European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

Perhaps I can forgive my right hon. and learned Friend his eagerness to hear the remarks that I was going to make. I am sure that when this debate finishes he and I will continue the dialogue that we have had for some time about these matters.

It would not be right to maintain, in general, such an open-ended right to this form of damages after exit for any and all potential pre-exit causes of action. I am concerned that we would end up with an almost indefinite trail of cases. That is not good for certainty, and it is not good for the transition we want to make.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Before the Solicitor General finishes his remarks, may I say, as a non-lawyer listening to what has largely been a debate between distinguished legal minds on both sides of the House, that two things strike me as important? The first is that this debate has really been about legislative quality control, rather than political Punch and Judy, and that should be very reassuring for anybody watching this debate. The second is that the tone with which my hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues have engaged with colleagues on both sides of the House to find a way through and to make the best law sends a fantastically powerful message. Will he guarantee to continue working in this spirit to take the Bill forward?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I shall raise just one issue in the short time available: the living marine resource that under international law is bestowed on the United Kingdom.

The great repeal Bill has changed its name to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the second half of which, which brings virtually all the EU’s acquis into domestic legislation, causes me a few concerns. The reason for most of that is completely understandable. It is entirely necessary, because when the termination date of article 50 of the treaty on European Union is reached and EU treaties cease to apply in this country, along with the EU regulations that take their authority from the EU treaties, vast swathes of domestic legislation will simply disappear. Bringing the acquis across will fill that void, which can be sorted out at a later date.

The method by which that will be sorted out has caused a great deal of debate in this House. In my opinion, the method that has been proposed is entirely necessary and desirable. I support it completely for legislation that is applicable only to the United Kingdom, but when dealing with legislation that involves relationships outside the United Kingdom, such as the common fisheries policy, I have a few concerns, because the body of legislation—the acquis—that is the CFP is made up almost entirely of regulations. The only way we can achieve compatibility is through a legally binding withdrawal agreement, and that in itself brings some problems. First, at this stage, we do not know what that agreement will contain. Indeed, we do not even know if we will be getting an agreement at all, such has been the appalling behaviour, sadly, of our EU partners.

Secondly, taking the common fisheries policy as an example, article 50 takes us out cleanly, so there is no possibility of future legal challenges that we would have to try to avoid. Regulation 1380/2013, which will be brought across by the Bill, will re-establish the common fisheries policy in all but name, possibly paving the way for a legal challenge, perhaps via the Vienna convention on international treaties, through the withdrawal agreement. The evidence of that is the acquis that we have accepted and transposed into UK law, thereby creating a continuation of rights thereon.

I would like to see the proposed fisheries Bill, which is due before us at some stage, and which could solve the problem. We have no idea what that Bill will contain. Will it continue to give away the nation’s wealth that is its fish? Will it continue the disastrous CFP policy of quota allocation, which puts the resource in the hands of a few, and is the cause of the completely immoral discarding of prime fish that we have seen all these years? We simply do not know. Why are we going down this tortuous route when the easiest route would be to exempt the entire fisheries acquis from the withdrawal Bill, and produce a fisheries Bill, coming into force on 30 March 2019, that confirmed what international law bestows on this nation? That is not unusual, because the withdrawal Bill already exempts parts of the charter of fundamental rights.

Fishing is the area in which the British people demand a clean Brexit, and I think they will accept nothing less. Fishing must not be used as part of a trade-off, and availability must not form part of a deal elsewhere. Control of our exclusive economic zone extending to 200 nautical miles or the median line will regenerate our coastal communities, but if we follow current fisheries policy, we will certainly fail to do that. It is quite odd that we commit vast amounts of cash to communities such as mine in Ramsgate, Broadstairs and parts of Margate through the coastal communities fund—I am thankful that we do—but we seem to have no clear commitment to the one thing that could provide great rejuvenation for our coastal communities, which are recognised as having lower rates of employment, and which are in need of restructuring and infrastructure.

On this subject, the electorate are very wary of shenanigans. We cannot afford to create failure, and it is our responsibility to make this a success. I am happy to trust the Government by supporting Second Reading tonight, but I would very much like to hear more about their proposals for restoring one of this nation’s finest treasures—our very positive fishing grounds, which have the potential to benefit our communities and should never have been taken away.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to have rejected the proposition of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that we should carry on fighting on arguments that were decided in this House some time ago, and is right to want to get on with making arrangements for the future. Does he agree, however, that elements in clauses 7, 8 and 9 need looking at in more detail, particularly when it comes to the use of statutory instruments?

[Craig Mackinlay]

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely, but today is not the day for those arguments. Arguments about technical matters—how things will be changed in the House, and whether that will be done using statutory instruments and the exercise of ministerial powers—are for Committee and subsequent stages of the Bill. The broad thrust of my argument on Second Reading is that this Bill is the only means by which we can deliver the result of last year’s historic referendum, which was delivered by 52% of people. I know that some in this House would rather we ignored the voice of those people, but we do so at our peril.

The whole issue of our fishing policy encompasses a lot of what was wrong with our membership of the European Union, which would not listen to us. The Bill represents a great opportunity for our coastal communities. I intend to deliver a good fishing policy for our under-10 metre fleet, which is particularly prevalent in Ramsgate, so I will support this Bill tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Today and last Thursday, a number of speakers on both sides of the House stated that this Bill is not about whether we leave the EU, but about how. That should be something on which we can all agree, although today we have heard speeches from those who clearly take a different position. For example, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) made it absolutely clear that he was fighting against leaving the EU at all. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made an equally passionate speech, saying that she was voting to stay in the European economic area, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) started his speech by stating that he would not vote for the Bill this evening, and then looked for reasons as to why he would not do so, which is broadly the position of almost all his colleagues.

If we look at the Bill objectively, surely everybody can agree that we are where we are, and that we must have arrangements in place that suit every organisation in this country, including the prospect of knowing what the law of the land is at the end of March 2019.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

I am tempted to give way, but I will not because are so many other people wish to speak. Will the hon. Lady forgive me?

[Wera Hobhouse]

indicated assent.

[Richard Graham]

It is all about what the process will be. Interestingly, some of us have had the chance to look at a House of Lords report, which recommended some elements that this Bill should include. The report made it absolutely clear that delegated powers will be necessary in some cases, because the sheer volume of legislation needed—some 12,000 pieces of legislation—means that unless we use those powers effectively, the job will simply not be done in time.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee, which is not known to be a warm friend of this Government, made two specific recommendations. It recommended that

“a general provision be placed on the face of the Bill to the effect that the delegated powers granted by the Bill should be used only: so far as necessary to adapt the body of EU law to fit the UK’s domestic legal framework; and so far as necessary to implement the result of the UK’s negotiations with the EU.”

When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill on Thursday, he made it absolutely clear that that was broadly what the Government hoped to achieve. He went further and specified what the legislation would not be about. He made it clear that the powers in clause 9 would be for only two years and that they would make “technical and legal corrections” to deficiencies in the law. He also made it clear that Ministers will not have the power to make major policy changes and that changes will still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.

Several Members, mostly on the Opposition Benches, have questioned the definition of significant, what restraint there will be on the Government when deciding what is and what is not important, and what constitute technical and legal corrections. Therefore, there has been a debate, with Members on both sides of the House offering suggestions as to how things can be improved. The Secretary of State has said that he is in listening mode and that he is happy to talk about mechanisms for making sure that the process is fully democratic and open. All that is encouraging and in tune with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) referred to on Thursday during his important contribution to the debate. In particular, he said that it is important

“to have an established parliamentary system of scrutiny to ensure that the different types of statutory instruments that will be needed are correctly farmed out. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend”—

the Secretary of State—

“is right that the vast majority of them will be technical and of very little account, but some will be extremely important and will need to be taken on the Floor of the House. We need to have a system in place to do that.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 407.]

