland per year. In 2021, they managed to plant 13,400 trees. Last year, that number grew by only 400 trees to 13,800. If the current trend continues, we will obviously not reach the target. I ask the Minister: what are the Government doing to increase that figure so that they meet their target?
To meet the target, we will need to increase capacity in our domestic nurseries, but capacity and tree-planting expertise has reduced in the UK. What are the Government doing not only to support and grow domestic tree nurseries, but to ensure that we have the skills and expertise to staff them? Although we are debating nature, the reduction in woodcock numbers and species across the UK and the globe are not natural. To reverse the decline, we need changes in regulation and the law, but we also need investment in green infrastructure in the UK. In the case of the woodcock, that is needed, especially in our woodlands. Part of the measure of our success in revitalising these habitats will be in the return of the species. In 10 years’ time, I hope that we will look back and see a huge growth in our domestic woodcock population but, for that to happen, we will need measures such as those outlined in the petition and serious investment in the necessary skills and infrastructure to protect and grow our woodland. That is what we need from Government.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for introducing the debate in such a balanced way. I am probably to blame for one of the reasons why we are here. Some years ago, I mentioned the petitions system in Estonia to David Cameron; if a certain proportion of the population signed a petition, it would be debated in Parliament. I am pleased that the suggestion to David Cameron, who was Leader of the Opposition at the time, has resulted in these sorts of petitions coming forward.
I put on record the fact that I am a trustee of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, which is ably chaired by our former colleague, Sir Jim Paice. The trust carries out much-needed research in these areas to ensure that, when decisions are made by politicians and land managers, they are based on sound scientific research. Indeed, it publishes the results of its research, whether or not it benefits its objectives.
There is a lot of talk about the changes to the way in which we manage our countryside, with the environmental land management scheme, rewilding, tree planting and general conservation being front and centre of Government policy. Of course, where shooting takes place, that has been happening for generations and that has had positive knock-on effects for ecology. Two-thirds of my constituency is covered by moorland, where it is not only the grouse that thrives, but the lapwing, the curlew and the golden plover. That is because of the management of that grouse moorland, including the burning and the predator control, which means not only that the game species can thrive, but the other species that need that environment thrive too. Many of those arguments apply to the woodcock. There is a situation unfolding in my patch: one of the landowners wants to plant some woodland but, because the adjacent moorland is not shot or game-keepered, Natural England is worried that the predators in that woodland, such as foxes, will go on to the moor and deplete some of the important ground-nesting species that we all want to see.
We have heard that there are two populations of the woodcock: resident and migratory. There has been some talk about the red list. The woodcock is on the international red list as a species of least concern with a stable population trend, in the same category as the blackbird, although the resident population is under much more pressure. Around 1.4 million migrants arrive each year, on a mean date of 10 November, and they leave in March. The resident population is much smaller; there are about 55,000 males in the spring—by the way, we count the males because they display in the spring, so they are easier to spot than the females—which results in a population of about 180,000 in the autumn.
The native woodcock was rare or absent in the UK until the mid-19th century. It nests in woodlands, and those habitats were previously not there. It was because of lowland tree planting, some of which was meant to encourage game, that the birds started to build here. In the 20th century, the planting of very large areas of conifers by the Forestry Commission and others resulted in the population increasing.
Now that population is declining, and a number of factors are behind that. First, we cannot avoid the effect of global warming on the species. The western limit of the woodcock which is here in the UK is moving to the north and east. In fact, in Devon and Cornwall, the woodcock is very rare. Unfortunately, global warming is having an effect. Secondly, those conifer plantations which, when planted, were superb environments for the woodcock, are now maturing, and there is very little opportunity for them to breed there. Thirdly, we have woodland degradation by deer, which is not conducive to woodcock breeding. We also have predation from raptors and other predators, with some birds of prey in particular—I saw 14 buzzards in the sky in one place last summer. It is great news that we are getting more birds of prey, but they do predate on some of these ground-nesting species.
Our shooting season is between 1 October and 31 January in England and Wales. As suggested by many of the shooting organisations, there is a voluntary delay until November, with which there are very high levels of compliance. We have heard some figures bandied about, but figures from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation show that there is 97%-plus compliance. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North that the figures on the numbers of birds shot that have been bandied about are based on 2012 shooting figures, which were published in 2014. I think it is important to wait until we see the 2022 figures, which will be published this year.
The proposal in the petition will have little effect on the resident population, as only around 2% of birds that are shot are not migratory. Sustainable levels of shooting and the voluntary delay of shooting are the way forward, at least until we have more data. Instead, to encourage more woodcock, we can continue active habitat management —part of the changes in the way we support farmers will help that—and, in particular, look at more open woodland. Secondly, we need better predator control: foxes, mustelids, such as stoats, and feral cats are predating on our native species. We would also like to see more game being eaten, in particular venison, as some of the habitat degradation is the effect of unprecedently high numbers of deer in our country. I have not eaten woodcock myself, but it has a high reputation. The more shooting farms and estates we have, the more land managers will be engaged in the conservation work we need to rebuild our native woodcock population.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What a pleasure it is to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for setting the scene so well and in such a balanced way. I think his understanding of the subject will have been enhanced by his work looking into it.
It is well known that I am a country sports enthusiast, and within the heart of that title is the need to be a conservationist. Those two things, in my opinion, are mutually supportive. I want to focus on that in the short time that I have. I declare an interest as a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, Countryside Alliance Ireland, Sport Ireland and the Ulster Farmers Union, and as a landowner. I mention all those things because I am involved with them and I want to do that for a purpose.
On my farm, where we have planted some 3,500 trees, we have created the very habitat that woodcocks—indeed all birds, including pheasants, pigeons and songbirds—want. The yellowhammer, which was at its lowest numbers ever, now has a place on our farm and all the farms around us—in Calvert’s farm, in Rosemount and in Ballywalter. The landowners—all those who shoot, by the way—have made it their job to create a habitat that helps the birds to thrive.
On my early walk on Sunday morning, I saw more songbirds than I have ever seen—it was one of the most phenomenal sights that I have seen for a long time. It tells me that those involved in conservation and those who contribute to conservation are creating the very habitat that we want to see. Shooting contributes some £2.4 billion to the UK economy per annum, and people who shoot contribute 3.9 million workdays on conservation every year—the equivalent of 16,000 full-time conservation jobs. Some of those funds and conservation days are put towards the management of land for woodcock, as we and my neighbours do. I agree with the Countryside Alliance and the BASC, which have highlighted that, without the financial incentive, shoot owners and managers would not contribute to the management of their habitat, which would fuel fears that the native population would drop.
I have many friends in the constituency who go woodcock shooting every Saturday during the season—not every Saturday, but whenever winter comes in, because there is no sense in doing it otherwise. They start in December. They do that because that is what they do. When they come back, I always ask how they got on. They tell me, “We put up maybe 20 or 25 woodcock today and we shot one,” or “We shot five.” They are good shots, by the way—it is not that they are bad shots—but the habitat by its very nature is usually very compact, and therefore the birds are fast, and the nature of the terrain means that they get only a glimpse of a bird and then it is away. They exercise control. Let us give some credit to them. Let us be honest: we do not need a petition to tell us what to do. We can do those things already, we can make those contributions and we are doing that.
The global population of woodcock—some 10 million to 26 million—is stable. The UK hosts 1.4 million winter migrants, according to the RSPB and the British Trust for Ornithology, and peak arrival is during November and departure in late March. Data indicates that the winter migrant population is increasing, so there are more woodcock coming to the country than there has ever been. Woodcock were rare or absent as breeding birds until the mid-19th century—fact. They were never here in those numbers as breeding birds until then. Extensive planting of, first, lowland coverts and then, in the 20th century, conifer plantations led to an increase in numbers. Conservationists, landowners and farmers have created the very habitat that encourages woodcock. We should give credit to those who have done that.
There is currently a resident British population of 55,000 male woodcock in spring, which means about 180,000 individuals in autumn. The UK breeding population is estimated to have declined by 29% in 10 years. I will say what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said in the second part of his speech—others will say this as well, but it is very important to put it on record—the reasons for the decline include the maturing of the conifer plantations and changes to management practices such as coppicing, which means that there is a reduced, less-diverse shrub layer and the loss of open space for woodcock to breed in. The overpopulation of deer and changes in forestry habits have also contributed.
For obvious reasons, woodcock have traditionally been shot after the main body of migrants arrive. There is now—this is not something we have been told to do, because we already do it—voluntary restraint in place: woodcock are not to be shot before 1 December. There is no evidence of any significant harvest of birds before that date and no evidence that shooting is the cause of the decline in the resident population. Given that shooting does not take place to any significant degree before 1 December and that the current harvest of migrant woodcock is clearly sustainable, there is no need for regulatory change. Many shoots across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland already have a policy. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), who spoke before me, said it. I am aware of it because many shoots give the rules before the day begins. The rules are pheasants, no lowland game and no woodcock. They already do that. It is important that the sporting and shooting groups recognise the importance of woodcock, and exercise control and protection. Perhaps the RSPB and the British Trust for Ornithology should take note.
Extensive research into this area has been carried out by the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust. Their ongoing research includes a study on the habitat for breeding woodcock. In England and Wales, the open season for woodcock, during which it is lawful to shoot them, is from 1 October to 31 January. The GWCT research highlights the fact that the main reason for their decline is a change in their habitat. I put this on record because it is important: there are numerous reasons for that change. The maturity of the aforementioned planted woodland is seen as the largest contributor. Rising deer numbers are also a concern due to their excessive browsing of vegetation, young shrubs and sapling trees, and their disturbance of woodcock and their habitat areas. That is increasing the fragmentation of woodlands, as well as changing the UK woodland structure.
With respect, there is no evidence that shooting has had a detrimental impact on the woodcock population, or that changes to the existing season are necessary. I fully support what the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance have called for: continued support for a voluntary restraint for woodcock not to be shot before 1 December, with no demonstrated need for a regulatory change. We do not need to change it if everyone involved is already contributing to that policy. However, I also call for further research into woodcock populations and solutions to habitat loss to support and increase the native breeding population.
To conclude, our woodcock are a treasure. Proper management can, and should be, done inclusively with the country sports enthusiasts—the BASC, the Countryside Alliance, those at the Country Land and Business Association, landowners, and those who have a love for the birds and their habitat. At the same time, is there anything wrong with harvesting a few to eat? I have had a few of them over my years. They are quite juicy; I have enjoyed them. I would say I would rather have a pigeon, but that is by the way; woodcock are a bird of some taste. I ask the Minister to consider very seriously the best way forward to replenish and restore the numbers.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. It is important for me to start with some constituency context. I represent a constituency in north-west London, which is probably best known for being a suburban area. However, we have more than 80 farms. We have a number of important habitats, in particular for bird life, in Mad Bess woods and Ruislip woods. We have a significant number of members of both the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the RSPB. We are also home to the well-known Holland & Holland shooting ground, which is used regularly by people who enjoy clay pigeon shooting and who perhaps go on to practise shooting birds.
I have had the opportunity to enjoy both the hospitality of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation, and I have read the helpful and regular briefings that have come from the RSPB and other interested organisations over the years. It seems that this is an important debate that goes to the heart of many of the issues that Parliament, and us as Members of Parliament, need to consider. We are looking at not just the issues faced by the woodcock population in the United Kingdom, but the many other issues that affect the relationship between humans and animals in so many different ways.
I was a member of the RSPB’s Young Ornithologist Club many years ago. I want to place on the record my thanks in particular to the noble Lord Randall, who has a huge interest in bird life and has been an influence on my thinking on the matter. When we look at the various briefings that Members of Parliament have received on the issue, and at the views set out in the petition itself, it seems there are a number of issues we need to consider.
It is clear that climate change is having a significant impact on the breeding habitats of wild birds around the world, especially migratory species. We need to consider what responsibilities our Government have. We need to consider not just what we can do here in the United Kingdom, but what influence we can bring to bear in international forums to try to secure and improve the provision of those habitats, so that both migratory birds and birds domestic to the United Kingdom can thrive.
I was very struck by the briefing from the Countryside Alliance, which set out a great deal of the history, much of which has already been mentioned by other Members. It highlighted that the habitats that are so important for our woodcock population in the United Kingdom largely derive from environments that were created specifically, over the years, by those wishing to create an environment suitable for pheasant shooting.
That has been a consistent issue in the debates relating to any proposed restrictions on the shooting of animals in the United Kingdom. Personally, I have never shot a living creature for fun, but I am quite happy to eat game that has been shot. However, a consistent theme that has arisen through all those debates is that there is a balance between those who manage environments that are crucial for species—but are doing so because of farming, or, in this case, shooting for pleasure—and the need to restrict behaviour that goes against the law or has a long-term negative impact on the wellbeing of those species.
What I found striking in that Countryside Alliance briefing was the evidence that the shooting of animals—with the income derived from that, and the management of those habitats as a result—has been of long-term benefit to the species that we are talking about today, and those that we have debated in previous discussions, in response to previous petitions and wider-spread public concern. So, while I completely understand the views of a good many of my constituents, who have been most persuaded by the views of the RSPB, it seems that we need, at a governmental level, to balance that with the overall environmental and wildlife impact that any further restrictions will introduce.
As a consequence, it seems to me that, when we do balance those two things—I very much agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the evidence so far shows that the voluntary actions that have been undertaken have been beneficial—that is an appropriate first step for those of us who have concerns about ensuring that the issue is addressed in the long term.
This is a matter that Government clearly need to keep an eye on. However, while the Government might respond with further regulation, some of which may well be appropriate, the work done with different organisations on moving from lead to steel shot shows how co-operation can produce a much better outcome in animal and environmental welfare than the alternative of seeking regulation that perhaps does not fully consider the impact, particularly on the incomes that support that wildlife and habitat management. We must therefore maintain that sense of co-operation.
That being the case, I am not convinced by the evidence that has been presented that further regulation is justified at this time, nor am I convinced that it would be beneficial for the animal species—woodcock and other creatures—that are part of this overall both economic and wildlife ecosystem. Therefore, I very much agree that, as the hon. Member for Strangford outlined, we should continue to monitor this, but that the status quo represents an appropriate balance between the interests of birds, of the economy, and of people who wish to enjoy shooting as part of their day-to-day lives in our countryside.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) put the arguments extremely well. He was very fair, honest and open, and I thought that was helpful. I must just draw the attention of Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am very fond of woodcock. They are the only birds with binocular vision, which means that when they fly, they can see where they are going, which is why they have an extraordinary flight pattern, particularly in the evening as the light fades.
I am delighted that Wild Justice is accepting the value of shooting in conservation, but I did think that it was not terribly happy with the law on raptor control. Therefore, I am not sure that bringing in more laws will necessarily make it any happier.
Of the 1.6 million woodcock that arrive in the UK, 10% are shot. Most of those must be migrant woodcock. Why, therefore, is the wild population in the rest of the world not declining? I did a bit of maths, and I hope the House will forgive me if I get it wrong, but according to the statistics for this debate, there are 55,000 male woodcock in the UK in the spring. That means there are probably 55,000 female woodcock in the UK in the spring. Woodcock lay about four eggs, which means about 220,000 eggs, of which two thirds are likely to hatch, which is 145,000 woodcock chicks hatching in the UK every year from the current population. Yet only 18,000 of these get shot.
If people are worried about woodcock—I am sure that many of those listening to this debate are, because they are beautiful birds—then what has happened to the rest of those chicks? The answer must be that the problem is not shooting; the problem is habitat, and it always will be with these particularly wonderful birds. Someone who goes for a walk in the countryside will probably not see one, because their camouflage is fantastic. On the other hand, if they take their dog with them, their chances of seeing woodcock go up dramatically—which is why I suspect that those wandering around the countryside are perhaps unwittingly doing far more damage to the 145,000 woodcock chicks that never make it to adulthood, seemingly.
If both sides of the argument agree that woodcock are special and should not really be shot until mid-November or the beginning of December, why do we need to legislate? We need to legislate when things go wrong, not when things are going right, and I think that—by and large—people have not thought about what punishment they would like to see for somebody who shoots a woodcock at the end of November.
At the moment, someone who shoots a raptor can spend up to five years in prison—the law is extremely tough in that respect. I do not believe for one second that Wild Justice is suggesting the same for woodcock; I think what it wants is to put as much pressure as possible on the shooting community. This is a community that is more regulated than anybody else, and rightly so: those with guns have to fulfil the criteria necessary to be allowed to have those weapons. It is a rare privilege, but it is also heavily licensed; however, what we are seeing here is just another way of attacking it.
I urge the House not to change the law on any of this. However, if the Government are minded to do so, let us have some proper changes. Let us have a longer shooting season for pheasants, which are not endangered at all. Let us have a longer period for catching up after the shooting season. Let us allow shooting on a Sunday. Let us stop people roaming around when there is shooting going on. Most of all, let us have a 10-year shotgun certificate, because now we are looking at people’s medical history and GPs have to check people’s mental health. So much progress has been made on protecting the public. Bringing people back to pay again and again wastes police time, costs a lot and is completely unnecessary. If we are going to change the laws on shooting season, then let us have a proper debate and change all the laws that need altering.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I will not take too much time, because repetition—as I was reminded when Timmy Mallett joined me at a charity event in my constituency yesterday—can bring that famous foam hammer down on one’s head.
The point I really want to make—which builds on the arguments made by my hon. Friends the Members for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—is to ask: why? Why do we need to legislate for something that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire has just said, is not actually a problem?
The shooting community shoots up and down the land. I fully accept that there are one or two irresponsible shoots, which we need to clamp down—the sort of shoots that bury the birds afterwards, rather than putting them into the food chain. However, the vast majority of shoots are entirely responsible and entirely focused on, yes, shooting the birds and getting them into the food chain, and more than anything else they are focused on conservation: looking after our countryside and ensuring that these habitats are there, not just for woodcock but for every species we could care to imagine.
That is clear from the statistics already quoted this afternoon. As it is, and with a very high rate of compliance, shoots up and down the country are not shooting woodcock until after 1 December. With an ever-expanding statute book in the United Kingdom, I put it to hon. and right hon. Members that there is no good reason to add to it yet further. Shooting in the United Kingdom, as has already been said, provides a massive net benefit to our economy and many thousands of jobs. As is clearly evidenced by the Aim to Sustain coalition, which involves the BASC, the Countryside Alliance, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and many more, the shooting community is involved in a voluntary transition from lead to steel shot. Indeed, many game dealers will not take meat from shoots that do not have British Game Assurance accreditation, which requires that birds by shot with steel, not lead.
This voluntary transition is leading to much sounder and more sustainable shooting in the United Kingdom. The longer that transition is left as voluntary—I stress the word “voluntary”—then the future benefits of shooting will be all the greater, not just to the economy but to getting more game meat into the food chain. I should say in passing that it is sometimes overlooked and forgotten that game meat is often healthier and a better protein than many of the meats we all buy from supermarket shelves. More people should be encouraged to eat game; I am encouraged by BGA’s success in getting more game meat served on national health service hospital wards, providing healthy protein.
We must ask ourselves this question: what good would it do to put another piece of legislation on the statute book? What would it achieve? Would it change anything on the ground? The answer can only be no. As others have said, between 1.4 million and 1.6 million woodcock migrate to the United Kingdom annually. The International Union for Conservation of Nature red list clearly lists the woodcock as a species of least concern, with a stable global population trend. This is not a bird that is about to die out or on the precipice of extinction; shoots and famers up and down the land look after the habitats that sustain all these species which we care so much about.
While the petition looks at specific dates around the shooting season, there is no question but that there are those out there who want to stop shooting altogether. They want to stop the British public shooting game and, more importantly, eating that healthy, nutritious source of food. But there is a reality that underpins that mission, and it is fantasy-land politics to believe that, if it were successful and we no longer shot and ate game, that would suddenly lead to a massive growth in the woodcock population or any other species—that somehow deer will neatly pat down the soil around newly planted saplings, or that predatory birds would bring down tasty worms and gift them to the woodcock.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Does my hon. Friend agree that even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds understands the importance of predator control? In 2018, it controlled 598 foxes and 800 crows, and it also controls barnacle geese and Canada geese to protect terns and avocets, so it understands the importance of managing the countryside in the way that gamekeepers have done for generations.
Greg Smith
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend; he is spot on. The deer population in Buckinghamshire is now completely out of control, and damaging farmland, habitats and the safety of biodiversity across the county, left, right and centre. Of course, foxes and other predatory animals do enormous damage to our wildlife.
That is the point I was building up to. These factors are so much more important in the decline of the native species. If we take shoots and people interested in shoots who have a passion for conservation out of the picture, the habitats will get worse, not better. I respectfully disagree with the petitioners that this is a problem that needs legislation. Conservation is inherent to the shooting community in the United Kingdom. If shooting declines and more and more unnecessary restrictions are put on the shooting community, species will go into a much worse decline.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Thank you, Dame Caroline, for chairing this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing it.
The protection of nature and biodiversity is something that my constituents know I take a great interest in. I am also a serving member of the Environmental Audit Committee. This afternoon I am going to disagree with what many of my colleagues have said. As the Member for North Norfolk, I wanted to speak in this debate for two reasons. First, my constituency had the second highest number of signatures to the petition, at 602. Secondly, Norfolk is one of the many places in the UK where woodcock are known to breed, likely due to its vast swathes of woodland. As breeding woodcock are stationary and we are seeing large declines in population numbers, it is only right that we should look at limiting the shooting season.
Those of us who watched BBC’s “Winterwatch”—as I suspect Mr Packham, who presented it, probably did—will know that Norfolk featured heavily. It was intriguing to see the sheer variety of migratory birds the UK sees over the winter period. Woodcock numbers swell to over a million as their European visitors migrate here for the winter. However, that species decline is still noticeable and worrying. Migratory numbers swelling and mixing with our own indigenous birds is disguising the reality of the situation. The shooting season starts before these migratory birds arrive, often leaving the resident and breeding birds to be shot at the beginning of the season.
Woodcock are a red list species. The decline in the breeding population that remains in the UK once their migratory cousins move on is severe, which we have seen. According to the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, there is currently a breeding population of approximately 55,000 pairs, from the last roding counts in 2013. I am sure we will all be interested to see the new data set released later this year. Even so, with up to 100,000 birds in an annual woodcock shooting bag, it is not an unreasonable estimate that the number of woodcock will have seen another dramatic decline.
Speaking personally, I do not see a particular reason why we have to shoot these birds. I have gone shooting myself in the past—Members will not be surprised to hear that, bearing in mind the suit I am wearing this afternoon. I have obviously lived in a rural area all my life. The shoots that I went on were responsible. When woodcock were having a bad season, we did not shoot them. Guess what: nobody batted an eyelid. It was not a problem. I do understand the shooting season and the shooting of game, particularly pheasants, but they are shot to be eaten. It is an important part of the rural, countryside life. That key distinction is important here.
A pheasant, for instance, is a bird that is reared. Woodcocks are wild, distinctively beautiful birds. Much of the population of pheasants—three quarters, in fact—is reared and released for shooting. With this in mind, it is clear that game birds intended to be shot have a greater chance for their population levels to be maintained in order to sustain shooting, and they are actually a real food source. Woodcock are not reared. They are not a substantial food source. They are not a pest. It is clear that the breeding population is in decline.
It would remiss of me not to acknowledge that the decline in suitable habitat should also be taken into consideration, as many Members have said. I note that regional variations in sustaining woodlands may be a factor in the disturbance of these birds. However, in order for the UK to protect resident and breeding woodcock, and to allow their numbers to thrive, there should be some active initiative to support this red list species. That is the point I am making: it would contribute towards helping the birds.
I want to place on the record that I am pleased that the north Norfolk forest plan will provide 1,249 hectares of coniferous and deciduous woodland by 2028, which will help to protect, maintain and enhance priority habitats and species. Additionally, it is positive to see the Government, Forestry England and local authorities push towards a long-term vision for trees and woodlands, which will have enormous benefits for biodiversity, species recovery and climate change. However, it will naturally take time to implement, as finding a long-term and lasting solution always takes more time than we think.
In summary, looking to the short term, rather than to long-term ambitions, is something that we can do right now to prevent the further decline of resident and breeding woodcock on our shores. I believe that considering limiting the shooting season for woodcock can be a decent step in the right direction.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for leading the debate, and for making such a comprehensive and well-balanced speech. This has been a very well-informed debate, with a wide range of views.
I have to admit that I have not had much time to prepare for the debate, as I just returned from Ukraine yesterday. The Eurasian woodcock can be found from Odesa to the Belarusian border, and from Lviv to the Donbas, which ties today’s debate to my journey last week. I led an aid convoy with the hon. Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin). We went from the UK to Ukraine via France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Poland. Members might wonder why I am saying this, but we may find woodcock migrating through the exact same route that my colleagues and I took last week, giving us a rare insight into the life of the Eurasian woodcock, its pattern of migration, the habitats it lives in, and the disruption that the war in Ukraine is causing for bird populations. BirdLife International states that:
“Aerial bombing, use of drones, artillery shelling and all other existing types of ground combat and mining destroy not only settlements with all the infrastructure, but also the natural environment. It is safe to assume that military actions will significantly affect the state of bird populations in Ukraine.”
Dame Caroline, I do not want to stretch your patience, so I will return to the subject of the petition: the open season for woodcock. The UK has two types of woodcock: resident and breeding woodcock breed in the British Isles and are largely sedentary, whereas migrant woodcock, which spend the winter in the UK, return to northern and eastern Europe to breed, on which I have expanded enough. I have spent the morning looking at woodcock, and they are striking birds. Their feathers are various shades of brown, including chocolatey brown and a striking chestnut brown, and they have long, thin, sharp beaks and unusually deep black eyes. They are night-time birds and eat worms, beetles, spiders, caterpillars, fly larvae and small snails. They breed in the spring and summer, and put on quite a display by flying in big circles at dusk, creaking and grunting as they go.
The reason we are here today is quite simple: the UK woodcock population is declining and has red list status from the International Union for Conservation of Nature. A national survey, which is a collaboration between the Gaming & Wildlife Conservation Trust and the British Trust for Ornithology, is conducted every 10 years. The last survey, in 2013, found 55,000 males, and it is believed that the number has since declined. Migratory woodcock are much more numerous and arrive here in early December. They swell the population considerably, and data from the GWCT shows that around 8% of shot woodcock are resident, with the remaining 92% migratory.
The petition requests that the start of the shooting season be delayed from 1 October, or 1 September in Scotland, until 1 December. The data makes it clear that any woodcock shot in this early season will be resident woodcock, which are clearly threatened, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for excellently expanding on this point and on the reasons for the petition. There is generally agreement among everyone that early shooting should not happen, but the point of dissent is whether it should be voluntary or mandatory. It is clear that moving the shooting season would protect resident birds and ensure that they are protected through the all-important breeding season, and we can see what impact this would have on breeding and population figures. This year’s survey will provide invaluable data, as it has been 10 years since the last one.
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation said:
“The shooting community has placed a voluntary moratorium on shooting woodcock until the 1st of December to ensure the protection of resident woodcock and focus shooting on migrant visitors”.
The RSPB has stated:
“The RSPB supports the call for an alteration to the start of the woodcock hunting season (to 1 December) as an emergency precautionary measure to reduce the probability that a shot Woodcock originates from the threatened UK breeding population, now that the species is Red-listed in Britain and Ireland. We see this as a proportionate measure in the context of the wider climate and nature emergency and declines in the UK breeding woodcock population.”
Given that bird conservation and shooting groups seem to agree on the threat to the resident population and the need for a shorter season, does the Minister agree that there seems to be a lot of merit in the RSPB’s proposal of a temporary measure on those lines? Should it not be considered to allow the full impact of a later start to be properly studied and assessed? The temporary measure would have a positive impact on resident woodcock, and would satisfy all stakeholders, giving us a chance to pause and do what we can to protect those resident woodcock.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline—for the first time in this Chamber, I think. It has been an incredible pleasure to hear talk about woodcock in such detail; that has certainly never happened to me before, and I have been a Member of Parliament for over six years. I am pleased to say that in the Lake district, where I live, we do have woodcock. Reading the brief this morning as I was travelling down on the train, I had never realised that woodcock were largely nocturnal. We have all learned a tremendous amount about the woodcock; they are a beautiful bird with a particularly distinctive long beak used for foraging—of earthworms, typically.
All Members who have spoken recognised the decline of woodcock, but also of nature more widely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for opening this debate and giving us reason to discuss the subject. I also thank Wild Justice for its campaigning on the matter, and the 108,000 people who have taken time and interest in the conservation of the woodcock—142 of those who signed the petition were my constituents from Copeland.
There are wider issues to consider, and I will talk through some aspects of the need to improve our environment, as set out in the recently published Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. There are 262 pages, across 10 goals, that go into detail to discuss the measures we will be taking to halt the decline of nature by 2030, based on a 2022 baseline, and to increase its abundance. The plan is about things such as increasing the tree canopy cover to 16.5%; improving the quality of water, air and soil; restoring our peatlands; and improving and protecting hedgerows, which are vital. Those are just some of the measures detailed in the plan, which also includes creating 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat and having a much better understanding of the over 4,000 sites of special scientific interest, covering over 1 million hectares of land. Those things are all set out in that document, which also builds on the Environment Act 2021.
In response to this debate, as the Minister I am working very closely with Natural England. It is currently reviewing all of the evidence, and we will make a science-led decision after that. I want to reflect on Member’s contributions today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all talked about the value of game. I eat a predominantly plant-based diet, but I also eat meat. When I am choosing which meat to eat, I much prefer what has come from a locally-reared animal, ideally a Cumbrian one.
I enjoy game meat because I much prefer to eat meat from an animal that has had some time in the wild. One of the real priorities for me in DEFRA is understanding how we can make the supply chain better so that people can purchase game meat, particularly venison, more easily. We have never had as many deer, but it is not particularly easy to buy or sell venison meat. It is certainly not widely available in the canteens of our public services, yet it is a low-fat, high-protein, nutritious meat, available in abundance. There would be multiple sustainability benefits in us making progress on that mission.
In terms of today’s debate, organisations such as the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust are playing an important, much appreciated role, as has been discussed. I read with interest its 35-page “Conserving Our Woodcock” leaflet. I acknowledge the research that has been undertaken and, most crucially, its very clear message: do not shoot woodcock before 1 December. It could not be clearer. The reason for that is that the likelihood will be that native woodcock will be shot because the migratory woodcock starts to head over in perhaps late October or November, but more likely in December, as the temperature drops in other parts of Europe. That is why it set that clear recommendation to its members and others.
The more abundant migratory woodcock population is unlikely to arrive in the UK until early December. Avoiding shooting the UK’s limited native resident breeding birds is really important. That is the clear ask from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and other Members present. I do not think there is any dissent on that matter. The dissent is perhaps on whether to legislate on that. That decision will be made on the basis of science once we have the assessment from Natural England.
Sir Bill Wiggin
My hon. Friend will have noticed the comments on climate change and therefore, before setting anything in legislation, should she not bear in mind the flexibility that we will need as the climate changes?
Trudy Harrison
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a valid point. All those considerations will be taken into account before any decisions are made. However, as all Members across the House have stated, the more urgent matter is how we improve the habitat, the foraging, and how we really consider the conservation not just of woodcock, but of so many other species. That is also detailed in the environmental improvement plan.
In conclusion, I have already set out that Natural England will be undertaking that study. Our decision on what to take forward will be based on the science but, in addition to the environmental improvement plan, I draw Members’ attention to the huge changes we are making with environmental land management schemes. We are moving away from the common agricultural policy, which did little to incentivise innovation or improve productivity on farms and in food production. Instead, we are moving to countryside stewardship, the sustainable farming incentive and the landscape recovery scheme. Those three measures across 70% of the land in England—that is what is farmed—will have a tremendous impact on the conservation of the woodcock and many other species on the red list, and on conservation and biodiversity more generally in this country. I will end on that note, Dame Caroline, and I thank you for your time in this debate.
Jonathan Gullis
This has been a good debate—one that perhaps does not get televised enough for people to see the quality of debate, discussions, stats and facts. I thank all Members for contributing their different ideas. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) mentioned her 370 constituents who signed the petition. She also talked about tree nurseries, which were brought up by Wild Justice. About 13% of our land is forestry land whereas France has over 30%. Such land is part of a wider strategy that we need to tackle not only to create the breeding ground for woodcock but to improve our native wildlife as well.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) made a fair point about the red list and how the woodcock internationally is not at risk, but, as Wild Justice would point out, we are talking specifically about the native woodcock and its decline, which is why the date of 1 December is wanted. However, I understand that this is not an issue outside the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about planting 3,500 trees on his farmland. He is a doughty champion for Strangford; it could not find a better representative. I am mindful of the time because at half past six he has some very big decisions to make about an issue that is important to him, his constituency and the people of Northern Ireland that he serves. I want to make sure that he and his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party have the space and time that the Prime Minister has offered to discuss the Northern Ireland protocol negotiations that have come forward today. The hon. Member’s explanations of the conservation that he and his community undertake in the woodland and farmland that they look after were fair and balanced. Shooters are conservationists, and they do care. Yes, they have their sport, but at the same time they want to see their area protected.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for his balanced views. I always fear following him in a debate, so I was glad to be in front of him on this occasion. His arguments were fair. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) has far more years’ experience on this topic than I have. He outlined a fair challenge for the Department: if change is to come and we introduce a statutory instrument to enforce the date of 1 December, there has to be a wider strategy, particularly for deer as well. That would bring about a fair balance for both sides. Clearly, climate change is having an impact on our natural habitat; it would be blind to try to pretend otherwise.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for his contribution. The overwhelming majority of shooters are responsible folk and take shooting seriously, but, sadly, there is always a minority that takes advantage and sometimes goes further than it should. That is why we have to sometimes legislate to make sure there are boundaries. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) is a doughty champion who raises tens of thousands of pounds for local charities. He is always passionate about his constituency, as am I about Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. He has done fantastic work. The fact that he has listened to his 600-plus constituents who signed the petition and has turned up here today is positive.
