House of Commons
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
1. What recent progress his Department has made on consulting on the future of Torquay magistrates court.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Courts and Tribunals Service is evaluating all responses to the consultation, and no decisions have been made. An announcement on the future of Torquay magistrates court will be made in due course.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for his answer. At the end of this month, a successful turnaround integrated offender management team that is based at the court building is due to be evicted. Can he confirm that this is not a sign that the decision has already been taken, and that the Government are still considering options to keep justice local in the bay?
Mr Vara
May I first thank my hon. Friend for the submission that he made to the consultation? I am also grateful to him for raising this point so that I can clarify the issue. I can confirm that no decisions have been taken. Moreover, the arrangement for the turnaround IOM team to use the building was always due to come to an end this month. I understand that alternative arrangements have been made for it to continue to provide its very valuable services locally.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to promote the use of victim statements in parole hearings.
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)
The Conservative election manifesto included a commitment to introduce a new victims law enshrining the rights of victims, including the right to a personal statement before the Parole Board decides on a prisoner’s release. We will publish details in due course. I recognise and passionately believe in the importance of giving victims a voice.
Tom Pursglove
Anne Forbes, whose son Iain was brutally murdered by five men in Corby in 1993, has this year alone had to go through the ordeal of reading out three of these victim statements. This has taken its toll not only on her family but on her health. Will the Minister meet me and Mrs Forbes to discuss the role of victim statements and how they can work better for victims and their families?
Mike Penning
The whole idea of a victim statement is for the victim to feel that they are part of the process, and not for it to be a burden on them. Naturally I will meet my hon. Friend and Mrs Forbes to see how her experiences, and other victims’ experiences, can improve the situation for them. I look forward to the meeting.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The average time taken from charging to Crown court trial is close to a year. That is lamentable for victims. What is the Minister going to do to bring this time down substantially?
Mike Penning
I fully agree that the length of time between charging and the case coming to court needs to be improved for victims, and that their whole experience needs to be improved within the criminal justice system. The Justice Secretary has already announced measures to speed up the process, and more will be coming forward shortly.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Victims always remain victims, whereas criminals eventually serve their sentence in full, so will the Minister ensure that especially in cases of violent crimes, parole is very rarely given?
Mike Penning
That is obviously a matter for the Parole Board, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Victims are victims for life; it is something they have to live with for the rest of their life. That is why the support that the Government intend to continue to give to victims is very important.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
My constituent Marie McCourt’s daughter Helen was murdered in 1988 and her body has never been found. Her killer received a life sentence, but despite still refusing to reveal the whereabouts of her remains, he is being considered for parole. Will the Minister look at the guidelines to ensure that this man and others like him are never released until they have given information about the location of their victims’ remains?
Mike Penning
Naturally I cannot give a commitment on any individual case, but I would like to meet the hon. Gentleman’s constituent if possible to make sure that we can help her and her close family as much as possible. It is imperative that where victims feel that they want to, and that they have the courage to do so, their statements are taken into account by the Parole Board.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The victims can sometimes be the wider community. When are the wider community going to get a say on parole hearings— for instance, on violent crimes that might afflict a whole community? When are the community going to get a say alongside pre-sentence reports on some of these individuals, so that they are represented and their voice is heard regarding the criminal actions of those individuals and the impact they have on a wider number of people?
Mike Penning
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. We have to be really careful, though, that we do not take away from the individual victims the feeling that they are part of the process, which is something that all Governments have tried to address for many years. We are committed to doing that. We also have to be really careful that we do not create a vigilante situation, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We have to make sure that the criminal justice system works for everybody.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
3. What steps he is taking to reduce the number of custodial sentences given to women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)
Crime is falling and the female prison population is now consistently under 4,000 for the first time in a decade. Last year, over 70% of women successfully completed their sentence in the community. However, we want to do more, so in partnership with the Government Equalities Office we are making available a £200,000 grant fund to support local areas to pilot the development of multi-agency approaches to female offending.