My right hon. and learned Friend did not recommend a specific system, but it seems relevant to suggest here that we already have what is, effectively, a body for precisely this task: the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We also have a different model, or possibly an additional one. I am talking about what the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is obliged to go through as a statutory requirement: the Social Security Advisory Committee. Some of us believe that we could use a combination of both those bodies. We could use an advisory committee to provide the technical analysis of proposed changes, and the Joint Committee to go through them and approve or disapprove the recommendations.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

I am so sorry, but I will not give way.

That body would provide the necessary oversight that Members on both sides of the House, but particularly Opposition Members, are looking for to try to ensure that the right checks and balances are in place—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) mentioned—and we have the right use of statutory instruments—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Excellent. I would be happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Gentleman or indeed to pass his remarks to the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU to make him aware of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

23. Over the last couple of years, three magistrates courts have been closed in Gloucestershire, the probation service has been divided and the Crown court in Gloucester and the magistrates court in Cheltenham continue to leak, while disabled access to both is poor. The Minister has been sympathetic to those issues. Can he confirm today that action will be taken on the physical condition of the courts and that an assessment will be made of the rehabilitation company’s work?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Yes. I had a very useful meeting with my hon. Friend, and I can certainly confirm both the points he makes. I am particularly keen to get that skylight fixed for him. I am working hard on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely right to say that it is important, to benefit all our constituents, that we deal with this. The way to do so is through our proposed reforms, on which there will be a consultation in the not-too-distant future. That will ensure that premiums go down.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

20. What plans he has to review sentencing guidelines related to stalking offences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

Sentencing guidelines are issued by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales. I understand that it has plans to consider the stalking guidelines next year.

[Richard Graham]

The Minister has read the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and me on the case for extending the maximum sentences for stalking. He will also have heard Lily Allen say last week of her stalker, “You can put him behind bars but he’ll be out soon and waiting there for his victim.” What can be done to assess the case for extending the maximum sentence for a few very dangerous stalkers who severely damage the lives of their victims?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes his point in a particularly lyrical way. He knows that we are looking at a range of issues around sentencing. It is important that those are considered in the round to make sure that we better protect the public and improve reoffending levels. I read the excellent report produced by my hon. Friends on sentences for stalking, and we are giving it very serious consideration.

Knife Crime (Sentencing)

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Raab]

I need to check the specific guidelines, but I think there is enough latitude for the courts to address that issue and take into account any involvement in a gang, and the particular characteristics of that gang, in relation to the sentencing framework. Of course, whether the courts place the right weight on that factor is difficult to say; as politicians, we can sit here and second-guess individual cases. However, I do not think there is any question but that judges have the power to consider all the facts of a case.

To continue with the measures the Government have taken, in July 2015 we commenced the provisions introducing a minimum custodial sentence for anyone aged 16 or over who is convicted of a second or further knife possession offence—that issue was raised earlier. I pay tribute to the tenacity shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and Nick de Bois, the previous Member for Enfield North, in securing that change to the legislation.

That is the law, but often the real question is: how well is it being enforced? The latest figures show that an immediate custodial sentence is now the most common disposal for knife possession, compared with 2010, when most offenders could reasonably expect to receive a community sentence. In the fourth quarter of 2015, 31% of all offenders convicted of knife possession offences received an immediate custodial sentence, compared with 23% back in 2010.

The latest figures also show that 38% of adults were given an immediate custodial sentence, which is an increase of six percentage points from a year ago and an increase of 11 percentage points since recording began in 2008. Over the same period of seven years, the use of adult cautions for this offence has more than halved. Sentencing for young offenders has also become more consistently robust—that point was rightly raised earlier.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, 10% of young offenders received an immediate custodial sentence for possession of a knife, compared with 6% in the same quarter of 2007. The average length of custodial sentence for possessing a knife has also increased. In the latest figures, the average length was 7.7 months, an increase of almost two months on the same quarter in 2008. More people are being sent to prison, and for longer, for carrying a knife, which reflects the changes this Government have made.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Clearly, the sentencing that the Minister has been describing has been significantly tightened by this Government over the last few years, and I think all of us welcome that. However, does he agree that there is another side to this issue, which is about preventing knife crime in the first place? There is a real role for charities, county councils and police and crime commissioners to get together and ensure a serious education campaign in schools about the risks of carrying a knife and the devastation that knife crime can cause to the families who suffer losses as a result.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; as usual, he hits the nail on the head. Of course, there is nothing inherently contradictory or inconsistent in saying that we want to send a very clear message from law enforcement and the criminal justice system, while also trying to do as much as we can through education and raising public awareness to prevent these awful crimes from happening in the first place—for the victims, but also for the offenders, who sometimes, through gullibility or naivety, get dragged into things that, with some education, awareness and nurturing, they could have avoided in the first place.

I want to refer to the Sentencing Council, because it is currently preparing a draft sentencing guideline on possession of knives and offensive weapons. It will be subject to full public consultation later in the year, which will provide an opportunity to inform the definitive sentencing guideline and the approach to be taken by the courts in dealing with these very serious offences. That will be another opportunity for us to consider whether we have got the balance right.

In relation to the question about gangs, having taken advice, I can confirm that if an offender is acting as a member of a gang, where two or more offenders are acting together to commit the offence, that is an aggravating factor in the sentencing guidelines and, of course, all courts must follow those guidelines. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) raised the important issue of gangs, and I am glad that I can provide some clarification about it.

The introduction of minimum sentences for offences of possession of a knife, blade or offensive weapon sends a crystal clear message: if people carry a knife, they can expect to face a custodial sentence. That message from the law enforcement community and the criminal justice system is crucial for victims, their families, the wider communities affected, the general public and those who might be tempted to break the law.

I am aware of the tragic murders by James Fairweather and the circumstances around that case. I note the interest and concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. He will know that I cannot comment on individual court cases, as sentencing is a matter for the judiciary, independent of us politicians. I send my deepest personal condolences to the families of his constituents Nahid Almanea and James Attfield. I note that this is a complex case, given the mental health assessment of the perpetrator. I note in particular that four separate psychiatrists were required to give expert evidence at the trial. James Fairweather was sentenced on 29 April to detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of 27 years. I also note that the critical learning report into James Fairweather’s earlier offence and referral order concluded that the subsequent murders were neither preventable nor predictable. Clearly that is zero consolation for the victims’ families, and I reaffirm that in such cases as this, we always seek to learn lessons for the future.

Tackling knife crime is an ongoing high-level priority for the Government. As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, it requires a team effort across Government and law enforcement agencies. Knife crime offences recorded by the police remain 12% lower than in 2010, but I accept that there is more to do. In February, we supported 13 police forces to undertake co-ordinated action against knife crime. That involved targeting habitual knife carriers, weapon sweeps, test purchases of knives from identified retailers and the use of surrender bins. A new week of activity was held at the end of April, with 11 police forces taking part. That is exactly the kind of preventive work that we should be doing, and we continue to attach a high priority to it.