I have outlined my position. There is fairness in expecting, in the short term, a statutory instrument to be implemented by the Secretary of State. However, a wider strategy is needed. That cannot simply be put on the shooters’ doorstep. We need to look at forestry, the deer population and habitat as well. The Minister outlined the new scheme that is coming into play and has been received positively by one of my local farmers, Councillor Janine Bridges, who represents Great Chell and Packmoor. It is exactly what responsible farmers and landowners are doing. I thank Members for being here. I am grateful for the time and space to talk about this important topic.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 619615, relating to the open season for woodcock.
Written Statements
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingencies Fund Advance
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I hereby give notice of the Scotland Office’s intention to seek a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund. The Department requires an advance to meet the Scottish Government’s cash requirements pending parliamentary approval of the supplementary estimate 2022-23.
The Scottish Government are operating within their budgets, so this does not represent additional spending. However, an increase in net cash requirement will be sought in the supplementary estimate so accessing the Contingencies Fund will allow the Scottish Government to fund this existing spending in the meantime.
The advance will be repaid immediately following approval of the supplementary estimate.
Parliamentary approval for additional non-budget expenditure of £2,813,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Scotland Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £2,813,000,000 will be met by a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS583]
Additional Jobcentre Support: Pilot Roll-out
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
I wish to inform the House that today the Department for Work and Pensions will start expanding the additional jobcentre support pilot following testing in Coalville, Crawley, Partick and Pontefract jobcentres.
The current pilot will continue to test how enhanced daily work focused support, across two weeks, can further support eligible universal credit claimants into employment in 60 jobcentres across central Scotland, Surrey and Sussex, West Yorkshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire.
This additional support will increase a claimant’s employability through provision of additional one to one work search conversations with work coaches and through work search support sessions to help claimants overcome any challenges they may be experiencing. The claimant commitment, which sets out each claimant’s agreed work-related activities, will be regularly reviewed and activity will be focused on specific steps to support people to move into work.
Evidence shows that the longer a person is out of work the harder it is for them to return. A claimant’s likelihood of securing employment declines after 13 weeks, so we will focus this support on those who remain unemployed or with low earnings after 13 and 26 weeks of claiming Universal Credit.
Claimants in the intensive work search regime will receive prior notice of the requirements they will be expected to fulfil. Claimants who will not be in scope for the pilot are those:
Awaiting a work capability assessment;
Required to undertake less than 20 hours a week of work search activity;
Who are gainfully self-employed;
Who have no work related requirements;
With an easement in place; and
On a full-time provision offer.
Within the pilot, we will also test a scheme to recognise and reward jobcentre teams who furthest exceed their aspirational targets. The reward scheme will be rolled out to 30 of the 60 jobcentres testing enhanced daily support and an additional 30 jobcentres.
Therefore, in addition to a control group, 90 jobcentres will now be involved in the pilot:
30 sites will test enhanced daily support only;
30 sites will test enhanced daily support and the rewards scheme; and
30 sites will test the rewards scheme only.
[HCWS582]
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022: Commencement
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Bellamy KC, has made the following written statement:
Today the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 comes into force.
The Act makes two key changes:
It raises the legal age of marriage and civil partnership to 18 in England and Wales. This means that 16 and 17-year-olds are no longer able to marry or enter a civil partnership under any circumstances, including with parental or judicial consent.
It expands the criminal offence of forced marriage in England and Wales to make it an offence in all circumstances to do anything intended to cause a child to marry before they turn 18. For the forced marriage offence to apply, it is no longer necessary to prove that a form of coercion was used to bring about the marriage of a child. The expanded offence will continue to include ceremonies of marriage which are not legally binding, for example in community or traditional settings.
This important piece of legislation helps deliver on the Government’s commitment to tackle violence against women and girls. It also delivers on our pledge in the UN sustainable development goals to end child marriage by 2030. This Government are keen to make sure that children and young people are protected and supported as they grow and develop. Child marriage can deprive them of important life chances, and that is why we have taken action to stop it. The age of 18 is widely recognised as the age at which one becomes an adult and gains full citizenship rights.
These changes apply to England and Wales only. While marriage is a devolved matter, Northern Ireland are considering this issue and we hope that Scotland will also follow suit.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire, Pauline Latham OBE MP for sponsoring this private Member’s Bill, as well as to the campaigners with whom she has worked. The Act and all of its supporting documentation is available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/28/notes/division/6/index.htm
The Government’s statutory guidance and multi-agency practice guidelines on forced marriage have also been updated to reflect this legislation, and are available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-right-to-choose-government-guidance-on-forced-marriage
[HCWS584]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
Lord Evans of Rainow
That the Grand Committee do consider the Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.
Relevant documents: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, which were laid before the House on 17 January 2023, be approved.
I think it would be helpful if I started by providing some of the background to this instrument. The instrument we are debating today relates to radio equipment, which is defined as any electrical product that emits or receives radio waves for the purposes of radio communication; this includes products such as mobile phones and smartphones. The regulations implement Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2019/320 in Northern Ireland and enable it to be enforced.
The radio equipment directive is an EU directive requiring that specified essential requirements be met by radio equipment placed on the EU market or put into service in the EU. The directive also permits the Commission to place additional essential requirements on radio equipment manufacturers. The directive was implemented in UK law in 2017 by the UK’s Radio Equipment Regulations 2017, which have been subsequently amended to reflect the fact that we have left the EU.
Under the current terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland remains subject to EU law for radio equipment. So, while the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 apply across the UK, some provisions apply differently in Northern Ireland. Today, the Prime Minister is due to make a statement on the protocol in the other place, which my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat in the Chamber tomorrow.
Delegated regulation (EU) 2019/320 was issued by the Commission in 2018, adding to the essential requirements in the directive and requiring smartphones to be able to transmit their location data in calls to emergency services. This instrument seeks to amend the UK’s Radio Equipment Regulations as they apply in Northern Ireland to reflect the new essential safety requirements for smartphones. This will enable the regulation to be legally enforced in Northern Ireland, as required under the current terms of the Northern Ireland protocol.
If it is helpful, I will now explain in more detail how this instrument will achieve its purpose. Under the Radio Equipment Regulations, the overall objectives for how radio equipment must be constructed before it can be placed on the market are set out in the essential requirements. This instrument adds the new requirement for smartphones to be capable of transmitting their caller location in emergency calls to the existing essential requirements in the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 as they apply in Northern Ireland. The additional essential requirement extends the scope of an existing offence in the Radio Equipment Regulations for manufacturers in relation to non-compliance with the essential requirements when placing products on the market. In addition, the instrument amends the regulations covering conformity assessment processes in the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 as they apply in Northern Ireland. As a result, manufacturers will need to ensure that their products are assessed by EU notified bodies as being compliant with the regulation.
As set out in the legislation, not complying with this new requirement in Northern Ireland will be a criminal offence. However, I assure noble Lords that prosecution will occur only in very rare circumstances, if at all. This level of action will be taken forward only where it is absolutely necessary to protect consumers from unsafe products or address persistent or deliberate non-compliance. Enforcement officers will continue to take a proportionate approach to compliance and enforcement activities, in accordance with the Regulators’ Code. In most cases, we expect that compliance will be achieved without recourse to the use of criminal penalties.
I will now set out the impact for business of this instrument. The Commission’s own assessment suggested that the impact on smartphone manufacturers will be minimal. In part, that is due to the technical solution already being anticipated by the market, but it is also because nearly all new smartphones have the required capability already. Indeed, the European Commission’s assessment in its 2018 Explanatory Memorandum was that a technical solution incorporating global navigation satellite systems and wi-fi signal-based information was available in more than 95% of all smartphones at the time of writing. We expect that to be even higher since 2018.
I assure noble Lords that the Government are not aware of any additional concerns from smartphone manufacturers in relation to the regulation since its EU adoption in 2019. I draw attention to the engagement conducted by the European Commission during the development of the regulation. To raise awareness on this instrument and its requirements, and to support business compliance, officials are liaising with the Northern Ireland district councils responsible for enforcing the radio equipment regulations there. We are making sure that they have all the necessary information to do so. In addition, industry guidance will be made available online by officials in the Office for Product Safety & Standards to ensure that businesses have what they need to understand how to comply with the regulation.
We are not currently considering introducing a similar requirement for Great Britain. The main reason for this is that, as I mentioned earlier, the European Commission’s assessment of the regulation sets out that almost all new smartphones currently on the market already have the technical capabilities required by it. We see no reason to mandate the requirement through legislation in Great Britain, given that existing widespread adoption. However, we will keep this under review.
This SI is necessary to give effect to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/320. The UK is required to implement that in Northern Ireland under the current terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. The regulation requires that smartphones placed on the EU market from 17 March 2022 must be able to transmit their location data in emergency calls. This SI enables us to give effect to that requirement by amending the UK’s Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 as they apply in Northern Ireland. This will enable the new requirement to be legally enforced. As I highlighted, we expect that any prosecutions will be in only very rare circumstances, if indeed at all. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, thanks are due to the Minister for introducing the purpose, scope and effect of this legislation. I am a late substitute for my noble friend Lady Blake, who is unable to be here because of family illness; I am sure we hope that everybody gets well soon. Substitutes did not help Newcastle United yesterday; we lost, as you know.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said:
“The purpose of this instrument is to implement an EU Regulation in Northern Ireland (NI) which requires all smartphones placed on the EU market to be capable of transmitting caller location.”
Asked whether the Government considered introducing an equivalent requirement for smartphones placed on the market in Great Britain, the then BEIS department told us that,
“having engaged with UK industry representative trade bodies, it did not see any reason to ‘mandate a technical requirement through legislation that is (i) already adopted in almost all new smartphones and (ii) is not directly related to product safety’.”
As the Minister said:
“The Department said that it would keep its position under review.”
We support this statutory instrument. We are fulfilling a treaty commitment and working to ensure that Britain is a country where international laws are respected and followed, which I am sure is something that most of us believe in on all sides of the House.
According to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, one of the biggest challenges facing the emergency services is determining the location of mobile callers. Ambulance service measurements show that, on average, 30 seconds per call can be saved if the precise location is automatically provided. Several minutes can be saved where callers are unable to describe their location verbally due to stress, injury or simply unfamiliarity with the area they are in, so it is no overstatement to say that technology saves lives. The faster a patient is located, the faster the emergency services can reach them—they are not very fast at the moment, but I hope that that will improve—and the faster they can receive treatment.
The question must therefore be asked of the Government: why has the legislation not been introduced in England, Scotland and Wales? I note the Minister said that 95% of smartphones meet the requirements, but I wonder what assessment he made of the incremental cost of introducing this legislation. Given that a legal requirement would have a minimal impact on manufacturers, can the Minister assure me that the department has made a thorough assessment of the potential of placing this standard on a legal footing in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Another relevant issue raised by the draft statutory instrument is its relationship to GNSS and the European-owned Galileo system. The EU regulation introduced by this instrument requires all smartphones to be compatible and interoperable with the Galileo system. It raises questions concerning the UK’s technological sovereignty following our expulsion from the Galileo programme. In 2018, the Government threatened to spend the entire UK science budget on duplicating Galileo because they had bungled negotiations on Galileo with the European Union. Four years on, the Defence Committee reported,
“with tens of millions of pounds money spent, the Government appears no closer to coming to any conclusions about development of the UK’s own space-based Position, Navigation and Timing (PNT) capabilities.”
Perhaps the Minister could update us on the PNT development: when we might expect it and, possibly, what the costs will be.
In outlining the rationale for requiring Galileo compatibility in smartphones, the European Commission argued for the importance of securing the independence and resilience of emergency services within the European Union. I hope that the Minister understands and agrees with that objective. What work are the Government doing to ensure that emergency services in the UK are similarly resilient?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. With regard to being a substitute, he is a very good one but, like yesterday, I am on the opposite side to him. I thank him for his valuable contribution.
For reasons that I will summarise, it is vital that the statutory instrument comes into force in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord asked why we have not carried out an impact assessment. An impact assessment has not been prepared for this SI because measures resulting from the Northern Ireland protocol are out of scope of the assessment. The Northern Ireland protocol has already been given effect in legislation through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which added provisions and powers to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The noble Lord also asked why the UK does not implement this in Great Britain and whether the UK does not value its emergency services. As I said, we have no current plans to do so but we will keep this under review. It is important to remember that we are debating today an SI implementing an EU delegated regulation, which sets out EU requirements and is based on EU priorities. We have left the EU and discussion of the UK’s future plans for caller location requirements for smartphones is outside the scope for today.
The instrument is needed to give effect to Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2019/320, which applies in Northern Ireland, as we are required to do under the current terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. The instrument amends the UK’s radio equipment regulations as they apply in Northern Ireland to enable the new requirement for smartphones to be legally enforced in Northern Ireland.
Although this instrument will widen the scope of an existing offence in the radio equipment regulations, this is expected to result in prosecutions only in rare circumstances, and only when it is necessary to protect consumers from unsafe products or to address persistent or deliberate non-compliance. As I mentioned at the start, in the great majority of cases we expect compliance will be achieved without recourse to the use of criminal penalties.
I highlighted the EU Commission’s assessment of this regulation in 2018, which was that the impact on smartphone manufacturers is anticipated to be minimal. This is because nearly all new smartphones already possess the technology, and it is increasing. The Commission engaged industry during the development of the regulation, which it adopted in 2019. We are not aware of any concerns from smartphone manufacturers in relation to it. I commend this draft instrument to the Committee.
Code of Practice for the Forensic Science Regulator
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Code of Practice for the Forensic Science Regulator.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, forensic science is vital to the investigation and prosecution of crime. Without high-quality forensic evidence entering the criminal justice system, our ability to fight crime would be compromised. We are fortunate in this country to have some of the world’s best forensic scientists, who deploy their considerable skills to help deliver justice, but we cannot rest on our laurels.
Public confidence in the criminal justice system is vital. This confidence can be undermined if quality standards in forensic science are not upheld or maintained. This Government believe that, in order to set appropriate standards, a degree of statutory regulation is required, which is why it has been long-standing government policy—since 2016, in fact—that the Forensic Science Regulator should have statutory powers. That is why the Government supported the Private Member’s Bill that became the Forensic Science Regulator Act in 2021.
The Act established the regulator as a statutory officeholder. It gives powers to the regulator allowing them to act, as a last resort, when they have reason to believe that forensic science activities are being conducted in such a way as to create a substantial risk to the course of justice. It also requires the regulator to produce a draft statutory code of practice. This code defines which forensic science activities will be regulated and sets out the standards that providers will be expected to meet. It is the first time that a statutory code regulating the provision of forensic science has been produced anywhere in the world.
This code has been through a comprehensive consultation process, which revealed broad support among the forensics community. In fact, 83% of respondents to the consultation, which included stakeholders from policing, the commercial sector, academia and the judiciary, expressed their support for the model of regulation set out in the code. By adhering to the code and complying with its requirements, forensics providers will ensure that the evidence they gather and present to the courts is of the highest quality, in turn helping to maintain public confidence in our systems.
In practical terms, this means that all forensics providers who deliver forensic science activities to which the code applies will have to declare compliance with the code. In addition, they may also need to attain accreditation and establish quality management systems for the activities they undertake. Non-compliance with the code will not in itself automatically mean that the evidence gathered will be inadmissible—it is always the courts who ultimately decide whether to accept evidence—but compliance with the code will reduce the risk of substandard evidence entering the system. Compliance with the code will make it far more likely that providers are producing high-quality forensic evidence to the courts. Compliance with the code will help protect the integrity of the criminal justice system and guard against miscarriages of justice.
I very much hope that noble Lords will support this code of practice, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for providing this opportunity to consider the Motion that the 2013 draft code of practice for the Forensic Science Regulator, laid before the other place on 26 January, be approved. I warmly welcome the Forensic Science Regulator’s code of practice as an important further step in ensuring the quality, consistency and integrity of our forensic sciences across England and Wales. The code builds on the non-statutory codes of practice and conduct issued by the previous regulator and incorporates much of their content.
I particularly welcome the code’s recognition of the importance of accreditation against internationally recognised standards in driving quality improvement, trust and confidence in the critical services of forensic providers. Technical competence and consistency across the mixed economy for the provision of forensic science services should be a vital part of a fair and functioning criminal justice system. This code of practice will help achieve that.
I should declare an interest as the chair of the United Kingdom’s national accreditation body, UKAS, which is the sole national body recognised by government for the accreditation of organisations against nationally or internationally recognised standards. Accreditation provides assurance of the impartiality and competence of providers, which we can all agree are imperative in the criminal justice system. UKAS and the Forensic Science Regulator have been working closely since the FSR role was first created; together, we have achieved consistent success in improving standards through the accreditation of forensic science providers in both the private sector and police forces. UKAS will continue to work closely to deliver the vision of the Forensic Science Regulator with respect to compliance with standards and, through the accreditation of forensic providers, the demonstration of the appropriate competence of the practitioners undertaking this critical work.
I believe that this code of practice will support and encourage a culture of improvement and a commitment to quality, competence and impartiality across forensic science provision. I am delighted to add my support to its approval.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome this code of practice. As the Minister so eloquently pointed out, we have one of the best five forensic science services in the world and have made enormous strides in getting forensic science set on a course of absolute science, rather than old wives’ tales or police lore. That is a huge step forward, which this country has been instrumental in taking.
However, it is right to say that there have been several serious miscarriages of justice—I have sat on several of them—where forensic scientists have not behaved with competence or integrity or have gone beyond what they are qualified to speak about. I therefore warmly welcome the work of the two non-statutory regulators, Andrew Rennison and Dr Gillian Tully, and now the statutory regulator, Mr Gary Pugh, in all they have done to try to eliminate the problems that have caused difficulties in such cases.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has spoken eloquently about accreditation, which is key. Also key is the fact that, within organisations, there must be a senior appointed individual who can be made responsible for lapses that occur. I regard as the most important part of the code the part that sets out standards of impartiality and integrity. As I have said, there have been cases where this has not always been so. Much to my regret, in some cases, there has been a lack of professionalism. One must remember that forensic scientists are often put under a great deal of pressure; standards of integrity to resist pressure, particularly from police officers who are anxious to secure a conviction, are therefore essential. The record of what has happened is well known so I need not go into it.
Secondly, it is important to stress the duty of the court. Thirdly, I very warmly welcome—it may be due to Mr Gary Pugh’s personal integrity and experience—the duty to guard against miscarriages of justice.
It is also important that the code goes into detail. There have been serious problems in relation to footwear analysis, DNA and fingerprinting, and it is good to see those now firmly covered by standards. There has also been worry about the way evaluative opinions have been formed. Many experts—not merely forensic experts—stray outside their sphere of expertise and seek to act more as advocates than as independent experts, relying on matters to which the code refers. I am very glad, therefore, that there is a firm steer for evaluative opinions.
The strength of the code can be seen by the fact that it deals with infrequently consulted experts, making it clear that, although they are not subject to accreditation, they must abide the standards of the court. It is surprising to see the spheres in which expert evidence is often needed, and from people who will never have given expert evidence before, or where the court may never have had expert evidence. Therefore I see this as a landmark in trying to make certain that we buttress our outstanding reputation as a nation in forensic science and strengthen that position for the future.
I will ask two questions of the Minister. First, what is to be done to ensure that the code is publicised and enforced? Secondly—I have spoken on this on many occasions—is the Home Office really getting to grips with other issues in forensic science and taking forward the need to keep forensic science ahead of the game, particularly in digital forensics?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord who have contributed to this important if short debate. They said that this is an extremely important step forward by the Government, and we welcome it as well.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his introduction. I also thank my friend in the other place, Darren Jones MP, and indeed my colleague and noble friend Lord Kennedy, who would be most upset if I did not mention that he was part of the Private Member’s Bill effort which became the Forensic Science Regulator Act in 2001. That was an important step forward and shows how sometimes Private Members’ Bills can make a real difference. As noble Lords realise, the Act required the regulator to produce a statutory code of practice so that all those doing forensic science activities uphold and maintain proper standards, which both the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord said is so important, and which indeed many forensic scientists do.
This statutory instrument is the new code of practice. It builds upon non-statutory codes of practice and integrates much of their content. Upholding good forensic science standards is absolutely vital to our criminal justice system. The code applies to all those carrying out forensic science activities: individual practitioners, academics, private and public sector organisations, or indeed forensic science units.
With those general comments I have a few questions for the Minister. A report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services showed that, when it came to digital forensics, the police have not kept pace with the scale of the challenges they face. The report said that, in some cases, they simply did not understand what digital forensics meant. It found, in the words of the inspectorate,
“delays … so egregious that victims were being failed”.
Could the Minister give us any indication of what progress has been made following the recommendations of that report?
The Home Office also considered an impact assessment on the Forensic Science Regulator in 2013, but it has not been updated since. With this new regulator and statutory code, has an internal impact assessment from 2021 been made? There was a deadline of October 2022 for all police laboratories to be accredited. Can the Minister give an update on whether that target was reached?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all three noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am grateful for their considered and constructive contributions.
I pay tribute to the Forensic Science Regulator for producing such a detailed and comprehensive code of practice. The code is a significant piece of work, as befits an instrument that will help to drive up quality standards. It is long, but builds on other non-statutory codes of practice and conduct and incorporates much of their content, meaning that much of its content will already be largely familiar to forensic science providers. The code sets out for the very first time definitions of forensic science activities and specifies which of those activities it applies to. As I said in my opening remarks, this is the first time that has been done—and not just in England and Wales; this is a world first.
I turn to some of the specifics that have been raised. I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay for his positive remarks and for the UKAS perspective. I am sure he would acknowledge that accreditation for forensic science activities is not a panacea, but experience has shown that it raises quality standards by improving processes and ensuring that if failures happen then appropriate steps are taken. In addition, accreditation helps drive standardisation to support cross-force co-operation and efficiency.
It is fair to say that achieving accreditation takes time and resources, but evidence from non-accredited laboratories has always been open to challenge in court and there is a real risk of losing cases as a result, which goes some way to answering the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
Accreditation across the board helps to ensure a level playing field and consistent quality standards, which also goes some way to answering the questions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, particularly those around impartiality and integrity. It is acknowledged that some forensic providers and police forces have failed to achieve accreditation across a range of forensic disciplines, which can cause miscarriages of justice, abandoned trials and so on. This code, together with the powers in the Act, will allow the regulator to issue compliance notices against forensic providers that are failing to meet the required quality standards.
In answer to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about whether and how this will be supported by the forensic science—I hesitate to call it “industry”—caucus, as I said in my opening remarks, the office of the Forensic Science Regulator engaged in a statutory consultation which ran from 8 August to 31 October 2022. There were 110 responses with 3,000 comments from across the forensic science community—again, as I said—including from policing, academia, the judiciary and the commercial sector, with 83% of respondents overall expressing support. The private and commercial sector has actively been calling for regulation for a long time because it understands the value of quality and wants to compete on a level playing field. This is the crucial point: almost 80% of policing respondents expressed support. Based on those numbers, I think it will be largely self-enforcing. It is fairly obvious that the industry is going to be very excited about this progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the HMICFRS report that showed that digital forensics were perhaps a little left behind. We have invested around £10 million in this financial year—2022-23—in the new digital forensics programme in the Police Digital Service that will support forces through automation and better safeguard victims’ privacy and in other new technology to increase forces’ capacity to process digital devices. We are working very closely with the NPCC and other criminal justice system partners to understand clearly current national performance and implement the recommendations of the HMICFRS inspection report on digital forensics. The Home Office has undertaken a national data collection project which looks more widely at governance, operating models, resources, training, technical capabilities and funding, which all impact on the ability of the police to conduct timely investigations and provide high-quality forensic evidence to support CJS outcomes. However, I acknowledge that this is a rapidly evolving space, so I suspect this is a debate we will come back to at greater length in future.
In answer to the questions asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about digital, about 90% of forces have some ISO 17025 accreditation for digital forensics, but no force yet has accreditation for all digital forensics activity. As I just said, significant progress is still required to meet full compliance. It is for that reason that the new statutory powers for the regulator are so important.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the impact assessment that was completed in 2021. It was an internal assessment for Home Office policymakers, but we will be very happy to publish that in due course.
None of this is sudden. It has been government policy for many years that providers should have accreditation for the forensic science activities they conduct. The previous non-statutory regulator regularly published timetables for providers to achieve accreditation, often giving several years’ notice. Since 2016, it has been official policy that the regulator should have statutory powers underpinned by a new statutory code. The Act received Royal Assent nearly two years ago. In answer to the question, the regulator did not expect all providers to be fully compliant by October. This is a grace period to allow those providers who are already well advanced to become formally accredited to the code before it comes into force.
I hope I have answered noble Lords’ question. Approval of the draft code of practice today will help pave the way for better and higher quality forensic science in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. However, that is not the end. The overriding need to maintain high-quality standards continues. The new powers that the Forensic Science Regulator Act provides, taken together with this draft code of practice, will help driven up quality standards, improve outcomes and maintain public confidence. I commend the draft code of practice to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Grand Committee do consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, these regulations make changes to key elements of the business rates retention system. The amendments themselves do not enact any new policy but instead action policy decisions that have already been taken.
By way of background, the business rates retention scheme was introduced in 2013. It allows local government to keep 50% of the rates that are collected locally; the other 50% is paid over to central government. Under the business rates retention system, authorities that see their business rates income fall significantly in any year can receive a safety net payment. The cost of the safety net is paid for by levying a percentage of the business rates income of authorities that have seen their business rates income increase significantly in any year.
The detailed rules of the business rates retention scheme are set out in multiple sets of regulations. The Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 make changes to four sets of regulations to ensure that policy measures determined elsewhere can be incorporated into the ongoing administration of the business rates retention system. They are: the levy and safety net regulations, the rates retention regulations, the transitional protection payments regulations and the levy account basis of distribution regulations.
First, several changes to the levy and safety net regulations are necessary to mitigate the impact of the 2023 revaluation of business rates on the business rates retention system. These regulations will adjust the calculation of baseline funding levels, which are used to calculate whether an authority triggers a safety net payment. These changes will make sure that authorities are not overpaid or underpaid as a result of the 2023 revaluation. In addition, authorities in Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, West of England, West Midlands and Cornwall have enhanced arrangements, which mean that they retain 100% of the business rates that they collect. As a result, these regulations will also adjust calculations for those authorities so that their safety net calculation remains accurate and reflective of the arrangements that have been agreed with them.
As is usual each year, the regulations also need to amend the calculation of authorities’ retained rates income to ensure that it includes relief schemes designed by the Government. Where the Government provide a new national business rates relief—such as the retail, hospitality and leisure discount—local authorities, as the bodies that collect business rates, award that relief to local businesses in their area. The Government compensate local authorities for the income they lose in doing this, which we take account of in a different part of the system. Therefore, the regulation changes here strip out the impact of the income reductions so that local authorities are not compensated twice for the same loss of income. These regulations also codify new business rates retention values for three restructuring authorities from 2023 to 2024: Somerset, Cumbria and North Yorkshire.
We adjust the rates retention regulations to amend the City of London off-set, which is an amount of business rates income that the City is allowed to retain outside the business rates retention system, due to its low resident population. Regulation 3 will make amendments to ensure that the off-set amount is uprated by the same inflationary uplift as core business rates retention figures.
We also amend the transitional protection payment regulations following the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, which announced a transitional relief scheme as part of a package of targeted measures to ratepayers who would otherwise face large bill increases following the revaluation of business rates. Transitional protection payments compensate local authorities for their lost income from transitional relief. Regulation 2 will make a small amendment to ensure that where transitional relief is applied, it is calculated before the application of public lavatories relief. This will ensure that compensation is calculated and paid on the true cost of the transitional arrangements put in place following the revaluation.
Finally, the schedule to these regulations changes the basis of distribution regulations so that core funding allocations for the recently restructured authorities are actioned on the correct basis. Most immediately, this will ensure that, as announced in the local government finance settlement, every authority in England will receive a share of the £100 million surplus currently held in the business rates levy account.
In conclusion, this is a highly technical set of regulations. Most of the provisions simply give effect to previously agreed policy decisions, and they ensure that the correct calculations will continue to be made under the business rates retention system. I commend them to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to the fact that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, as noted in the register. I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. The regulations make various amendments to the system for the local retention of non-domestic rates established by Schedule 7B to the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
The current Chancellor’s Autumn Statement business rates package and this year’s revaluation of business rates will mean that all regions in England will see a decrease in average bills, which can only be of benefit to struggling high street businesses that have been unduly affected by unprecedented energy costs, together with inflationary pressures which were unduly exacerbated by the reckless fiscal policies of the previous Prime Minister and her Chancellor, bringing the UK economy to the very brink.
Britain is doing much worse than other western economies, which have faced the same pressures from Covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Britain is the only G7 economy still smaller than before the pandemic and has the slowest growth forecast over the next two years. The cost to working people and businesses is clear and profound: the worst cost of living crisis in 40 years; soaring energy and food prices; £400 a month more to pay on the average mortgage through higher interest rates; and the highest taxes for the British taxpayer in 70 years.
A Labour Government would change things for business by implementing a cut in business rates for small and medium-sized businesses, paid for by a temporary increase in the digital services tax, among a host of other costed measures to plan for a stronger, more secure economy. Labour has a plan to back business by bringing business rates in line with the modern economy. We will bring in an annual revaluation of business rates, rather than the ad hoc basis on which this Government operate, to give the sector the stability and reassurance that it needs. Through our model, the heavy burden of taxes will move from SMEs and high-street business to online giants, which for too long have got away with contributing too little to our economy. However, until Labour gets into government and delivers the transformation that businesses deserve, we need an urgent increase to the threshold for small business rates relief, raising it from £15,000 to £25,000.
We will get the cost of living under control and make Britain more resilient, laying the foundations we need for a thriving, dynamic economy in the future. Furthermore, Labour will make the business tax system fit for the 21st century by ultimately scrapping business rates and replacing them with a system that incentivises investment and levels the playing field between high-street businesses and global giants.
It is not just the billing authorities that need to prepare for new non-domestic rates. For many of the individuals and groups paying the new rates, financial and administrative overhauls such as this can be a costly operation. The LGA highlighted the need for councils to be compensated for the cost in staff time and the potential new technologies involved in the revaluation of rates and bringing in the transitional scheme. It is welcome that the Government have already announced that administrative costs for local authorities will be covered, as with previous schemes, under the new burdens doctrine, but the short time to input these changes will still cause problems that council staff do not need.
I therefore ask the Minister, first, will these current changes be continued into future financial years so that councils across England, together with local businesses, can have certainty when planning future budgets? Secondly, what will the Barnett consequential be for the devolved Governments because of this legislation, and how soon will they receive any extra funding from Whitehall?
Despite our concerns and our alternative policies, I say that anything that helps business to survive in these extremely difficult trading times is needed, and we therefore support this statutory instrument.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her contribution to the debate. I appreciate her setting out some of the future directions of a possible Labour Government, and I thank her for her comments on the benefits that the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement and these regulations will bring to the high street.
The noble Baroness asked why we were not considering an online sales tax. The Government have decided not to introduce such a tax, but we are in the process of consultation and the response to that will be published shortly. Concerns have been raised about complexity, market distortion and the unfair outcomes between business models.
This revaluation will rebalance the tax burden to reflect the growth in online retail. Large distribution warehouses are expected to see total rates paid to increase by about 27%, while retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are expected to see total bill decreases of over 10%.
I think the noble Baroness creates an unnecessarily gloomy prognosis of the future of the UK economy. The Chancellor’s business rate support package means that businesses will benefit from support worth £13.6 billion over the next five years. Together with the revaluation, that package ensures that bills will more accurately reflect current market values while protecting businesses from large bill increases. The Government remain committed to implementing the outcomes from the business rates review, and we will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The noble Baroness had another couple of questions, but I fear I will have to write about the impact on Barnett consequentials and whether the current changes will carry over to the future. I apologise for not being able to answer those now.