Drew Hendry
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the number of women in prisons across the UK has doubled since 2000. Many are mothers serving six-month sentences or less for minor offences, and that causes irreparable damage to family life. Will the Minister follow the example of the SNP Scottish Government in working harder to reduce the number of women in prison and give community sentences where possible?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is what the pilots are about. Female offenders often have very complex needs. They are much more likely to self-harm and to be victims of violence or domestic abuse than their male counterparts. That is why the pilots, which seek to divert women away from a pathway to prison very early on in their offending behaviour, are fantastic. The schemes recognise that sending women to prison can have a devastating effect not only on their lives, but on those of their dependent children.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that, for every single category of offence, a man is more likely than a woman to be sent to prison, to be sent to prison for longer and to serve more of their sentence in prison? Given this age of gender equality that the Government believe in so much, what possible justification can there be for releasing more women from prison than men, and what assessment has the Minister made of whether or not that breaks discrimination laws?
Caroline Dinenage
I am very happy to have the opportunity to answer that question. Obviously, sentences are based on the individual offence. Male offenders are, and will continue to be, supported through existing processes to address their needs, but let us not forget that our Prison Service and probation service were designed with male offenders in mind, because they make up 95% of their customers.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Will the Minister outline what levels of support will be available or are being considered for those women’s dependants, many of whom are quite young children?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. That is why our women’s prisons have made an enormous effort to engage with families and children, and some of them give women the opportunity to hold overnight visits with their young children. That is what the pilots are about: they are about recognising offending behaviour very early on, so that we can bring in third sector organisations and local authorities to divert women from ending up in prison.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
4. What plans he has to reintroduce the residence test for legal aid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government are committed to the civil legal aid residence test and are planning the next steps following the success in the Court of Appeal. Individuals should have a strong connection to the UK to benefit from the civil legal aid scheme.
Mike Kane
The Minister was forced to admit last year that there were no precise figures for any savings from this policy area. The policy was also criticised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and is subject to further legal scrutiny under the Supreme Court. Is it not time that the Minister gave up the ghost on this failed area of policy?
Mr Vara
Given the Court of Appeal judgment on 25 November, when it sided with the Government, we have no intention of giving up on this. It is important to remember that people who seek to have benefit from UK taxpayers should show some connection to this country. It is perfectly reasonable to expect people to have continuous 12-month residency in the UK before they benefit from UK taxpayers’ money for their legal aid.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
On legal aid and any potential change, has the Minister turned his mind to the disparity involved when one parent abuses the legal aid available to them in order to get an upper hand in contact cases with their children while the other parent has to self-finance?
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
In June, the Justice Secretary criticised what he called the two nation justice system, but restricting civil legal aid according to how long an individual has lived in this country clearly widens the gap between those afforded access to justice and those not. The residence test would have denied justice to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes. Does the Minister think that that is right, and if not, will he drop the two nation justice policy of the Justice Secretary’s predecessor?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman needs to appreciate that we have had to take tough measures. It is vital, and the British people in their millions rightfully say that they want overseas people to have some connection with the UK before getting use of the taxes that they pay. The residence test has gone through the court process to the Court of Appeal, and if it goes further, the Government will object and robustly defend our stance on the residence test.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
5. If he will make an assessment of the effect of the criminal courts charge on access to justice; and if he will make a statement.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)
Last week, I announced that the Ministry of Justice will review the entire structure and purpose of the financial penalties and orders handed down by courts to offenders, with a view to considering options for simplification and improvement. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised about the criminal courts charge, and in the light of those concerns, I decided to pause the imposition of the charge while the wider review is carried out.
Tulip Siddiq
May I take the opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on scrapping yet another proposal put forward by his predecessor, but may I also remind him that he was Chief Whip at the time and voted for the policy? Individuals have incurred high levels of personal debt, which they are unlikely to be able to pay back, because of this cost. Bearing that in mind, will the Secretary of State review and waive the outstanding payments, which do nothing but blight the finances of our justice system and place an administrative cost on the taxpayer?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words, and for reminding the House that, while I was not an unprecedented success as Chief Whip, I did manage to vote with the Government the majority of the time while I was in that post. It is the case that people will have paid penalties under the criminal courts charge. That was the law at the time, and it will be the law until 24 December. After that, people will not pay the criminal courts charge.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Members on both sides of the House will be pleased that the fixed charge will no longer apply from later this month, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is right that convicted criminals should contribute not only towards supporting victims, but towards the running costs of our criminal courts?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. One of the reasons why we are reviewing the way in which the court orders penalties and fines to be paid is that there is at least a triple purpose: of course penalties need to be paid in order to ensure that people recognise that they have crossed the threshold of the law and need to be punished, but the money raised also goes to help with both the administration of justice and the support of victims.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
20. Until 24 December, magistrates will be forced to impose what is now a discredited charge, which has caused many of them to resign. What advice does the Secretary of State give those people in the meantime?