In February, the Home Office jointly hosted a meeting with the Metropolitan Police Service and the national policing lead aimed at retailers selling knives. More than 80 retailers attended. On 23 March, the Government published the “Modern Crime Prevention Strategy”, which sets out a range of measures to strengthen our response to knife crime, including: working with the police and industry to ensure effective controls on the sale of knives and other offensive weapons; identifying and spreading best practice; and delivering measures designed to deter young people from carrying knives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) called for, that will also include a ban on the sale and importation of “zombie-killer” knives, which so horrifically glamorise senseless violence.

When it comes to the sale of knives more generally, the law is clear that a retailer commits a crime if they do not take proper steps to ensure that they are not selling knives to under-18s, with the exception of smaller-bladed pocket knives. On 23 March, the Home Office agreed a set of principles with major retailers to prevent under-age sales of knives in their stores and on their websites. That point was made earlier. The Home Office will work with the British Retail Consortium to develop the principles and to encourage other retailers to sign up to them. We want retailers to buy into and be proactively engaged with them.

I am conscious of the time and, in particular, the fact that we have a vote coming up. In case others wish to contribute, I will quickly make a couple of points about the education of young people. That issue was rightly raised. We know that intervening early can stop young people becoming involved in the gang culture that fuels youth violence. On 17 November, the Early Intervention Foundation published a report setting out its research into the risks and protective factors that can lead to young people becoming involved in youth violence and gangs. It attached importance to early identification and intervention. The Home Office is working with the Department for Education to promote these messages to schools and children’s care homes, which are another important area.

I again take this opportunity to pay tribute to the vital work that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester does at a local level in Essex with the local charity Only Cowards Carry. That is incredibly important work. A lot of that localised work is as important, if not more important, than the stuff that comes out of central Government. We have a role to play in supporting and spreading awareness of that work. There is also Charlie Taylor’s wider review of youth justice, which provides a timely opportunity to assess the causes of youth offending and how better to respond to drive down reoffending.

Ridding our streets of the scourge of knife crime will remain a high-level priority for the Government and for future Governments. We can never be remotely complacent, not even for a moment. That means educating youngsters to steer clear of knives and gangs in the first place; preventing retailers from selling knives to youngsters; targeting the police response in the most effective possible way—that, I suppose, is the role of the Ministry of Justice—and continuing to send a clear message from the criminal justice system that carrying knives will not be tolerated and that those who do are more likely than ever to be sent to prison, and to be sent to prison for longer.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

Under this Government, there are more refuge places than ever before. Since 2010 we have criminalised forced marriage and revenge porn, we have strengthened the law on domestic violence and female genital mutilation, there are now more successful prosecutions for domestic violence than ever before, and we have introduced FGM protection orders. We will build on that by doing more to deter and rehabilitate perpetrators, while continuing to improve the process for victims.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

19. What progress his Department is making on implementation of its strategy on estate requirements and disposals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

We keep our estate office under review to make sure that it delivers and supports business transformation, operates efficiently and effectively, and delivers best value for the taxpayer. By closing less efficient, poor-quality court buildings, for example, we will raise £40 million to reinvest in the justice system, and have saved hard-working taxpayers £27 million per year.

[Richard Graham]

The Ministry of Justice kindly agreed a year ago to dispose of an unused car park in Gloucester to provide more parking and an additional entrance to our railway station—a very good regeneration cause. The Justice Minister assured me that this would be resolved before the end of the financial year. However, we are almost there and there is still no resolution. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the time has come to lock the Courts and Tribunals Service real estate representatives in a room with representatives of Gloucester City Council and Great Western Railway, and to leave them there until they have reached agreement?

[Mr Vara]

That may be a little drastic as a negotiating procedure, but my officials are engaged in conversations with Gloucester City Council. Those are at an advanced stage. My hon. Friend will not expect me to make commercial comments at the Dispatch Box, but I hope that a final decision will be arrived at very shortly. He and I are due to meet shortly, when we will discuss the matter further.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I will not give way, as I wish to make progress.

Following the 2011 Act, we wrote to all those directly affected to inform them of the change to their state pension age. About 5 million letters were sent by the DWP and the sending of the letters to those affected was completed between January 2012 and November 2013. Letters to those whose state pension age was set by the 1995 Act only were sent between April 2009, when Labour was still in government, and March 2011, when that process was finished by the coalition Government. As a result of those efforts, in 2012 a survey by the DWP found that only 6% of women who were within 10 years of receiving their pension thought that their state pension age was still 60.

The shadow Work and Pensions Secretary mentioned several surveys and was somewhat selective in those to which he referred. The one done by the DWP, which runs and is in charge of the pension scheme, has a fair amount of validity and, as I say, only 6% of women who were within 10 years of receiving their pension thought that their state pension age was still 60. As for the original 1995 changes to the state pension age, in 2004 nearly three quarters of those between 45 and 54 were aware of changes to women’s state pensions. Our communications campaign has focused on raising general awareness of the changes and encouraging those closest to the state pension age to get a personalised state pension statement.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and, despite the chuntering from those on the Labour Front Bench, I can assure him and everyone else that this is my question. We heard earlier from the shadow Secretary of State that he believed that the communication on this been absolutely appalling. He overlooked the fact that his own Government estimated that 75% of women had been informed. He also overlooked the fact that according to evidence to the Select Committee there were 600 mentions of the 1995 Act found in the media at that time. According to the briefing on the state pension legislation, 17 million automatic forecasts were issued by the Labour Government between 2004 and 2006—[Hon. Members: “Speech!”] Does my hon. Friend agree that although undoubtedly some women were not informed, many were?

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting those facts on the record. I am, however, sorry that as he was making those points of substance, all he got was the yah-boo politics that we can expect from the Opposition. I am afraid that the truth, as anyone watching this debate at home can see for themselves, is that the Opposition do not want to know the substance or the facts. All they are interested in is the politics, but this is far too important an issue to be treated with the political naivety with which some Opposition Members are treating it. This is an important subject and the Government are dealing with it and treating it with the seriousness it deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Having listened to the Minister for 35 minutes, I cannot think of a time when I have been in the Chamber and felt so utterly depressed by what I have heard— 35 minutes to say absolutely nothing and to give absolutely no hope to those women who are facing pension inequality. Talk about a Government who are out of touch!

The game was given away by one of the Minister’s hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), who told the Government that she is one of the ladies who are caught up in this. The Government know who she is, where she lives and her age, but she has heard nothing. Does the Minister have anything to say to her? Absolutely nothing—just sheer contempt from this Government for the WASPI women and the WASPI campaign. He and the Government should be utterly, utterly ashamed of themselves.

A Conservative MP asked me last night, “Why are we having yet another debate on this issue?”, and I have some sympathy with his view. We should not be having this debate for the simple and straightforward reason that the Government should have acted by now to end this injustice.

Let us just remind ourselves of the fundamentals. We in the Scottish National party, I am sure along with everybody else in this Chamber, agree with pension equalisation—we are not debating that—but we do not support the unfair manner in which the changes have been made. The Government must explore options for transitional arrangements to protect retirement plans for the females adversely affected. The Minister tossed out the figure of £30 billion, but what he did not say is that that is £30 billion over the years up to 2026. Let me give him one suggestion. The Government are consulting on pension tax relief, which costs a gross £35 billion. Why do they not readjust that to give some hope and to deal with the problem that women pensioners are facing?

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will give way later, but I want to make some progress because I am aware of the time constraints.