These are indeed a highly technical set of regulations that are necessary to ensure that the rates retention scheme continues to operate effectively and as intended. If the amendments detailed in this SI are not made in time for the relevant calculation to be made in early March 2023, local authorities will not receive the safety net payment to which they are entitled or will pay the wrong amount of levy for 2021-22. Additionally, if changes are not made to values used in the levy and safety net calculation in response to the revaluation ahead of 1 April 2023, authorities may pay or receive the wrong amounts of levy or safety net in 2023-24 as well. The regulations ensure that this does not happen, and I hope the Committee will join me in supporting them.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Baroness Boothroyd
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Lalith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, yesterday. She made a most valued and significant contribution to both Houses in a parliamentary career spanning almost 50 years—serving this House with distinction for 22 of those. She was an integral part of our parliamentary community and will be sadly missed. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
Georgia: Imprisonment of Mikhail Saakashvili
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Georgia about the condition of Mikhail Saakashvili, the imprisoned former president of that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, we are closely following events connected to the detention of former President Saakashvili. The Foreign Secretary raised Mr Saakashvili’s detention, highlighting concerning reports about his health and treatment, with the Georgian Foreign Minister Darchiashvili on 26 January during the Wardrop strategic dialogue. Our ambassador and other officials also raised Mr Saakashvili’s case with the Deputy Foreign Minister during the bilateral segment of that dialogue. We will continue to monitor developments regarding the case.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I ask that the Government continue and redouble their efforts to get Mr Saakashvili appropriate medical treatment. Can the Minister bear in mind that his situation is part of a wider, very serious development in Georgia, which has been hijacked by a multi-billionaire businessman who controls its economic and political life, as well as its media, to keep it within the orbit and surround of Russia? This is a question not just of his human rights but of the whole future of Georgia as a European-looking nation.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord is right that the treatment of the former president has wider ramifications. While humanitarian concerns are clearly uppermost in our representations on the matter, we have also highlighted the relevance of the Government’s treatment of Mr Saakashvili to Georgia’s domestic political climate, international reputation and broader Euro-Atlantic aspirations.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is this not really all about Russia trying to re-exert control in that area by using familiar methods of undermining stable government to do so? Is it not rather the same as what is happening in Moldova, as well as all over the developing world, including in many countries of the Commonwealth, and in Sudan, where Russia is setting up a naval base? Should we not be very careful that while Putin may be failing in Ukraine—and we hope he fails—he may be succeeding rather continuously in those other areas? Does my noble friend agree that we should keep a very close eye on that aspect of what is otherwise rapidly becoming a new cold war?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is right that Russia has been, and remains, a deeply destabilising influence far beyond Ukraine and Georgia. Georgia is under sustained pressure from Russia, which, through its relationship with the de facto authorities of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, is in effective control of 20% of Georgia’s territory. Although we do not see an increase in any direct threat to Georgia caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, Georgia continues to experience Russian aggression. Former Prime Minister Truss reaffirmed clearly our support in the UK for Georgian territorial integrity and sovereignty when she met the Georgian Prime Minister at the UN General Assembly in September.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does the noble Lord agree that the treatment of Saakashvili will have a negative and adverse effect on Georgia’s approach to membership of the European Union and that, therefore, it is not us but the European Union which has far greater leverage in this respect?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The Government absolutely share that view, which is why, in our representations to the Government of Georgia, we make the point that allegations and stories emerging in relation to the former president are seen in the context of Georgia’s wider ambitions.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, may I add the name of Nika Gvaramia of the independent television station, who has been put in prison on clearly political grounds like Mr Saakashvili? Has the Foreign Office also protested to the Georgian Government about the substantial reports of increases in truck traffic across Georgia between Russia and other states, which suggests a clear breach of sanctions on Russia and has implications for the Ukraine conflict?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, we have been following closely the arrest and conviction of Nika Gvaramia. We note the concerns that have been raised about his case and media freedoms more generally in Georgia. On 2 November last year, senior officials met the Georgian ambassador to discuss the outcome of his appeal on 1 November while also noting those concerns. Our embassy in Tbilisi and officials in London will continue to follow this case.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, can I urge the Minister to return to the subject raised by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, about oligarchs and their malign influence and to see whether any more sanction could be taken? We should not forget about the role of the Council of Europe, which involves significantly more countries than the European Union, and its influence and potential to help us restore democracy to Georgia.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord’s earlier comments are absolutely noted in relation to the influence in particular of Bidzina Ivanishvili, to whom I think he was referring. We understand that he is a private citizen. He does not have any formal or legal role in the Government of Georgia, but we are aware of reports of his links to Russia. We have raised that with the Government of Georgia, who have assured us of their determination to adhere to international sanctions against Russia. As everyone must, we will remain vigilant as we collaborate with our Georgian partners and regularly review our sanctions designations.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, when I was a member of the Venice Commission, it was quite clear that the normal courtesies of democracy had broken down in Georgia, so it is no good going around just blaming other people. Can the Minister assure us that the UK Government will put to the Georgian Government the need to conduct their parliamentary affairs in line with what is normally accepted as western democratic standards—in other words, not boycotting Parliament but exchanging power in a civilised manner?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, we will absolutely continue to press for progress on reforms in line with Georgia’s EU and NATO ambitions. I understand that further discussions will take place in the very near future and we continue to encourage all parties within the Georgian system to interact constructively to enact those reforms required to achieve their shared Euro-Atlantic goals and the will of the Georgian people. The Foreign Secretary met the Georgian Foreign Minister on 26 January, raising those same concerns about developments that are clearly damaging Georgia’s international reputation, its reform credentials and its EU and NATO aspirations.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse the concerns that have been expressed about what is happening in Georgia today. Some of us who have been long-standing supporters of the ambition of Georgia to join the Euro-Atlantic family are deeply distressed about what is happening there, especially the treatment of former president Saakashvili and other members of the opposition as well. Will the Government keep up their pressure on the Government of Georgia to make sure that they adhere to the normal standards that one would expect of a country with such aspirations?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I can absolutely assure noble Lords that that is exactly what the UK is focusing on in our discussions with the Government of Georgia.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Will our Government remind the Government of Georgia that their abandonment of rule of law standards will affect the otherwise plentiful opportunities for economic and business co-operation between our two countries, not least because our Government will be bound to advise businesspeople of the danger of working in Georgia, and political risks insurers will simply refuse insurance for debts mounted in Georgia?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord is of course right. The broader context—the backdrop—is for the Georgian Government to act and behave in a manner that takes them forward towards their broader Euro-Atlantic aspirations. We are a firm supporter of those aspirations; we believe that further integration with the EU and NATO will deliver greater prosperity and security for both Georgia and Europe. UK programmes fully support democratic reforms and NATO interoperability aimed at progressing the Georgian Government’s aspirations.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, listening to the Minister, I think he is aware that there is a wider issue here which goes right to the heart of the democratic credibility of Georgia. My noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury previously raised the issue of LGBT people in Georgia, particularly after the very violent protests ahead of the Tbilisi Pride march. Most recently, the Minister—I think it was in November—was clear that there were number of UK-funded projects aimed at building dialogue within Georgia. Can he tell the House whether all those projects remain secure given the cut in ODA funding?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK continues to work with Georgian partners to combat malign Russian influence, consistent with our efforts and our experience with Ukraine, the Baltic countries and Poland. Over the last five years, our ODA spend in Georgia has been between £4 million and £6 million per year, and non-ODA allocation has grown from £0.2 million to £1 million. We are currently funding a wide range of projects in Georgia, focused on the issues the noble Baroness has raised and more, but I cannot go into specific ODA decisions until those decisions are made public by the Foreign Secretary.
Train Services: North of England
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to improve train services in the north of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, Ministers recognise that the current service provision is far below the standard that passengers rightly expect. The Government constantly review operators’ performance, and all options regarding contracts remain on the table to ensure we reach a long-term solution that works for passengers in the north and across the rail network.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Recent Office of Rail and Road data exposes the scale of the misuse of P-coding the last-minute cancellations by TransPennine Express. In the month up to 4 February, TPE cancelled almost a quarter of its services, and Avanti West Coast was not far behind on 17%. These train companies have exploited this loophole to the great inconvenience of passengers and have misled the public. Can the Minister assure us that they will not be rewarded with new contracts?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not entirely sure that the picture is quite as the noble Baroness has set out. There is not necessarily a misuse of P-codes; the issue is that there has to be a point in the day beyond which a cancellation counts and has to be published as a same-day cancellation and the period before, when a cancellation can happen for all sorts of different reasons, including engineering works and a reduction in timetables, asked for by the department to ensure reliability. We are working very closely with the ORR on the transparency of the cancellation data that is out there. There will of course be P-code data, but there will be other data around the cancellation of train services. When it comes to performance figures, all of the data is taken into account.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I caught the train from Edinburgh Waverley at 9.30 am and got here in plenty of time for Questions because I travelled on the publicly owned LNER. When are the Government going to learn that lesson?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I went to Liverpool the Friday before last; I got there on time and I returned on time. There are journeys across the country, and across the north, that work on time and to a great level of passenger experience. However, it is the case that, where services are not working properly, we need to hold the operators to account and make them better.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest as chairman of Transport for the North. There is no doubt that rail passengers in the north have had a torrid time, be it on TPE, Avanti or Northern. What can the Government do to reassure travelling passengers in those areas directly affected that the train companies have now got the right mechanisms in hand to ensure that future services will improve, whether it is industrial relations or other related matters? There is an issue around P-coding, but P-coding does give forward notification and that should be counted in the overall cancellations.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
There are many things that the Government are doing, because not all train operating companies in the north are the same; they all have slightly different challenges and some have been able to address those challenges more quickly than others in certain circumstances. The challenges fall into three areas. The first is absence and sickness, which is higher than it really should be, and that needs to be addressed. The second is rest day working and overtime. Noble Lords will all know about the national industrial action that happens periodically, and there is also other industrial action around rest day working and more localised disputes. Those are having very significant impacts on services. The last, in some circumstances, is driver departure, as some drivers are choosing the leave the industry. As my noble friend points out, those are the sorts of things we have to consider. We have got action plans for each of the train operating companies, but each one will have slightly different challenges to address.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has just described a railway that is in a mess. Is the new Great British railways going to sort this out? If the answer is yes, why are we not seeing a Bill to make it happen? Does the Minister know when such a Bill is going to be introduced?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think I have mentioned at the Dispatch Box many times that the Bill for rail reform will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. It is worth pointing out that an awful lot can be done before legislation is put in place. One key thing that can be carried out is workforce reform. We have to be absolutely realistic about the challenge that our railways face. Without careful and reasonable reform, there will be no long-term future for the railway. I put it to the noble Lord that if he has any influence whatever among the leaders of the trade unions, he asks them to put forward to their membership the packages that the Government have put forward. We need to understand whether or not we are going to be able to reform the workforce; if we are not, the consequences will be quite severe.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to kill stone-dead the reports that are circulating that, despite Avanti West Coast’s appalling performance, the Government are still minded to renew its contract?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I cannot possibly respond to those reports, but all options remain on the table with regard to all the different contracts as they come up for renewal. There are very well set out processes involving independent evaluation of performance, and all those things will be gone through when it comes to considering Avanti West Coast’s contract.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I had the pleasure of travelling on the same train as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, this morning—but I obviously was not in the same part of the train as him. I would like to comment on the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. While those of us in the north are irritated by the services provided by some of the providers, we are also waiting with bated breath for a decision by the Government to once and for all sort out the links that are necessary between our northern cities, east to west. When are these going to happen?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
That is part of the complex web. The Government want to invest billions of pounds in rail infrastructure for the north. However, if we are unable to operate the services as the train operating companies would like to do, that will become increasingly difficult. It is important that, as we invest billions of pounds across the north, we do so with a constructive and collaborative relationship with the unions and the workforce, to provide the modern seven-day railway that we need.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, at least the Avanti service this morning from the north-west ran, although it was 20 minutes late in getting to Euston. The noble Baroness was good enough to raise these issues during a meeting with Huw Merriman a few weeks ago. She will recall that one of the issues raised was the point just made by her noble friend about east-west travel. One suggestion was that the Hellifield link should be reopened to create a second line of route across the Pennines. The noble Baroness kindly said that she and the Transport Minister would consider coming to see the situation first hand. She has received requests from the local Member of Parliament for Ribble Valley and the leader of Lancashire County Council, and I wonder when that might be expedited.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of that. I will go and give the Rail Minister a bit of a kick and see if we can get him on his way.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I think the Minister will agree with me that one of the ways the railways could be improved would be by stopping the strike action and getting things back to normal. On that basis, could she tell me whether, on strike days, the Government still pay subsidies to Avanti trains for providing no service whatever, or whether they withhold the subsidy that it gets on a daily basis for running the railways? I do not expect the number right now, but to within £10 million would be helpful.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not sure about the subsidies to which the noble Lord refers. There are complex contractual arrangements around what Avanti is entitled to, and the Government make sure that we abide by those contracts. The key here—I do not think I have emphasised this sufficiently previously—is that we need to ensure that we get the workers back to work and get the workforce reform that we need. I am very concerned that rail workers are being led by their union leaders towards a point where there will be no long-term jobs for them, and no railway system for passengers either. It is not the case that when a railway worker strikes they lose their pay just for that day; we are also weakening the system as a whole for the future.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case, though, that the publicly run rail service is far more effective than the ones run by Avanti and the private sector? What lessons has the Minister learned from the difference in performance figures between those in public and private ownership?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
There are all sorts of reasons and criteria as to why one train operating company runs better than another. Often, it can be due to engineering works—if you are upgrading a main line, for example. There are all sorts of different things that can happen. However, the Government do learn lessons from train operators’ performance, comparing one against the other. We take those lessons forward and, particularly for those TOCs in the north, we make sure that those lessons are put in their action plans.
Medicines Manufacturing Industry
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take in response to the report by the Medicines Manufacturing Industry Partnership Fulfilling the potential identified in the Government’s Life Sciences Vision, published on 23 January, which found that medicines manufacturing and employment has declined in the United Kingdom over the last 25 years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the valuable role that medicines manufacturing plays in the UK economy. This enables us to capitalise on our world-class research and development, creates jobs, and contributes significantly to growth. Life sciences pharmaceutical manufacturing was responsible for more than £20 billion of exports in 2021. Our Life Sciences Vision set out the Government’s ambition to create a globally competitive environment for manufacturing investment. Last March, we launched the £60 million life sciences innovative manufacturing fund to encourage manufacturing investment in the UK and will announce the fund’s winners later this year.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right to stress the importance of this sector to our economy and the value of our exports, but since 2010, the volume produced has reduced by 29% and in the league table of countries with trade balances relating to pharmaceuticals, we have gone from fourth place to 98th place. Now the sector, like others, is having to face up to increasing corporation tax and, remarkably and peremptorily, the Treasury decided to reduce SME R&D tax credits for life science companies. This will, in effect, reduce by half the value for loss-making SMEs. Given that SMEs are at the heart of the life science industry, will the Government reconsider that decision?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the UK is a prime location to research, develop and manufacture pharmaceutical products, particularly complex medicines. The Life Sciences Vision acknowledges that there has been a long-term decline in medicines manufacturing in the UK over the past quarter of a century, as the noble Lord highlighted in his Question, but official statistics from the Office for Life Sciences show that employment in core biopharmaceutical manufacturing has increased by 5% in the two years from 2019. The UK holds the number one spot for life science investment in Europe, and globally is second only to the US, so there are reasons for optimism as well.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, is not the situation outlined by the Minister rather belied by a recent article in the Financial Times by Dame Kate Bingham, who did so much to deliver the Covid vaccine? She said:
“Big companies are also retrenching. The pharmaceutical giants AbbVie and Eli Lilly have pulled out of the UK’s pricing agreement with the NHS. Bayer’s pharmaceutical arm is reducing its UK footprint and cutting jobs. Our own domestic titans, GSK and AZ, have chosen to build new factories in countries more friendly to business”,
such as Ireland. Is this not all down to government policy? How are the Government going to get back on the front foot?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I echo the tributes that have been paid in this place today and elsewhere to Kate Bingham for the work she did during the pandemic. The Government have invested more than £405 million to date to secure and scale up the UK’s vaccine manufacturing capabilities to ensure a robust response to Covid and potential future health emergencies. We recently announced a 10-year partnership with Moderna, which will invest in mRNA research and development in the UK, and other examples include Fujifilm, which announced in 2021 a £400 million investment in its site in Billingham, on Teesside, which will more than double the site’s existing development and manufacturing, anticipating the creation of up to 350 skilled jobs.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, one of my frustrations when I was briefly one of the Ministers for life science was that we would have meetings on life sciences between two or three departments, when in fact many parts of government were working on life sciences. I and other Ministers asked for anyone working on life sciences, whether that be in No. 10, the Treasury, DIT, DHSC, et cetera, to all get together in one room, whether virtual or real, to fully co-ordinate across government. I have recently been told that we are no longer co-ordinating across departments. I ask my noble friend to go back to his department to make sure that we continue to co-ordinate with everyone who is working on life sciences in government, so that we do not have one discussion and then have to talk to people outside the room.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly shall, and through the creation of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the point my noble friend makes is highlighted. This is an area where the UK has a globally unique offer, because we have already established a network of medicines manufacturing innovation centres which the industry can use to develop its own technologies, giving it a competitive edge, so the point he raises is important.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, although I agree with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Clement-Jones, also affecting the manufacture and development of medicines in the United Kingdom now is our ability to conduct clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials. We are good at starting phase 1 trials but by the time it comes to phase 3, not enough patients have been recruited and so the commercial trials come to an end. That means that we are not developing new medicines for cancers, cardiac disease and rare diseases. We need much more co-ordination from the Government, from the regulatory authorities for medicine and the ethics research authority, and from integrated care boards and trusts, so that the recruitment of patients continues at phase 3.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. With the change in regulation following our departure from the European Union, we have further freedom to act in this area. It is important that we continue to seize those opportunities and ensure that we are at the cutting edge of scientific exploration. I will refer his points back to the department.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, it is said that India is the pharmacy of the world. Some 50% of generic drugs are manufactured there. Is it in the interests of the taxpayer for our National Health Service to increase its purchases from India?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We want to increase the manufacture of medicines in the UK as well. I have mentioned the importance to our economy and to the creation of jobs, particularly high-skilled jobs, in the UK. As 79% of manufacturing sites and 76% of manufacturing jobs in the UK are outside London and the south-east, there is an important angle there as well to support our work on levelling up. However, these are global challenges, and we want to see global solutions to them.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, is not yet another reason why the pharmaceutical industry is getting anxious that it relies heavily on the science base in basic sciences, and the basic sciences rely heavily on international collaboration? Our ability to attract and bring collaboration from the rest of Europe has been harmed by Brexit. What are the Government doing to redress that problem?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The UK holds the number one spot for life sciences investment in Europe, second only to the United States globally. However, the noble Lord is right about ensuring that we have the skilled talent pool across the industry and from academia and our health service to continue that growth. The Life Sciences Vision sets out our commitment to developing a strong talent pool across all those areas and the Government have developed several skills programmes that are delivering against our commitments by developing a pipeline of onshore talent, including through supporting apprenticeships and improving access to talent from overseas.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the report referred to in the Question highlights the incredible success of Ireland in establishing itself as a global pharmaceutical manufacturing hub. Can the Minister explain what steps the Government are taking to learn from Ireland’s success and apply some of those lessons to the United Kingdom?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Of course, we keep an eye on what is happening around the world to ensure that we maintain our competitive edge but, as I said, we are second only to the United States for life sciences investment. We are supported by a mature and sophisticated capital market and the second biggest hub for private equity and venture capital after the US, so we have many advantages to be proud of as well.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
Does my noble friend not agree that it is not only a decline in the manufacture of medicines but a decline in the manufacture of medical devices that we see at present? As far as I can make out, most medical devices are imported from China. Will the Government consider looking at a market such as Costa Rica, a country which has as its largest export medical devices, as a friendly and democratic country that we could do business with?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend has great expertise in the economies of Latin America and South America. I will ensure that the example of Costa Rica is being heeded in the department.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, all I am hearing is “managed decline”. The MMIP report set six themes for developments in medicines manufacturing, highlighting the importance of a resilient, stable manufacturing base to supply UK and global needs. The report aims to ensure that we have a competitive edge in a world of trade bottlenecks and political instability. What steps are the Government taking to collaborate internationally to secure better regulatory co-operation and trade facilitation to enable this? While we are at it, can the Minister update the House on the Horizon programme association bid, given the progress with the Northern Ireland protocol that we have been told about today?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is very up to the minute with the final part of his question, so I will perhaps defer my answer until I have seen what detail emerges. As I explained in the recent Question on Horizon, it is still the Government’s desire to join the programme. We hope that the EU will adhere to the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement, which we mentioned.
The pharmaceutical industry in the UK employs more than 136,000 people, of whom more than 48,000 are in manufacturing sites. The bulk of those are across the country, outside London and the south-east. There is perhaps not cause for as much gloom as the noble Lord had in his question, but we know that there is more work to be done, hence the work of the Life Sciences Vision and the innovative manufacturing fund to which I referred. We look forward to announcing the first winners of that fund later this year.
Food Price Rises: Public Sector Food Provision
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of food price rises on the provision of food by public sector organisations, in particular the nutrient levels of school lunches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise cost pressures that schools and suppliers are facing. Officials are holding regular meetings with food industry representatives, covering issues including public sector food supplies. Schools manage their own contracts, using government funding to procure services from private sector caterers or local authorities, or to fund their in-house catering. The school food standards set out in regulations what schools should and should not serve to children during the school day.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, in December, food price inflation was 16.9%. It is a fact that this has caused a reduction in the portion size and nutritional value of school meals. This affects poorer children the most and contributes to health inequalities. Because of the price of energy, some schools are providing only cold meals. Does the Minister accept that the Government’s policies on school food standards, using British food and supporting SMEs, will not be achieved unless there is realistic and regular renegotiation of these contracts? Will the Minister please look into this?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As always, I will be interested if the noble Baroness has specific examples to share with the department, as that is not the picture we are getting. The picture that we are getting is that there are, of course, pressures on food inflation, but clear standards on nutritional value continue to be met. There is a real focus on reducing waste and, in some cases, that means reducing the number of options available to pupils, but not the quality.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, based on research we have done at Feeding Britain, I can say that around £88 million every year does not get through to the school food budget. One reason is that poorer pupils are unable to roll over their daily allowance. It has also been true that councils, to a lesser extent, and schools themselves—because food is something that you can reduce while still delivering a meal—have been using some of that money because they are so cash-strapped. No blame is afforded here, because budgets everywhere are very tight, but would the Minister agree that this is an extremely false economy? Will she agree to talk to me and Feeding Britain about whether we can review it and ring-fence the money? As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out, the amount is not enough at the moment to make sure that these meals are healthy and nutritious. For many kids, it is all that they are getting.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that schools need to use the funding provided for them to feed the children eligible for free school meals. We are monitoring the implementation of our policies, and we are investing in a pilot training scheme for school governors so that they are well equipped to understand what is happening in their schools.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we have loads of time. Let us hear from my noble friend and then from the noble Baroness opposite.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, what could be easier to source and more nutritious than locally produced food? Will my noble friend the Minister and the Government endeavour to ensure that there are more locally sourced meat, fruit and vegetables available for schools and other public sector organisations, such as prisons and military garrisons?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government absolutely support the spirit of my noble friend’s remarks in terms of supporting the local economy and making sure that children and others—in hospitals and elsewhere—who receive government-funded meals get the highest quality. It is important, however, that they have the flexibility and discretion to decide for themselves how they source the food.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, a recent open letter to the Prime Minister from the heads of leading public health organisations, supported by a number of noble Lords, including myself, called for the extension of free school meals and the national school breakfast programme on the grounds that access to nutritious food at school improves children’s health, development and ability to learn. At a time when low-income parents are struggling more than ever, will the Government use the forthcoming Budget to ensure that children have access to nutritious food from school dinners and breakfasts?
Baroness Barran (Con)
This Government have made huge strides in extending access to free school meals, with the introduction of universal infant free school meals and the introduction of free school meals in further education. More than a third of pupils are now eligible for free school meals. We keep the situation under constant review.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, security is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any Government, yet with huge hikes in the cost of food from overseas, our domestic market is declining. Take, for example, the outstanding market garden sector in the Lea Valley in my diocese. About 10% of them had to close in the last year because of the cost of heating. What are the Government going to do to ensure that those market gardens are able to sustain themselves, to guarantee our basic food security in this country?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot comment on the specific market gardens to which the right reverend Prelate refers, but I absolutely get the spirit of his question. He will be aware that Defra works very closely with the food industry in this country to monitor where risks are in relation to supply and to make sure that any disruption can be addressed.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, we would all acknowledge that a lot of good work operates through schools in providing nutritious meals, but we should be aware that schools are not in session for about a quarter of the year. What action are the Government taking to try to tackle the problem of holiday hunger for vulnerable children?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have committed £200 million to the holiday activities and food fund. It reached about 600,000 children in the summer of 2021, which is the last year for which we have data. I visited a primary school in Ipswich on Friday that was using that funding very creatively through the holidays, working with families to make sure that it reached the children who needed it most.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, a study published by Imperial College last year highlighted that, across primary and secondary schools, 64% of calories consumed by pupils at lunchtime were from ultra-processed food. Given the long-term health implications that this presents and the important role played by good nutrition in pupil attainment, does the Minister intend to take on board the report’s recommendation to cap the levels of ultra-processed food in school meals?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Our guidelines are clear in respect of the quality of food that children should receive in their lunchtime meals. They are clear about the range of fruit, vegetables, carbohydrates and protein that they should get.
Lord Swire (Con)
My noble friend the Minister is right to point out the huge inflationary pressures on school budgets and other budgets in the public sector. At the same time, can she reassure us that everything is being done to prioritise the purchase by the public sector of British-sourced products to support our own hard-pressed farming community?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think that I in part addressed that point in response to my noble friend earlier. We absolutely are supporting our domestic farmers and food production industry, but equally it is important that we give flexibility to schools to respond to opportunities in their local markets. They understand their needs and can deliver for the children in their care.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will agree that we want all children to have a nutritional hot dinner, particularly at lunchtime. She will also be aware that, when the coalition Government introduced free meals at key stage 1, there was a massive take-up of young people having a hot school dinner. Now we see a large and increasing number of families coming to school with a packed lunch, which in many cases is not nutritional and certainly is not warm. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that packed lunches are of nutritional value to the children who bring them into school?
Baroness Barran (Con)
There is obviously a limit to the extent to which the Government should direct individual parents on the food they provide for their children. We are ambitious for our children’s understanding of the importance of nutrition and for their own opportunities to cook at school and become more confident in how to cook nutritious and affordable food. Again, I am aware of a number of examples of schools working closely with parents to equip them with those skills not just for lunchtime but for the evening.
Scotland: Bottle Deposit Return Scheme
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the Scottish Government’s bottle deposit return scheme upon (1) the internal market between Scotland and England and (2) UK manufacturers, businesses and consumers.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, as waste policy is a devolved matter, the Scottish Government have opted to roll out a DRS independently of the rest of the UK, due to launch on 16 August this year. We remain in close contact with officials and industry to learn from the delivery of the Scottish scheme and align on key decisions wherever possible.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, that Answer simply is not good enough. This is a unilateral scheme that has been completely ill thought out. Indeed, one of the candidates for the SNP leadership has said it should be cancelled. The deadline for businesses to register is tomorrow. It means a death sentence for small producers of beverages and price increases for Scottish consumers, and it drives a coach and horses through the UK internal market. It requires an opt-out from the internal market Act to proceed. Will my noble friend throw a lifeline to those businesses and consumers?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Let us see whether I can try to encourage my noble friend with this reply. The Government have not yet received an official ministerial request from the Scottish Government for a United Kingdom internal market exemption. There have been discussions at official level. He is entirely right to point out the failures of the Scottish scheme and the impact it will have on Scottish businesses. In November some 600 businesses wrote to the Scottish Minister outlining various reasons why the deposit return scheme is going to fail in Scotland. These include a risk of fraud, major losses in consumer spend, loss of investment in the Scottish economy, and financial and environmental implications for local authorities.
I have to wait and see whether the Scottish Government apply for a UKIM exemption, and then I can answer my noble friend’s question. One of the front-runners to lead the SNP has announced that if it rolls out in Scotland in August as planned, it will create “carnage”. I agree.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that the Minister in charge in Scotland, Lorna Slater, has acknowledged that she has not yet submitted a request, she has not consulted any other Governments which have implemented a scheme, and she has no idea how it is going to work but insists it is still going ahead? Is not the reality that we need a UK-wide scheme that will meet the needs of people in Scotland and elsewhere, where it is extremely divisive and clearly incompetent, and, if we have a UK-wide scheme, the Government’s responsibility is to press ahead with it as quickly as possible?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is exactly right. If we were indulging in grown-up politics across all the Governments, we would have a scheme that acknowledged that waste is a devolved but aligned issue. There is undoubtedly an environmental benefit from reducing the amount of waste going to landfill and the amount of litter plaguing our highways, in particular. It is possible to run a perfectly sensible scheme. We have been discussing a scheme with the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments, but it should be run in alignment right across these islands. The Scottish Government have sought to appear more virtuous and to rush this, and they have failed the Scottish people and Scottish businesses. The scheme will result in huge costs and even the risk of booze cruises, so that people can go south of the border to get drink at 50% less cost. This is entirely ridiculous. We want to work with the people of Scotland to make sure we align on this.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, for once I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—and that does not happen very often. However, I fear the Minister has underestimated the seriousness of this matter. The Minister dealing with this appeared on television in Scotland yesterday. Although participating manufacturers have to sign up by Tuesday—tomorrow—she said she is reviewing whether there will be a delay of a year. This is total chaos. If the Minister can imagine the situation, if this goes ahead, manufacturers, including small manufacturers, will have to produce separate bottles and cans for Scotland and for England, which will be enormously expensive. If they do not, can he imagine the trade that might take place at Carlisle or Gretna, with people gathering the bottles that are worth 10p and going from England to Scotland and making hundreds and thousands of pounds. The whole thing is total chaos. This is a very good idea, but it must be done on a United Kingdom basis, so there is not this confusion. Will the Minister talk immediately with the Secretary of State for Scotland and see if he can impose Section 35 of the Scotland Act, stop this nonsense straight away and make sure a UK scheme is introduced, which would benefit the whole of the United Kingdom?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I cannot disagree at all with the noble Lord. I agree with everything he said and assure him that I spoke to the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter this morning. He is absolutely resolute that the points raised by the noble Lord are the case and are a serious problem, particularly in cross-border trade—even the letter that I quoted earlier talks about the risk of fraud. But this fits in with a pattern—on educational attainment, on ferries, on drug policy—that the people of his country have to endure with the Government in Scotland. We want to make sure that on environmental policy such as this there is an alignment. It is perfectly possible for all four countries of the union to work through a scheme and implement it gently, in way that does not have great inflationary costs and does not damage business, but that works with the grain of public opinion, which wants to see more recycling, less litter and a scheme that works.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I went litter-picking at the weekend and I am much encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said. Do I understand that, if I were to fill a lorry with all the empty bottles scattered around the lanes of Leicestershire, I could go up to Scotland and make a great deal of money? This is most encouraging as far as I am concerned. I should say that I raised the issue of bottle deposits in my maiden speech in the Commons some 31 years ago.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I can only applaud my noble friend for his virtuous activities at weekends, but, sadly, I have to report that I do not think he would be able to do that. For the Scottish scheme to work, an English drinks manufacturing company, say, would be required to produce a labelled item in a particular way so that it could not be deposited there. The current system is Kafkaesque and it has to be more sensible.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, in answer to my Written Question on this issue at the beginning of January, the Minister replied:
“Waste is a devolved policy area, and we are working closely with the devolved administrations and industry to support the successful delivery of the scheme across the UK, including mitigating the impacts that arise from differences in scheme implementation.”
Can he tell us what progress has been made since then, beyond the publication of the consultation response? While, clearly, we should not impose a system on Scotland, this opens a window of opportunity for the constituent parts of the UK to agree a joint approach, as other noble Lords have said. Are the Government willing to have the discussions needed to achieve this?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Yes, and we are having those discussions. We are also looking at other countries that run successful deposit return schemes to try to learn from their successes, just as we are learning from the failures of the Scottish system, and we want to ensure alignment across the United Kingdom. I am absolutely on the same page as the noble Baroness.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, that not everything being painted here is an accurate picture, and he spoke about a so-called “rush”. These regulations were passed by the Scottish devolved Administration in September 2020; as I believe the Minister confirmed, discussions started with Westminster in 2021; it is now 2023. Biffa, the delivery body for Circularity Scotland, has spent £100 million and 500 jobs are being created. The very principle that this Government say they stand for, “polluter pays”, is being delivered. Does the Minister agree that, if the Government step in at this very late stage—if Westminster stops Scotland delivering what it has a right to do under devolved law—that will mean a collapse in business confidence and we will never see a bottle deposit scheme across these islands after Westminster steps into this business?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think all of us will feel great sympathy for the noble Baroness in trying to defend what her party is doing as part of a coalition of abject failure. She talks about business; I can only quote what business says:
“Tens of thousands of businesses who produce, can, bottle, distribute, or sell alcoholic or soft drinks in Scotland now have less than a year to successfully adapt their operations, without the necessary knowledge or levers in place.”
It is not the principle of a deposit return scheme—I suspect some of us are old enough to remember the thruppenny bit—but how it is implemented. That, I am afraid to say, is right at the heart of the problem at Holyrood.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Can the Minister tell us what will happen on His Majesty’s warships in relation to beverages? Not that we have many warships, so it is not too big a problem—but will it apply or not?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Sunday evening has been enhanced by watching what happens to waste on an aircraft carrier and recycling on these facilities. If it lands at Rosyth or Portsmouth, will there be a different scheme? We can say only that it is a mystery wrapped in enigma inside a riddle.
Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill
Monday 27th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 View all Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 November 2022 - (30 Nov 2022)
Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill
Monday 27th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 View all Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 December 2022 - (7 Dec 2022)
Electricity Transmission (Compensation) Bill
Monday 27th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Electricity Transmission (Compensation) Act 2023 View all Electricity Transmission (Compensation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 January 2023 - (25 Jan 2023)
Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 December 2022 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 February
Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 January be approved.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 February
Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 February
Postponement of Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the draft Order laid before the House on 25 January be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 February
Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]
Monday 27th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Bill
Monday 27th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 22 February 2023 - (22 Feb 2023)
Lord Caine
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the main business, it is only right that I invite the House to join me in condemning unreservedly the despicable and cowardly attack on DCI John Caldwell on Wednesday evening. The terrorists who commit such evil acts are not wanted by society and they will never succeed in their objectives; democracy and consent will always prevail in Northern Ireland. The people of Omagh and Beragh spoke for us all over the weekend when they rallied together to say there can be no going back. Our thoughts and prayers are with DCI Caldwell, his family and his colleagues—some of whom I met at Omagh police station on Thursday morning—at this terrible time.
Over a year has passed since the then First Minister of Northern Ireland resigned his post. Twelve months and one Assembly election later, people in Northern Ireland still do not have a properly functioning Government, as set out in the Belfast agreement and subsequent agreements. In the absence of those institutions, this Government have stepped in to protect the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. We have set a Budget, delivered vital energy support funding of £600 per household and legislated to provide clarity on the decision-making powers of Northern Ireland civil servants to enable them to maintain public service provision.
On each of those occasions, I have stood at this Dispatch Box and expressed my deep disappointment that we still await the return of a functioning Assembly and Executive. I wish to restate that profound disappointment once again today. The restoration of the Executive, in line with the 1998 agreement and its successors, remains the Government’s top priority. It was on that basis that we legislated last autumn to extend the Executive formation period through the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022. Since that period ended in January 2023, the Secretary of State has once again been under a statutory duty to call an Assembly election, which would have to be held within 12 weeks—on or before 13 April this year.
We have spent some time since then engaging with Northern Ireland’s political and community leaders, assessing the options available to His Majesty’s Government, and it is the Government’s conclusion that a further Assembly election at this time would be unwelcome and expensive and, crucially, would bring us no closer to our objective of delivering fully functioning devolved institutions. On that note, I will briefly summarise the overall intention of the Bill. Before I do so, I again express my gratitude to the Benches opposite, including to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for the cross-party approach that they continue to take in relation to the delivery of key legislation for Northern Ireland.