Michael Gove
To obey the law of the land. It is my responsibility to uphold the rule of law. We sought to take steps as quickly as possible after a proper review of the criminal courts charge and after the spending review to suspend the operation of the charge. Twenty-one days after the requisite statutory instrument was laid—that is, on 24 December—there will be no further imposition of the charge.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
May I, too, welcome the Lord Chancellor’s fifth U-turn—or is it his sixth? I note that it is somewhat unorthodox to rehabilitate one’s own reputation by trashing one’s predecessor. Will he now clean up the mess his Government have made, rather than walk away from it? When will the charge be repealed by primary legislation? Why is it still being imposed —it does not have to be—up to Christmas? Will the charges already imposed be remitted? Will the magistrates who resigned in protest be reinstated? Will he tell us the cost of the debacle, and how much it adds to the £15 million he has already wasted on the privatisation of fines collection and the secure college?
Mr Speaker
Order. That was something of a multifaceted question, but I think we can rely on the Secretary of State to respond with his customary elegant simplicity.
Michael Gove
Thank you, Mr Speaker. You are quite right that there were more questions in that sally than in a multiple-choice maths GCSE paper.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman still wouldn’t know the answers.
Michael Gove
Yes; I hesitate to say what the mark would be.
We moved as expeditiously as possible to suspend the charge. The best legal advice available to the Department suggested that this was the most effective way of relieving magistrates of the obligation to impose it.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
6. What plans he has to reform HM Courts and Tribunals Service.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
10. What plans he has to modernise the courts and tribunals system.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
17. What plans he has to modernise the courts and tribunals system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I am delighted that we have secured over £700 million of funding to invest in our courts and tribunals. We have worked closely with the senior judiciary to develop a plan to reform our courts system so that it delivers swifter and fairer justice for everyone in England and Wales at a lower cost.
Huw Irranca-Davies
My constituents in Ogmore face the closure of two local courts: one at Pontypridd in the neighbouring constituency and one in Bridgend. How does the Minister respond to the president of the Law Society, Jonathan Smithers, when he warns that:
“Combined with the further planned increases in court fees and reductions in eligibility for legal aid, many of the proposed closures will serve to deepen the inequalities in the justice system between those who can and cannot afford to pay.”?
Mr Vara
It is important in the 21st century that we recognise that a third of the 460 court and tribunal buildings are utilised at a rate of less than 50%. Many of the buildings are not fit for purpose, are listed or are not in compliance with equalities legislation. There is a host of problems and the cost of running the buildings is phenomenal. We need a reformed, up-to-date and modern courts system, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will provide access to justice for all.
Henry Smith
I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that it is high time, as we are in the 21st century, that we updated outdated court practices, with particular regard to the way in which those with learning disabilities are treated in the system?
Mr Vara
Absolutely. As a consequence of the £700 million investment that we received in the spending review, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient Courts and Tribunals Service. Reform of the service is crucial to enable much more efficient access to justice for everyone, including people with learning difficulties. In the one nation Britain that we seek, we want to ensure that everyone has access to all the public facilities on offer.
Alex Chalk
As part of the Government’s welcome courts modernisation plans, Cheltenham magistrates court can expect to hear cases from across Gloucestershire, not just from Cheltenham. What measures will be taken to ensure that such courts have the physical and staffing resources they need to deal with the increased case load?