Parliament voted unanimously on 7 January for a motion that the Government should put into place mitigation for the women affected. The Prime Minister speaks about the sovereignty of this House. Why have the Government ignored that vote? Why have they ignored the will of the House? Whose sovereignty now? They cannot ignore the will of the House at random on the legitimate demands of the WASPI people. The Government are treating this House and the people of this country with contempt. Where is parliamentary democracy?

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The women in the WASPI campaign are paying for the failures of the economic policy of this Government.

Let me remind the House that what we have is a Conservative Government—

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman did not give way earlier. I needed to correct him on a point of fact. The evidence given to the Work and Pensions—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. That is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) can give way if he wants to, but he does not have to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I will indeed give way because I will treat this House with respect; respect that has not been shown to the WASPI women by this Government. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is correct.

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will give way. I will answer the point and then give way.

Austerity is a political choice. In the election campaign, we argued that if the Government increased spending by 0.5% per annum in each year of the Parliament, they would increase spending by £140 billion but still reduce the deficit to 2% of net national income by the end of the Parliament. That is the responsible way. That would mean the Government would not be punishing the women who are affected by this. Show some leadership, Minister. Take some action and address this properly.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the cost would be some £29 billion by 2026. He is completely wrong. The evidence to the Select Committee is that the bill in 2016-17 would be £29 billion and the total cost £77 billion. In Westminster Hall, the hon. Gentleman said that his party would commit to the policy of changing that if it were ever in the unlikely position of having responsibility for running these things itself. Will he confirm that his party leader will say, on the record, that if the SNP ever had responsibility for this, it would commit £77 billion?

[Ian Blackford]

Good grief! Have I ever heard such nonsense as I have just heard from the hon. Gentleman? I never committed the SNP to anything. What I did was make suggestions about what the Government may do. To toss around the £77 billion figure, which refers to the 1995 Act, is something I have never done. House of Commons Library figures show that the cost of reversing the 2011 Act would be £30 billion by 2026. Let us get the facts right. Rather than the nonsense from the Conservative Benches, we will tell the truth; they can spin the nonsense.

The Government keep telling us that this matter was decided in 2011 and we should just meekly accept that. What arrogance! I, and every other Member elected in May 2015, was sent to this place not to accept whatever went before. We were sent here to represent the views of our constituents in this Parliament. If we want to change the 2011 Act, we can do it. The Minister should stop hiding behind that. We cannot be bound by the mistakes of past Parliaments. We are here to speak up for our constituents, to hold the Government to account and to make sure they right this wrong. My heavens, the ways of this place are archaic! It is little wonder that people in Scotland see Westminster as out of touch and irrelevant.

Although the Government and the Minister are yet to repent, the pensions Minister in the previous Government, Steve Webb, admitted recently that the Government made a bad decision on state pension age rises. It is time not just for Steve Webb but for the Government to repent. When the Minister responsible for piloting the Bill through Parliament can see the error of his ways, surely the Treasury can recognise it has to act in the best interests of the women affected. When I think of the intransigence of the Treasury in not recognising its responsibility to do the right thing, I am reminded of a line that I am sure could be used in a school report card for the Chancellor of the Exchequer: we thought George had reached rock bottom; sadly, he has kept digging. This is one hole that the Government have to dig themselves out of. Many Conservative Members are hoping that this issue and the WASPI women are just going to go away. That is not going to happen. We will keep fighting for the WASPI women, because it is the right thing to do. The Chancellor has refused to act—the iron Chancellor in his bunker.

When we start to pay national insurance, we are entering a contract with the state to receive a pension. The Government have an obligation to meet that commitment. There has to be fairness and transparency, and that is what is lacking in this case. We are asking for the Government to put in place mitigation to reflect and recognise that the pace of the pension age increase is far too steep. It is a pity, in the week that they are welcoming the fiscal framework that would allow us to proceed with the Scotland Bill, that we are not seeing pensions provision come to Scotland. One thing is crystal clear: if we had powers over pensions in Scotland we would do the right thing for our pensioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Nobody in this House can doubt the sincerity of the WASPI campaign or the number of women who have signed the petition, but as this is the fifth debate, we should start with what has changed since the last one. Today’s motion is all about bringing forward “transitional arrangements”, and those are the precise words used on the WASPI campaign’s petition. They sound fairly harmless, but what are these transitional arrangements?

In the last debate, the shadow Pensions Minister, who is in her place, included a specific proposal—a perfectly reasonable one—about extending pension credit. However, that had been specifically ruled out by WASPI spokeswomen in evidence to the Select Committee. Today, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, like the Scottish National party spokesman, talked passionately about doing the right thing, but they did not say what that was, what their commitment is or what their parties would do if they were ever in the position—in some cases, that is unlikely—of actually being responsible for the finances of the pension arrangements for the United Kingdom. There is a serious danger of Opposition Members, in their sympathy for the cause of the WASPI campaign, leading these women up the garden path—encouraging them with sympathy but giving no commitment whatsoever.

It is important that the House understands for what these women are mainly asking. It is exactly as I spelled it out from their Facebook page in the last debate. It is to ask for

“all women born in the 50s”—

to be—

“in the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before…April 1950.”

That is their main ask and it would reverse the 1995 Act in important ways. What would that cost? Since the last debate, the Department for Work and Pensions has provided data to the Select Committee, showing that the cost is much, much greater than any of us imagined. There would be an immediate cost of £29 billion in 2016-17—bigger than the entire budget for Scotland. The total cost up to 2020 alone would be £77 billion.

When I discuss this issue with my wife and my sisters and others born in the 1950s and I explain to them that pensions are paid every year not out of some magic protected pot called national insurance, but out of general taxpayer-provided revenue paid by the next generation—our children and our grandchildren—none of them believes that that cost of £77 billion is remotely practicable.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Graham]

I had better not.

That is why the Opposition will never make that proposal or agree to it under any circumstances. The question is whether any other arrangements are possible. The other potential arrangements are being considered by the Select Committee in a report on the new state pension Act, which will include a section specifically on the WASPI campaign. Members should wait until that report has come out—it will be only about three weeks from now—and the conclusions may be seen and studied by everyone, and then they will see the real impact and the real cost of some of the suggestions that have been made today.

We should be clear about this: the WASPI campaign is genuine and it is principled. Its members care passionately. They feel that they have been badly treated, but this House has an obligation not to mislead them and pretend that things will be done when they will never be done. That is why the main ask is not possible.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I congratulate the WASPI campaign on the success of its e-petition, which has led directly to today’s debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on her speech, which made the case strongly on behalf of women born in the 1950s—she reminded us that, implausibly, she was too.

Today, we debate the WASPI e-petition and, in a sense, the consequences of it. I want to address in turn three separate parts of the e-petition: first, the changes to pensions for women born in the 1950s and the ask from the WASPI campaign; secondly, the communications to those women from the Government and in other ways, from 1995 onwards; and thirdly, the new state pension and the way in which information about that is being communicated. As I said, I will touch on each of those in turn, highlighting where I agree with the campaign and e-petition and where not.

Let me start at the heart of the WASPI e-petition. This is the third time that we have debated this issue in the House, and as we go around the course again today, I hope that we will focus as much on the facts of the ask and the consequences of that as on the understandable emotion of women born in the 1950s. By way of reassurance to those in the Chamber, let me say that that includes my wife and both my sisters.

[Helen Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

May I make a little progress before giving way to the hon. Lady?