The Bill itself will provide for a retrospective extension of the Executive formation period of one year from 19 January 2023, meaning that, if the parties are unable to form an Executive on or before 18 January 2024, the Secretary of State will again fall under a duty to call an Assembly election to take place within 12 weeks. We believe, however, that flexibility is necessary if we are to play our part in encouraging and facilitating the return of the institutions. On that basis, the Bill will also provide the Secretary of State with the power to call an earlier election, providing that offices have not been filled.
Taken together, these provisions represent a delicate balance. Eventually, if the political impasse in Northern Ireland continues, people will rightly expect to return to the polls and have their say. The prospect, however, of forcing an election when that would be unwelcome or unhelpful would, in our view, run contrary to our broader goal of forming an Executive.
Noble Lords with a keen eye for detail will have noticed that, unless an earlier election is called, the extension provided by this Bill would run past the date on which the decision-making powers contained in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 will lapse: namely 5 June 2023. We are therefore keeping those arrangements under review, in the continued absence of devolved government, but we sincerely hope that an Executive will be in place before these arrangements expire.
In the meantime, the provisions of the 2022 Act and its accompanying guidance provide civil servants with the clarity that they need on how and when they should be taking decisions. The decisions that have been taken by civil servants using the 2022 Act are being published to ensure transparency. We are grateful for the work that Northern Ireland civil servants are doing in making use of those provisions. The current arrangements are not, however, and never can be, a substitute for a fully functioning devolved Government.
I will speak briefly to the amendments the Government brought forward in the other place that now form part of the Bill. I know that all of us in your Lordships’ House have been deeply moved by the courage shown by Dáithí Mac Gabhann and his whole family in fighting for the implementation of organ donation changes. The Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Chris Heaton-Harris MP, has met Dáithí and his family. He was incredibly moved by his story and by the family’s dedication to seeing important changes to the law implemented as quickly as possible.
As a Government we have recognised that this issue is exceptional, both in the sheer importance it holds and the cross-party support it commands both in Northern Ireland and in this House. Clause 2 will therefore change the procedure for making regulations defining permitted material for transplantation in Northern Ireland under Section 3 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, as amended by the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. This would allow regulations to be made in the absence of devolved institutions regarding rules for organ donation.
Before I conclude, I will make a very short statement on legislative consent, which is required in relation to the section on organ and tissue donation. Clearly, we have been unable to secure an LCM, a legislative consent Motion, from the Northern Ireland Assembly, given that it is currently not sitting—indeed, if it was sitting, we would not have needed this Bill, but its continued absence, and that of the Executive, mean we have to take action here.
I have spoken this afternoon about dates and timelines in the light of the nature of this Bill. As I conclude, I also want to note one anniversary of which noble Lords across this House will be keenly aware: the upcoming 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement. I see the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, opposite, who played such a key role in negotiating particularly strand 1 of that agreement. Noble Lords will no doubt join me in noting the progress that Northern Ireland has made since that historic agreement. This Government will always work to implement, maintain and protect the agreement. As I said in opening, the restoration of the Executive remains our top priority. The Bill will help assist those objectives by avoiding an unwelcome election and providing time for us to work together to end the current impasse. But of course the Bill alone will not be enough to achieve that. All of us now, including His Majesty’s Government, need to make the most of the opportunity presented by the Bill. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for presenting the details of this important Bill—all three clauses of it. I offer my support, prayers and thoughts to detective chief inspector John Caldwell and his family. He was brutally attacked by gunshots on Wednesday evening in Beragh, in County Tyrone. I commend the people of Beragh, and Omagh, who have been tremendously steadfast in the face of such adversity.
I want to make it quite clear that murder, terrorism and paramilitarism was always wrong, and something that I and my colleagues have always condemned, believing that the political process is the only way forward. Dialogue is the only way forward. Violence, terrorism and paramilitarism solve absolutely nothing. In that respect, I was pleased to see the five political party leaders come forward with the chief constable on Friday to denounce what happened to John Caldwell and to offer support on behalf of the community in Northern Ireland—all of the community—to John and his family. It is vitally important, at this stage, that there is cross-party solidarity against such violence and terrorism. We never ever want to go back to that place. That is a message to those paramilitaries: please get off our backs and leave us to get on with our lives in Northern Ireland in peace and prosperity.
However, in considering the Bill, today is Groundhog Day in many ways, because as we debate this the Prime Minister and the EU president, Ursula von der Leyen, are outlining—they may have already done so—the details of the agreement on the protocol, which I understand has got a new name: the Windsor framework. It sounds like the title of a play down at the West End, but it is much more serious than that. It is about the future economic, social and political prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland.
If anything could be said about last week, it is this: it is important that paramilitarism is not allowed to take over or undermine any political process. It is in that vein that I come to the debate today. It is vitally important that there is a restoration of political institutions to give the political and economic stability that is urgently required in Northern Ireland, and it is important that people feel they can subscribe to that. I hope that the new protocol, or framework, provides the necessary mechanisms to enable us to avail ourselves of tariff-free access to both markets, to allow our economy to grow, to enable political stability and to restore those most-needed institutions of the Good Friday agreement, as we approach the 25th anniversary on 10 April.
The Bill is an interim measure to enable negotiations, which have now been completed, between the UK and the EU. I hope that the political parties will allow this document—we have all to see the legal text—to be investigated in depth, but I also hope that we can get on with our lives, economically, politically and socially. I hope that the Bill will become redundant in time and that the institutions will be up and running, but that is very much in the hands of others—I look forward to a positive response from the DUP and other unionists in relation to that. I come from the position that political principles should never prevent the successful operation and functioning of our political institutions. We must remember—I speak as a former MLA and Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive—that the Executive and Assembly have operated for only 40% of the time over the last 25 years. We must get away from that stop-start situation and vetoes and move on to working in the best interests of the people.
I welcome Clause 2, which will ensure that Dáithí’s law becomes a reality. I was very much taken by young Dáithí Mac Gabhann, who requires a new heart. The campaign is spearheaded by his father, Máirtín, his mother, Seph, and Fearghal McKinney of the British Heart Foundation. It lit the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland and the political fraternity. It is interesting that five parties supported this, which is another example of political resilience, political coming together and resolute action on behalf of the political parties. That is the type of determination that we now need to see.
Notwithstanding that, it is important that Chris Heaton-Harris, as Secretary of State, did this. Currently, 146 people are on the waiting list for a heart transplant. Without the enactment of the Bill, particularly Clause 2, this could not have happened. On average, around 10 people per year die for the lack of access to that soft opt-out option for organ donation. So congratulations must go to Dáithí’s family—his father, Máirtín, and his mother, Seph—working with Fearghal McKinney, on their resilience and dogged persistence in spearheading and leading this campaign.
It is also interesting to note the affirmation of the organ donation legislative measures from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee:
“We consider that ordinarily it would be inappropriate for the regulation making power conferred by section 3(9A) of the 2004 Act to be made subject to any procedure other than the affirmative resolution procedure. However, we take the view that the exceptional circumstances applying in Northern Ireland make the application of the negative resolution procedure not inappropriate during the period when there is no Assembly to carry out the approval function under the affirmative procedure.”
That is an affirmation, from that important legislative committee here in your Lordships’ House, of the importance of going ahead with this from the point of view of the Government and both Houses of Parliament.
Nevertheless, this issue should have been dealt with by a fully functional Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, because that is what devolution is about and what the 90 MLAs were elected last May to do—not solely constituency work. Yes, there are two prongs to their responsibilities, constituency and legislative work, and it is time those institutions were up and running. Political principles should not be used to prevent progress within our institutions, and I hope that the concerted joint political action we have seen over the last few days, of politicians working together, will be the hallmark and benchmark of the future weeks and months.
The Bill also highlights the need for us now to move forward. We have now had an outcome to the UK-EU negotiations and the protocol—or the framework—and it is necessary and required that parties reflect on that. But there needs to be resolute action that results now in the restoration of political institutions. As I said on 5 December during the discussion on the last piece of legislation which dealt with the extension to 19 January, there should be inter-party talks in parallel looking at the future appointment of joint Ministers to underscore equality, an end to the vetoes which have prevented the political institutions working properly, and the need to put inclusion, reconciliation and equality—the central principles of the Good Friday agreement—back in government. There should be inter-party talks, with both Governments looking at the outstanding issues of the NDNA and putting a plan in place to implement them.
In conclusion, I support the legislation, but concerted resolve is required by both Governments and the five parties to ensure the restoration of political institutions and not to allow the actions of armed people to take over.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for clearly presenting the elements of the Bill. I identify with the sentiments of sympathy and concern expressed for DCI John Caldwell and his family. I also identify with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who pointed out the need to consider not only those who do violence, as was apparently done by people from the so-called “new IRA” in the attempted murder of DCI John Caldwell, but those who threaten violence if they do not get their own way, in particular at the moment on the loyalist side. It is very important for us all in this House and the other place—indeed, all political representatives—to make it very clear, as the community is doing, that neither doing violence nor threatening to do violence is acceptable any more, if it ever was.
That is the sad side, the worrying side, the downside, of today. But, of course, there is a very positive element to this Bill. I want to take the second part of the Bill first, if I may, the so-called Dáithí’s law element. Some of us spend much of a lifetime trying to get a little piece of legislation passed. Young Dáithí, at a very early age, with the support of his parents Máirtín and Seph, and with friends and colleagues such as Fearghal McKinney, as the noble Baroness said, and others, has ensured not only that he is getting legislation passed but getting his name attached to it. That is a remarkable achievement and I hope it presages well for him in the future, making a positive contribution not only on his own behalf but on behalf of many other people as well. He started off life with difficulties, with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, and we all hope he will receive a transplant soon to enable him to be fit and lively and enjoy his life. But he has made a tremendous contribution, by endearing himself to people, by persuading them and by being such an attractive character.
I am delighted, as a doctor who came from Northern Ireland and qualified at Queen’s University Belfast, to see this legislation coming forward. But I am also a little bit sad. We are the last part of the United Kingdom to get this legislation, this so-called opt-out clause that enables us to have more organs for transplant. I am a little sad because it was not always so. One hundred years ago, in 1923, a young girl was born in Lurgan, County Armagh—the town I was born in—and she went on to be one of the world’s leading nephrologists. Her name was Molly McGeown. She qualified in medicine and, like many other women of the time, found it difficult to get an appointment as a consultant because the senior staff said they could not afford to employ people like her, a married woman with children, at that level. It is wonderful how things have changed, although I have to tell your Lordships that my own wife ran into similar problems herself when she was working as a young doctor. But things have changed, and they changed because of people like Molly McGeown. She was absolutely determined to go ahead, and she did. She established the renal unit at Belfast City Hospital; took forward renal dialysis; developed what became known as the Belfast recipe, a particular approach to renal dialysis that massively improved survival rates; developed a renal transplant programme that was of benefit not just to the people of Northern Ireland but way beyond; produced huge numbers of academic papers in her work as a professor at Queen’s University Belfast; and was a star, not just in Northern Ireland, not just in the NHS, but across the world.
So there was a time when we were able to lead things. Now, we find ourselves coming in behind the rest of the United Kingdom. It does not have to be like that, but part of the reason it is, is the political difficulties and stalemate. It is not that the legislation was not approved and passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, or that politicians in Northern Ireland did not want to see such legislation. Of course they did, and they passed it, but other political difficulties supervened, and it got held back.
I hope that on this auspicious day, we are able to look forward to substantial progress, which takes us to the second part of my speech and the first part of the Bill: the difficulties of establishing an Executive and, because of that, the Assembly itself being in suspension. There were other, political ways that protests could have been made against what people did not want to see with the Northern Ireland protocol. It did not have to involve the suspension of the Assembly and the Executive, and everything that went with it. That this House is having to pass Dáithí’s law here shows just what a disaster it is for the people of Northern Ireland to have elected representatives but not be able to pass their own legislation—that it has to be done here and be delayed. I desperately hope we can move forward, and quickly.
When I heard about the Bill and the talk of a delay of another 12 months, my first reaction was for my heart to sink and I thought, “Oh, my goodness, another year waiting around for things to move forward”. But I often try to look on the bright side and I began to think, “Wait a minute, the Prime Minister may have something here. He may know perfectly well that he is not that far from an agreement; he may also know that that agreement might not be immediately accepted by some of those who have been negative about the Northern Ireland protocol; and he may well be creating a bit of space and time where it is possible for them to find their way towards supporting it”. Maybe some of them want to get to the other side of the local government elections before they will give support to it, or maybe there are some discussions that they need to have internally. Whatever the case, creating that space may give an opportunity for a positive result. I hope that that is the case.
I look at friends and colleagues on the other side of the Chamber and I very much hope that they will use their best offices and realise that if Northern Ireland’s Assembly is not put in place, and power devolves back to London, it will not be exercised by London alone: it will be exercised by London in collaboration with colleagues in Dublin. Therefore, I think we have to be thoughtful about the future and about the prospects, and I very much hope that they and their colleagues will find it possible to move quickly. We do not want to wait another 12 months until good legislation such as this is passed at the Northern Ireland Assembly, where it ought to be passed. We want to see it happening quickly, for the betterment of all the people of Northern Ireland.
So, I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues, especially today, on trying to take things forward in Northern Ireland and I very much hope that all of us, together, whatever our differing perspectives, can find ways of ensuring that Northern Ireland legislation is done, as much as possible, in Northern Ireland by the elected representatives there, for the betterment of all the people. Young Dáithí has given an example to us that the people who attacked John Caldwell can never give, because he has pointed a positive way forward for all of us and the next generation.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I too join in thanking the Minister for outlining the contents of the Bill before the House today and in condemning the awful attack on Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell last week. Our hopes and prayers are with John Caldwell as he lies in hospital and we hope and pray that he makes a full recovery. We think of his family and we also think of those young children who were forced to witness a despicable, murderous attack. They are not the first set of children to have gone through this in Northern Ireland; many have grown up with the scars of having witnessed heinous and horrendous events. So many families were scarred, not just those who were on the end of physical attacks but those who witnessed these things. We think of those children and their families and what they are going through today.
This violence is wrong. There is no excuse. There has never been any excuse for violence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, pointed out, it has been condemned by right-thinking people throughout the last number of decades of Northern Ireland’s Troubles, as they are euphemistically called, but we have to point out that today we are seeing a rise in people who seem to have forgotten the obscenity of violence and are now running around singing, “Up the Ra” and eulogising IRA atrocities. At the forefront of that are Sinn Féin leaders who, despite standing with other leaders the other day, continue to make a distinction. They eulogise and praise the IRA murders of police officers and innocent civilians, many of whom were killed in horrendous circumstances in front of their children. The Sinn Féin putative First Minister has recently eulogised such murders and, as long as that continues, it will set the environment and set a context in which others will follow. They will see it as legitimate to carry out this kind of violence. So we need to see an end to this eulogising of violence. It has always been wrong, there have never been circumstances in which it was justified, and Sinn Féin, if it really wants a shared future and if it really wants respect when it talks about human rights, should stop praising murder and terrorism.
I also join those who have spoken of Dáithí and his achievement. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said about young Dáithí and the courage and bravery of his family in carrying this campaign forward with such eloquence. Whatever our view may be on the particular piece of legislation, they have achieved an awful amount and a lot of credit goes to them. I am just sorry that there was an attempt by the Government to politicise the issue, trying to use it as a ruse to get the Assembly back, knowing full well that the legislation could be introduced at Westminster without putting the family through all of that. So I welcome the fact that the Government have taken action, just as action was taken on the energy payments which recently came to Northern Ireland.
I hope we do not hear too much about the fact that things cannot be done in the absence of the Assembly; of course they can be done, if there is a will. This Bill proves it. A few months ago, we were here debating the Bill which put back the elections in Northern Ireland to the Assembly for 12 weeks or so. Many of your Lordships warned—I remember speeches from both the Labour Front Bench and the Lib Dem Front Bench—that it was very clear that we would have to return to this, because there was no way that the deadline could be met. The Government refused to accept that at the time; we were told, “Oh, well, you know, primary legislation will be needed and we won’t have time for that going forward”. Here we are: the legislation is before us and time has been made. I respectfully and gently urge the Government, when they are bringing forward legislation, to be slightly more open and transparent with your Lordships about the reasoning.
One of the problems we have is that the reason we do not have an Executive is the current situation regarding the protocol. Remember that the Democratic Unionist Party First Minister—who was referred to by the Minister—resigned in office as First Minister. So this has not come about as a result of the Assembly elections; this happened before the Assembly elections. The reason why we do not have an Executive in Northern Ireland is that Ministers in that Executive have to administer and implement laws handed down by the European Union which they rightly believe do damage to the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and no self-respecting unionist is going to put their hand to that. The Government were given plenty of time and plenty of warning right through from early February 2021 that action had to be taken; promises were made to the people of Northern Ireland by successive Prime Ministers on the Conservative side about addressing this matter, but nothing actually ever got done.
I do recognise that we are now on the cusp of hearing about what will be revealed very soon, and we look forward to studying the detail of that. But the reason that we are in this predicament today and the reason we do not have an Executive is that it does breach the principles of democracy itself. It does breach the Acts of Union, as upheld in the Supreme Court recently; it does breach the New Decade, New Approach document, which was the basis on which the Assembly returned in January 2020; and it does breach the consent principles of the Belfast agreement, based on the consent of both unionists and nationalists. There is not a single unionist in the Northern Ireland Assembly who supports the current protocol, for the reasons I have previously outlined.
In the coming hours and days, we will see the usual spin and propaganda from many people concerning the proposals we are due to hear about and have been, as I understand it, just released. Obviously, we need to take our time to study exactly what is being said; very often when we get the legislative detail, we find that it is very different from what is portrayed, what is spun and what is the subject of much commentary. Many people told us in emphatic terms—commentators, the media, politicians and many others—that the original protocol should be accepted. But they were wrong, and today proves that they were wrong. Have we heard any apologies for that? No, of course not. The political parties in Northern Ireland—other than the unionists—all called for the rigorous implementation of the protocol, which is now fully accepted to be flawed. So unionists will rightly not be taking advice, much of it coloured by political viewpoint. We will make up our minds on what is right for the union.
However, it is deeply regrettable that the Government have brought the monarchy into this matter through the decision to have the agreement take place in the circumstances in which we understand it to have taken place. This has been warned about over a number of days; I think it is deeply counterproductive and not helpful.
There are fundamental constitutional and democratic principles at stake. Fixes and carve-outs may solve some problems today, but the danger is that if the architecture—the superstructure—of the arrangements gives primacy to foreign law, people will need to think very carefully about the future implications for the separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, including what it means for democracy. We are talking here about elections to the Assembly and its restoration. Any Assembly Member in Northern Ireland—not just unionist Members—should surely want to have the power and the basic right to say yes or no to laws that apply to their constituents. What self-respecting legislator would willingly see that handed over to a foreign entity?
There are fundamental issues at stake. Will the Assembly be able to have the final say? That is key, and we will see. The Supreme Court, as I mentioned, recently handed down a very important ruling on the way that the protocol changes the foundation Acts of Union without consent, and any new deal will need to remedy that. That is one of the tests that the Democratic Unionist Party has laid down about removing the supremacy of EU law—in fact, it is the first test. Will that be removed? We shall see, but that is key. Is it too much to ask that people in Northern Ireland have the same rights of citizenship as people in the rest of the United Kingdom? We shall see. Is it too much that we exit the EU along with the rest of the United Kingdom? Again, we shall see in a very short time.
Many who advocate for the retention of EU jurisdiction over Northern Ireland would be the first to rail against any similar arrangements for themselves. That hypocrisy is not lost on unionists. Whatever concessions from the EU, whatever improvements on the original protocol, unionists will judge any deal on sovereignty and democracy. Are our rights, as His Majesty’s subjects, equal to those of our fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom? If the answer is no, we must not give up in our rightful quest and desire to have those rights fully restored.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow that interesting and carefully considered speech by my noble friend Lord Dodds. There is widespread agreement that the interests of our fellow country men and women in Northern Ireland would not be served by another election in the present circumstances, and what is happening today must reinforce that view. This Bill is entirely appropriate, and there can be no objection to its rapid progress through both Houses. The legal position must be regularised.
But, of course, it is painful to contemplate a further period in which the Northern Ireland departments will not be under ministerial control. Northern Ireland civil servants who continue to administer departmental affairs deserve the highest praise, but as we all know, they labour under serious constraints. Policies agreed by Ministers before their departure cannot be amended; spending plans cannot be adjusted in response to changing needs. It is truly tragic and heartbreaking to hear of the ever-growing problems affecting the great public services in Northern Ireland. Hospital waiting lists spiral to extraordinary lengths, and standards in Northern Ireland’s schools—some of the finest in our country—are under severe threat.
Serious consideration should surely be given to a major programme of reconstruction and reform when devolution is restored. Would there not be merit in undertaking such a programme in close partnership with the Northern Ireland Office—indeed, with the United Kingdom Government as a whole?
Funding will, as always, be a central issue; so will the full and successful incorporation in the great public services—the NHS in particular—of all the latest digital and other remarkable advances that are transforming today’s world. I listen to what our Health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, says about the plans that are unfolding for the long-term benefit of patients in the NHS in England, and I think, “Ulster should have that, too.” Northern Ireland must enjoy the full benefits of the union, and that will not happen without a close partnership between it and the rest of the union.
The imponderable factor in all this is the attitude of Sinn Féin. There have been—and will almost certainly continue to be—great difficulties securing Sinn Féin’s successful involvement in the devolved institutions. It is shocking that a Sinn Féin Finance Minister should set irresponsible budgets that the Northern Ireland Assembly turns down. Yet it is hardly surprising. Sinn Féin’s goal is not a secure and flourishing Northern Ireland within our union, but its absorption by one means or another into another state.
Unionism, which expresses the wish of Northern Ireland’s majority, exists to stop that happening. It needs reinforcing to enable it to go on succeeding in its historic aim, so that we can continue to confound those who have said throughout my lifetime that Northern Ireland’s departure from the union is inevitable.
As someone who thinks of himself as a unionist first and Conservative second, I want to see a reversal of the betrayal that took place in 2019. Mr Boris Johnson said that there would not be a border down the Irish Sea and then created one. He presented himself as the person who would restore full sovereignty to the United Kingdom and then left one integral part of it subject to laws made in the European Union. What kind of unionist is that? Real, responsible unionists throughout the country—not just in Northern Ireland but everywhere—should look for a settlement that puts a decisive end to the weakening of the union for which Mr Johnson was responsible.
Last week, Jeffrey Donaldson said:
“The wrong deal will not restore power-sharing, but will deepen division for future generations.”
For the sake of Ulster today and for future generations in which divisions lessen and not deepen, our country needs a settlement that will, in the words of the Conservative manifesto at the last election, help sustain
“a proud, confident, inclusive and modern unionism that affords equal respect to all traditions and all parts of the community”.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I support the Bill and thank the Minister for moving it. I also associate myself with the condemnation of the barbarous attack on a police officer who represents the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is supported and overseen by every one of the main political parties, republican and unionist alike, in Northern Ireland today. The fact that it was such an indiscriminate attack on a police officer coaching children at sport underlines its seriousness.
I want to put just one question to the Minister. We have these repeated Bills in this situation. It is not easy. We have a kind of quasi-direct rule—it is not full direct rule—which represents a failure of democratic politics in Northern Ireland. Is there a case for taking the powers to the Secretary of State to authorise elections or hold them off until the political process is ready for them to take place, rather than having these repeated Bills that keep taking important parliamentary time? I should be very interested in hearing the answer to that question.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I join others in supporting this Bill, but particularly in adding my prayers and thoughts—and I believe that everyone in this Chamber is of a like mind—for DCI John Caldwell and his family, in connection with the despicable attack which took place last week in Omagh. It was an attack in front of children. DCI John Caldwell was making a contribution to the community and was horrendously injured. We are glad at least that he has survived this attack, and I am sure that all in this House pray for his full recovery. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others, in saying not only that this is this fundamentally wrong but that violence, terrorism and the threat of terrorism have always been fundamentally wrong.
It is important that we learn the lessons of this attack. This House has spent some time dwelling on how we should deal with crimes of the past. The events last week show that crimes of the past have a deep resonance in the present and for the future. Every time a signal is sent out that in some way crimes of the past are to be treated differently from what happens this week, it gives a level of tacit approval, or at least acceptance, of what happens in future. We have seen this all too pointedly with this attack. Obviously, the police must do their job in bringing those people to prosecution. However, it is deeply disturbing that some of the suspects who have been arrested were born since the ceasefire and the Belfast agreement. There is a new generation which sees the prospect of using violence as something that is acceptable. Again, the signal was sent when we saw footage on social media of one of the suspects being arrested, in which his neighbours were applauding him as the police came to arrest him. Therefore, with regard to glorifying terrorism and how crimes are treated, we have to realise that the decisions taken have implications, not just in how we look at the past but in how we look towards the future.
As has been indicated, there are two main parts to the Bill. Dealing first with organ retention and donation, I welcomed the Government’s amendment in the other House, coming as it does after a similar amendment was tabled by the three main constitutional parties from Northern Ireland that are represented in the House of Commons. As my noble friend Lord Dodds has indicated, at one stage there was an unfortunate attempt to use this issue as some form of leverage. I am glad that has been abandoned and that the Government have seen sense by bringing those amendments forward. As my party and others have said, the key issue is: what is the route by which this can be achieved in the quickest possible fashion? It was always the case that attachment to legislation such as this was the quickest and easiest way of bringing this about.
There has never been a consensus on the broader issue of how best to achieve the maximum amount of organ donation. At one stage a few years ago, clinicians disagreed on the best way forward. I have always wanted an organ donation system which worked best, and have always been supportive of the sort of legislation that Dáithí’s law has brought about. I believe that I am the only member of this House who, in the Assembly, voted in favour of Dáithí’s law, which was supported by all the parties of the Assembly. Like many within this House, I am sure, I have a long-standing commitment to organ donation. I am an organ donor, although as years pass by the desirability of my organs may reduce—and I may not be unique in this Chamber on that. Nevertheless, taking action which has the maximum amount of help for those waiting for transplants is something which is deeply responsible, and us supporting this piece of legislation means that this is a good day. It is a tribute to Dáithí and his family, and to the work that they and others have done to bring this about.
The other aspect of the Bill relates to the date of any future Assembly elections. I welcome this as a level of common sense. I have seen that some cynical commentators have said that the Government have put this on the long finger for a year because they may be concerned about the results of an election. I scorn such cynicism, and I know that that would never have entered the Government’s minds. If it had, perhaps they would be restoring the 19th-century practice of having Parliament run for seven years, with the prospect of putting off an election—but I do not want to put ideas into any Ministers’ heads.
Nevertheless, this is a sensible measure. At a previous debate, when we were effectively renewing this on a six-weekly basis, I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, highlighted with a certain level of scepticism that, while he was in favour of the short postponement, he questioned whether it was really likely to sort everything out in such a short timeframe. I believe that he was right: giving a certain level of space is appropriate. The Government did not simply get themselves in a position where they were effectively renewing the law every six weeks, but we also had the slightly farcical spectacle of the Government wanting to take us to the nth degree prior to Christmas and threatening that an Assembly election would be called at one minute past midnight, while the time passed by. I think that the Government have learned from that mistake. It is right that we give a little bit of space to ensure that we can hopefully see a restoration of government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice: as much as possible, I want to see the laws affecting Northern Ireland decided in Northern Ireland. That is one of the fundamental reasons that having 300 areas of law decided not in Northern Ireland or even at Westminster but by Brussels is fundamentally wrong. That is why we need to deal with the issues in front of us.
It is useful to give a certain amount of time to resolve things. However, that is useful only if that opportunity is taken by the Government and others to resolve the fundamental problems. Undoubtedly, the poison at the heart of our political system, which has been causing instability in Northern Ireland, is the Northern Ireland protocol. Probably in the next few hours, we will see what text has emerged from the deal by the Prime Minister and the European Union, and it would be wrong to prejudge that. But it is undoubtedly the case that any deal or any other way of resolving the protocol needs to deal with the key fundamentals. It needs to ensure that there is frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom, and a restoration of the UK internal market; that democracy is restored; that our equal citizenship within the United Kingdom is restored; and, above all, that the Act of Union is restored.
To some, these concerns may seem esoteric. I appreciate that there will be some in this House for whom these are not matters of great conviction. But for any of us who feel our citizenship under threat, it is not surprising why we hold this so dear. The solutions which are required go to the very core of our existence, which is why we need to see resolution of those issues. It is how some would portray some of the concerns raised by unionists—and shared by all unionists, well beyond those on these Benches from the Democratic Unionist Party—but we are not seeking some fantastical solution or indeed perfection. In those basic demands, we seek a restoration of the basics: the basic rights of the people of Northern Ireland, and what is basically required to protect our future. These are not just for today but for five or 10 years’ time and into the future. In the hope that the Government grasp that problem and come forward with solutions that deal with all those problems is the hope that we can see a level of restoration, but that can be only when those fundamentals have been directly delivered. That is what we will judge this by. I believe that it is useful that we see the Bill passed today but, as others have indicated, it is only a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I have just returned from Sierra Leone as chair of Christian Aid to see what this country has achieved there. People there speak with great affection of the actions taken by the UK Government to restore peace—at an absolutely awful time, when people’s hands were being chopped off. Sierra Leone is to go through a general election. Already, there are a lot of fears, but I hope that it will progress in a way that will lead to greater and greater peace in that country.
Edmund Burke, commenting on the French Revolution, said these words:
“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing.”
Whenever the Minister has commented on, or introduced a Bill on, Northern Ireland, he speaks with such candour and sensitivity. I thank him for the way in which he handles matters vis-à-vis Northern Ireland.
We have to support the Bill. Organ and tissue donations are vital because medical science has so improved. It is not on for Northern Ireland to be lagging behind the rest of the United Kingdom in this, so I hope that the Bill will get through pretty quickly and be passed.
I admire greatly the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his work both in Northern Ireland and, more importantly, during the time South Africa was facing a bad apartheid. He resolutely wanted to see things change and improve. I congratulate the noble Lord on that. However, I am slightly puzzled by his question to the Minister around why this Bill has come here instead of the power being with the Secretary of State. My understanding of the law is this: if powers have been devolved by law, nothing can take them back unless a new law is passed. If I were in Northern Ireland, I would not want the Secretary of State suddenly being given greater powers, because it might suggest that we have not quite devolved those powers. They were devolved by an Act of Parliament, and so to intervene in any situation—because of the absence of power-sharing—requires a Bill; it can be done only by a Bill. The Minister and I are tired of hearing endless Bills, but that is the only way to do it, because the Government who are supposed to be working are not really working.
There is one more thing I want to say. When people shoot a police officer while he is training children, it leaves everybody with a chill on their back. No matter what political views you may have, I believe that violence in the end defeats those who want to go by violence. The time has come for all of that to stop. I am glad that, when I came back from Sierra Leone, I saw people protesting, saying, “We are not going back. Enough is enough.” If that is the case, I hope that the good men and women of Northern Ireland will resolve the whole question of why the devolved Government are not doing their job.
The amended protocol, of course, may not have everything in it, but I suggest that we are going towards goods coming out of Great Britain and into Northern Ireland, and vice versa, in exactly the same way, and clarification about goods that are likely to end up in the EU, where we are not in the customs union. Having been involved in the past, for a number of years, in reconciliation around the Drumcree marches, I sincerely hope that the dawn has come—although there may still be a number of questions that will not actually be resolved.
In the end, the only way to prove that a thing is good is if it works. I make a plea to my very good friends in Northern Ireland: if Sierra Leone can begin to find a way not to be ruined by tribalism—it even changed its legislation to allow a third of the people in Parliament to be women, which was not previously the case in that society—and to move forward, surely Northern Ireland ought to do better.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my condolences to the family of DCI John Caldwell following the terrible terrorist act last week. It is an act that has been condemned universally but sent a chilling message. Even more chilling has been the official declaration by the New IRA over the weekend that it was responsible and the warning in that message to members of the security forces that it had gathered data and that further attacks on the security forces were in the planning. It described this as a “military operation”. That is a very chilling message that we in your Lordships’ House should all be well aware of and condemn utterly.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn: it is so hypocritical of the leaders of Sinn Féin to stand there condemning what happened last week and, literally two days later, attend a memorial for people killed because they had been involved in shooting policer officers. Let us not think that somehow the leaders of Sinn Féin have the moral superiority that they sometimes try to put forward.
I am very pleased that Dáithí’s law has come through. As I said in my last contribution, I am an integrationist and believe that Northern Ireland should have been added when the organ Bill was going through Westminster. So many things happen where it would be much better if the decision could be taken in the Houses in Westminster. I hope there will be a new Assembly at some stage before next year, when this legislation will come into force, but I also hope we will be able to see that an awful lot of things could be done here.
As everyone knows, we are here only because, long before the election in Northern Ireland last year, the Democratic Unionist Party made it very clear that it would not go back into government until it was satisfied that the problems with the protocol had been fixed—the protocol that so many other parties in Northern Ireland said had to be rigorously implemented. Of course, now they have a very different attitude, which I welcome.
The seven tests that the DUP put forward before the last election were not just plucked out of the air but grounded in promises already made in one form or another to the people of Northern Ireland by various Ministers and Prime Ministers in government. Sitting here, we do not yet know the exact details of the arrangements made today and the deal that has been coming for so long and has finally, apparently, been signed today. But it is worth reminding your Lordships’ House what those seven tests are and that they have not been just plucked out of the air, as I said.
As a staunch loyalist, I am deeply saddened by the fact that the President of the European Commission and our Prime Minister have chosen today to bring about this cup of tea with His Majesty the King. I think that is a deliberate act of the Prime Minister, which presumably his advisers and he thought would be welcomed by the loyal people in Northern Ireland. I have to say that it is misguided. As the former First Minister in Northern Ireland, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said today that it is a “crass” act. It was very mistaken of our Prime Minister and he will live to regret that, whatever happens to the deal today.