Mr Vara
It is already the case that all magistrates court work in Gloucestershire that requires custodial facilities is heard at Cheltenham magistrates court. Should more work be moved to Cheltenham following the outcome of the consultation, the Courts and Tribunals Service will continue to assess the resources that are available at the court to ensure that they meet operational requirements. I should, however, emphasise that no decisions have yet been taken regarding magistrates courts in Gloucestershire.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My constituents in Stockport would probably understand where the Minister is coming from, were their courthouse not down for closure. It is one of the busiest in Greater Manchester, was refurbished as recently as 2010 and has specialist facilities for witness support and protection. Is this not a short-sighted move by the Ministry of Justice? Will he now save Stockport courthouse?
Mr Vara
There is nothing short-sighted about having a consultation, the purpose of which is to allow people such as the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to have their say and try to persuade us that, all things considered, the court should be retained. As I said, no decisions have been taken and we are carefully considering all the submissions.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
I listen to Tory MPs and Ministers talking constantly about localism. How can this be a form of localism, when people are having to travel 50 or 60 miles to get justice, instead of going to the local court? It is nothing but hypocrisy.
Mr Vara
I have the utmost respect for the hon. Gentleman, but may I gently bring him into the 21st century, which he may not be familiar with? We will ensure that with modern technology such as video-conferencing and telephone facilities, people will have access to justice without having to go to court. Access to justice does not mean simply attending a court and the physical building that it represents.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
22. I understand the rationale behind court modernisation, as it will help to create a more streamlined and responsive justice system while generating substantial savings for the taxpayer, and I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss the proposed closure of Stockport court, which is a mutual interest. Following our conversations, will he provide an update on that court’s future, and say whether the proposals that I presented to him, which would mean that that court remained viable, have been considered?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have met. With this proposed closure of 91 courts, I have tried to make myself available to as many colleagues as possible—as far as I am aware, I have met every person who wanted a meeting. I am seriously considering my hon. Friend’s proposals, and I am grateful to her for submitting them.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
7. What steps his Department is taking to improve prisons’ engagement with employers; and if he will make a statement.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
12. What steps his Department is taking to improve prisons’ engagement with employers; and if he will make a statement.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
13. What steps his Department is taking to improve the employment prospects of prisoners.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)
The investment in prison reform announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the spending review is designed to make it easier to get prisoners learning and working. As a result, I recently met the Employers’ Forum for Reducing Re-offending to discuss how we can improve employment opportunities for ex-offenders.
Andrew Stephenson
New Call Telecom in Pendle is working with Spacious Place, a social enterprise, to help young offenders at Forest Bank prison with training and employment opportunities. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming New Call Telecom’s work to improve rehabilitation and get young offenders back into society and into employment?
Michael Gove
I wholeheartedly welcome its work, and I commend its efforts to other companies. About 20% of companies employ ex-offenders, but as many as 90% of companies have expressed an interest in doing so. I suspect that the example set by the employer in my hon. Friend’s constituency will inspire more companies to support ex-offenders into work.
Sir David Amess
Given that prison is an expensive option, does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes moral sense to give people who wish to turn their lives around the opportunity to work? Does he also agree that that makes sound business sense, because those people are often hard-working and very loyal employees?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is economically sensible to ensure that ex-offenders are in work—about 22% of those in receipt of out-of-work benefits are ex-offenders—and it makes moral sense to give people dignity and a chance to redeem themselves by contributing economically to society.
Rebecca Harris
My right hon. Friend will be aware of my interest in the work of the Cascade Foundation, which was founded by my constituent Jackie Hewitt-Main, and does amazing work in educating and rehabilitating offenders with learning needs. Will he meet me and the Cascade Foundation so that it can share some of its observations about ways we could further improve and streamline rehabilitation through education in prison and on release?
Michael Gove
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and her constituent. Many outstanding firms, from Cisco Systems to Greggs the bakers, Halfords and DHL, are doing more and more to employ offenders, and we must reduce the bureaucratic burdens standing in their way.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
When I sat on the Justice Committee earlier this summer, I visited Holloway prison and saw how release on temporary licence allowed women to carry out jobs that led to employment on the outside, and to stability. That worked extremely well in Holloway because the transport links are so good, but how can the Secretary of State ensure that such facilities are consistently good across all women’s prisons in the UK?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I would like to see an expansion of release on temporary licence across the prison estate, not just in women’s prisons. We must ensure an appropriate assessment of the risk posed by releasing offenders in such a way, but we must also reinforce the initiative of prison governors who want people out there working and accustoming themselves to life on the outside.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I beg the Secretary of State not to forget what has worked in the past? Will he look at the experience of British Gas, Ford and a cluster of companies in the very famous Reading prison, which I believe is due for closure, working with young offenders? The employment rate was amazingly successful. Let us make sure that that model is not forgotten.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. In my constituency, HMP Coldingley works with a group of disparate employers to provide offenders with the chance to contribute again. He makes a very important point.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
What specific measures are being put in place to reduce the bureaucracy that companies have to overcome to employ offenders?