First, I agree that the changes in the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011 will undoubtedly be difficult for women born in the 1950s. Indeed, those changes have been underway for some time and the pension age for women is already 63. But—this is a significant but, and a challenge that has to be made today—I do not accept the proposed WASPI solution, and I will explain why.

The e-petition states:

“The Government must make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age”.

The fair, transitional arrangement sought by the campaign is spelt out on the WASPI Facebook page, which reads:

“What is our ask?... put all women born in the 50s, or after 6th April 1951 and affected by the changes to the state pension age in the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5th April 1950.”

One of the key WASPI campaigners, Anne Keen, who I imagine is here today, said in her evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee,

“we feel this is a very fair ask”.

Now, the impact of the ask that appears on the WASPI Facebook page has been estimated at more than £30 billion. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a little bit more clarity on that. The figure is a third more than the entire Transport budget, more than the entire budget of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and probably the same as—possibly more than—the entire budget for Scotland. What we are talking about today may be considered a very fair ask by some people, but others may consider it an enormous and wholly inappropriate ask.

The petition states that the WASPI campaign agrees with equalisation, but the implication of the ask on the Facebook page, and as repeated to the Women and Equalities Committee, is to unwind the 1995 Act, which was brought in specifically to bring about the equality of gender.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

If the spokesman for the Scottish National party wishes me to give way, I am happy to do so.

[Ian Blackford]

We recognise that equalisation has to take place, but this is about the pace of change and the desire to ensure that mitigation can take place. We talked about the pension age being 63. As it is, somebody born in February 1954 will not retire until July 2019—two and a half years after somebody born a year earlier. That cannot be acceptable. Also, £30-odd billion is not the spending in one year; it is the spending up to 2026. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.

[Richard Graham]

I am half grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The SNP’s position has always been interesting, because its Members are in the happy situation of being able to say—and, if need be, to promise—whatever they like without any danger of having to fulfil a commitment on the pension age. I notice that he did not try to commit himself to any transitional arrangement, let alone the full transitional arrangement proposed by the WASPI campaign. It is fine for hon. Members to posture in this debate, and I am in no doubt that we will see a great deal of that, but it is unkind and unfair to the WASPI campaigners for Members not to speak honestly about what they and their party would do.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the women protesting about the change were being emotional. That is quite often a label attached to women who exhibit behaviour different from that of a doormat. What I said to him about the injustices in this scheme was based on fact, not on emotion.

[Richard Graham]

I am semi-grateful for that intervention as well.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the debate, and I have heard a lot of warm words from the SNP and from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), but I have not heard any solutions, let alone how those solutions may be paid for by any future Government.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I remind right hon. and hon. Members that interventions should be short. We are not doing very well at the moment.

[Richard Graham]

Thank you, Mr Stringer; I am doing my best to take interventions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) made a very reasonable point. The previous Labour pensions spokesman said that, in the four months in which he was in the role, he was

“grappling with how best to work out the transitional provisions.”

I hope that we hear more about what the Labour party intends to do in practice.

One of greatest difficulties in this debate is about the word “fair”. Over the weekend, a lot of WASPI campaigners were tweeting me back and forth about various issues regarding the debate and their e-petition. One of the most interesting views came from a woman born in early 1960 who made a point about what would happen were the main WASPI campaign ask to be given—that is, if everybody born in the 1950s were backdated as if they had been born before 1950. She asked why she and her contemporaries should bear the burden on behalf of those who would effectively be given an exemption from the changes, and who were born only a few months before her.

The problem is that whenever a change is made, some will always be relatively better off and some will be relatively worse off. I strongly support women born in the 1950s—as I hope I made clear from the fact that my wife and sisters are both girls of the 1950s—but to imply that somehow they must take preference over those born a few months before or after is a different kind of potential unfairness.

The second point of the debate is all about communication. Communication is at the heart of what many of the campaigners feel is unfair about the changes made in 1995 and 2011. However, it is simply not true that nobody knew, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) claimed in the debate in the main Chamber. In 2004 the then Labour Government estimated from their research in the Department for Work and Pensions that 75% of those affected had been told. A separate study by the DWP—not yet referred to in debate, but unearthed by the pensions correspondent at the Financial Times over the weekend—demonstrated that seven out of 10 people spoken to knew about the change in the pension age. The truth is that we will never know the precise figure. We will never know exactly how many people knew, did not know, and might have been told about it but ignored it because it was all a long way in the future—20 years away.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing this intervention. Does he not find it strange that thousands upon thousands of women from different careers, different backgrounds and different classes are all coming together to claim exactly the same thing, which is that they were not told? The DWP has conflicting records on what letters were sent out and when, so we should be careful when addressing the point that people were told.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we can be sure that not everybody knew and that not all of those who were told took the information to heart. We can be sure that some people were not told—there is no doubt about that. The pensions correspondent at the Financial Times told me:

“I dispute the evidence given to the Committee… by Lin Phillips, that ‘There was not much in the newspapers, only maybe a little bit in the business pages.’”

The correspondent has done a detailed study that will be presented as written evidence to the Select Committee, and she went on to say that she has looked at coverage from 1993, when the changes to equalise the state pension age for men and women was first mooted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). She says that, from 1994 to 2006, there were hundreds of mentions of the state pension age in the news sections and the personal finance pages, as well as in the business pages.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, for such a drastic change as a change in the age of retirement, women had a right to expect to receive a direct letter, in the same way as they are given a pension statement on an almost annual basis?

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady is right. There are huge lessons to be learned, and I will come on to them because both parties that were in government between 1995 and 2010—predominantly the party that is now the main Opposition party—have to be able to explain, to look at themselves and say, “Could we have done more? Could we have communicated better?” The answer has to be yes, although there is a philosophical question that remains valid today. It is for Members, and indeed for the WASPI campaign, which has offered some thoughts, to come up with ideas about how that philosophical question can be addressed, because surely there is a balance of responsibility between what the Government must do to spell out change, what the wider world, including the media, must do to communicate that change—in today’s world that includes social media—and what the individual must do to take responsibility for finding out about major things that will affect their life.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on introducing this debate. Those of us who have had children have received child benefit. I have received an annual statement from the DWP about my entitlement to child benefit, so it would therefore not be too difficult for people to receive annual statements on their pension entitlement in the same way. If the DWP can do it for parents, surely it can do it for those approaching retirement age.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady is correct. Indeed, people can get a pension statement from the DWP, and half a million people have done so. Of course, an individual has to ask for that statement, rather than it being automatically sent. She raises a question about whether the DWP could do more to communicate directly, which I am sure the Minister will address.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

I will make a little progress first.

I agree with the WASPI campaign that it is clear that more should and could have been done on communication and that a lot of women have had a lot of difficulty as a result of that failure in communication. As I have said, there is still the philosophical question to address. What matters now is whether lessons have been learned by everybody involved and whether changes will be made that help people in future. So long as longevity projections continue to move upwards, the likelihood must be that the state pension age will also move upwards.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

Let me finish my point, and I will come back to the hon. Lady.

I believe that the Government have now accepted three major points, and it would be good to hear from the Minister that that is the case. First, there will be a review of the state pension age every five years—I believe a review is planned for 2017, which perhaps he will confirm. Secondly, whatever is decided as a result of that review, which should have cross-party consensus as far as possible, everybody concerned will be given a minimum of 10 years’ notice. That will address the most difficult point for members of the WASPI campaign, which is the shortness of the time in which they knew about the changes. Thirdly, and this is also important, the basis on which the new state pension age will be calculated is that all of us, men and women alike, should have a maximum of a third of our life on the state pension. That is important for the one fairness that has not been mentioned today, intergenerational fairness, so that those who are paying for the pensions of their elders are paying for us to spend only a third of our life as pensioners.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Richard Graham]

I will come to questions in a moment.