I would like to go through the seven tests quickly and without much detail. The first and most important is the constitutional issue of the Act of Union. Any deal must fulfil the guarantee of Article 6 of the Act of Union. It is not an ordinary statute; it is a constitutional statute which created the United Kingdom. It makes it clear that everyone in the United Kingdom is entitled to the same privileges and is on the same footing as regards goods in either country and in respect of trade in the United Kingdom. We know that that is no longer the case, because of the protocol.
The second test is that any new arrangements must avoid any diversion of trade. We have seen the diversion of trade that has been taking place. In fact, so much diversion of trade has taken place that Article 16 of the protocol could have been implemented and was said to have been broken over a year ago. If that had happened then, we might not have had to spend so long on this as we have over the last year. That is a very important test; will it be changed?
Thirdly, it is essential that any new arrangements do not constitute a border in the Irish Sea. The Secretary of State said on many occasions that we need new arrangements to see that that border disappears. I know that there has been talk of green and red lines. If a business in Bristol is trading with Belfast, it has to do exactly the same thing and have exactly the same issues as it would if it were dealing with Glasgow, for example, or Cardiff—no difference. That is another crucial test. We will see whether the green lanes and the dropping of the word “customs” is somehow meant to make us all feel that everything will be okay.
The fourth test—I have nearly finished—must give the people of Northern Ireland a say in the making of the laws which govern them. I expect there will be some compromise that says that the Executive in Northern Ireland will be involved in some way when new laws come in from the European Union to Northern Ireland, but if they do not have a veto, they are worthless. That is another important test.
Fifthly, the new arrangements must result in
“no checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, or from Great Britain to Northern Ireland”.
That is exactly what the Prime Minister said on 8 December 2019. We will see how that ends up after today.
Sixthly, the new arrangements should ensure no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. That must be on a cross-community consent basis. Everything else in Northern Ireland, because of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, is cross-community consent. Suddenly, the Government changed that to make it majority consent—we cannot have that.
Finally, the seventh test is, again, very important. New arrangements must
“Preserve the letter and spirit of Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee”,
as set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, by requiring, in advance, the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland
“for any diminution in its status as part of the UK”.
That is crucial too; we have already seen the status change and go against the Belfast agreement, which is why the late Lord Trimble said that the Belfast agreement had been broken by the protocol.
While I accept that this legislation needs to go through and hope that it will not be necessary for it to come back again in a year, I agree with those who said that, if the Government had listened more quickly, they could have put this through right at the beginning and not had this nonsense of the Secretary of State coming over, threatening people that there would be an election and then going back on it as we all knew he would have to do. Let us make sure that this does not happen again.
Finally, I ask noble Lords what other country in the world would be in the middle of signing off a deal with a foreign body—the European Union—to talk about getting control over a part of its own country back from that body. What other country would have allowed that to happen in the first place? We have an opportunity now to change that and make it last. If not, if the deal is not satisfactory, there will be no devolution. If there is no devolution, we will be back discussing this time and time again, and any deal that the Prime Minister thinks that he has signed off today will not last.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this legislation and agree wholeheartedly with his opening remarks concerning the murderous attack on DCI John Caldwell. The attack happened in Omagh, and he came from Beragh. I represented that area for 14 and a half years. I am thankful that his life may have been spared but it is tragic that, we are told, he will have life-changing injuries if he comes through and survives. We extend our good wishes and earnest prayers to John and his wife and family. We thank God that his little boy was spared; however, he was not spared the horrors of watching his father being gunned down in front of his eyes.
While I welcome the fact that five leaders at Stormont stood with the chief constable in condemnation of this dastardly, despicable attempted murder of John, it is sad, and has to be condemned that Sinn Féin yesterday honoured the 35th anniversary commemorating Brendan Moley and Brendan Burns, who were on a mission to murder members of the security forces. With one side of the mouth they condemn, then their actions prove that their hearts have in reality not changed. To move forward in Northern Ireland, a big step will have to be taken in proving to the people of Northern Ireland that Sinn Féin has completely turned its back on its terrorist past.
It is also regrettable that, on this day, His Majesty has been brought into the situation concerning the discussions between the European Commission President and the Prime Minister. This was a cynical act by the Government and has certainly done nothing to enhance their reputation among the unionist population of Northern Ireland, who are loyal citizens and subjects of His Majesty the King.
In many ways, this debate is overshadowed by the other developments happening today. As I said, the Prime Minister and the European Commission President are meeting and we are told that they have signed off a new agreement on the protocol. Yet they did so without the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland having seen it. They have not learned the lessons of the past. The DUP will not be blackmailed or cajoled by anyone into accepting any deal that is not in the best interests of Northern Ireland and does not fulfil the seven tests set out by our party. These tests are grounded not in a unionist wish list but in promises that have been given to the people of Northern Ireland. For us, the stakes could not be higher, as the protocol that is already being operated poses the greatest threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland’s part in it.
I will wait for the apology that will be forthcoming from Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party and the SDLP, who called for the rigorous implementation of the failed protocol, which they now acknowledge had to be done away with or replaced by another agreement. Our party is not out to enhance the credibility of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State or indeed anyone within the unionist family. All along, our genuine concern is for the future well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. It seems that all efforts are being put into trading matters. These are indeed very important for the prosperity of Northern Ireland businesses but there is a vital constitutional matter, which must be faced up to honestly and honourably, concerning who governs us. Northern Ireland has in effect been left in the single market for goods and is still bound by many EU regulations and subject to a foreign European court. We are being treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom; no real unionist can accept the people of Northern Ireland being treated as second-class citizens within our kingdom. The Minister should not be surprised that the Assembly has not been able to function over the past year when, through the protocol, the fundamental consent principle has been removed.
We cannot judge what this so-called deal will or will not hold but the protocol presently being operated violates the Belfast agreement and its commitment to uphold the rights of the people of Northern Ireland to
“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”
with respect to all the laws to which they are subject. The Assembly was brought down because of the democratic deficit, where the protocol stripped the people of Northern Ireland of their rights in relation not only to 300 laws but to 300 areas of law to which they are subject. Currently, 670 laws have been imposed, and the number is rising all the time. This constitutes an attack on other legal protections, such as Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and would be wrong whether or not the Belfast agreement existed. It is deeply offensive when we are being told daily that the Belfast agreement is considered one of the most famous treaties in the world. Indeed, many of our laws are being forced upon us, having been decided in Brussels, without being scrutinised by our Members of Parliament at Westminster. If the past 50 years teaches us anything, it is that, if political arrangements are to last, they require support from right across the community.
I was somewhat disappointed by the threat, as it were, from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to the unionists: “If you do not accept this, remember, you are going to be governed by Dublin”. The noble Lord was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly many years ago. He was elected by the people of Northern Ireland then, before he left the Province. I suggest to him that he ought to know better than to threaten the unionist population with Dublin rule if they do not abide by what has been decided for them.
I have no doubt that the great and the good, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, will be wheeled out to sell any deal whether it satisfies genuine unionist concerns or not, but that will not move my party from faithfully adhering to our legitimate and stated tests. I will not prejudge what the Prime Minister has to say but any deal must fulfil the guarantee of the sixth article of the Acts of Union 1800, which requires that everyone in the United Kingdom is to
“be entitled to the same privileges and be on the same footing, as to”
goods in “either country” and in respect of trading in the United Kingdom. Under the present protocol, this is clearly not the case. It will take more than words at a press conference or an address to Parliament to convince the people of Northern Ireland because it will be of vital importance that, on the constitutional position, the unionist population study carefully the actual text of any agreement.
I will not say that we will be served up with a bowl of fudge later on tonight, as in the past, but the unionist people need clarity. That is why our legal experts must scrutinise every line of the deal. There cannot be a restoration of the Assembly at Stormont until the unionist community is satisfied that there is integrity in the deal. We are certainly not going to allow any politician to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Northern Ireland. We will look the people of Northern Ireland in the eye and in the face; if it is right for Northern Ireland, we will agree, but if it does not fulfil the seven tests—especially the constitutional test—that cannot be right for the people of Northern Ireland.
We wait to see but, in the meantime, we have the executive formation Bill. It is essential, to allow the political parties to carefully consider the way forward, to have that legislation passed in this House.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, we are here to debate a Bill that is concerned with the formation of a new Executive. While we can talk about changing the date of the next election, which essentially puts back the formation of a new Executive, we should be mindful of what needs to happen so that an Executive can be re-formed. The truth is that we would have a functioning Northern Ireland Executive at the moment if it were not for the Northern Ireland protocol, which some called to be fully implemented.
In engaging with the protocol, we have to understand that it is first and foremost not about the border but about what creates the border: a legal regime in Northern Ireland that is different from the rest of the United Kingdom and, critically, that is imposed on Northern Ireland by a polity of which it is not a part and in which it has no representation at all. In that sense, before anything else, the Irish Sea border is a border of disfranchisement.
The people of Northern Ireland can no longer stand for election to make the laws to which they are subject in 300 different areas. Let me be clear: I am talking about not the imposition of 300 statutes over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland, which would be monstrous, but the imposition of multiple laws in 300 areas. As things stand, as has been said, 670 new laws have been imposed on us. That is after just two years and two months; the figure will just go up and up. Unless the United Kingdom wishes to turn its back on any conception of British values and a commitment to democracy, which would be deeply damaging not only to Northern Ireland but to the entire United Kingdom, this is plainly completely unsustainable.
The essence of citizenship in the United Kingdom is the right to stand for election to make all the laws to which you are subject and/or to vote for a fellow citizen to represent you in this regard. The relationship between the citizen and the citizen-legislator is all-important. Our democratic traditions mean that citizens can engage with their representatives in the making of the laws to which they are subject and the legislator can shape the laws, mindful of the needs of their constituents. The legislator can move amendments and, if he or she persuades Parliament, the law can be changed. This is a central ingredient of what it means to be a United Kingdom citizen, yet this right has been subject to radical debasement in Northern Ireland thanks to the Northern Ireland protocol. This cannot be allowed to continue.
I read in the Times this morning a suggestion that Stormont should be given the ability to reject legislation that it does not like—as if that was the answer. It is not in our political tradition. Our political tradition is not one which infantilises its citizens such that they are told they are no longer mature enough to make the laws to which they are subject; instead, they will just have to make do with a right to reject legislation, which others make for them, if they do not like it. Could anything be worse? How can we countenance such an arrangement after years of exercising the right to make the legislation to which we are subject? There can be no Executive unless and until we are afforded a voice in the making of the legislation to which we are subject. That has defined the United Kingdom as a polity and is enjoyed by the people of Wales, Scotland and England. Northern Ireland will not accept anything less.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I join with noble Lords who have condemned the attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell. I trust that he will make a speedy and good recovery. This debate occurs at a pivotal moment for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. We have been reminded again today by my noble friends that, if not for the imposition of the Northern Ireland protocol, we would not be debating this Bill in your Lordships’ House.
I support the Bill because it is a sensible and measured response in the current circumstances. I also welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward the amendment to address organ donation. This is an incredibly important cause, and it is right that it progresses here. I commend the Minister and the Government for their work in making this possible. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the efforts made by young brave Dáithí, his parents, family and friends and, in particular, Fearghal McKinney and Denise McAnena from the British Heart Foundation. They have worked very hard to enable this legislation.
There are over 300 areas of law, such as our ability to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom, which are now determined by the EU. These regulations and diktats have been imposed on Northern Ireland by Brussels without any say or scrutiny. These laws can be amended and will continue to be imposed on Northern Ireland. In all decisions, the European Court of Justice will continue to be the ultimate arbiter on all protocol-related trade disputes. No unionist could countenance a scenario in which UK law is secondary to EU law in Northern Ireland. In England, Scotland and Wales, UK law is supreme. Why should this be any different in Northern Ireland?
As things stand, Northern Ireland is semi-detached from the rest of the United Kingdom, subject to ever-changing diktats being made elsewhere and with no say over them, as I have said. Is it fair that manufacturers and producers in Northern Ireland should continue to operate under a different set of regulations and guidelines to their counterparts in mainland Britain? Continued divergence and regulatory differences will continue to create new hurdles and new sets of everyday problems for producers and manufacturers in Northern Ireland. Why should these business owners be punished purely for sharing a land border with a foreign state?
In a UK context, if Northern Ireland is still left behind and solely subject to the EU’s customs code and EU law, regrettably, very little of constitutional significance will have been achieved. Any arrangement or deal with the European Union that fails to achieve the removal of the supremacy of EU law from Northern Ireland will fail to restore the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. To date, the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol has cost £506 million. Specifically, Treasury figures confirm that the trader support service, a by-product of the protocol that helps companies to deal with its additional paperwork, has cost the taxpayer £318 million in just over two years—that is £436,000 per day. This could be invested elsewhere in Northern Ireland: in health, education or roads. Recently, noble Lords discussed cuts to the Northern Ireland budget—yet we were able clearly to point to hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of bureaucracy to implement the protocol. What was true in 2022 is true in 2023: transformative investment should be saved for schools, hospitals and roads in Northern Ireland.
As I have said in your Lordships’ House previously, I would prefer Stormont to be up and running again as soon as practically possible. However, the institutions at Stormont cannot work without the restoration of the delicate political balance negotiated over many years. No unionist supports the protocol or the supremacy of EU law. No one who uses the label “unionist” could sign off on any arrangement that does not respect the supremacy of UK law and the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. I urge the Minister and the Government to recognise this.
As it stands, Northern Ireland remains in limbo and, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, it is ultimately still bound to decisions made by politicians in Brussels and the European courts. A Northern Ireland left behind was not what the people in any part of the United Kingdom assented to in 2016. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the best outcome is for Stormont to get back up and running. To get to that place, we must restore the integrity of the UK internal market as urgently as possible. Northern Ireland’s constitutional position and arrangements must be respected. Such uncertainty and disruption are unwelcome—the people of Northern Ireland need these issues to be resolved, and I regret that we are not at that point yet.
No matter what has been achieved by the deal today, Northern Ireland will still be in the single market, subject to EU rules and the European court. Does this protect the sovereignty of Northern Ireland? Anyone who cherishes our historic union must view any new deal with extreme caution.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his clear presentation of the Bill. I utterly condemn the shooting and attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell in Omagh, a community that has already suffered so much pain and loss. As the joint statement from the political leaders said so powerfully, there should be
“absolutely no tolerance for such attacks by the enemies of our peace.”
From these Benches, we commend the continued dedication of the PSNI and wish John Caldwell a full and speedy recovery. Our thoughts are with his family at this very difficult time. That appalling act last week also served to remind us just how fragile the peace process is and that it should never be taken for granted. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, it was none the less encouraging to see how quickly the political leaders in Northern Ireland came together and united in condemning this truly awful and barbaric act.
As my noble friend Lord Alderdice said so movingly in this speech, we congratulate Dáithí and his family on their remarkable campaign that has led us to this point. I also thank the British Heart Foundation for its support. Although it is very much to be welcomed that the Bill has facilitated, finally, the introduction of Dáithí’s law, we should not forget that this should have been happening in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which brings me back to the primary purpose of the Bill: trying to deal with the consequences of the ongoing absence of a Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly.
From these Benches, we support the Government on the Bill. We think that it is the right thing to do, but we deeply regret that it is once again necessary. It is right to give time and space for a resolution to be reached without the inevitable heat of an election campaign, but we hope, as others have said, that the Executive and the Assembly are back up and functioning long before the deadline contained in the Bill. We have had so many debates on the situation in Northern Ireland recently, but almost no matter what subject we are debating, we always end up looking back at the protocol. Today there is obviously a very different background to our debate, and, clearly, we all have to examine the proposals announced today in detail.
Since the referendum in 2016, at times we have seen ideology dominate our politics across the United Kingdom at the expense of finding pragmatic solutions to the situation in which we find ourselves. The unionist population was treated very badly, perhaps most of all by the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who ignored political realities and complexities in Northern Ireland for his own political ideological purposes. In that regard, I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.
I worked for nearly 10 years in the European Parliament—mostly for an Irish politician, as it happens—and I know that, if you have a positive working relationship based on trust with key players in the EU, you can always find pragmatic solutions to problems and issues. For my speech this afternoon, I had prepared a set of remarks on the two parallel democratic deficits currently faced by Northern Ireland because of the protocol and the absence of a functioning Assembly and Executive, but, given the circumstances and the announcement of the deal today, I shall limit myself to a direct appeal to all parties in Northern Ireland. There was a problem with the protocol—everyone accepts that—and the Government and Brussels have listened. The deal may not be perfect, and we all need to look at it in detail, but for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland, get the Assembly and the Executive back up and running and, if necessary, change and improve this deal from within.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, this year is of course the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, but, tragically, it is also the anniversary of the Omagh bombing. Twenty-five years ago, it fell on me to visit that town three days after the bomb went off, and I had to talk to the parents of children who had been massacred in that appalling event. It was something of unparalleled wickedness. In many ways, what has happened to Detective Chief Inspector Caldwell is a terrible echo of that: it was cowardly and wicked and has left a family in ruins. I am sure that all of us in this Chamber share the views said collectively in today’s debate.
On a much happier note, the organ transplant part of the Bill is to be very warmly welcomed. As my noble friend Lady Ritchie said, 146 people in Northern Ireland are waiting for a transplant, including Dáithí, after whom this law will be named. I congratulate the Government on moving so very quickly on something which has complete and unanimous support, not only in this House but in Northern Ireland.
Of course, we support the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, reminded me, I said a few months ago that the timescale that the Government gave themselves was far too tight, that it was not going to work and that it would have been better if we had had a much longer period, to which the Bill now agrees, at an earlier date, but we support it. It has to be done, and I just hope that it is unnecessary in many ways and that we can have a functioning Assembly, Executive and all the other institutions of the Good Friday agreement up and running well before January next year.
Some weeks ago, the Belfast Telegraph published a list of decisions have been held up in Northern Ireland because they have no Government and no Parliament. Thirty-nine major issues were identified, and I will just mention a few of them: services for oncology; services for breast cancer; an environment strategy; sign-language legislation; independent living funds; funding for victims payments; a strategy for refugees. This is all against the difficult financial background throughout the United Kingdom and the need for ministerial decisions. Civil servants in Northern Ireland, however good they are—and they are good—cannot ultimately make decisions in a democratic way on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. They cannot set their priorities. They cannot make decisions that properly should be made by elected politicians.
Of course, the DUP is right that there is a democratic issue, so far as the protocol is concerned, but there is a democratic deficit equally as big, if not bigger, in not having an Assembly and an Executive. When we say that the Good Friday agreement is invalidated, violated, because of the protocol, it is the same issue that violates the Good Friday agreement with regard to the institutions. The agreement is violated by the absence of an Assembly and an Executive and by north-south bodies as well as east-west institutions. You cannot pick and choose which bits of the agreement you want; you have to look at it as a whole.
I fully understand the problems that the Democratic Unionist Party highlights and the issue of being part of a single market without any say about what the laws are going to be. Of course, we understand that, but which is the greater? I have just outlined a few of the issues that cannot be discussed or decided in Northern Ireland without a Government. What bigger democratic deficit is there than no Government at all? There is none in Northern Ireland and no Parliament. There is nowhere for views to be expressed. However good Dáithí’s law is—and it is good—it is not the place of this Parliament to deal with the domestic issues that were agreed in the agreement and the referendum 25 years ago to be for the people of Northern Ireland themselves.
The other issue is that the people of Northern Ireland do not simply consist of unionists, though the unionists have a very valid point. I will say it again: I accept it, but 56% of people in Northern Ireland voted to stay in the European Union, and I assume that those people actually agree with parts of the protocol—not all of it, but parts of it. In other words, in order for success to be had, you have to compromise. You have to compromise between nationalists and unionists. That was the genius of the agreement 25 years ago.
I do not know what is in the protocol. I have had a little look on my phone now and again during the course of the debate. There are some very interesting things, and I actually congratulate the Prime Minister on what he is trying to do. The protocol was the creature of a previous Prime Minister. It is Boris Johnson’s fault—no Boris Johnson, no protocol—but now the current Prime Minister is doing his best to try to ensure that we can overcome this issue. I will just take one example that I have looked at on my phone, the Stormont brake. There is likely to be, in this agreement, a measure by which the Assembly in Northern Ireland can reject laws from the EU. If they can reject laws from the EU, I suspect that that is a major development in the situation with regard to the protocol that the Prime Minister and the European Union have agreed.
It looks to me like a genuine attempt to solve the issue. It is not just about President Biden coming across to Northern Ireland in April; it is not just about celebrating the 25 years; it is about ensuring that public services operate in Northern Ireland, full stop. They are not operating at the moment, not properly, so at the end of the day, the people who matter are not us: the people who matter are the men, women and children who live there. Nearly 2 million people rely on the Assembly and the Executive for the quality of their life; therefore, those institutions must be restored and this, I believe, is a genuine attempt to do precisely that. It has to be a compromise, I just hope that in this space, which I understand the Prime Minister is suggesting should be made available for everybody to look at the detail of this agreement, all of us will look at it very seriously and, when we do, think not of ourselves but of the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful, as always, for the contributions on the short Bill before your Lordships’ House this afternoon. I thank noble Lords at the outset for their unanimity in condemning what happened in Omagh last Wednesday evening. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, referred to violence never being justified and of course she is absolutely correct: paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland was never justified in the past and is certainly not justified today. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, when he refers to the threat that has been made by some on the loyalist side in recent days. Loyalist violence, or the threat of loyalist violence, should always be condemned with equal vigour as republican violence, and it is very important that we do not differentiate.
A number of noble Lords from Northern Ireland referred to the glorification of terrorism by certain parties. They will not be surprised to hear that I have considerable sympathy with that point. I was involved, a number of years ago, with framing a response to a parade organised by republicans in Castlederg which commemorated two IRA men who had blown themselves up bringing a bomb into the town in the early 1970s, so I understand the strength of feeling. I say to noble Lords that we now have a third day scheduled for Committee on the legacy Bill, and my recollection is that the amendments on glorification will be the first group that we take, so we can have a much longer discussion and debate on that issue very shortly. I sympathise with a number of the points that noble Lords behind me have made.
I turn to the Bill. Of course, there has been no opposition to it at all in the House. Almost uniquely, I think I have been asked only one direct question during the couple of hours we have been debating it. That was from the former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on taking powers. I said in my opening remarks that should the situation regarding the Assembly not be resolved, the existing powers for civil servants run out in June and we would have to make an assessment as to how we deal with that situation. It is clearly untenable, for a number of reasons that were pointed out by his noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen in his very powerful and typically insightful and sensible winding-up speech for the Opposition. Of course, in this piece of legislation we have tried to avoid coming back any time soon with further legislation on election timing. It is the hope of many of us that we will get back to a position where the powers in the previous Executive formation Act 2022 and the timetable in this legislation become irrelevant, because we have the institutions back up and running.
Aside from that, there was strong support for the legislation: both the provisions relating to the date of the election and, of course, Dáithí’s law. I join noble Lords in paying tribute again to Dáithí and his family. I also pay tribute to those who have been very prominent in the campaign, including my old friend Fearghal McKinney, the former party colleague of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who has played a key role in all this. I bumped into him last week in Westminster and was able to talk through a number of the issues.
My noble friend Lord Lexden made a typically powerful intervention in the debate. He and I go back many years; we are a part of the Tory tradition that owes a huge amount to the late, great TE Utley in the way we have always approached Northern Ireland affairs. As ever, my noble friend’s speech was in what I might call the great Utley tradition of moderate Tory unionism. My noble friend talked about Northern Ireland enjoying the benefits of the union and questioned the widespread view that has been held over many years that a united Ireland is inevitable. I agree with him entirely that a united Ireland is not inevitable. However, the priority has to be to make Northern Ireland work; the more it works, the better that is for the union and for Northern Ireland’s position within it. He also talked about the inadequacies of the current legislation and the powers; I dealt with that point a few moments ago.
Unsurprisingly, the debate was dominated not necessarily by the provisions of the Bill but by events that have taken place elsewhere this afternoon in Windsor. We have debated the protocol many times; I have been here late at night during Committee of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill before Christmas and I answered a PNQ from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, two or three weeks ago. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not rehearse all the arguments around the protocol this afternoon. The Prime Minister is due to make a Statement in the other place very shortly, and I would be astonished if there was not an opportunity for that Statement to be repeated in your Lordships’ House at some point fairly shortly, which will enable noble Lords to ask questions based upon actually having been able to read some of the documentation which has been published. The Windsor Framework: A New Way Forward has now been published and is available on GOV.UK.
I heard the comments of many noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, reiterated the DUP’s seven tests, as did a number of members of the Democratic Unionist Party this afternoon. It will be for them to judge whether the agreement that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has come to with the European Commission satisfies those tests; no doubt they will want to go through with a fine-toothed comb, as is customary. For our part, the Government are confident that the agreement reached will ensure free-flowing trade by removing the border in the Irish Sea; it will safeguard Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom; and it will restore sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland through what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred to accurately as the so-called Stormont brake. However, it would be better for noble Lords to listen to what the Prime Minister has to say, go through the documentation and then, of course, they will have an opportunity to return to these matters when the Statement is repeated in your Lordships’ House.
I think we all hope that the agreement that has been reached this afternoon in Windsor will provide a basis for the restoration of the devolved institutions so that we do not have to come back again to this House and debate the kind of legislation we have seen over the past number of months, and so that responsibility for the running the domestic affairs of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom will once again be in the hands of locally elected politicians at Stormont, who are responsible and accountable to the electorate there. We fervently hope that that will happen so that we can work together. My noble friend Lord Lexden gave me a very powerful point about the United Kingdom Government and the Northern Ireland Executive at Stormont working closely together on issues of great importance, such as public services in particular—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, reminded us, need a great deal of attention over the coming months. If this agreement does provide the basis for restoration—I do hope it will—I think the Government will be working extremely hard with a newly-formed Executive to address those issues so that we can get on with building a Northern Ireland that works for everyone across the entire community. On that note, I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords now have until one hour hence to table amendments for Committee of this Bill. Noble Lords seeking to table amendments should contact the Public Bill Office. We will now resume Committee of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The House will then return to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Bill at a point which will be notified on the annunciators. If there are no amendments tabled for Committee, I expect the remaining stages of the Bill to be taken formally at the end of the dinner break.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 27th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (27 Feb 2023)
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Levelling-up consultantsWithin 120 days of this Act being passed, a Minister of the Crown must publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to this Part.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that a Minister must publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to Clauses 1 to 6 of the Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will be moving these amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. The first amendment is Amendment 51, which is after Clause 5. It asks for the Minister to publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to the first six clauses of the Bill. The reason for laying this amendment is that there has been quite a lot of discussion over the last few years about the amount of money being spent both by local and national government on consultants. We wanted to probe the Government on this and have a small discussion around this area.
Back in 2020, the Public Accounts Committee released a report which said that the Government were
“too quick to spend money on consultants to undertake work that could actually be better done by existing civil servants”
and that this was being done rather than developing and retaining in-house skills. Since then, any restriction on spending controls on consultants have been ditched by the Government, allowing Whitehall departments to potentially spend millions more on these external consultants. The limits were introduced under a previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, in 2011, requiring central authorisation if contracts lasted more than nine months or exceeded £20,000. Our concern is that the value of contracts has been rising. The limit set earlier this year was £600,000, which is a huge jump. We are very concerned about this, because government spending is being tightened in other areas of public expenditure, particularly during the cost of living crisis. If the Government are increasing this extra cost of outside consultants, how can that be justified in the current crisis? However, obviously, one thing we appreciate is that during the pandemic there was additional spending in this area that could not be avoided.
In 2022, the UK public sector awarded £2.8 billion-worth of consulting contracts, according to data from the contract analyst Tussell Ltd which was published in the Financial Times. That figure was up by 75% from 2019, so even taking into consideration rising costs during the pandemic, that is still a huge jump in spending. Does the Minister agree with the Public Accounts Committee that the Government’s way forward on this should be to retain civil servants and develop their skills, and that that is a better use of government money?
I turn to the nub of the amendment, which is the published estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to Clauses 1 to 6. Last week in Committee, we discussed the thorny issue of competitive funding. Our concern is that this is not the best way to fund different local authorities in their bids for levelling-up pots of money. We know that local authorities have complained about the Government’s proliferation of these competitive funding pots. Alongside this, local authorities obviously have been using more consultants. It has recently been reported that consultancy firms have raked in around £26 million from councils which are clearly cash strapped. They have lost funding from central government over the last few years, so they really do not have this money to spend. The reason they are spending it is that they are trying to prepare high-quality levelling-up funding bids, and they no longer retain much of the necessary skill set for that in house.
Considering that many of those with successful bids have lost far more in local authority funding cuts than they are going to achieve, does the Minister agree with me that the only people who seem to be turning a profit here are the consultants? We believe that the Government should change the way the funding is assessed and granted. I would be grateful if the Minister, and the wider Government, could think about how we can return skills in house—both in national government and local authorities—to stop this huge amount of cash going on external consultants.
My noble friend’s Amendment 52 relates to the practicalities of implementing a levelling-up agenda. It proposes that a Minister must publish a statement of any levelling-up directors who have been appointed and their role in implementing the levelling-up missions. We have heard for some time from the Government about the levelling-up directors and their intended appointment, but we have had very little detail or further information.
Last year, my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton tabled a series of Questions about the government appointment of regional levelling-up directors, asking what their remuneration, role and responsibilities would be. The creation of these posts was announced not long after the White Paper was published last spring. At that stage, it was said that they were to be paid £140,000 a year. Last December, my noble friend was told in response to his Question that at that stage, none had been appointed and that further details on what they might actually do were still being worked out. Put simply, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in response to his Question:
“Further announcements will be made in due course.”
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 51 and 52 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, just pointed out, these amendments relate to consultant spend by councils and regional director spends, and their roles in the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
Amendment 51 is important, as the noble Baroness just pointed out. A freedom of information request showed that in the 245 upper and lower-tier councils, £26.9 million has been spent on levelling-up bids. That is £26.9 million taken away from social care, housing, cleaning, street cleaning and bin collection at a time when councils are finding things particularly difficult. Of that money, the vast majority went to external consultants. Does the Minister think it right that £26.9 million should be used on a lottery process pitting town against town and city against city to bid for levelling-up funds, only for the Government to move the goalposts at the last second by changing the criteria against which councils are bidding, which means not only that this money could have been spent on other services but that it has been wasted?
On Amendment 52, I wish to start with a general point, and here I do not necessarily share the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. The concept of 12 regional directors controlled out of Whitehall somehow being the panacea for devolution is ludicrous. Let us be clear: what this will turn out to be is a system of crude decentralisation. Those of us who have been around for quite a while in local government know that when we had something similar in the past, the regional directors of the department dispersed to work with local area partnership boards came with “We are here to help and support you” as their mantra. However, they were used as government enforcers and the eyes and ears of government, going back to the department and saying which areas were in the good books and who should be put on the naughty step because they were not carrying out the Government’s agenda.
Reports back from such regional directors decided who got money and what sticks or carrots were deployed. I know that the noble Earl will pour out soothing words from the Dispatch Box, saying that is not the role, but history shows that it is. Look at the job advert issued in November 2022—it kind of gives the game away. It says that they will report progress to the newly established committee for levelling-up, which is exactly the same as the previous directors in the department did.
We are now told that these regional directors are on hold, but that they could be answerable and accountable to the mayors. Let us take Yorkshire as a region, as these are regional directors. We could have four mayors in Yorkshire with different agendas and from different political persuasions. To which mayor will the regional director be accountable—one of them or all of them? It is clear that these roles have not been thought through from a regional perspective but from an office in Whitehall, with a very Londoncentric view of how they can be used as government enforcers.
Talking of Yorkshire, we are a little perplexed—not that we are from Yorkshire, but perhaps the Minister can help with this. Civil Service World on 17 February had an interesting headline, stating that the department
“hires former … No. 10 official as levelling-up director.”
Ed Whiting, David Cameron’s former deputy private secretary has been hired, and he very helpfully tweeted that he has been recruited to the role of levelling-up director in the north, based in and working out of Leeds:
“I’ll be based in Leeds, hoping to be travelling round North”,
working with local councils and others on innovation. He also expects to travel to London often too—ah, yes, that newly established Cabinet committee for levelling-up has to be informed. He goes on, quite incredibly—he has been hired on a six-figure salary—to say that “details” of the new role are “tbc”.
We are perplexed, Minister, and some clarification would be helpful. Is Mr Whiting a regional director for levelling up and, if not, what is his role and how does it fit with the regional directors? When was he recruited, where was the job advert and who sat on the recruitment panel? Why have local authorities in the north not been informed officially who he is and how he is there to help them? Why has someone been recruited on a six-figure salary when their role is still to be confirmed?
That is why Amendment 52 is important. We need transparency and clarity on who the department is using in the regions and what roles they have, to ensure the Government do not establish an expensive decentralized bureaucracy, costing the taxpayers millions, trying to enforce their agenda in local areas.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments is related to consultants and the Government’s appointment of levelling-up directors. Specifically, Amendment 51, in the name of Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, would require the Government to publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to Part 1 of the Bill. I fear that requiring local authorities to report in this way would be disproportionate and unnecessary, but let me explain why.
The new burdens doctrine, established and maintained by successive Governments, requires all Whitehall departments to justify why new duties, powers, targets and other bureaucratic burdens should be placed on local authorities, as well as how much these policies and initiatives will cost and where the money will come from to pay for them. This provision already ensures that the Government must properly consider the impact of their policies, legislation and programmes on local government and fully fund any new burdens arising.
Further, local authorities are already bound by the Local Government Transparency Code, which mandates local authorities to publish data on all expenditure over £500 in open and accessible formats. I will come back to that point in a second, but I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by the noble Baroness about expenditure by central government on consultants.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify something? When he says that the Government fully fund any new burdens, does that mean that the Government are reimbursing local authorities for the cost of creating their bids?
Earl Howe (Con)
It would depend on the circumstances. It would depend on whether the expenditure on consultants was classified as a truly new burden or not, and that is an arcane science on which I do not pretend to be expert. Perhaps I may provide the noble Baroness with clarification in writing on that point, because I recognise that it is of relevance.