Michael Gove
The first thing we need to do is give governors a greater sense of freedom so that they are able to invite employers in, ensure they can make use of prisoners while they are still on the prison estate and employ them through the gate. Specific reforms we hope to bring forward in the new year will give more governors precisely that freedom and flexibility.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
21. Does the Secretary of State agree that the key to improving employment in prisons is giving more power and control to governors over what goes on in their prisons, including the accountability and control to ensure that the quality is appropriate?
Michael Gove
I absolutely agree. I think many Members will be aware of the Clink Restaurant social enterprise. A visionary prison governor at High Down in Surrey and a succession of great governors at HMP Brixton have helped it to expand. One of the most impressive prisons I have visited, HMP Parc in Bridgend, is also part of this initiative—all because of great governors leading institutions that we can learn from.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
8. What support his Department provides to military veterans in prison.
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)
The Government are determined to help all offenders, including ex-armed forces personnel who enter the criminal justice system, to turn their lives around and move away from crime. I was surprised, when I took over as Veterans Minister, to learn that we were not asking prisoners when they came in whether they had served in Her Majesty’s armed forces. We are now doing that when they enter the criminal justice system, so we know better how to help them.
Graham Evans
The vast majority of military personnel successfully transition back into civilian life, having left the armed forces. However, veterans represent the largest single cohort in our prisons. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the excellent work of Care After Combat, whose Phoenix project aims to reduce reoffending rates by mentoring veterans both in prison and on release?
Mike Penning
I would like to take this opportunity to praise all those in the voluntary sector who help in the criminal justice system for the work they do, particularly for veterans. The Phoenix project, piloted in February last year by Care After Combat, seems to be very successful. We look forward to seeing exactly what is going on, but it was successful in getting £1 million from the LIBOR fund in the autumn statement and I wish it every success.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
With the Ministry of Defence, will the Minister look at what the stresses are when members of the military leave the armed forces, so we can help to reduce reoffending in the first place, rather than just dealing with it in prison? Will he undertake this important task to identify those causes?
Mike Penning
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good and important point. As someone who served in the armed forces but left fairly early on—I did not do 22 years—I found that the support was very minimal. We need to make sure that we support our heroes, who have fought for us, in a way that keeps them out of the criminal justice system and gives them the help they need.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
On a similar note, will the Secretary of State for Justice work with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Ministry of Defence to review the transition process, so that we really understand why so many veterans are going to prison?
Mike Penning
The Government brought in the Act establishing the military covenant to deal with exactly this sort of situation. I have the honour and privilege of sitting on the Prime Minister’s military covenant committee, where such discussions take place regularly.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
9. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of increasing the use of sport-based initiatives in (a) rehabilitation and (b) counter-extremism programmes in prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)
We are interested in developing and testing sports-based initiatives as part of our approach to rehabilitation, and remain committed to using evidence to drive better outcomes and value for money. In October this year, we part-funded an initiative called the National Alliance of Sport for the Desistance of Crime, which will provide further evidence for whether and how sport may assist desistance.
Charlotte Leslie
The often troubled young men and women who, instead of having their anger and drive directed elsewhere, fall prey to manipulative and destructive extremist ideology are to be pitied. Is the Minister aware of the success of boxing in rehabilitation and helping to prevent extremism, including in prisons such as HMP Doncaster, and will he consider piloting non-contact boxing schemes in more prisons and for more categories of offender?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend, who has been persistent on this issue, is right that there is promising evidence for the positive influence of sport in rehabilitation. Across prisons in England and Wales, we have 183 different sports-based interventions, although not all of them are available in all prisons. The National Alliance of Sport for the Desistance of Crime will go further in this area, but I would be happy to meet her to talk further about the initiatives she mentions.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am not convinced that teaching potential jihadists boxing or table tennis will form an essential part of a de-radicalisation programme, but I am ready to be convinced on the pilot. Does the Minister agree that one way to do this is to appoint an extremism officer to monitor radicalisation in prison and ensure that people are de-radicalised when they leave prison?