I hope the Minister will confirm all my points, because they have important consequences for everyone, not least the 10 years’ notice of any change.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. You asked us at the start of this debate to do the maths on the time needed to allow all 20 speakers to speak. I did the maths, and it was five to six minutes. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) might be having some difficulty.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

That is not a point of order, but the point is well made.

[Richard Graham]

May I seek your guidance, Mr Stringer? I have tried to be as generous as I can in taking interventions.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

You have the floor, but there are 20 people waiting to speak. When you sit down, I intend to impose a time limit.

[Richard Graham]

Thank you. I have got the message loud and clear, and I hope that Members will respond accordingly—[Hon. Members: “It’s you!”] I was trying to help colleagues on both sides of the Chamber who are standing up and trying to intervene.

The last point raised by the petition is on the new state pension, the way in which it has been communicated and the implied fairness, or unfairness, of it. It is time that we all recognised that the new state pension has huge benefits for many people, and particularly for women. For the first time in the history of pensions in this country, women who have spent years out of the workplace, either bringing up children or caring for their parents, will receive those years as contributions to national insurance, which will determine what their state pension is. [Interruption.] That is a revolutionary change, whether Members care to recognise it or not, and it is one that we should all support.

Secondly, the changes made to the composition of the state pension, particularly the triple lock, mean that the absolute amount of money received by people on the new state pension this April will already be £1,000 a year more than in 2010. Thirdly, it has been calculated that, in the first 10 years of the new state pension, some 650,000 women will receive £416 a year more than they would have received without the new state pension.

[Mr George Howarth]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. As the hon. Gentleman moves into the 22nd minute of his speech, will he give us an indication of its likely future proportions, so that we can pace ourselves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Mr Graham has the floor. He has heard the points, and I intend to impose a time limit when he sits down.

[Richard Graham]

Thank you, Mr Stringer.

I have covered the three main points that I wanted to raise today, and it is worth recapping the implications—[Hon. Members: “No!”] I will be very brief. First, many people in this House—

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Again, that is not a point of order, but you have made your point, Mr Hoare, and I think Mr Graham has heard it.

[Richard Graham]

Thank you, Mr Stringer. In conclusion, the WASPI campaign has been well put together, and the e-petition has been a great success; that is why we are all here. I congratulate WASPI. All the points made by the campaign about communication in the past will have been noted and largely accepted by almost everybody in the House.

I have emphasised the lessons to be learned, in terms of what the DWP can take from this debate for any future changes made to the state pension age and how they are communicated, but WASPI’s central ask—changing the state pension received by people born in the 1950s—is not favoured by many of the campaign’s supporters, who understand that £30 billion or more is not an appropriate ask when there are so many other good causes on which money should be spent. On that basis, I do not believe that this House should support the e-petition’s call for fair transitional arrangements, which amount to that.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mhairi Black, I am imposing a five-minute limit on speeches. If Members take interventions as well as taking up the whole five minutes, either Mr Hanson or I will have to reduce that limit.

State Pension Age (Women)

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

This debate is in some ways a rerun of one held in December in Westminster Hall organised by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who has a long track record of campaigning on this issue. I congratulate my Work and Pensions Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), on bringing this up and bringing to life, in a sense, the emotional feelings of many women of the ages most affected by changes to the state pension. She did so in a way that everyone here can relate to, because we all have pensioner constituents, and indeed members of our own families, who are affected.

However, there is a risk of overstating the case. My Select Committee colleague will not, I hope, mind my saying that when she said that nobody was aware of the 1995 changes because there was no correspondence, that was an exaggeration of the situation. We will never know exactly who was communicated with or who, probably most importantly, noticed and paid attention to it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Richard Graham]

I will not give way yet.

We do know, though, that in 2004 the previous Government did a study on this through the DWP, as Labour Members will remember. That study concluded that three quarters of those affected had been communicated with effectively. Opposition Members may care to comment on that.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

Not at the moment.

The fact is that quite a lot of people were told about this at the time and thought it was a long way off and therefore they did not have to pay attention to it, while others were not communicated with and have therefore found this to be a difficult wake-up call. There are lessons on communication that I will come on to and that I hope the Minister will address.

[Neil Gray]

rose—

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

A lot of people want to speak, so let me carry on for the moment.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South was right to quote the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, as saying that not everyone knew about this. He has accepted that, as I think we all recognise. None the less, the argument that no transitional arrangements were made—arrangements that Opposition Members are calling for—is wrong. A significant transitional arrangement and concession was made in 2011 that affected 250,000 people and cost the Government—the taxpayer—£1.3 billion, which was a significant amount of money at the time. That arrangement was made because the then Pensions Minister and the then Government recognised advice from the Department saying that the waiting time for some women born in the 1950s had increased to as much as two years, and they wanted to reduce it to 18 months to benefit those 250,000 people.

What is interesting is that while the motion calls for further transitional arrangements, it does not spell out, nor has any Member who has spoken so far spelt out, exactly what transitional arrangements are being called for. Were the intention—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

Hold on a moment—let me finish what I am saying.

Were the intention simply to change all the arrangements for women born in the 1950s and go back to the original proposal, that would, I believe—the Minister might want to put a more detailed figure on it—cost the taxpayer about £10 billion. Yesterday we had the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), calling for changes to universal credit that were not costed and for which he offered no alternative in terms of where the money would come from. Today we have a proposed transitional arrangement that might cost £10 billion, but its detail has not been spelled out, and neither has its exact cost or how it would be paid for.

I believe that it is incumbent on all of us as MPs partly to represent the emotional feelings of our constituents, as has been done very well by a number of Members today, but also to reflect on the reality, the cost and the implications of what is being proposed, which remains an open question.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

I am happy to take an intervention on that specific point.

[Gavin Robinson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we had a quest for equalisation in pensions that has resulted in an iniquitous outcome for the women we are discussing? Social justice demands that whatever the transitional arrangements should be—he makes a strong point about that—he and other members of the DWP Committee will work to find arrangements that would ease the iniquitous outcome of this equalisation.

[Richard Graham]

In fact, the Committee had that discussion and we heard evidence from Women Against State Pension Inequality, which is a good, reasonable and sensible campaign. On the whole, its evidence to the Committee focused on the issue of communication, partly so that lessons can be learned so that when future announcements are made about what will happen in 10 years’ time, they are communicated effectively to those who will be affected. We do not want to end up in a similar situation in 10 years’ time, with another generation of women complaining about not knowing.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, hope that when the Minister sums up he will address the failure of the communication strategy since 1995 and right up to the current day? A constituent of mine was told in October that they had qualified for their state pension, but a few weeks later they were told that they had another three years to go. We really need to address that problem.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am sure the Minister will comment on communication. As I said in the debate in December, there are clear lessons and it would be good to have future changes clarified. I know that a further review is planned in 2017, and longevity continues to increase. The average life expectancy for women, as projected by the Office for National Statistics, has already increased by 2.6 years since the 1995 proposals, and Adair Turner, whose report led to the consensus that this House held for many years, said not very long ago that, if he had done the report now, he would have planned for faster changes to state pension ages.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South rightly said that at some point we will want to discuss the effect of the future state pension on women. In answer to her point about discrimination against women, I think it is really important that all Members and our constituents are aware that the new state pension will be much fairer to women than the old system. National insurance credits will be given for years taken out of work for caring or for bringing up a family. This is the first time this has happened in the history of the pension—it is a really important point. It will give women the same entitlement as they would get from national insurance contributions through earnings. That is a significant change and I would have thought that those Members who tabled the motion would want to allude to it.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has said that in 2011 the Government made a policy decision to accelerate and that they failed to communicate the effects of that decision to the many people affected. Why does he therefore conclude that the Government do not have a moral obligation to put that mistake right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

Actually, what I said was that the communication issue goes back to 1995, when I certainly was not in this House. For the bulk of the period from 1995 to 2010, the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. There is no point in pointing fingers at different parties, but that period is at the heart of the issue of communication, which the motion addresses.