As I was saying, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Baroness’s points on expenditure by central government on consultants. As a matter of principle, I think all Secretaries of State across government would agree that they should impose a self-denying ordinance on their departments where skills can be developed in-house. Where that can happen, it should. The problem is, I suggest, twofold. First, the skills needed are very often highly specialised; secondly, if one looks across government as a whole, it is very difficult to make general statements about the needs of individual departments. However, I think the noble Baroness and I are aligned in our antipathy to expenditure that may turn out to be unnecessary—certainly expenditure that turns out to be wasteful. No department wants to go down that road.
On expenditure, transparency, as so often, is key. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about consultancy expenditure by local authorities in preparing their bids. I would just say to him that the decision by some local authorities to appoint consultants in their bidding process was a decision for them, and such decisions will doubtless have reflected in part the point that I just made: that the necessary skills are not always on tap locally. I think that is all I can say about that, but I will write on his questions about Mr Whiting, as I do not have the necessary briefing on that in front of me.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I want to ask a specific question, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also asked. Has any regional director been appointed? That is the key question, particularly about Mr Whiting.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am coming to Amendment 52 in a second. It might be helpful if I added a few comments about local government funding more generally, because we recognise that the sheer number of different funds has become onerous for some councils to navigate and deliver. We have taken initial steps to address this complexity in the funding landscape. For example, the levelling-up fund provides cross-departmental capital investment in local infrastructure, and the UK shared prosperity fund provides resource-focused investment to support people, boost pride in place and strengthen communities. However, the levelling-up White Paper made it clear that we can do more, and we will set out a plan on funding simplification shortly.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to this debate very carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, talked about Yorkshire, which he clearly knows well. Apparently, this new director will be based in Leeds. Several times “the north” was referred to—but does “the north” include west of the Pennines or is that a different area? What is the geographical boundary of these things, or is it still fluctuating?
Earl Howe (Con)
It is open for decision. We want to see local areas taking the initiative themselves. Where there is a functioning economic hub, for example, or a whole county, they may wish to apply for CCA status, but it is up to them to make those decisions. One can talk in general terms of “the north”, but until we know that the appetite is in those northern areas for taking advantage of the opportunities that we are trying to create, I cannot be more specific.
Lord Scriven (LD)
For clarity, the issue with Mr Whiting, to whom I referred, is that, as the Minister helpfully said, no regional director has been appointed so far. However, Mr Whiting describes himself as a regional director for the north and not for a particular region. Therefore, it is important that, when the Minister writes to me, he clarifies exactly what Mr Whiting’s role is and how it fits with the regional directors.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can he also clarify the geographical area for which he is responsible?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I agree that it would be very helpful, because it is a bit confusing at the moment to know exactly what is what. I would appreciate that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his support of Amendment 51. On Amendment 52, I am not entirely sure that I agree with the appointment of directors. The point of the amendment is to get a better understanding of exactly what is happening, what the timescales are and what is expected of them, then to be able to make a proper assessment of exactly what we think about this policy of directors. It is quite difficult to have a proper position on it if you do not know what is going on and what sort of people are likely to be getting the jobs. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could write to us around any appointments that might be in the pipeline to give us a better understanding of how it is all working and what the timescales are.
While we are on Amendment 52, the Minister said that the recruitment process was being reviewed. When he writes, it would be good to understand what that means. Has there been any process so far? Are they liaising with the sector on how recruitment might best be done and on the timescales? I know that the Minister cannot give us any further information on that today, and he may not have a lot to put in his letter, but if he could give us as much as he possibly can, so we know where we are as we move forward through the scrutiny of the Bill, it would be extremely helpful.
On Amendment 51, again I thank the Minister for agreeing to write to me with more clarification around these matters. It is extremely helpful to have that. I am pleased that he agrees with us that developing skills in-house is important and that we must not have wasteful expenditure in departments. Again, the way forward is to stop it happening and to invest more in people. I thank him for his response, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment means that a CCA can include part of a two-tier council area, rather than the whole area.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, as we start to examine those parts of the Bill which address local government and devolution powers, we might welcome the fact that the Bill addresses the long-standing asks of councils and their representative bodies for greater devolution, and that there is more flexibility in the proposed structure of combined county authorities than we might previously have envisaged. Nevertheless, we had hoped for a Bill that was far more ambitious and open to ideas when looking to address the imbalance of power in the UK.
As we have often heard in your Lordships’ House, the UK today is the most centralised state in Europe and there is too much in the Bill that seeks further powers for the Secretary of State to intervene. I welcome very much that the Secretary of State accepts that the national challenges require place-based solutions—at least, it appeared so from the White Paper. However, I feel strongly that Part 2 would better deliver this if accompanied by greater powers and fairer funding so that leaders can support the local economic recovery according to the needs of their own areas.
We have pointed out before in your Lordships’ House that, without a comprehensive and fair funding system across local government which would properly empower local authorities to deliver what is needed to support, sustain and develop their communities and economies, any steps taken towards devolution will have a hollow ring. Even worse, if funding mechanisms are driven by the current competitive bidding pots, which favour areas that are able to spend the most on shiny bids, they will run counter to the whole levelling-up agenda. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for saying that the sheer number of funds have become onerous and that we certainly need to look at that. There is a further danger in this “bidding bingo” way of funding local areas: it is yet another way of imposing the Government’s policy on growth and infrastructure in local areas and does not make for true devolution in any sense of the word.
We may have wished that provisions for reorganising local government had been the subject of a separate devolution Bill, an issue I have raised before in your Lordships’ House. Given that this does not appear to be on the horizon, we will be seeking amendments to transfer greater powers to local areas. I welcome the implicit recognition that devolution can drive economic, social and environmental development in local areas, but questions remain over whether the specific model of combined county authorities is right for every area, and whether all the current constituent parts of local government will have their importance recognised and their voice heard as the new structures develop. Local residents and leaders will always know best their own areas and the powers they need to deliver on their ambitions. Amendments for this part of the Bill will aim to allow greater flexibility for towns, cities, counties and the people who live in them to determine their own future.
Amendment 60 is a probing amendment to discover what a CCA can include as part of a two-tier council area—will all or only part of it be allowed? The amendment is designed to help us understand whether the Government will prescribe the nature of a CCA area to include all constituent councils. This has been tabled because there has been significant confusion about the geography of CCAs and what is and is not in scope. For example, does the CCA have to include the whole of an upper-tier authority area? In the case of my home county, Hertfordshire, must it include the whole of the county? The Minister will know that this is complicated: in some areas, counties already include unitary areas, and some county areas have enormous populations and significantly diverse demographics.
In previous devolution rounds, we have seen a confusing spectrum of scope—from being instructed on what will be in and out geographically, to documentation saying that it is for local government to decide. The second option is clearly preferable to all of us, but even when that is the stated initial intent, the goalposts are often moved during the bidding rounds to be more prescriptive than was initially thought.
Amendment 99 probably belongs better with the group of amendments relating to consultation on CCAs. If consultation is needed for the formation of a CCA and/or its dissolution, as we contend in other amendments, should there not also be consultation when a CCA is to be amended? Later regulations could determine the qualifying parameters for this, so that extensive consultation is not necessary for minor changes. This and similar amendments seek to determine the principle of public engagement on local government structures. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is quite right to table this amendment to explore the area that can be included in a combined county authority. As I understand it, a combined county authority is a bit of a misnomer. Last Wednesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in response to an amendment that a CCA could include, for instance, the unitary authority of Wiltshire and the city unitary authority of Swindon. Equally, when I asked her what would happen in Devon, she said quite clearly that the county and district authorities of Devon and the unitary authority of Plymouth would be included. These are not necessarily combined county authorities: they are unitary and county and district combined authorities—if that is determined, we hope, by the people who live there and the councillors elected to represent them.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the area of a combined county authority, the new type of local government institution being provided for in Part 2 of this Bill. Provisions in this part support the delivery of the local leadership mission of the levelling-up White Paper, to enable by
“2030, every part of England that wants one”
to
“ have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt so early in the Minister’s response, but could he define more clearly what the “highest level of devolution” actually means?
Earl Howe (Con)
If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I shall do my best on that.
Noble Lords will be aware that 10 combined authorities have been established since 2011 in our city regions. However, we recognise that such authorities might not be so appropriate for non-metropolitan areas. The new model of combined county authorities is more appropriate for non-metropolitan areas, many of which have two-tier local government. It enables the establishment of a single institution covering a functional economic area, or whole county geography, which would be a suitable institution to provide effective leadership over an appropriate geography to qualify for a devolution deal.
I take on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about local government funding, but it might be helpful if I added a little to the information I gave the Committee in the last group of amendments. Our intention is to set out a plan for streamlining the funding landscape, as I mentioned, to provide greater flexibility for local authorities and make it easier to navigate opportunities for growth. This will include streamlining local growth funds, reducing inefficiency and bureaucracy and giving local government the flexibility it needs to deliver for local economies. As part of this work, we expect that there will be fewer small competitions. Where competitive funds do exist, we will look to streamline bidding and support greater alignment between revenue and capital sources. We will also consider the monitoring and evaluation requirements to ensure that places have robust, proportionate, ongoing monitoring and evaluation plans for the impact and delivery of investments and spending.
Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, seeks to allow part of a two-tier county council area to be included in a combined county authority, rather than the whole county council area. This would not be consistent with the policy we set out in the White Paper, whereby we will devolve to an institution covering a whole county geography or functional economic area. I will come on in a moment to the rationale for that model. In a combined county authority, such as the intended East Midlands CCA, the upper-tier councils within the area covered by a combined county authority are the constituent members of the CCA. There is no upper-tier council that covers part of a two-tier county council’s area; the only upper tier council is that two-tier county council, whose area covers a wider geography. As such, as the two-tier county council will be the constituent member of the combined county authority, the whole area that the council covers must be part of CCA’s area.
Moreover, allowing part of a two-tier county council’s area to be part of a combined county authority would not be consistent with the levelling-up White Paper’s principle of devolution being to institutions covering functional economic areas or whole county geographies, over which a number of functions should be exercised for maximum effect. Splitting the responsibility for such functions could also lead to discrepancies—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Can the Minister explain, then, where the geographies of a county area do not coincide with the geographies of an economic or travel-to-work area? Often, they do not. What I have heard is that you can either have a functioning geography of a county and its two tiers, or the alternative, but not a mixture of the two.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am pleased that the Minister has raised the East Midlands. On the northern tip of the East Midlands there is Chesterfield and north Derbyshire. Most businesses in that area would look into the South Yorkshire Combined Authority in terms of their business, and not into the county combined authority. It seems to be an administrative boundary designed down here in Whitehall rather than a true travel-to-work area. How would the north Nottinghamshires and Chesterfields be affected by this when, in reality, the economic performance and activity is actually into the South Yorkshire Combined Authority?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
May I add to what my noble colleagues have said? This goes to the heart of this amendment. We struggle to say how you can have a county with more than one functioning economic area included in that county. To take my county as an example, the south of the county largely relates to London, because some of the boroughs almost are London boroughs, whereas the north of the county relates much more to Cambridge and Bedfordshire. There are definitely two distinct, functioning economic areas within one shire county. The shire counties go back centuries: their economic geographies have changed very considerably since then. If you take the economic geography of my noble friend Lady Hayman’s area, people in Cumbria may even relate to an economic area that includes parts of Scotland. This is not a simple picture around the country.
Earl Howe (Con)
Some extremely sensible and logical points have just been made. Perhaps I could address them by pointing out the contrast to what we have seen up to now. Devolution deals, up to now, have typically been put in place in city regions, where they cover the functional geographies in which people travel, commute, work and live.
The Government absolutely recognise that functional economic geographies are far less clear-cut in rural and semi-urban areas, and that the strategic scale and cultural and political resonance of county identities can act as a useful proxy. One can work only on the basis of best endeavours when trying to decide what a sensible area looks like. On a best endeavours basis, deals should be agreed over a sensible geography of a functional economic area, with a single institution in place across that geographic footprint to access more powers. That is the aim.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he keeps talking about complexity. This is complexity of boundary, not of reality. I will give him a situation where complexity may hold back the levelling-up agenda. Let us again take the top end of the east Midlands and South Yorkshire. If both the South Yorkshire combined authority and the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire combined authority have control of the skills money, the fact that probably about half the people from the north end of the east Midlands come up into South Yorkshire means that the skills required should be funded for jobs available in the South Yorkshire combined authority. If the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire combined authority decides not to invest in that type of skill, the issue is that the flow of labour will not be there for South Yorkshire businesses. How does that kind of problem get solved? It is not an administrative issue but the reality of having the skills where real people and businesses travel and work together.
Earl Howe (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point. The experience we have had with combined authorities is that local authorities’ natural tendency is to co-operate with each other. We have seen this all over the place: they do not want to operate in silos and they look outside their boundaries. Yes, there may well be cases where at the beginning there would seem not to be a particularly good fit, but that does not preclude two authorities, such as those he mentioned, getting together and finding a way through, if they possibly can, to address the mismatches of the kind he mentioned.
Amendment 99 seeks to amend Clause 23 to require a public consultation before any proposal to change the area of an existing combined county authority. We agree that those with an interest in the area should be consulted before a combined county authority is changed. As I said, we will have more to say about this in the debate on the next group of amendments.
Clauses 45 and 46 set out a requirement for a public consultation on any proposals from the local area on changes to the area of a CCA. Where a combined county authority has been established and subsequently seeks to change its boundary, Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for areas to achieve that. The Secretary of State may make regulations changing the area of a CCA if that is something the area consents to, the Secretary of State agrees and Parliament approves the necessary secondary legislation.
We fully recognise the crucial importance of residents in the local area having a say; that is common ground between us. That is why any CCA or local authority seeking to submit a proposal to the Secretary of State to change the area of a CCA must carry out a public consultation, as set out in Clause 45(3). This consultation must take place in the area covered by the CCA. This enables local residents, businesses and other interested parties to have a strong input into any such proposals. A summary of consultation responses is then to be submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the proposal.
Clause 46 provides an additional safeguard to ensure that there is sufficient public consultation. This enables the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation prior to making any regulations to enact these changes if they feel that there has been insufficient public involvement in their development.
We completely agree with the sentiment of Amendment 99, but I suggest that we already have provisions later in the Bill to address this; we will debate some of these in a few moments. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw Amendment 60 and not to move Amendment 99 when it is reached.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased we tabled these probing amendments, because they have brought out some of the discussion we needed to have in these areas. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her comments. She said that “combined county authority” is a misnomer, and I think she is absolutely correct.
Previous responses indicate that we could include unitaries and counties all within a two-tier area. It is not clear in the Bill what that might mean. In the example of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, with the overlap of economic areas and travel-to-work areas, et cetera, the geography is far more complicated than back in whatever century it was when the county shire boundaries were devised. The purpose of my amendment was to determine whether parts of a two-tier area would be required to join a CCA if it did not work for them. It is really important that we do some more probing around this and think about it more.
We did not get on to the subject of population, which I will come to in a minute. My concern with this is that we have the phrase that the Secretary of State can determine “by regulation” what a combined county authority will look like. That does not seem to me to be in the spirit of devolution in any way whatever. If it is for the Secretary of State to determine that by regulation, I would be interested to know the noble Earl’s view on how that would be conducted in relation to the partners in the local area.
I am grateful for the noble Earl’s extensive response on this, which is an indication that we are moving the debate forward somewhat. I will come back to the issue of the functional economic area. These are not neatly contained now within county council areas. We have heard a few examples of that. We need to focus on that and think about how we might amend the Bill to recognise that.
The noble Earl spoke about streamlining funding. I was grateful for those comments and I am sure they will be welcomed across local government, but when will we see the detail of how that streamlining of funding will work? If he has any more information on that, it would be helpful.
I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Earl said about city regions. They make a lot more sense—I spent quite a lot of time with colleagues in the city region in Manchester looking at how that works. However, that does not mean that that model can be lifted and put down in areas that are very different in this country. The difficulties that we have set out underline exactly why there must be flexibility for local areas to consider for themselves what the appropriate geography might be for them.
I return to the issue of population size. In previous iterations of these bids for devolution, we were told that any bid under 600,000 population would not be considered. My county of Hertfordshire has a population of 1.2 billion—sorry, 1.2 million; I am exaggerating—which is a very different issue from a rural county that might have a population of only 300,000. That is why this is much more complicated in shire areas. Will the noble Earl comment on whether population issues will be taken into consideration in relation to the size and constitution of combined county authority areas?
Earl Howe (Con)
It may be helpful to the noble Baroness if I comment on that specific question. We expect upper tier local authorities with a population of less than 500,000 to collaborate with their neighbouring authorities to agree a sensible geography for a devolution deal. Where neighbouring local authorities wish to join a deal which has been negotiated and have the same level of ambition, we will expect other authorities to take this seriously in order to secure devolution and to avoid areas being stranded. Once again, I come back to the point I made earlier that our experience with combined authorities has shown that this kind of co-operation takes place quite readily. That is the position we have taken currently.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his clarification. It covers one side of the picture with the smaller county areas. However, larger county areas, where the population may not lean towards a single county authority, should still be a subject for discussion.
I agree that we have several amendments relating to consultation processes and that the other amendment in this group probably sits better with those, so I am happy to postpone discussion of that until the future group. However, the principle of consultation, and recognising the importance of local areas having a say, seems to be enshrined for all the other issues around the setting up and dissolution of a CCA. If it is right for those, it must be right for a change of boundaries too. That is the point we were trying to make with Amendment 99. That said, we have had a useful discussion and I am happy to withdraw Amendment 60 at this stage.
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not lay regulations under this section until he or she has deemed that establishment is supported by no less than 60% of residents in the area.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that a CCA is established only if the Secretary of State deems there is no less than 60% of support from the local residents.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, as we have already discussed this afternoon, the principle of consultation when fundamental changes are being made to governance structures is an important one. Amendment 61 is aimed at establishing the principle of public consultation in relation to the formation of a combined county authority and to setting a realistic threshold for the constitutional reform to proceed.
A fundamental principle of localism is that changes must be made with people and not to them. Without a provision in the Bill like this, it is too easy for a leader or a group of leaders, or even a Secretary of State, to take fundamental governance changes, such as the formation of a CCA, a long way without consulting those who will be affected by them. The complex structure of local government in the UK, which means some areas have multiple layers of local authorities overseeing services, makes this even more necessary. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman outlines the process for ensuring that the outcome of the consultation process is publicly available, essentially before any submission to form a combined county authority is made.
Amendment 62 is designed to probe government thinking on the constitution of combined county authorities. With the rolling five-year housing targets potentially being removed, for example, is it the intention that governance structures should be able to consider the impact across a defined economic area, or do the Government envisage that the combined county authority will determine such matters for itself? If the latter is the case, is there to be an arbitration process which will help to determine where one economic area crosses boundaries with another? On the issue of non-constituent members of CCAs, for example, will it be the case that some members of authorities will be required to sit in more than one authority if it affects their economic geography?
Amendment 63 reflects on the nature of levelling-up missions and the significant part of the Bill that refers to planning matters. The Government may have assumed that co-operation between combined county authorities would take place in order, for example, to resolve boundary issues where a service is necessarily delivered across boundaries or where a planning matter either crosses boundaries or requires a facility delivered in one area to have the use of services provided in another. As I make these points, I am reminded of the example of Harlow and Gilston village, which sits in both Essex and Hertfordshire.
Planning history suggests that writing the duty of co-operation on the face of the Bill would be helpful. Whether we are talking about the delivery of missions across rural areas, or in urban areas such as London and Manchester, where the boundaries of CCAs may be complex, guidance and a framework for duties to co-operate would probably be helpful.
Amendment 64 is crucial, particularly as it is difficult to see how missions will be delivered at all with a patchwork quilt of non-coterminous boundaries between public bodies as they are currently constituted. This has been a long-standing issue in local government. The amendment will, for example, enable discussions about the impact of the rollout of ICSs on the potential for future health devolution—a really important issue. If we do not devolve the responsibility for health issues to these new authorities, we will not be able to tackle as effectively the inequalities in health that we discussed in earlier debates on the Bill.
It is welcome to note from the Greater Manchester population health plan that significant benefits have already been recorded for local residents following the devolution of health and social care to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. This includes a substantial increase in school readiness and a smoking prevalence rate falling twice as fast as the national average. We definitely see the benefits of this, and we want to see it extended across other devolved areas. We would welcome further information from the Government on how they envisage the further devolution of health, police and crime commissioner powers, and other public functions which would enable the progress of the missions.
Amendment 65 is probably shaped by my long experience as a district councillor. We in district councils were very pleased to see the original amendment to Clause 18, which enshrines the role of district councils in determining the future governance of their areas; but I always believe in a belt and braces approach, particularly where the track record for inclusion has not always been consistent. The same applies to my colleagues in the National Association of Local Councils in respect of parish and town councils. We want everybody to be included in these discussions.
Lastly, Amendments 101 and 102 refer to the dissolution of CCAs. The first would require that public consultation take place before dissolution. If there is to be consultation on the setting up of a CCA, it follows that it should also take place if one is to be dissolved. Amendment 102 asks the Secretary of State to clarify, upon dissolution of a CCA, how local powers will be retained, and implicitly suggests that they will not return to central government. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on how that might work for the future. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 127, which appears in my name in this group, and to make a couple of brief comments on the amendments so clearly and comprehensively presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage.
I refer back to the terminology the noble Baroness used in the previous group when talking about what the spirit of devolution should be: it should surely be a democratic spirit. The decision about the shape of devolution should rest with the local people, the people who are actually affected. Historically, the perception and the reality of some instances of devolution has been deals done un-transparently, in the dark, in what would once have been smoke-filled rooms. The smoke may have gone, but that lack of transparency remains.
What we are seeking here is a different idea of devolution—devolution that is truly transparent and open, with local people in control of the process rather than having it inflicted on them. With that in mind, my Amendment 127 calls for a referendum to be conducted on whether a combined county authority should be established in a given area. It occurs to me, having listened to the debate on previous groups of amendments, that the amendment should say “established or disestablished”, but we are in Committee so we can explore these things as we go along.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is in his place, so we might have already had extensive discussion about what happened in Sheffield, South Yorkshire and north Derbyshire. I will not, therefore, go into great detail on that, but it is worth noting that Sheffield voted against having a mayor and then, not long afterwards, found itself with a mayor.
I will also give a more positive, more recent example from Sheffield. Sheffield is the largest local authority to convert, through a referendum, from a cabinet-based system to a modern committee-based system of government. I know many of the people who were involved in that campaign, which was led not by political parties but by a local community group. Many people said, “You’ll never get this referendum through. It’s all too technical, difficult and complicated, and people won’t understand.” But the referendum was voted through. It was a real vehicle for a huge amount of debate and discussion in the city about how it was run and administered, and how that could be done better. Putting a referendum in for CCAs would be a chance to have a discussion and a debate, and to really engage local people, which is what we need in our local areas to improve the quality of local governance.
Of course, the other recent example of such change, driven at the local level with decisions made by local people, is the city of Bristol deciding to get rid of its mayor. That was the decision that the people of the city made. Again, some said, “You’ll never get this referendum through; everyone is just going to shrug and it will all be too difficult.” But people were engaged and involved and they made the decision for themselves. Surely, that is what democracy means, and that is why I have tabled this amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will make just one or two comments on this group. I have listened very carefully to this and the previous group and I think we have an opportunity for the Government to clarify a number of issues around consultation and, indeed, referendums. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said about referendums. What is needed is a statement from the Government, hopefully before Report, on what the nature of consultation should be. What would be deemed to meet a minimum requirement or threshold for there to be an official consultation?
Secondly, the Government need to be absolutely clear what their own powers should be in relation to a consultation: what they can require of a local authority or set of authorities. I welcome the fact that this discussion is taking place; it is really important. We have discussed before in recent years during the passage of previous Bills what local people have a right to expect of their consultation. I, too, in Newcastle, have been through a mayoral referendum, and the same thing happened. The decision was not to have a mayor, but, of course, we now have a mayor of the North East Combined Authority—for which, in fact, there was no referendum. Our referendum was within scope; I ask the Minister: are referendums out of scope?
Turning to Amendment 62, I was struck by one or two other very important issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which the Government need to be a bit clearer about. The first was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock: travel-to-work areas. It all depends how big your CCA or other combined authority is geographically. A very important issue is raised in Amendment 62: whether the Government are thinking in terms of each CCA having a single economic hub. In a number of areas that would not be suitable. In my own part of the country, several travel-to-work areas apply. Hopefully, that point will not be forgotten by the Government.
Lastly, on Amendment 63, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, made another very important point about the duty to co-operate. When during previous Bills we have debated the duty to co-operate, the Government have always been very positive about having that duty placed clearly on the face of the Bill. But a CCA is not just being required to co-operate with a neighbouring CCA, but with all the other bodies that may relate to it. Given the ability of the public sector to operate across boundaries, both geographical and in terms of responsibilities and powers, it matters that the duty to co-operate is made absolutely clear at the outset.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I will just make one or two additional comments to those of my honourable friend Lord Shipley, the main one concerning Amendment 126 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about public consultation. I have been involved in a number of statutory instruments on the establishment of metropolitan combined authorities where the public consultation involving “the public” has been minimal, but it was agreed to be satisfactory because it enabled other local institutions—be it businesses, local council representatives or the LEPs—to respond. That has been labelled “public consultation”.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a few comments on my Amendment 126 before we hear the Minister’s response. I tabled this amendment because public consultation is something I feel very strongly about. I worked in consultation before I entered Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made some comments about standards of consultation, and it is incredibly important when we are talking about consultation that we know what we mean by that and that we are not just talking about stakeholder engagement, because they are very different things. I know that the Government do have minimum standards of consultation that they follow, so I wanted to make sure that that was properly on the record.
I want the results of the public consultation to be publicly available because consultation is not just about going out and talking to people. It is about listening to people and, having listened to them, it is about demonstrating the changes made in response to what the public have said during that consultation process. That is why, to me, this is critical. If you are to bring people on board with what you are trying to achieve, they need to genuinely believe that they have been part of the process in a constructive way. Even if you do not agree with them, it is important to explain why not and whether any further action has been taken.
Finally, I may have got this wrong, but I think the Minister said in his response to the previous debate that there were no further requirements around consultation because it is covered in Clause 46. I had a look at Clause 46 and it says:
“The Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation unless”
and there are few examples. The final one is if
“the Secretary of State considers that no further consultation is necessary.”
Again, that would concern me unless it was clearly demonstrated and transparent why that was no longer required, because we have seen publicly what has been said and what further action has been taken or not taken and the reasons surrounding that. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that that is the approach the Government will be taking to consultation in this area.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments covers preconditions for establishing, and indeed disestablishing, a combined county authority. This process is locally led and it aligns with the process for a combined authority that we have seen successfully used in many areas to date.
Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to insert a requirement into Clause 7 that the Secretary of State can establish a combined county authority via regulations only if they deem there to be at least 60% support from local residents in the area to be covered by the CCA. In a similar vein, Amendment 127, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to insert a requirement into Clause 44 for there to be a referendum before the Secretary of State may make regulations to establish a combined county authority, and for this question to be approved by a majority of local government electors.
We do want to ensure that the local public, in the broadest sense, are consulted on a proposal to establish a combined county authority in their area. This desire on the Government’s part is already captured by the requirement for a consultation provided for in Clause 43. Clause 43(4) states that, prior to submitting a proposal for a combined county authority to the Secretary of State, the local authorities proposing the establishment of a CCA must undertake a public consultation on the proposal in the area that the CCA will cover.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked, perfectly reasonably, what a proper consultation would look like. One important element is that it would have to cover the waterfront, as it were, in terms of stakeholders, to get a real sense of the strength of feeling and the climate of opinion in an area, and the extent to which an authority has taken the trouble to represent the scope of that opinion and feeling in the submission it makes. Once the consultation has happened, the authorities must submit a summary of consultation responses to the Secretary of State alongside their proposal.
When deciding whether to make the regulations to establish a combined county authority for an area, one of the tests the Secretary of State must consider is whether the area’s public consultation is sufficient. That is a judgment the Secretary of State must make in the light of the information presented, but if they conclude that it has not been sufficient, Clause 44 provides that the Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation before any regulations can be made.
I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and will take advice on why that clause is worded as it is. I suggest to her that there is nothing sinister in it—it is the way that these legal provisions have to be drafted—but the net effect is as I have described, because what we wanted to introduce was a safety net, as it were, of a further Secretary of State-initiated consultation if that was deemed necessary. I hope the fact that we have done that demonstrates the importance which the Government attach to the consultation process.
We believe that the existing clauses provide for sufficient local consultation. I hope the way I have outlined the provisions and what we intend them to do in practice has persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that a referendum would be unreasonably burdensome. What we want, above all, is transparency of local opinion and that I hope we will get.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Many examples are flashing through my head, but I am thinking about one particular local government consultation that I saw, which happened to be around the city of Chester. The consultation asked, “Do you want to build on the green belt in areas A, B, C, D or E?”. Many local people pointed out to me that they wanted to say, “None of the above”, but there was no space in the box or provision to do that. So can the Minister reassure me that part of the Secretary of State’s examination of the summary of consultation responses will look at whether the consultation truly gave the space for local opinion to be expressed?
Earl Howe (Con)
That is certainly the aim. I do not know whether the noble Baroness would agree with me that one of the downsides of referendums that we have seen in the past is that people are asked to take a binary decision. That very often does not allow for the nuances and subtleties of an issue to be presented in the question, to put it at its mildest. So we think the consultation model is more appropriate for this type of situation, particularly as the different constituent elements of a community will have different interests and viewpoints on the issue in question.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It is clear that, even barring a referendum, under Clause 44(3)(c) the Secretary of State will ask for further consultation if they consider that it is required. I assume that the Secretary of State will not have a subjective opinion on that and that there will be some objective criteria. It therefore comes back to what my noble friend Lord Shipley said: would it not be wise for the objective criteria about what good consultation is to be shared and, potentially, to be in the Bill? That would stop the position where local authorities had to rerun a consultation because it had not met the criteria which the Secretary of State was looking for in the first place.
Earl Howe (Con)
Yes, I take the noble Lord’s point. It comes back to one that I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made about minimum standards in this area. It might be helpful if I took advice on this and wrote to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, to see whether I can add some clarification.
Turning to Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the levelling-up White Paper clearly states the Government’s ambition for devolution, including the devolution framework, which is underpinned by four principles. One of these principles is sensible geography. The White Paper clearly states that future devolution deals should be agreed over a sensible, functional economic area and/or a whole-county geography, with a single institution in place across that geographic footprint. We have already debated that issue on the previous group. The combined county authority model is being established in the Bill to provide a single institution that can cover such functional economic areas, or whole-county geographies, where there is existing two-tier local government and multiple upper-tier councils. As such, I reassure the noble Baroness that combined county authorities will be focused on single economic hubs.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his detailed comments on the amendments. I would like to start with a few comments on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. She mentioned that devolution deals were often done in smoke-filled rooms. I do not think that would have been the case in Manchester because they seem to have cracked the smoking cessation issue in Manchester, which is good to hear. But it is true that there has been an impression that these deals were cooked up behind closed doors. There has not always been a degree of consultation, which is why we have had such a significant discussion this afternoon around what consultation should take place on the setting up of a CCA, the dissolution of one or any boundary changes. The examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave on the effectiveness of public consultation and referendums in both Sheffield and Bristol illustrate that these things can be done very effectively, if adequate information is provided for the public to have a debate and discussion before they vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the opportunity for the Government to issue a statement on consultation, being clear about what the parameters need to be, what the Government’s powers are and what local people can expect to have a say on. That is a vital point.
We also had a lot of discussion under this group of amendments and the previous group on travel-to-work areas. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked whether each CCA is going to have a single economic hub. I do not think that question has been answered yet. We may have multiple hubs in county areas. I will use a local example, as it is the one I know best. In Hertfordshire there are multiple hubs. There are even two very distinct economic clusters: one in the pharmaceutical industry, which is thriving and doing extremely well in things like cell and gene therapy, and one in the creative industries. They are very distinct and different economic hubs within one area. We need to think about how that works in counties where there is not just a simple, single economic hub.
On Amendment 63, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about how previously on this Bill the Government have been clear more than one public authority may be included in the CCA. Non-constituent members have been talked about a lot. If there is more than one public authority in an area—for example, a local enterprise partnership, the National Health Service or a PCC—it can be very confusing when they do not have coterminous boundaries about who is responsible for delivering within that CCA. It is important that we get further clarification on that as the Bill develops and goes forward.
My noble friend Lady Hayman spoke about standards of consultation and the fact that the consultation should be publicly available. Added to our other discussions on consultation, these are important points. I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he would come back to us on that strange subsection in Clause 46 that talks about the Secretary of State having the power to say that they do not think that any further consultation is necessary. That will require further clarification.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Bill
Monday 27th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 22 February 2023 - (22 Feb 2023)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. With the agreement of the Committee, I will now report the Bill to the House without amendment.
Communications Act 2003 (Restrictions on the Advertising of Less Healthy Food) (Effective Date) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Allan of Hallam
That this House regrets that the Communications Act 2003 (Restrictions on the Advertising of Less Healthy Food) (Effective Date) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/1311) will delay for 33 months, until 1 October 2025, the implementation of the ban on advertising less healthy foods and drinks before the 9pm watershed on television, on radio and on online media.
Relevant documents: 24th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the increasing level of obesity represents a clear and present danger to the health of our nation. I will not recite all the issues caused by obesity, but I direct anyone wanting to learn more to the Obesity Health Alliance.
Recognising this risk, Parliament has agreed on a number of tools to try to arrest, and ideally reverse, that increase, including restrictions on advertising less healthy foods which were agreed to in the Health and Care Act 2022. But while Parliament can will the ends as well as the means, in the shape of the proposed new advertising restrictions, it depends on the Executive to bring them into effect and to do so in a timely fashion, and yet we are faced here with the Government telling us that they cannot implement what we have asked them to do for the best part of two years. This makes the Government look powerless to respond to a public health crisis that needs action right now, and their defence seems to be that they are not impotent but merely incompetent.