Andrew Selous
We will of course proceed according to the evidence from the initiative we have just launched. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the Secretary of State has launched an independent review of extremism across the prisons estate. Yesterday, I met the excellent former governor who is conducting the review, and we will report in due course.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I am afraid there is an ever-widening chasm between what the Secretary of State and the Minister say about what is happening in our prisons and the reality. I do not doubt that the Minister is sincere in his belief that improvements are being made, but, given that in most prisons exercise in the fresh air, which the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) so wishes to see, is limited to just 30 minutes a day and purposeful activity outcomes are currently at the lowest level inspectors have ever recorded, owing to understaffing, how can he suggest that there is anything other than a crisis in our jails?
Andrew Selous
I genuinely respect the hon. Lady’s experience in this area, but we have been extremely successful in getting a lot more prison officers on to the landings up and down the country. In the year to 30 September, we saw a net increase of 540 prison officers, meaning less restrictive regimes and more activities. The good news is that we will carry on recruiting at that number up to the end of March next year, when we are seeking an additional 1,700 to 2,000 prison officers.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
11. What assessment he has made of the ease of access for children to appropriate legal representation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)
The Government believe it is important for children and young people to have access to justice. That is why we have made sure that legal aid funding is available for the highest priority cases, including many that are of relevance to children.
Anna Turley
The director of the Youth Justice Legal Centre has said that many children are more reliant on the advice and support of their security guard than on their solicitor or legal team. What other steps are the Government taking to ensure that children and young people have access to proper support so that they can participate in a process that could affect the rest of their lives?
Caroline Dinenage
We are monitoring closely the impact of any changes—we keep this constantly under review—and we would be very concerned if there was any evidence that vulnerable children were not getting the help they needed.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
14. What plans he has to reform legal aid; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
In the past five years, we have taken action to put the country’s finances back on track, while protecting legal aid for those who need it the most. Legal aid remains a vital part of our justice system, and we must ensure that it is sustainable and fair for those who need it and those who provide legal services, and fair for the taxpayer. I am pleased that the recent spending review led to no further reductions in criminal legal aid.
Mims Davies
All victims of domestic violence must be fully supported in freeing their lives from this menace. Does the Minister agree that it is vital to maintain full access to justice for victims of domestic violence all the way through the legal system?
Mr Vara
Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend, and we have made sure that legal aid remains available for victims of domestic violence who need it. We have also made recent changes making it easier to obtain legal aid in cases where domestic violence is a factor, and we have made sure that once legal aid is granted, no further applications need be made for the duration of the case.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Chester is a city for the legal industry and the legal sector. I am told that numerous criminal legal aid solicitors have been forced out of business or forced to amalgamate with large national firms, while barristers on the Chester circuit are being forced to subsidise access to justice in legal aid cases because they are not getting paid enough through the current legal aid system. Will the Minister review his changes to legal aid, and perhaps deal with them in the same way as the criminal courts charge—by reversing the disastrous changes made in the first place?
Mr Vara
We have a legal aid budget of £1.6 billion, which is one of the largest in the world. By comparison with other common law jurisdictions such as Australia, Northern Ireland and Canada, we have double the expenditure per inhabitant. We have started a process and we will see it through. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those in need of legal aid will be able to have it where it is necessary.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
15. What the Government’s policy is on the UK remaining party to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
We cannot rule out ever withdrawing from the ECHR, but our proposals for a Bill of Rights are focused on remaining within the convention, which contains a common-sense list of rights.
Neil Carmichael
Does the Minister agree that a constitutional court could have primacy over decisions in Strasbourg and that such a possibility should be at the heart of any further consultations?