On the question of what good advice we can now give those of our constituents who are not sure what they are going to receive in retirement, it is important that they ask for a statement. That is what the Pension Wise campaign, which is available to everybody, free of charge, is there to do. People should ask for their statement. Some 500,000 people have already taken advantage of that. It is the most effective communications tool and we should be using it to make sure that everybody—women and men—approaching retirement knows what they will receive.

Sale of Ministry of Justice Land: Gloucester

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the sale of Ministry of Justice land in Gloucester.

Today’s debate is about the agonising detail of pushing forward one aspect of the regeneration of the ancient and small city of Gloucester. It is, as I will explain, a story of our time—a story of complex partnerships—and, hopefully, it has a happy ending. I will start with the context of today’s debate. The regeneration of Britain’s big cities has ploughed ahead successfully for some time. The previous Labour Government did it through Government-funded or private finance initiative-funded projects, especially in the north of England; the coalition Government did it through growth funds and bids via local enterprise partnerships; and this Conservative Government are continuing that process with the additional features of devolution, local powerhouses and more pressure on the public sector to release unused and unneeded real estate—I will return to that last point in a moment.

At the same time, inevitably, there has been a process of consolidation in both the public and private sectors in that part of the west of England bordering the west midlands, the River Severn and Wales, which is Gloucestershire. The Government, like the Crown Prosecution Service, have been tempted to retreat to Bristol, and some businesses have done likewise. A city such as Gloucester, therefore, has to paddle very hard to attract new businesses, growth and jobs, and as the Minister knows, paddling hard is precisely what Gloucester does. The turnaround in global aerospace demand and the Government’s support for Britain’s technology and innovation advantages in aerospace have benefited the M5 corridor from Bristol to Gloucester and Cheltenham, and our subcontractors have benefited from the Government’s support for research and development, apprenticeships and capital allowances.

If I may list a few more areas of growth that are relevant to the importance of the car park in question, I highlight the huge rise in the importance of cyber that has driven interest in the cheaper real estate and convenient location of Gloucester for a new cyber- centre. The importance attached to nuclear energy is a huge boost for EDF Energy’s nuclear operational headquarters in Barnwood and has brought Horizon, which is going to build two new nuclear power stations, to the edge of our city. The waterside location of Gloucester Quays has attracted tidal lagoon power, which will surely be approved before long to create Britain’s new tidal energy hub and will be a huge contributor to the production of our green energy. At the same time, through Peel plc, we have been able to become a major shopping and leisure destination, with more than 5 million visitors a year to Gloucester Quays, and we have benefited from hosting the rugby world cup this autumn, using sport as a catalyst for regeneration.

Importantly, alongside all those major developments, we have seen a huge increase in the number of new businesses created in Gloucester—I call them new Gloucesterpreneurs. We are ranked in the top six in the country for the creation of new businesses. Last, but by no means least for this MP who studied history, thanks to the Heritage Lottery Fund, forward-thinking trustees of different charities and, I hope, strong political support, we have made much more of our heritage to win bids for funding to improve and highlight our destinations, and to host new festivals that, in turn, are bringing more visitors; the cathedral has a critical role in that. Should the Minister have the chance, I would be delighted to show him our city—not just the car park in which he is playing such an important role, but a city where heritage comes alive and new businesses thrive.

A common theme for all such growth is, of course, transport. On the edge of the M5 between Bristol and Birmingham, and two hours by train from London, one of Gloucester’s key attractions for inward investors is our transport links, which also support those living in neighbouring constituencies such as Forest of Dean, Stroud and Tewkesbury. Gloucester’s growth means that the most recent railway passenger statistics show an increase of 4% in passengers from Gloucester, which is a third more than the national figure of 3%. That will increase and, as the Minister may know, trains will shortly be running every half hour from London towards Gloucester and Cheltenham, which in turn will increase the number of passengers using our station and, inevitably, the station car park. In turn, of course, that will put significant pressure on existing facilities, which is precisely where the Ministry of Justice comes in—this is the crux of today’s debate.

Almost 10 years ago, the previous Labour Government bought land for new courts in Gloucester. We will return to that theme another day and, before the Minister gets nervous about the scope of today’s debate, I assure him that I will not be raising the issue of a new justice centre in Gloucester today. The land acquired on Great Western Road, a former car park, lies beside platform 4 of the station, although it is currently without access to it, and opposite Gloucestershire Royal hospital, which employs many thousands of people and, of course, has many more patients every year. The car park has sat empty and unused for a decade, ever since the Labour Government changed their mind about new courts for Gloucester. In October 2014, I launched a campaign to bring the car park back into use as a new long-term car park for the station, with new access to the station from that side.

The ingredients for that project, or “stakeholders”, if we prefer that term, were many. I needed support in principle for the idea, above all, from what was then First Great Western and is now Great Western Railway—a name resonant from my younger days in Gloucestershire and my many school journeys from Moreton-in-Marsh to Colwall. I needed the Department for Transport’s support for Great Western Railway’s proposal in its seven-year franchise extension. Both Great Western Railway and the Department for Transport, led by the Secretary of State for Transport, who visited Gloucester, responded magnificently. I needed support from the county council, which it also gave, not least because there is a spin-off benefit in relieving some of the traffic pressure from the station forecourt on to Bruton Way from the current car park. And I needed support from the city council for the potential planning application, which it gave in principle, noting the huge added convenience for Gloucestershire Royal hospital staff and patients and the regeneration implications for the site, the road and the city.

Lastly, but by no means least, as the Minister knows, I needed support, both in principle and in practice, from the Ministry of Justice in disposing of the land and being the catalyst for something that, although modest in itself, will have much wider transport, traffic and growth implications, enabling a virtuous circle of easier access for travellers, more trains, better experience, more visitors and more jobs from the economic boost.

The Minister and the then Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), could not have been more helpful, and I wish to put that on the record. Everything was agreed in principle in March 2015, but of course the business of process, transfer to a Government entity to avoid any question of state aid, legalities, price and the number of entities involved—the Ministry of Justice, the valuers, the independent valuer, the city council, Great Western Railway, the Department for Transport and Network Rail at one point—plus the summer holidays meant that progress during the middle of this year was somewhere between modest and slow, but the pace has picked up in the last few weeks, which is perhaps in part due to the Chancellor’s determination that the Government should make much greater use of their real estate assets as soon as possible. My understanding of the current situation is very encouraging, and part of today’s objective is to hear whether the Minister shares my understanding.