We can expect the Minister’s response to explain the challenges of all the different processes that they have to go through to introduce the restrictions and why these all take time. While I am generally sympathetic to the need to regulate properly by consulting with affected organisations, I am afraid that my response on this occasion has to be that my heart bleeds custard for the Government. The need to go through these various steps was entirely predictable, as these measures have been under discussion since 2018 and were formally consulted on after the Government’s much-heralded tackling obesity strategy of 2020. With the additional delay proposed today, we are looking at these measures taking seven years to get from farm to table. The Minister can have a go at explaining this, but I hope that he will not try too hard to defend it.
I expect to hear about the challenges with Ofcom’s workload. Again, I certainly understand that it is stretched by all the new work coming under the Online Safety Bill, but this delay on these regulations now risks making matters worse. It would have been better to have had this all in place before the wave of new demands comes along. I fear that we may be back here again being told that, unfortunately, there has to be a further delay while more important online safety measures take up all of Ofcom’s bandwidth. We need to ask if there is more to this delay, and if the Government are backsliding on their commitments to anti-obesity measures; they are happy to announce and reannounce them but less willing to get the job done.
We can see that there are mixed views about giving advice to people among leading Conservative Party figures, which we might describe as, “Private nannies good, nanny state bad”. But this is not a nanny-state measure, as it does not stop anyone buying or selling any food products. Rather, it is aimed at changing the environment in which people make their own choices, so that they will be, to borrow language from election law, free from coercion and undue influence.
We also have to ask cui bono—who benefits—from any policy shift, and I hope that the Minister can tell us today who from the food or advertising industries has been lobbying for the delay. If we want to consider cui malo—who is harmed—we find that the Government have just not done their homework to look into the effects of the delay, as pointed out by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 24th report, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, refers in her Motion. The Explanatory Memorandum tells us in paragraph 12.3:
“A full Impact Assessment has not been prepared … because this instrument is being made only to delay the implementation date of the advertising restrictions by 33 months.”
Only 33 months—just in time for the third birthday of children being born today, whose lifetime health chances will be set during those critical early years. I wonder how long the Minister thinks a delay in legislation has to be for its impact to be worth assessing.
Even without the Government’s assessment, I do not think that any serious commentator would agree that there is no harm from this delay, as it means that there will be a longer period in which people trying to make healthier choices are exposed to messages pushing them in the opposite direction. We may not be able to quantify precisely the effect of those messages, but the promoters of less healthy foods are not stupid; they advertise only because it helps them to sell more.
This debate is obviously an opportunity for us to have a go at the Government for appearing to back-track on a measure which they said they were committed to and have previously agreed is in the public interest. I look forward to hearing other noble Lords kick their balls into this open goal.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I support the regret Motions from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. At the noble Lord’s invitation, I will kick a slightly different ball into the open goal.
I share the Government’s concerns about levels of obesity in the UK, but the failure to adequately explain or justify both the delay to and the rationale for these regulations is further evidence that the Government’s strategy to tackle obesity is disjointed, partial and careless of unintended consequences, and that it falls far short of the integrated public health approach that will be required if we are to meet this major public health challenge.
Research in obesity and eating disorders has often followed separate paths, but it is increasingly recognised that eating and weight-related problems need to be seen on a spectrum that goes from diagnosable eating disorders, through to disordered eating behaviours such as fasting, vomiting or laxative use, to body dissatisfaction, binge eating, being overweight and obesity. Studies show that individuals often present with more than one problem concurrently or move between different problems at different times in their lives, so eating disorders and obesity cannot be seen as separate and distinct issues. There is a raft of risk factors common to both: poor body image and low self-esteem; weight-related teasing; the modelling of poor eating behaviours at home; the stigmatising attitudes of teachers or sports coaches; and the socio-cultural norms around body shape that underpin everyday life. Any of these can increase the risk of both eating disorders and obesity in adolescence and adult life.
The interactions between the two mean that any strategy to address them needs also to be integrated. This is especially important when it comes to messaging. Many campaigns position being overweight and obesity as issues of personal responsibility and choice, shaming and stigmatising people, rather than acknowledging and addressing societal and environmental factors, as well as the powerful impact of genetics, epigenetics, metabolism and biology.
In 2020, 100 obesity specialists from around the world signed a statement in which they explained:
“The assumption that body weight is entirely under volitional control, and that voluntarily eating less and/or exercising more can entirely prevent or reverse obesity is at odds with a definitive body of biological and clinical evidence developed over the last several decades.”
Yet that same year, just months later, the Government produced an obesity strategy underpinned by the assumption that everybody is able to make the choice to modify behaviour and change their weight status. Not only does this stigmatise those who cannot, it can have negative consequences for people for whom the message is not intended. It can cause or exacerbate incipient or established eating disorders, promoting unhealthy dieting or inducing body dissatisfaction.
Children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to this kind of messaging, particularly those who are prone to anxiety. The simplistic portrayal of foods as good and bad, healthy and unhealthy, is risky for children, because they may not yet be at the developmental stage needed to appreciate the nuances involved. Many pre-adolescents report healthy eating initiatives at school as the trigger for an eating disorder, internalising messages such as “fat is bad” in a literal way, impervious to the importance of fat in their neurological development—of course they would be impervious to that; they are children. Children have a degree of cognitive inflexibility, and it can lead them to adhere very strictly to rules. In susceptible children, this can result in obsessive preoccupation with reducing calories, avoiding foods or increasing exercise to burn off what they have eaten.
The current obesity strategy, developed at speed as the links between Covid and obesity became clear, is far from the integrated approach that is needed to address these complexities. Its policies focus mainly on physical activity, diet and weight control and seem to have been designed in consultation with experts in obesity but with little or no input from specialists in eating disorders or body image. In my conversations with officials and Ministers about food labelling regulations, I was astonished at the levels of disconnect between eating disorder and obesity research, policy and clinical practice, and I found it hard to avoid the conclusion that concerns from an eating disorder perspective had been sacrificed to the perceived greater needs of the obesity crisis.
It is completely understandable that the Government have focused their attention on tackling obesity, given its increased prevalence, the long-term health consequences and the burden to both the NHS and the public purse. But it is regrettable that so many aspects of the strategy were not thought through: the complex interactions with other weight-related or eating-related issues; the particular risks to children; and, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has highlighted, the practicalities of implementation and the impact of this further delay on young people’s health.
Obesity is a major public health challenge, and it requires an integrated public health approach, one that balances risks and benefits and focuses on better education, healthcare and policies that modify the environment in ways that support healthier behaviours. The current patchwork of policies, with its partial focus and unexplained delays, is not going to be the answer.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who set out so clearly that we have to get away from blaming individuals for the fact that we have, as a society, a deeply damaging and disastrous relationship with food. Perhaps going even further than the noble Baroness, I stress that what is behind that is a broken food system—that what is supplied into the system is deeply unhealthy and damaging in all kinds of ways. It is both what is presented to people and what comes into the system that are problems.
It might be fairly said, as the noble Baroness just did, that tonight we are talking about partial, inadequate measures—and I offer the Green group’s support for both these regret Motions—but they are, at least, measures to do something. We can look at another partial, inadequate measure that has come into effect and we are starting to see the results of: the Soft Drinks Industry Levy Regulations 2018. It is very small and partial, but a recent study published in PLOS Medicine showed that we have seen an 8% reduction in obesity in girls aged 10 and 11 as a result of that. There is a gender aspect that I do not think anyone yet fully understands. It is a limited state of progress, but it is better than heading in the opposite direction.
Looking where we are now, here is one figure that is truly shocking: last year, 660 under-fives were admitted to hospital with obesity given as the primary cause of their admission. That is what our broken food system is doing. Restrictions on advertising were hard fought for and much discussed during the Health and Social Care Bill, and I remember sitting in your Lordships’ Chamber over what I suspect was many hours. Yet here we are today, and I cannot help reflecting on an earlier discussion in your Lordships’ House in which it was suggested that the Scottish Government were bringing in the bottle return scheme far too quickly. That was a three-year delivery from the regulations being passed to them being implemented. That was something Westminster could not imagine.
Looking to the general public, one of the things I have found again and again on that issue and issues tackling obesity is that people say, “We heard the government announcement, but it does not seem to have happened.” People think that once the Government have announced something it is happening, and the Government use that, announcing things again and again that never get delivered. It really is past time that we should be seeing the delivery here. I will finish with a question to the Minister: what is the higher priority here, the health of the nation or the profits of broadcasters?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid I am a weary veteran of discussions about these regulations. As your Lordships know, the House’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has absolutely slated them and the information provided with them. It mentions:
“The Explanatory Memorandum (EM) states that in 2019”—
that is a year after the industry was first warned that this sort of ban was going to be implemented—
“under current voluntary restrictions, children were exposed to 2.9 billion ‘less healthy food and drink TV impacts and 11 billion less healthy food and drink impressions online’”.
That is 13.9 billion hits. That was four years ago. In the four years between the measures first being announced and us legislating for the ban last summer, there were 13.9 billion every year, coming to 55.6 billion hits for unhealthy foods, which is an existential scale of influence on children’s food choices. Now we are being told there is going to be another three years of it; at the same rate, that is another 41.7 billion hits to persuade children to eat unhealthily. That comes to 97.3 billion adverts—a figure 12 times the population of the world. There cannot be a child in this country over that period of time who has not seen hundreds and thousands of adverts persuading them to make the wrong food choices.
We are told that the industry needs longer to prepare and the Government need longer to consult. The Government are consulting on simple technical issues that should not take many weeks, let alone another three years. Indeed, I understand there is an idea of changing the definition of these foods, but we already have a clear mechanism for deciding what these foods are. It is called the nutrient profiling model, and the industry knows it perfectly well, because since 2007, it has not been able to advertise those foods around children’s television programmes. So why do we have to wait another three years? How on earth do these delays line up with the Government’s strategy to halve childhood obesity by 2030? These things simply do not match up.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for his Motion to Regret and for the excellent way in which he presented it, and to all other speakers who have contributed. I feel sorry for the Minister. He is one of several Ministers we have seen since 2015, since the Conservatives have been totally in charge of government, and, during that period, of course, we have seen obesity grow—it is the one area in which we have seen growth, growth, growth. It is an area that has now worryingly spread down, particularly to children. We can say what we will say today, but I know the Government are not changing their mind; they are kicking this ball into the long grass, into the next election and beyond. Really, I think we in this Chamber should start addressing ourselves to who will be in power next time around, and what we might try to do in persuading them to have policies that will effect changes, because the one thing that the Government should have learned is that relying on voluntary conversations and a voluntary response from the private sector and the businesses in the food and drinks industry rarely produces a response.
Yesterday, I had experience of where the Government have taken some action. I went out for lunch and I had a choice on the menu: I saw the number of calories available to me with the various foods that were in front of me. I chose to have food with 1,000 calories, as opposed to 1,500, which I might have chosen had they not got that legislation through—with our support. Where they failed, of course—we pointed this out at the time the legislation was going through—was when my colleagues sat down, my friends and family, and had the bottles of wine, the gin and tonics before and the rest of it. They had no idea what they were consuming. I have been talking about labelling on alcohol for years, and the Government have done nothing at all. They have relied on the private sector to try to effect changes; there have been some marginal ones, but we still do not have any knowledge of what people are consuming when they come to take alcoholic drinks. Often, they can be consuming far more calories in the form of drink than in food.
So, looking at a menu with calories on does work. Leaving it to the private sector to do it voluntarily does not. I am hoping that the next Government in power will recognise fairly early on that we have to take the action, do the research, get it on the statute book and then implement it and not fiddle around. Because we see that we now have type 2 diabetes emerging among children as young as nine, 10 and 11, and that was not the case back in 2010 when the Labour Government went out of power. It was not the case even in 2014. If we look at what is happening in America with type 2 diabetes, the projections of the numbers of citizens who will have it in the future are quite frightening. They are saying that there could be up to 90% with type 2 diabetes unless people start to address basic food and drink properly. Yet we are letting it slip through our fingers here today. I am hoping the Minister will sensibly recognise—he does endeavour to bring a business attitude to bear—that we need to get law and not rely on a voluntary approach.
Another approach linked to this—I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench might pick this up—is that we see increasingly that advertising is not so much influencing young people on television, but it is online, and these regulations do not touch on online advertising one iota. There may be a saving grace, in that there is a delay: whoever deals with it next will sweep up online advertising as well. Linked to that, there is a requirement to look at the whole advertising industry and see how it is operating and whether we should not contemplate introducing health taxes into advertising, so that those who are advertising the most harmful food and drinks should be paying taxes on their advertising, and those who are advertising good food should have encouragement and support. That is the kind of change that we may be looking for with a new Government—a different approach from the one we have had so far. So, I look forward with interest, as others do, to the defence the Minister is going to mount—a defence which will be about nothing changing while they are still in power.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Children’s Minister recently admitted that the nation had a problem with childhood obesity that should not be ignored. I am sure that noble Lords who have spoken today, and I am grateful to them, will share that view, not least because children with obesity are five times more likely to become adults with obesity, increasing the risk of developing conditions including type 2 diabetes, cancer and heart and liver disease. This is an extremely serious and pressing matter, as the Minister has been reminded yet again.
Two in five children in England are above healthy weight when they leave primary school and we now see the fastest increase in childhood obesity on record, as my noble friend Lord Brooke highlighted in his remarks. But it gets worse. Children starting school in the most deprived areas are three times as likely to be severely obese as those in the wealthiest, while NHS data shows that almost half of boys in England’s poorest areas are overweight or obese when they leave primary school. Last year, there were 3,400 severely obese children aged four or five in the most deprived parts of the country, as compared with 630 in the richest. So will the Minister give some indication as to what account is being taken of this great disparity between those who have more and those who have less in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill currently being considered in your Lordships’ House?
As we have heard today, it is absolutely right that we make informed choices about what we eat and drink, but choice can only really be choice if there is no distortion, and if those who are making the decisions have all the information they need and are able to interpret it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, we actually need an integrated health approach to tackle the complexities of achieving a healthy weight. So the question for the Minister that has run throughout this debate is: how will the statutory instrument support this integrated health approach to tackle the complexities we know we have?
In the Government’s original analysis, they suggested a watershed on advertising, saying that introducing restrictions to prevent adverts for products high in salt, fat and sugar being shown before 9 pm could lead to 20,000 fewer obese children. I took it that this was, as others have said in the debate today, about shifting the environment, shifting the power of influences, in order to manage the challenges that we all face in supporting our wish to secure good health. So, will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what will be the change in opportunity to tackle children’s obesity because of this regulation and the change it brings about? I refer in particular to page 33 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the figures. The report states:
“Analysis conducted to inform the Government’s Impact Assessment of the advertising restrictions found that under current restrictions children were exposed to 2.9 billion less healthy food and drink TV impacts and 11 billion less healthy food and drink impressions online in 2019”.
The committee observes that the effect of the delays means that, presumably, this level of advertising will continue and asks for an explanation as to why this is acceptable given the harms stated. Perhaps the Minister could refer to an answer on this point. The committee also asks for an explanation as to how the Government anticipate that they will still achieve the target of halving childhood obesity by 2030 if various elements of the strategy are delayed. Again, perhaps the Minister can tell your Lordships’ House his view on this.
Of course, there is a difficult balance to strike when seeking to improve public health and also when working with broadcast and online and the advertising industries. The Government have produced a regulation that has been drawn to the attention of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee once again, and this clearly does not assist the striking of that balance. It is not acceptable that the Explanatory Memorandum is described as “poor”, and that it fails to evaluate the effects on public health and the NHS from this delay. Nor is it acceptable that it fails to explain the use of a different definition from previous legislation. This refers to the unexplained shift from “high-fat, sugar and salt” to “less healthy foods”. The committee rightly asks whether the Government’s intended scope of products that they want to regulations to cover have been changed. Perhaps the Minister could respond on this point.
The SLSC also says that it
“provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation.”
It also says that, worryingly:
“The views of the NHS are not addressed or explained.”
This, I believe, is quite remarkable and suggests a breath-taking lack of engagement with those who should be engaged with. Once again, poor policy-making and poor administration have come together to leave your Lordships’ House unable to properly scrutinise what the Government are doing and why, even though it is the job of your Lordships’ House to do this. Perhaps the Minister could address these points of concern.
The Minister will recall that I have raised many times before the point about his department’s approach to legislation and the criticism that it has attracted. He kindly gave an undertaking that he would look into this with a view of doing better in future. Can the Minister could update the House of progress in this regard? Finally, I hope that the Government will not be diverted from measures that will have an impact on the health and weight of the nation.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allan—despite his wish to invite people to kick our balls—and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for securing the debate to discuss these regulations. I also thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its report on this, and I thank all noble Lords for their constructive discussion on how to tackle the pressing challenge on obesity. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, in particular, for her thoughtful contribution showing the complexities of the subject with regard to the impact on eating disorders, as well as obesity.
I like to think that we are all agreed on the scale and the gravity of the issue at hand. Data from the latest child measurement programme, as mentioned by others, shows that 38% of children leaving primary school were either overweight or living with obesity. One in four were living with obesity. This, as we know, is fuelled by the regular overconsumption of food and drink that is high in calories, sugar and fat—or HFSS food and drink for short. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned, we know that being overweight or living with obesity at a young age increases the risk of being overweight as an adult which, in turn, significantly increases the risk of diabetes, coronary heart disease, musculoskeletal issues and certain cancers. This impacts on both the individual’s well-being and wider society. As we all know, it comes at a very high cost. Not only does it cost the NHS £6.5 billion a year in the latest estimates—there is an economic cost estimated to be as much as £58 billion. For all those reasons, this Government are committed to tackling obesity: it is the morally and fiscally responsible thing to do.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, gave us an important reminder that we need to think holistically about our entire relationship with food, including eating disorders as well as obesity. That is helpful, and something I am sure we will return to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, reminded us of other regulations in this area which seem to be having some success: the soft drinks levy and the information provided on restaurant menus. My noble friend Lady Walmsley’s institutional memory is extraordinarily helpful in explaining much of what has already been debated and agreed, undermining the Government’s argument that so much still needs to be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, was right to criticise the process of presenting regulations, and I suggest a carrot and stick approach to the Minister. The carrot is a friendly, gentle debate in the Moses Room and the stick is to come here for another ball-kicking exercise.
Finally, on the substance of the regulation, the Minister has explained that the Government’s real goal is reformulation. This could be done perhaps more urgently than the Government are suggesting if they put their mind to it. If we can shift from being tomato eaters to turnip eaters in the space of a few months, I think we can shift from being unhealthy burger eaters to healthier burger eaters in less than two years. With that and the other contributions, I seek the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
Communications Act 2003 (Restrictions on the Advertising of Less Healthy Food) (Effective Date) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Merron
That this House regrets that the Department of Health and Social Care’s explanatory memorandum for the Communications Act 2003 (Restrictions on the Advertising of Less Healthy Food) (Effective Date) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/1311) fails to provide sufficient information to gain a clear understanding of the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation.
Relevant documents: 24th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 27th February 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (27 Feb 2023)
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Environmental Impact Assessment(1) The Secretary of State must publish an environmental impact assessment 120 days after laying regulations under section 7.(2) Each year thereafter, the CCA must publish an environmental impact assessment in relation to their ongoing operation.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that an environmental impact assessment must be published following the establishment of a CCA.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 66 I will speak also to a number of amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage.
Amendment 66 would require an environmental impact assessment to be published following the establishment of a CCA. We have heard in previous debates that the Bill will create a new model of combined authority through county deals, which will provide local leaders with powers to enhance local accountability, join up services and provide transparent decision-making to rejuvenate their communities. Although this is clearly an excellent ambition, previous debates have also demonstrated that there are many unknowns about how things are going to happen, particularly in a practical way, and what the impacts will be.
An environmental impact assessment would ensure that the likely environmental effects of any decisions are fully understood and then properly considered. An EIA would assess the direct and indirect impact based on a wide range of environmental factors—and it is a wide range, which is why an EIA must be considered and published. It could cover population and human health, biodiversity, land and soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and cultural heritage. There is a lot here to be thought about. It is important, particularly given that we do not believe, as others have said in the previous debates around emissions, that the environment has been properly considered as one of the missions; it is not properly built upon throughout the Bill.
Amendment 74, tabled by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asks the Government to define and clarify the purpose of non-constituent members under Clauses 9 and 10, which relate to the appointment of the non-constituent and associate members of a CCA respectively. Our concern is that it is not clear whether there is to be any further guidance on whether certain types of non-constituent or associate members will be prescribed by the Secretary of State or recommended in further guidance, or whether it is entirely for the CCA to determine this class of membership according to what it believes local needs to be; for example, whether an ICS or a hospital trust is invited—because a major priority is to tackle health inequalities—or whether it is felt to be important locally that the local enterprise partnership be a non-constituent member to make a link with economic growth. Clarification on that from the Minister would be very helpful.
We have concerns that Clauses 9 and 10 appear to be qualified by Clause 11, which gives significant powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to non-constituent members. These include the number of non-constituent members; the appointment, disqualification and resignation, or even removal, of non-constituent members; the appointment of a substitute member to act in place of a constituent member; the maximum number of non-constituent members; and the things that may or may not be done by a non-constituent member. There are also equivalent Secretary of State powers relating to associate members. A circumstance could be imagined where, if the Secretary of State took such powers, the outcomes could end up being the exact opposite of the localism and devolution that the Bill purports to enshrine.
That is our big concern with these clauses, and why the amendment seeks clarification and further definition relating to the role of non-constituent and associate constituent members of the CCA. It is important to understand this properly. We do not want any part of the Bill to start pulling powers back centrally when the Government appear to want the exact opposite.
Amendment 76 in my name carries on from this. It would mean that a CCA could request that regulations are introduced in relation to it. Again, it is about the control that the CCA itself has when looking at regulations and at how it needs to operate and behave effectively for its local community, rather than everything being driven centrally by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 86, from my noble friend Lady Taylor, means that an annual statement must be published to show how much funding is given to each CCA. This should include a cost-benefit analysis. We have talked a lot about funding today and last week. It is a critical central part of achieving success from these clauses and the proposed devolution for England.
Clause 14 specifies the process by which the Secretary of State may draw up regulations for the funding and costs of a CCA to be met by its constituent councils, and how that amount payable will then be determined. While the clause specifies that this has to be done with the consent of constituent councils and the CCA, it does not tell us how any additional funding that may be provided by the Secretary of State, for example through the different competitive bidding pots that exist or any grants that may be given, will be included in the accountability process for the CCA. Clarification around that would be very helpful.
We also cannot ascertain from the clause how the overview and scrutiny committee—or the general public, for that matter—would be able to determine by cost-benefit analysis just how effective, with the funding being contributed to it, the CCA is at then delivering against its objectives for the area. We believe that our amendment provides a simple, straightforward way to provide that accountability through an annually published statement.
Amendment 100 in Clause 23, in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor, would require the Secretary of State to explain how a local government area will, in future, have access to the powers that it has lost through removal from a CCA. My noble friend referred to this earlier. If the Secretary of State exercises the powers set out in Clause 23 to change the boundary of a CCA and remove a local government area from the existing area of the CCA, they can either transfer those functions to another public authority or remove a particular function of the CCA altogether for that area. While there is provision that the relevant councils must consent to this removal, there is nothing in the Bill as it stands that requires the Secretary of State to specify how any powers or functions will be delivered in future once that membership of the CCA has been terminated. So, again, it would be very helpful if the Minister were able to explain how that would move forward.
Clause 23(8) refers to consent being required from only the county council and not from any district councils that may be constituent members. My noble friend spoke earlier about the important role that district councils should play. They should not be seen just as a stakeholder, a secondary authority that does not have a say in such matters. This would mean that, in effect, an area could be removed from the CCA with the consent of only the county council but not of the constituent district councils that make up the area of the CCA being removed from its boundary. Surely they should have some kind of say in this. Is this what the Bill is intending or is this an oversight? If it is what the Bill is intended to do, would the consent vote required in Clause 23(9) specifically exclude the votes of district council members of the CCA? This is a really important area that we need to clarify.
Amendment 129, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on the establishment and operation of CCAs within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The current clause simply states that the Secretary of State,
“may give guidance about anything that could be done”
in relation to this chapter. Well, in view of the fundamental changes to the structure of local government that this chapter on CCAs is introducing, we believe that that is far too vague, and very likely to leave local government with a cloud of uncertainty hanging over it. In view of the fact that there have already been many iterations of the devolution agenda in recent years, we do not believe that it is unreasonable to expect that the Government will work with the sector in order to have, very quickly, clear and detailed guidance in relation to the establishment and the operation of CCAs as soon as possible after Royal Assent. That is why we have asked for this to happen within six months.
I turn finally to Amendment 130, which aims to probe whether the public will be informed of their CCA’s functions. With this amendment, we want to determine whether the Secretary of State will be responsible for setting out the purpose and aims of the CCAs, and how they are to be established and operated; or whether that responsibility will fall to local government. If the latter is the case, will there be new burdens that will require funding in relation to the communications aspects of informing the public about the functions of a CCA? Will any such new burdens extend to any public consultation funding? This may well be required when an area decides to proceed with the establishment of a CCA. We discussed consultation a lot in the last group but one, and the Minister seemed to believe that there was going to be support for any new burdens—so, again, clarification on that would be very welcome. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I want to give very substantial support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has said. She has made several very powerful points. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those, because I am as concerned as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Taylor, are about some of these issues. Some of what I want to say I will cover in the next group, so I will try to avoid getting on to the issue of voting powers.
It really is very telling. Amendment 74, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, says:
“Within 30 days of this Act receiving Royal Assent, a Minister of the Crown must publish a statement including a definition of ‘non-constituent member’ and a description of their purpose”.
If I may be so bold, I think that is really late. I had expected that we would have this before Report. With the concept of an associate member and the concept of a non-constituent member, I really think that, before this Bill gets any further, we have to understand what the Government are thinking of with those definitions. We can all hazard a guess. I can hazard a guess. Some things have been said and occasionally written, but we have to do better than this.
On page 10 of the Bill, in Clause 11, the Secretary of State is going to make provision by regulations for a whole set of matters about membership. Then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, rightly identified, it is almost a whole side of the Bill which includes provisions on just about anything you could think of. I am at a loss to understand why these matters are not public at this stage in the consideration of a Bill.
Clause 11(4), “Regulations about members”, says:
“In this section ‘constituent member’, in relation to a CCA, means a member of the CCA (other than any mayor for the area of the CCA) appointed by a constituent council.”
I am sure that is correct, but that is the only definition we have. We have no definition of an associate member or a non-constituent member. Yet, as we will discover in the debate on the next set of amendments, the CCA will have discretion to give those people full votes. There is a big issue here, and I intend to take it further when we get to Report.
All I am trying to do is to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and say to the Government: here we have a number of very serious proposals that, as they stand, are unacceptable.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will specifically address Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bakewell, but I will also refer to Amendment 86. On these Benches we broadly support these amendments because they ask some important questions.
Amendment 66 refers to the environment, which to all intents and purposes is a bit of an orphan in the Bill. One of the great advantages of CCAs, and of gathering together councils on a bigger area, is that you can have co-ordination and efficiencies of scale on environmental issues that are more difficult in smaller units. There are great disadvantages to having large units, but on the environmental issue you need to exploit the advantages. On everything from the management of areas of outstanding natural beauty to recycling schemes—I am trying to produce contrasting examples—and particularly on transport issues, there are huge advantages to running on a larger scale. For example, you have the efficiencies of running a bus network that is not just in the towns and cities but serves the rural areas that feed into them. It is therefore very important indeed that those issues are at the forefront of the decision-making of the CCAs and that they report back on those decisions.
Turning to Amendment 86, I am sure the Minister will forgive me for some cynicism here. The first round of the UK shared prosperity fund and two rounds of levelling-up funding have posed more questions than answers on the criteria on which this sort of government funding is now being based. It seems that areas favoured by the Government are doing well, sometimes not for any good reason. There therefore needs to be accountability in the funding of CCAs.
If we look at the current patchwork of local government funding in England, there always tend to be huge discrepancies and illogicalities because you are always inheriting what has gone before. Areas change and develop, and sadly some areas decline relatively. Sometimes political decisions put some areas at a disadvantage while others thrive. The point I am making is that with CCAs you are starting afresh. It is therefore very important to explain why they are being funded as they are, not just through bald accounting but with a cost-benefit analysis. Amendment 86 is a very good idea.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to members of the Committee for such an interesting debate about statements and guidance on combined county authorities. We agree completely with the need for transparency on the wide range of issues in these amendments.
Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an environmental impact assessment 120 days after making regulations that establish a combined county authority. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that in making the regulations, government and Parliament will have already considered the environmental impact of doing so. When deciding whether to make regulations to establish a combined county authority or change arrangements for an existing one, the Secretary of State has to consider statutory tests, including whether it would improve the environmental well-being of some or all of those who live and work in the area. Indeed, the regulations cannot be made unless the Secretary of State considers that this test would be met. There is therefore in our view an ample opportunity for Parliament to consider this.
This amendment would also require a combined county authority to publish an annual environmental impact assessment of its ongoing operation. As a form of local government body, CCAs will be subject to the same requirements as other local authorities to publish environmental impact assessments for specific pieces of work and decisions where necessary.
Amendment 74, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks a public statement of the definition and description of a non-constituent member of a combined county authority. I hope I can reassure her that there is already a definition for a non-constituent member in Clause 9. Paragraph 135 of the Explanatory Notes explains that:
“A non-constituent member of a CCA is a representative of a local organisation or body—such as a district council, Local Enterprise Partnership or university—that can attend CCA meetings to input their specific local knowledge into proceedings”.
The Explanatory Notes go on to explain how a non-constituent member would be chosen. First, the combined county authority may designate an organisation or body as a “nominating body” of a combined county authority if that organisation or body consents to the appointment. A nominating body would be a local organisation such as a district council. The nominating body will then suggest the representative to attend for its body—for example, the leader of the council—and that individual is the non-constituent member.
An associate member is an individual person such as a local business leader or an expert in a local issue whom a CCA can appoint. This enables the associate member to be a representative at CCA meetings and to input their specific local knowledge into proceedings.
I hope I can allay the doubts and fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on this issue. This model is designed to allow for genuine localism. It allows the local area to decide which local organisations or bodies will bring the greatest benefit to the combined county authority, and then appoint them. No two areas are the same. Depending on the local area, this will be different stakeholders, but examples of bodies that we expect to see combined county authorities engaging with are, as I mentioned, district councils, local enterprise partnerships, local universities, local health organisations and local registered providers, to name just a few.
The clause provides that district councils can be non-constituent members of a combined county authority. This will facilitate district councils having a formal seat at the table in putting their local expertise and ensuring join-up. Non-constituent members could attend the combined county authority’s cabinet meetings, be on sub-committees, and sit on overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees, giving those organisations that want them a role and voice in the combined county authority.
The model allows for local flexibility to reflect the different situations of different areas. If the combined county authority and all district councils wish to be involved, they can all be non-constituent members. However, if one does not, a devolution deal will not fall, as it would under the current combined authority model.
As stated in the levelling-up White Paper, we expect the upper-tier local authorities that we are agreeing devolution deals with to work with district councils to deliver the powers most effectively being provided. In discussions thus far, we have been pleased to see collaboration between upper- and lower-tier councils on devolution proposals to deliver for their area.
I emphasise that it is down to the combined county authority to decide what voting rights a non-constituent member should have rather than this being imposed by us in Westminster. Depending on the decision of the combined county authority, its non-constituent members can be given voting rights on the majority of matters.
I hope that this provides sufficient clarity on non-constituent members. I shall, of course, read Hansard and pick up any further questions that I feel I have not covered adequately, and I will write to noble Lords on those points.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As a further point of clarification, if the Minister will allow, is that saying specifically that district councils represented on a CCA will not have a vote, whereas the CCA can decide that other non-constituent members can vote? I am not clear about this at all. Unless what is intended is more clearly set out, we could end up in what I would consider to be an unfortunate situation of elected district councillors who sit on a CCA not being able to have a vote, and the potential for that to be manipulated in a political way would still be there. We need to understand the situation around voting and non-voting for non-constituent members.
Earl Howe (Con)
I understand the noble Baroness’s point. I do think that I covered that in my remarks, but I will reread what I said and, to the extent that I was unclear, I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness. The broad point is that it will be up to the CCA what voting rights it allows to whom, including district councils.
Amendment 76, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, seeks to allow a combined county authority to be able to request that the Secretary of State makes regulations in relation to its membership. In agreeing a devolution deal with councils in an area, we will be discussing what governance arrangements would be appropriate, including the institution to operate the devolved powers, and membership and decision-taking arrangements.
The combined county authority would be able to make such a request to the Secretary of State. Such a request would be formalised through submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State, as set out in Clause 43 for establishing a new CCA and Clause 45 for making changes to the arrangements for an existing CCA. The Secretary of State has to consider such a proposal and, if they deem the statutory tests to be met, can decide to make the regulations. Such regulations can be made only with the consent of the local area—including the combined county authority if one is already established—and with parliamentary approval.
I turn to Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. The Government recognise the importance of transparency with regard to allocations of funding and regular reporting on the impact of wider and deeper devolution. Section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 requires the Government to produce an annual report on progress with devolution to combined authorities and local authorities, which covers the areas suggested by the noble Baroness’s amendment; namely, funding and regular progress reporting on devolution of additional public functions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, there was a lot to think about there so perhaps the Committee would bear with me, as I have an awful lot more questions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his very strong support for these amendments, which is much appreciated. As he said, we are concerned about the lack of definition, for example. Much of this is unacceptable as it stands, because there are so many unknowns. It is really complicated and confusing, with not enough information out there, and we are really trying to pin the Government down on that as we move forward.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, the environment is a bit of an orphan in the Bill. I thank her for her support for my amendment; she is absolutely right to say that we could be looking to have co-ordination and efficiency of scale on environmental matters. It concerns me that this is a real missed opportunity, particularly in areas of waste and transport, as the noble Baroness mentioned. The funding rounds so far have posed more questions than answers and there is not enough opportunity to make great strides in co-operation on environmental issues. These are things that we could do so much better; maybe if the missions focused more on the environment, there would be more thought around this. Obviously, this is something that we will come back to.