First, I believe that the Ministry of Justice has agreed in principle to sell the land to Gloucester City Council, and I understand that a recommendation on the price and an agreement goes to a Ministry of Justice real estate board in early January 2016. Secondly, Great Western Railway has agreed in principle to lease the land from the city council and intends to submit a planning application in January. Thirdly, Great Western Railway and the Department for Transport are holding talks to ensure that the land is retained as a station asset way beyond the current franchise. Fourthly, the city and county councils have submitted a bid of almost £5 million for various station improvements, in line with my recommendations of October 2014, to the Gloucestershire local enterprise partnership, and that bid is likely to be high on the LEP’s list of priorities.

I hope that I have laid out that never was an empty car park so important to the development of transport in our city, or to our city’s regeneration; its value as a catalyst for change is much greater than its commercial value. A year and a bit on from a series of proposals laid out by e-news to my constituents, I believe that the public sector—Government and local government—working together with the train operator means that we are close to bringing this opportunity to reality.

Today, I hope that the Minister can confirm his understanding of where things are, and that he will continue his key role in urging that the most important of Government responsibilities—the implementation of decisions already made in principle—be carried out, so that early in the new year, the city of Gloucester can have certainty that ideas on paper will become reality.

In the bigger scheme of things, this car park is at the very fringes of the Minister’s empire of responsibilities and goals to deliver, but I hope that it is a project—small as it is—about which he and his Department will be able to say shortly, “We reviewed this proposal. We agreed with it in principle. We promised to make it happen. And we have now delivered.” If that is the case, Gloucester will be very grateful, but it will also set a magnificent precedent for other opportunities involving MOJ real estate around the country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

As always, Mr Nuttall, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this debate on a subject that is vital for the residents of Gloucester. I also take this opportunity to put on the record the huge amount of work that he has done for the people of Gloucester, not only regarding this particular piece of land but more generally. As far as this issue is concerned, he has engaged with me on a regular and active basis, and he has also been instrumental in ensuring that the many other stakeholders and key players involved in the whole of this transaction have been engaged with one another. He has been instrumental in ensuring that all the threads are woven together to make one canvas, so that hopefully in the new year we will be able to arrive at an agreeable solution.

Of course, my hon. Friend and I have met on a number of occasions to discuss this issue and we have also corresponded about it. He has a terrific vision for Gloucester. My officials have engaged extensively with representatives from the many other interested parties on how the land owned by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in Great Western Road can form part of the wider regeneration of the city.

Let me explain at the outset that the piece of land in question was purchased quite some time ago with the intention of building a new Gloucester court. The freehold interest in the site was one of a number of magistrates courts and other properties transferred to the Courts and Tribunals Service under the Transfer of Property (Abolition of Magistrates’ Courts Committees) Scheme 2005. Since that time, the site was used temporarily as a car park by the national health service and was later used as a store to facilitate works to the adjacent railway. As my hon. Friend indicated, for quite some time it has not been in use.

Following an approach by Gloucester City Council, the Courts and Tribunals Service considered a request to transfer the land. In support of its request, the council asked that we take into account the wider economic development of the area and its importance for the city as a whole. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Ministry of Justice and Gloucester City Council have a duty to achieve best value for the taxpayer at large and for the citizens of Gloucester. As part of that duty, the Ministry of Justice is obliged to work within Her Majesty’s Treasury guidelines for managing public money. That means that, when disposing of surplus property assets, we must always seek best value for the taxpayer. The council, for its part, has to consider the potential return on its investment in a future lease arrangement.

After careful consideration of the representations made by my hon. Friend, the council and others, it was decided that the land was no longer required for a court or tribunal building. That cleared the way for the Courts and Tribunal Service to move towards a sale of the land, at market value, to Gloucester City Council.

I understand that the council intends to enter into an agreement that would see the site being used as a car park, which, as my hon. Friend highlighted in his speech, would improve access to the nearby railway station. The redevelopment of the land is an important part of the vision to regenerate the city. Of course, the use of the site as a car park also has broader implications for the highways and traffic management within the area. This is not a simple issue but one that is complex and that involves a number of other agencies.

The Ministry of Justice has been in regular and constructive dialogue with the council, and I am pleased to say that much progress has been made. However, both parties have produced their own valuations of what the property is worth. Nevertheless, we may now be nearing some sort of agreement. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, I cannot divulge the final details of the valuations or the negotiations. He will understand that, as is the case in almost every transaction of this kind, there are many aspects of the proposal to discuss, including the future development potential of the site; the current and future planning status; whether there should be any conditions attached to the completion of the sale; the timing of any such conditions; whether any overage or clawback should be applied, and if so, how much and over what time; what price should be paid; and whether that price should be paid in one lump sum or in staged payments.

While there remain technical details to resolve, I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for seeing the matter settled, and both parties continue to work towards achieving a deal that is acceptable to all concerned. I emphasise that there is no lack of willingness on our side to achieve a mutually beneficial sale.

I turn briefly to the wider changes that we are making to courts and tribunals in England and Wales as part of our court reform programme. We have conducted a consultation on the possible closure of 91 courts and tribunals across England and Wales. The HMCTS estate is a major asset, but many buildings are underused. Indeed, around a third of our courts are used at less than half their capacity. Our proposal is to close the less efficient buildings and to transform the way that courts and tribunals operate and deliver services to the public in the future.

Those improvements cannot be secured without some difficult decisions having to be made, but I genuinely believe that the court reform programme offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient Courts and Tribunals Service.

[Richard Graham]

The Minister is kind to give way. I promised him that I would not extend this debate to cover the issue of the future of the courts, but I just thought it would be helpful to him if I were to put on the record the offer that Gloucester has made to the Ministry of Justice. Effectively, it is to provide land free of charge in the wonderful central area of Blackfriars, very close to the current Crown court, the families courts and the magistrates courts, to create a single justice centre for all the courts and tribunals in the city, which will provide justice for the people of Gloucestershire. I hope he will consider that offer.

[Mr Vara]

In his usual eloquent way, my hon. Friend has managed to sneak into this debate another angle, which obviously also involves his speaking up for constituents in Gloucester. I commend him for that. I am mindful of the submission that he and the people of Gloucester have made, and we are reflecting on it. No decisions have been made so far regarding the wider consultation.

As far as the court reform programme is concerned, we must recognise that the world outside the courts is changing rapidly. In the 21st century, we expect to be able to transact our business online, quickly, efficiently and at a time that suits us. Cheques and paper forms have been replaced by contactless payment cards and smartphone apps. The Courts and Tribunals Service has already established alternative ways users can interact with its services, such as the use of video links, and it is looking to expand the provisions to provide more choice than is currently available. That includes exploring whether appropriate use can be made of civic and other buildings for certain types of hearings. My hon. Friend is aware that Gloucester magistrates court is included in the consultation. The proposal is for criminal work from the court to be transferred to Cheltenham magistrates court. As he is aware, we are analysing all the responses to the consultation, and we have not made up our mind or made any decisions so far.

For the sake of good order, I assure my hon. Friend that the sale of the land at Great Western Road does not impact in any way on the decisions that will need to be made following the consultation. He will understand that I cannot give him notice of the finalised transaction, for the reasons I have given. I very much hope, however, that he and his constituents will be in no doubt that I support the positive vision that is regeneration in Gloucester—a matter that he has so forcefully put across. The Ministry of Justice is keen to be a part of that vision, and we are taking steps to ensure that we do not stand in the way of progress. At the same time, he will appreciate the importance of my Department faithfully discharging its duties to taxpayers and ensuring that we deal with valuable assets responsibly.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I very much hope that, in the new year, there will be some resolution to all the hard work that he has put in on behalf of his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.