We need accountability to be built into these provisions. One thing to think about on the funding is that it is regressive in many areas—and in many that need levelling up more than others. It is not necessarily working at the moment, which is why we think it needs to be looked at.
Coming to the Minister’s comments, I am very pleased that he said we need more transparency and that it is important. However, on the environment, he talked about the fact the Secretary of State has a statutory test of improving environmental well-being. I am not convinced that that is the same thing as I am trying to achieve through the environmental impact assessment. I am trying to talk about working together more effectively on things such as waste, so you have cost benefits alongside improving the environment. There could be an opportunity for the Bill to do that—and it is not exactly the same as improving environmental well-being; they are slightly different. It would be good if the Government could go away and look at how that could perhaps be built into the legislation.
The Minister also mentioned that environmental impact assessments are there for certain pieces of work, but often they are the developers’ responsibility, if they are putting in for a particular development or for planning permission and so on. It is not built into encouraging councils to work together more environmentally effectively to bring that cost benefit to everybody.
On the non-constituent and associate members, from what the Minister said I gather that non-constituents are organisations and associate members are individuals. I am glad I have got that correct. However, to come back to district councils, they are already democratically elected. In theory, if 10 district councils were within a new CCA, could you end up with just one member being represented on the CCA? You could end up with very little district council representation compared with how many different councils there are. We need clear definitions and clear structures. There is nothing about how many members we are looking at and what their powers or responsibilities are. We are concerned that there is not enough pinned-down detail. Obviously, we like things to be in the Bill, but we could have more in the Explanatory Notes or under terms and conditions on how it is going to work once it is up and running.
I also want to point out that, in my experience—perhaps it is just to do with where I have been living—not all upper and lower authorities want to collaborate, and not all lower authorities want to collaborate. You can meet stalemate pretty quickly in those circumstances. I would be interested in how that is intended to be managed and who would manage it in order to smooth things over. How is that going to be helped if it is the CCA which decides who can and cannot vote? It strikes me that that has the potential for manipulation. It would be good to see conditions built in to ensure that does not happen. Would there be any guidance on this? What if, say, the only district council member is refused voting rights? Is there any right of appeal or challenge? How is that going to be managed?
On funding and regular reporting, the Minister mentioned the Local Government Act and how the government amendment is going to bring the CCAs into scope. That is really interesting to hear, and I imagine that we will probably revisit it once we have had a chance to look at that amendment and when it comes up for debate. I thank him for drawing our attention to that.
On access to powers if an authority has left the CCA, I clearly heard what the Minister said on Clause 23, but we added this because it does not actually explain that or lay out what happens. For example, if one local authority were delivering transport itself and were then removed, would that transport delivery go to the private sector, for example? That is completely different. We are trying to understand how that would operate and what the potential implications are if it is not managed properly.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness. Although some of her questions can be dealt with quite easily via a letter, it might be helpful to her and other noble Lords if we had a round-table session to explore some of the broader questions in greater depth. As she rightly said, considerable ramifications emerge from some of these questions, and I think they would be usefully dealt with in a conversational format, with officials present. So, if that idea appeals to noble Lords, I would be happy to arrange it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister. We would very much welcome that; it would be extremely helpful. I will finish by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, a very happy birthday.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s explanatory statement
The means that regulations can only relate to the initial constitutional arrangements.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to lose my voice at this rate. I will introduce my amendments in this group and briefly comment on those in the names of other noble Lords.
My Amendment 67 to Clause 8 means that regulations can relate only to the initial constitutional arrangements, and my Amendment 68 means that the regulations relating to the constitutional arrangements of a CCA can be made only after consultation with the CCA. Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to establish constitutional arrangements, and we do not have a problem with that at all. These are defined as
“membership ... voting powers ... executive arrangements”
and
“functions of any executive body”.
The executive arrangements include government appointments, the functions by which the executive operates, the functions of the executive that might be delegated to the committee, the “review and scrutiny” of the executive, “access to information” about the executive and the disapplication of Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989—plus the keeping of records. These are important aspects of establishing who will be on a CCA, where decisions will be made and what will and will not be in the public domain.
We believe that, once the Secretary of State sets up the bodies, they really ought to be allowed to get on with the job without undue interference. We believe that we should be able to trust them to exercise the significant power and money functions that will be devolved to them from the centre by this clause. So, if we trust them to do that, we should also trust them to be able to operate their own constitutional arrangements.
My Amendment 67 would insert the word “initial” to demonstrate that the Secretary of State may make provisions about the first set of constitutional arrangements only, and then the CCAs can carry on and do it themselves. Amendment 68 would further ensure that CCAs are consulted on any further regulations that would relate to their constitutional arrangements.
I will speak briefly to my Amendment 88 to Clause 16, which would mean that the
“regulations can only be made with a majority of members of the constituent councils”.
If all the constituent councils are going to feel on a level footing, as it were, with the rest, it is important that they all have that say and that things can change only once there is a majority who actually wants to make that change. It is then more likely to be accepted and moved forward in a constructive manner.
I will comment on a few other amendments. The deletion of the paragraph that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has asked for in his Amendment 69
“would reduce the risk of single party control of the executive of a CCA or its committees”.
We strongly agree with the noble Lord on that. It is an important amendment, because the Secretary of State should not be able to make regulations which disapply the political proportionality rules for an executive or committee of a CCA; we believe that that is for the electorate to decide.
We also agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, in his Amendment 71, which means that a constituent council can include
“a district council in a two-tier county council for an area within the CCA’s area or proposed area”.
We believe that this is one of a number of places in the Bill where district councils must be allowed to be included as constituent councils in two-tier areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has also tabled Amendments 72 and 75, which, again, reduce the risk of one-party dominance. I absolutely understand his point: if you allow voting members to resolve that non-constituent members can vote on a CCA, you could end up with the situation where this class of member is appointed specifically to boost the voting majority of one party. This comes back to us saying earlier that, if you are not careful, you could end up with a situation where things could be manipulated, even if that is not the Government’s intention. We have to be very careful about that, so we strongly support those amendments.
The amendment to Clause 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would require a referendum. I see that she is very keen on referendums today. I am not sure whether this is subject to prior legislation, but I am sure that she can enlighten me. The consultation to which we referred in our amendment in relation to setting up the CCA could carry a requirement that it also determines the nature of that CCA: for example, whether it is to be mayoral-led or indirectly elected, appointed by the CCA. In any case, it is probably good practice to consider a referendum on whether there should be a mayor and whether a CCA is indirectly elected. However, the one concern we have—I am sure that the Minister will refer to this—is the considerable cost of running any referendum; that is the sticking point for us.
Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, ensures that appointments cannot be imposed without scrutiny and without the CCA’s agreement. Again, this is around the appointment of a deputy mayor, in particular. If we assume the current system will continue as it is—that is, where deputy mayors are appointed—I would certainly agree with the noble Lord that this should not be without the scrutiny and agreement of the CCA. The question here is whether a powerful position such as that of deputy mayor should even be appointed in the first place, or whether we should undertake some kind of democratic process for these powerful positions.
Amendment 116A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, seeks to probe the circumstances in which political balance might be inappropriate. This is a very helpful amendment where the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is seeking to explore the nature of political balance in bodies that exercise joint functions. In effect, these have usually worked without political proportionality being applied, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on how this might operate going forward.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has another two amendments. Amendment 120
“would ensure that the CCA is confident that powers being delegated by the deputy mayor are appropriate.”
Sensibly, it seeks to add an extra protection, which we would support—we would not want to see any deputy mayors going rogue, for example. Amendment 122
“would ensure that the views of a majority of the CCA are fully considered”.
Again, we think this is absolutely appropriate. There are important matters that this could cover—for example, the transfer of fire and rescue powers to the chief constable, which is of course a possibility. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I would like first to welcome the offer from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, of a meeting. I suggest that plenty of time be allowed for us to discuss some of the issues that we have been trying to get to the bottom of in our debates so far.
I have six amendments in my name, and they all derive from a first reading of the Bill and the Explanatory Notes. Going back and reading it all again, you realise you actually need to place amendments on these matters. In this group, there are Amendments 69, 72, 75, 114, 120 and 122, and they all have a common theme, which is the centralisation of power and the need for checks and balances in the decision-making process.
Amendment 69 would delete Clause 8(3)(f), which says that
“section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (duty to allocate seats to political groups) in relation to an executive of the CCA or a committee of such an executive”
is disapplied. Therefore, it will not any longer be in place. That says to me that the deletion seems to encourage single-party control of a committee structure of a CCA. I just ask the Minister whether that is wise. It seems to centralise a power to an inner group of the CCA.
There has been a lot of discussion in the last group and then this one about district councils and their rights—clearly the meeting we are going to have will address some of those issues. Amendment 72 is a probing amendment and would prevent non-constituent members of the CCA voting. I say that to draw an explanation of why a non-constituent member of a CCA should have a vote. Why should the non-constituent members of the CCA become voting members? Will they all have a vote, or will it be only some non-constituent members? There is a big issue of principle here. Is it not enough for a non-council-nominating member to be in attendance? It is a simple issue. If you are a full member, you have a vote, and if you have a vote, you must be a full member. In other words, we have to have a discussion about the rights of district councils to be full members and have full votes.
Amendment 75 then addresses the issue of associate members of a CCA having a vote at the discretion of the CCA. I would like the Minister just to explain in what circumstances an associate member would qualify for a full vote. Again, the process could encourage one-party domination, by giving a majority party the right to give a vote to an associate member of their choice—or do I misunderstand? I am very happy to have misunderstood, but I am probing to know what the intention actually is.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to my amendment in this group and my opposition to Clause 25 standing part. I will make a couple of other comments on other amendments in the group.
I begin by very strongly agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in supporting Amendment 69 from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of the reasons for this, but an undue dominance of one party in committees is a clear problem, and it is very hard to imagine a justification for the deletion that the Government are proposing. I also agree with Amendments 114 and 120 on the CCA having to approve the appointment and powers of deputy mayors. That is an obvious point of democratic scrutiny.
In this group I have given notice of my intention that Clause 25 should not stand part of the Bill. This would delete the power for the Secretary of State to establish an elected mayor for a CCA, and my Amendment 113 would require a referendum for an elected mayor. What we are talking about here is what I was talking about in the previous group on which I spoke: democracy. We have seen from several sides of the Chamber a real desire to impose a model of governance known as the strong leader model: “We need to have one person there as a figurehead, who makes the decisions.” As a Green, I am fundamentally opposed to that model. I think it is very bad for democracy and very bad for the quality of decision-making and the quality of governance, independent of whatever the ideology might be. I also think that it discourages broader involvement in politics, which should be the very foundation of our democracy.
What we have also seen in the context of this is the election system for elected mayors, which the Government chose to unilaterally change under the Elections Bill—now Act—despite considerable opposition. I am not standing up and saying that as Greens we are going to write into this Bill that there is no right to have an elected mayor. I am saying that people should have the right to decide whether they want an elected mayor. It is very possible to imagine a community, an area, or a region that says, “We want a CCA, but we do not want an elected mayor.” I am seeking to ensure that however it is written into the Bill, that people have that choice, and that genuine choice is available to them.
My understanding is that the Labour Party, as well as the Conservative Party, has tended to be in favour of this strong leader model. That is a model to which I am fundamentally opposed, but I am saying that people should be allowed to have a choice whether or not to have that model applied to them. As in the previous group, I referred to the fact that in a number of cases around England where people have had it imposed on them, they got rid of it when they got the chance—as the people of Sheffield and Bristol did. To answer the question about cost from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I can cite figures for Sheffield. When conducting it at the same time as another election, it cost around £170,000 for Sheffield, which is the fifth largest city, making it more or less comparable to other cities. That was a couple of years ago, but it gives you a ballpark sense of what it would cost. I do not believe that sort of figure, proportionately, is too high a cost to apply for democracy.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I rise briefly in this debate to support Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. When I was listening, I read it and I am actually quite surprised by what the Government are doing—the disapplication of the duty of allocate seats to political groups. It seems perverse to me that the Government would do this. We are going to bring in these county combined authorities, whereby we bring people together across large areas who were not engaged, were not involved—and we want people to participate in this. Where would you be if you were trying to join one of these county authorities and you thought, “Hang on here, I am from one political group and we control this council, but all the other councils are controlled by my political opponents. I can join here, but then I will be taken off all the committees.” Why would you do that? It just seems perverse. I would be really interested to see how the Government can justify this when the Minister responds.
I really do think that the Government need to go away and think about that. It seems only fair to me that, if you are going to bring a combined authority together and you have elected politicians in all those authorities that come together, if they are from different groups, they should have representation on the Executive. I cannot see why you would want to take them off. Surely, you would want to hear their views. They are from different parts. I know there are proposals for a combined authority covering Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. I used to work up there, and that is a huge area. The thought that one group could be excluded from that because they were not of the same political group—the larger group there—is just perverse. I do not understand why the Government would suggest that and want to do that. I am really looking forward to the Minister’s response to justify this. I hope that, maybe, he may agree to take it back to the department and suggest that they have overstepped the mark and that it should be removed at Report.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I remind noble Lords of my various interests and activities. I am a chartered surveyor, a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils, and a member of the Country Land and Business Association. Probably none of them really clashes with what I am about to say. However, I do have fundamental concerns about these CCAs. How is this extra tier going to be funded or how will it generate its own income, in whole or in part? Will they truly meet what the Minister referred to as the transparency and accountability test that he set in the previous group? Will those standards always be routed in democratic accountability and the norms and conduct to be expected thereby, or something else?
I relate to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about ever-greater centralism in the Bill generally. That is a disturbing trend, especially when this whole levelling-up Bill, if you like, was gazetted as something that was going be better for communities. I see the thing drawing away from everything I understand community to be, and recognised it as, when I was president of NALC. This seems to be moving in the opposite direction.
The lack of clarity and specificity, presented as a freedom of CCAs to organise and manage their own affairs to some extent, is another area which is not clear from the Bill. The real acid test is whether this will result in citizen confidence in what we are doing. It cannot be otherwise. This is not something we can do from the top down, saying, “Oh well, they’ll like it, won’t they?” This has to be rooted in confidence in communities and among the citizenry generally.
Specifically, on this clause, the associate members are a special area of what I see as potential democratic dilution. Voting or not, these associates will have position and influence in debate and the processes going on. Let us not get too hung up about precisely whether they will be voting, because they will obviously have a lot of important functions notwithstanding. But who might they be? One can think of all sorts of worthy individuals representing important sectors of the community, but what about a property developer? What about a telecoms or construction company executive, who might have a particular interest in being involved in a particular area, or an investor linked to a sovereign wealth fund? The list goes on. What about a pressure group? The real question is: do these pass the test of citizen credibility when looked at from that area, bearing in mind that this is a body that is going to add another tier to the process we have all become familiar with and, to some extent, used to?
Could the noble Earl give us some reassurance as to who these associates might be? There has to be some overarching principle that sits behind their appointment and the functions they are able to deal with. If not, we would be signing some sort of operational blank cheque to these bodies. I hope he will be able to provide me with an answer to that point, which concerns me very much.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when I spoke earlier, I should have referred to my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I apologise to the Committee for that.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, before I turn to Amendment 71, I place on record a very personal—and it is not just mine—support for what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said a few minutes ago about the vital importance of allowing tiers of local government to decide for themselves how they want to organise their decision-making processes. That is fundamental.
In terms of one of those tiers of local governance, we have already heard throughout the course of today’s deliberation frequent reference to the importance and the role of district councils. That is what Amendment 71 is about. I noticed that, during the deliberations on a number of groups, concern has been raised about quite how district councils are going to fit in to the new structures that are being proposed. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said—I counted it—on five separate occasions during her last contribution, “It’s all very complicated” or “It’s all incredibly complicated”. I say to her that my Amendment 71 provides a solution which brings enormous simplicity to the whole issue.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it is late. I will try to be quick. I want to pick up what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to as “operation blank cheque”. The bit of the Bill that we are looking at here and that my amendment refers to is described in a sub-heading as “Functions of CCAs”. It consists of 15 clauses, 11 of which start with:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision”.
What is different about the other four? Well, in those, the same words appear but they are not the first words. The problem is that there is a concept, an idea, floating around, but with such a lack of precision that it is extremely difficult to pin down what we will get at the end of the day. My Amendment 116A amends Clause 30, which does indeed start with:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision”
and deletes subsection (4), which would suspend the operation of political proportionality.
I very strongly agree with all the other speakers in what has been said so far and support their amendments, but regarding this amendment, what is Clause 30(4) designed to achieve and why should it achieve it? The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 was not actually the original legislation. There was some preceding legislation introduced by Mrs Thatcher, who was fed up with Conservative councillors in opposition complaining to her about another large party, which shall be nameless, taking not just majority control but complete control of the committee system. That led, in their view, to serious injustice. Mrs Thatcher was persuaded of that point and the rules were introduced. Liberal Democrats at the time were strongly urging the same course of action. It was designed to stop an undemocratic abuse of majoritarian rule.
There would have to be a strong reason for suspending that in this arrangement. It will be a complex situation. We have enough experience here to know that getting a group of district councils and a county council together is not an afternoon’s walk in the park but a complex job, and the last thing that anybody needs to upset that applecart is the idea that there will be unfair or disproportionate representation, or “My council’s view is going to be squeezed out because of a distortion in the system.”
Others have spoken eloquently about that, but I just want to pick up the point about associate members. These are the individuals who can be appointed to join what are joint committees. This clause relates to the constitution of joint committees. It will have county councillors and district councillors. It may have associate members and they may have a vote in certain circumstances. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out that there is no limitation on who that could be.
We used to have an institution called aldermen. The majority party would appoint a sufficiently large number of its supporters to ensure that it never had any difficulty in the chamber in passing its budget or anything else. Quite rightly, the institution of aldermen has long since been consigned to the dustbin. However, we have got it back here, with associate members. It will be explosive if you mix that in with the complexity of getting district and county councillors around a table taking decisions.
My question to the Minister is: in what circumstances could doing that enhance the Government’s proposal for CCAs? It is one of the many occasions when Ministers decide the regulations, but there is no indication of what factors are to be considered which might justify having any confidence in this proposition. Should not the factors that the Secretary of State considers at least be in the Bill; for example, “The Secretary of State cannot exercise Clause 30(4) unless the following conditions are complied with”? The noble Earl might like to suggest those conditions, those limitations or constraints, because on Report, I would want to include them in an amendment.
Of course, this is not the only clause that I might have made this amendment to: Clause 28(5)(f) is another where proportionality is being suspended—or may be if, at his complete discretion, the Secretary of State decides to do so. I want to hear what the Minister has to say about why he thinks that it is necessary or even slightly advantageous. If he has a plausible reason for that, will he go on and accept that it has to be codified or constrained in some way? If he cannot do any of those things, will he please accept my Amendment 116A and delete subsection (4) from Clause 30?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I will not speak for long. This has been a very important debate, and very positive: across the Chamber, Members are in agreement that we need clarity from the Government about what they are proposing regarding the constitution of the CCAs.
There is one element that has not yet been raised. Where the constituent members are not equal in size, is that to be reflected in the constitution of that particular CCA? I will give an example that was raised in earlier groups. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about Devon. It has a county council; Plymouth is a unitary, as a city; so is Torbay, as a unitary district. Those three are very different in size, population and economic geography, which we talked about earlier. Are they equal members with a similar number of voting rights? As the Bill says, they can each nominate at least one, but will there be an expectation that they be proportionate to their size and responsibilities? That is not clear and needs to be clarified by the Government before we get any further.
Then there are the non-constituent members. I agree wholeheartedly with Amendment 71 from the noble Lord, Lord Foster: the easy way forward is to say that district councils are democratic bodies within the CCA and have a right to be full members. As I have said just now about constituent members, CCAs can and will have to decide proportionality, and they could do that with regard to the districts. It makes good sense.
Frankly, as somebody who has spent most of my life as an elected person, I find it insulting that a democratically elected body such as a district council is aligned with other non-constituent bodies and put in the same category as local business groups, chambers of trade or trade union bodies, which are not elected by the public. I can see why you would want other groups to be associated with the CCA, but, if they are not democratically elected and therefore democratically accountable, they should be in a different category.
This leads me to associate members. I personally think that they should not exist and I shall leave it at that. Why should they? Somebody tell me. Get individual, unaccountable to anybody—nobody needs to know who they are; perhaps they are somebody’s mate—on there to stuff the numbers the right way. It is just not acceptable.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments considers various aspects of a combined county authority’s constitution and its day-to-day working. Although I appreciate it is a probing amendment, Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the regulations on the constitution of a combined county authority. These regulations include the membership of the combined county authority, which must be amended if, for example, another area wished to join a CCA. Members of the new area would need to be added to the CCA. If no such change were possible, there could be no change to the make-up of an established combined county authority, regardless of the wishes of the local area. CCAs must retain the flexibility to include a new area or for an area to leave, or to reflect other such changes.
Turning to Amendment 68, I completely agree with the noble Baroness on the need for consultation with combined county authority members on regulations regarding the constitution of a CCA. Clause 44 of the Bill already goes further than this amendment by providing that the consent of all the constituent councils is required if the Secretary of State is to make any such regulations. It is worth my making the point that these clauses should not be read in isolation, but rather in the round.
I noted the noble Baroness’s position that CCAs, once established, should just be allowed to get on with it, without the involvement of or interference by the Secretary of State. I look at the issue from the other perspective. The clause enables constitutional arrangements for a CCA to be established in the regulations that will also establish the CCA. These arrangements are the fundamental working mechanisms of the CCA; they include aspects such as the membership of the CCA. As such, it is appropriate that they are set out in secondary legislation to ensure the establishment of a stable institution with good governance. A CCA can set out its own local constitution or standing orders with additional local working arrangements. This is done locally and does not require secondary legislation. However, the local constitution cannot be allowed to contravene primary or secondary legislation. There has to be consistency, and we believe that this is the right way to ensure that.
Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would prevent the Secretary of State making provision for the executive of a combined county authority to represent the political make-up of its members. A combined county authority is to be made up of members from each of the constituent councils on a basis agreed by those councils through their consent to the establishing regulations. These regulations will also provide for the make-up of the CCA’s executive. It is essential that the constituent councils can agree together the make-up of the combined county authority’s executive that properly reflects the local political membership of the CCA. This is essential to underpin the collaborative working required to make a CCA work in practice.
The amendment would, in effect, impose on a combined county authority an executive that did not reflect the make-up of CCA members, which could negatively impact on the working of the CCA. It would also place the executive of a combined county authority in a different position from that of either a local authority or a combined authority, neither of which requires political balance.
Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would enable a two-tier district council to be a constituent member of a combined county authority. As I said, the combined county authority is a new institutional model made up of upper-tier local authorities only. Only two-tier county councils and unitary councils can be constituent members of a CCA. We contend that this model will provide the flexibility required for devolution to areas with two-tier local government, which has proved a challenge to date. It allows a combined county authority to be established with agreement from the councils across the area that will be the constituent members of the CCA; that is, the upper-tier local authorities.
I realise that some noble Lords are sceptical about this, but this model removes the risk of one or two district councils vetoing the wishes of the great majority for devolution, as has happened with some two-tier local government areas wishing to form combined authorities, where unanimous consent from all councils in the area, including upper- and lower-tier councils, is needed.
I come back to a point I made earlier. While they cannot be constituent members of a combined county authority and, as such, cannot consent to its establishment, district councils can have a voice in a CCA via the non-constituent member model, as set out in Clause 9. As stated in the levelling-up White Paper, we expect CCAs and their upper-tier local authorities to work closely with their district councils, and have been pleased to see this happening in deal areas. This flexible model will enable the county, district and unitary councils to work together in the way that best meets local needs and wishes. The bottom line, I contend, is that this amendment would defeat those objectives.
It is important for me to say to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that we are not taking away district council powers. Devolution is about giving power from Whitehall to local leaders. We expect the upper-tier local authorities we are agreeing devolution deals with to work with district councils, as I have said, to deliver the powers most effectively being provided. In discussions thus far, we have been pleased to see collaboration of the kind I have mentioned.
I realise that Amendment 72 is, in essence, a probing amendment. It will not surprise noble Lords to hear that I cannot accept it, because it would prevent a combined county authority resolving that non-constituent members could exercise a vote on matters where the CCA considered this to be appropriate. Non-constituent members are non-voting members by default. As I tried to make clear earlier, the combined county authority can give them voting rights on most matters, should it wish to. For example, a combined county authority may have provided for there to be some non-constituent members from the area’s district councils to enable their input on matters of importance to district councils in the CCA’s area. The CCA may wish to maximise this input by allowing in certain circumstances for these non-constituent members to vote. This amendment would prevent these non-constituent members being given a vote and would risk undermining the CCA’s ability to work in collaboration with its district councils and other non-constituent members.
Amendment 75, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would prevent a combined county authority resolving that associate members could exercise a vote on matters where the CCA considered this to be appropriate. I am afraid that this is another proposal that I cannot accept, for reasons similar to those I have just outlined for Amendment 72.
Associate members are non-voting members by default, but the combined county authority can give them voting rights on most matters, should it wish to. For instance, a combined county authority may have provided for an associate member who, for example, may be a local business leader or an expert on a local issue to enable the member’s input on matters on which they have relevant expertise in the CCA’s area. The CCA may wish to maximise this input—
Lord Shipley (LD)
May I ask for a point of clarification on the associate members? Is it possible that a CCA can decide to give an associate member a vote, but not other associate members, and on what basis would that decision be made?
Earl Howe (Con)
I think the answer to that is yes. CCAs can distinguish between associate members in that way. But they would need to justify to themselves why they were according that difference of treatment. Circumstances would dictate a different course in different circumstances.
I come back to saying that the CCA may wish to maximise the input of associate members by allowing—
Lord Stunell (LD)
I appreciate the Minster’s reply, but if I could press him a little more, does he see any way at all in which we could differentiate what he is suggesting from the traditional role of the aldermen?
Earl Howe (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has stumped me there. As I am not totally familiar with the role of the aldermen, and I am sure he is, I had better write to him on that point, if he will allow.
The point I was seeking to make is that the CCA would in some, if not many, circumstances want to maximise the input from associate members by allowing in certain circumstances those associate members to vote on such matters. The amendment would prevent that happening and could risk undermining the combined county authority’s ability to work in collaboration with local experts who can contribute positively to the working of the CCA.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Can I ask the Minister a question? In relation to the commissioners who have just been referred to, do those commissioners have an automatic seat on the combined authority?
Earl Howe (Con)
Well, does that not argue for having in certain circumstances a similar status for associate members, who can contribute on a par with the way that commissioners contribute to combined authorities?
Lord Scriven (LD)
The point I am trying to make to the Minister is that, if he is going to use an example, it has to be an example of someone who already sits on a combined authority and has that influence, rather than just someone who advises the mayor and does not have a formal role within the combined authority structure.
Earl Howe (Con)
I think this was said earlier. I do not think you can take the model of the metropolitan areas and combined authorities and transpose that on to other areas of the country. Why should we not allow for difference, diversity and local decision-making on the way that people are used to best effect?
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister does not seem to understand. It is not about transposing from an urban to a non-urban issue. This is a matter of principle about democratic accountability for taxpayers’ money being used and that, when people sit at a table, there is some form of democratic accountability back to the people for whom they are making those decisions. The kind of membership that the Bill proposes has no democratic accountability. It is not about transposing a model from urban to rural; it is a matter of principle. If people are spending taxpayers’ money as part of a mayoral combined authority, whether urban or rural, they should be democratically accountable back to the people whose taxes they are spending.
Earl Howe (Con)
I sense that this is a matter that we will come back to at a later stage of the Bill. I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said on this subject.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I will just come back to one point. I was a bit puzzled by the Minister’s response to Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The Government are taking the power in the Bill to disapply the duty to allocate seats on the basis of political proportionality in the combined authority; they are disapplying that power. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was seeking to remove that provision so that, if a party had a third or a quarter of the seats, it would expect something similar on the Executive. When the Minister answered the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, he gave an answer that seemed to agree with what he was suggesting while justifying the position of the Government. It seemed perverse.
I know that there are to be proposals for a Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire combined authority. At the moment Derbyshire County Council and Nottinghamshire County Council are controlled by the Conservatives, and Derby City Council is led by the Conservatives. The only Labour council is Nottingham City Council. On the basis set out in the Bill, the three Conservative councils could get together, gang up on the Labour council and throw it out of the committee structure. That surely cannot be right. Why would a minority council join something if it could be ganged up on and removed from the executive? It would not; we want to bring people together. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is trying to ensure that this problem could not happen. I do not follow the Minister’s arguments, which were in support of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but were used to say that we cannot have the amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I could help the Minister at this point by simply suggesting that we add this to the agenda of our meeting, which gets longer and longer as we speak. It is a very important issue, to which we should add the issue of whether the calculation of political proportionality applies to the membership of the CCA—those who are there—or the bodies that each of those members represents, on behalf of which they have been nominated to attend the CCA. You might get a different answer depending on which it is. To avoid a lengthy evening and discussion at cross purposes, perhaps the Minister will agree that we can talk about it around the table; it might be easier.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, because the last thing I would wish to do is mislead this Committee or lead it down a path that led nowhere. Rather than go round in circles, as I suspect we might if I continued, I would be very happy to take up that suggestion and add it to the agenda of this rather lengthy round table we are planning.
Moving on to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I completely agree with her on the need for the constituent members of a combined county authority to agree to the conferral of local government functions on a CCA. This is recognised in Clause 16, which provides that the consent of all the constituent councils is required if the Secretary of State is to make regulations conferring any such functions on a CCA. It is essential that all the constituent councils have agreed to the regulations that establish and confer powers on the new institution to support the collaborative working that is essential for a successful CCA.
I turn to some of the broader issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on Clause 25 standing part. I take on board her instinctive antipathy to the concept of having elected mayors, but let me outline the case in their defence. We have seen from our existing mayors how strong local leadership can enhance economic and other opportunities. Mayors act as champions for their areas, attracting investment and opportunity to their places. They provide that single point of accountability to local citizens. Our devolution framework in the levelling-up White Paper places a strong emphasis on the importance of high-profile, directly elected local leadership, strong local institutions, and joint working across sensible and coherent economic geographies. We believe that high-profile, directly elected leaders—such as a mayor—will be most effective in driving levelling up in an area. Such strong local leadership is essential for delivering better local outcomes and joined-up public services.
As such, level 3 of the devolution framework in the White Paper, which is the highest tier, requires an institution to have a directly elected mayor to access the fullest range of functions and funding. In the case of a combined authority, we have seen that directly elected mayors are the clearest and lightest-touch way to provide that single point of accountability that I have referred to, which enables greater risk taking in decision making. In the case of a local authority, a directly elected mayor increases the visibility of leadership and helps create a greater convening power to delivery place-based programmes. That visibility is not to be derided. The Evaluation of Devolved Institutions report in 2021 found that nearly three-quarters of respondents —72%—across all combined authority areas reported that they were aware of who the mayor of their local area was. London, with 97%, and Manchester, with 88% of respondents, reported the highest level of awareness of who their mayor was.
Many noble Lords will be aware of mayors around the country who are already playing an incredibly powerful role in driving economic growth, as well as improving public services and giving local areas a real voice on the national stage. West Midlands would be a good example, where Andy Street has led work to form Energy Capital with the aim of creating a competitive, secure modern energy system that provides low-cost, clean and efficient power, while Andy Burnham and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority have created Our Pass, a membership scheme to provide free bus travel across Greater Manchester for young people. It greatly improves their ability to take advantage of the city-region’s amenities.
Clause 25 enables regulations to be made for a combined county authority to be led by a mayor. It introduces Schedule 2, which sets out the detail of the electoral arrangements. As I have said, this opens the way for a combined county authority area to benefit from the strongest devolution offer available. As I also mentioned earlier, combined county authorities do not have to have a mayor; they can choose to be non-mayoral. We believe that that choice should be made by the local area, in line with our localism principles. Non-mayoral CCAs can access level 2 of the devolution framework, which in itself is valuable and powerful. This clause provides the mechanism for delivering our aim of having strong, visible and accountable leaders to take devolved powers and budgets, and drive the levelling up in their areas.
Amendment 113, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to insert a requirement into Clause 26 for there to be a referendum before the Secretary of State may make regulations to provide that a combined county authority should have an elected mayor, and for this question to be approved by a majority of local government electors. I have probably said all I can on the pros and cons of referenda. I am, generally speaking, not a fan, and I have to say that I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about the cost of putting on a referendum.
Lest there be any doubt about local public involvement, however, I absolutely agree that it is important that the public are consulted on a proposal to introduce a combined county authority mayor in their area, hence the requirement for public consultation in Clauses 43 and 45. For the record, again, Clause 43(4) states that, prior to submitting a proposal for establishing a combined county authority to the Secretary of State, the local authorities proposing to establish it must undertake a public consultation on the proposal in the area that the CCA will cover. If those local authorities are proposing that there is an elected mayor for the CCA, that will be set out in the proposal.
Clause 45(3) includes similar provisions for a proposal from a combined county authority to make changes to existing arrangements relating to that CCA, including introducing an elected mayor for the CCA’s area if moving from a non-mayoral CCA. The authorities or the CCA must undertake a public consultation in those circumstances and submit a summary of consultation responses to the Secretary of State alongside their proposal.
When deciding whether to make the regulations to establish or change a combined county authority for an area, including introducing an elected mayor, one of the tests that the Secretary of State must consider is whether the area’s public consultation is sufficient. If they conclude that it is not, Clauses 44 and 46 provide that the Secretary of State must himself or herself undertake a public consultation before any regulations can be made. So we believe that the existing clauses provide for sufficient local consultation on the introduction of a mayor or a CCA. I know that that reply will not make the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, any happier, but I believe we are closer to her position than perhaps she thought we might be.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. The main takeaway for me is that it is crystal clear that the model is very problematic and that we need a proper discussion about the role and rights of district councils, because I honestly think that the model strips them of powers. It is worth reminding noble Lords that district councils are currently responsible for economic development and planning. So I thank the Minister for his detailed response, but I am sure that we will revisit these concerns in future debates on the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.