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We respect the fact that the convention includes a common-sense list of rights, and we want to ensure that we have the proper interpretation of those rights. We also want to ensure that we have a Supreme Court that remains supreme. It should be said that where the goalposts of human rights shift, it should be elected Members here that have the last word.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It was reported last week that the long-awaited consultation on the Government’s plans to scrap the Human Rights Act would not be published until the new year. Will the Secretary of State confirm when he intends to bring forward a British Bill of Rights, and will he commit to ensuring a full consultation on these proposals and that adequate time will be given to consider and answer any responses to the consultation?
Mr Raab
We have made it clear that the proposals will be brought forward in the new year for full consultation. One area that we want to look at a bit further is the impact of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg as well as the Court of Justice in Strasbourg. I can reassure the hon. and learned Lady that we will take the Scottish view very seriously. I have already met the Scottish Justice Minister, Alex Neil, and a range of Scottish practitioners and non-governmental organisations. I look forward to continuing that consultation.
Joanna Cherry
In June the Secretary of State assured this House that, in his view, human rights were a reserved matter. Last week, however, he told the House of Lords Constitutional Affairs Committee that legislation regarding human rights is neither reserved nor devolved. Does he therefore now accept that any legislation repudiating the Human Rights Act and introducing a British Bill of Rights will require the consent of the Scottish Parliament? Is he aware that there is no question of such consent being given?
Mr Raab
As we have said many times before, revising the Human Rights Act can only be done by the UK Government, but implementation of many human rights issues is already devolved. I have to say that the SNP’s policy on this issue is rather “cake and eat it”. SNP Members suggest that Westminster is attacking Scottish human rights, but the SNP continues to agree that it does not want to give prisoners the vote. After the Scotland Bill becomes law, the Scottish Parliament will be able to decide who votes in Scottish elections, so the only way that the SNP will be able to maintain the bar on prisoner voting in Scottish elections is by relying on Westminster legislation. Can the hon. and learned Lady confirm that that is her intention?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. and learned Lady has no responsibility to confirm anything. The Minister is a dextrous fellow, engaging in a certain amount of rhetorical pyrotechnics, but I do not think we need a treatise on Scottish National party policy on these important matters on this occasion. He should keep it for the long winter evenings that lie ahead.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Government’s policy of bringing in a British Bill of Rights will, I am sure, be welcomed across the House. Will the Minister confirm that rather than rushing through the proposal, we should get it right and bring it forward when everyone has had their say and it can stand the test of time?
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We make no apology for thinking through tricky constitutional issues. If only the last Labour Government had done the same—but we were saddled with the Human Rights Act 1998. Tony Blair claimed that he had secured an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, only to find that it leaked like a sieve. It may take a little longer to clear up the constitutional mess, but that is what we intend to do.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do apologise. I think we nearly missed the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). We must hear from the hon. Gentleman first; let’s hear the feller.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
You are very kind, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. May I return to the issue of Scotland and human rights? Clarity on that issue is now extremely important. The Deputy Leader of the House said that human rights were
“reserved for the UK Parliament and not a devolved matter.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 132.]
Will the Minister say quite clearly that she was wrong?
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
16. What assessment he has made of the effect on court users of recent changes in civil court fees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government are monitoring data on case loads and fee income from the civil courts, but it is too early to draw any firm conclusions. We will continue to keep the impact of fee changes under review. We recognise that fee increases are not popular, but at every stage we have sought to protect the most vulnerable by ensuring that they will not have to pay new and higher fees. In the current financial climate, it is only right that we are considering every option to raise fees to meet the budgetary challenges that we face.
Daniel Zeichner
In March 2015, the court issue fee for a £200,000 claim was raised by more than 600%, from £1,500 to £10,000. Does the Minister appreciate the impact of that on small start-up companies, of which there are many in my constituency, and will he assure those companies that there will be no further rise after the current consultation?
Mr Vara
It is important for the hon. Gentleman to recognise that the court system needs to be properly funded. However, we have a very effective remission system, and those who cannot afford the fees do not have to pay them. He should also bear in mind that court fees amount to a tiny fraction of the total amount of legal fees that are incurred.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, let me say that I hope the whole House agrees that we are all in the debt of the dedicated prison officers and prison staff who will be working on Christmas day and over the Christmas season. In that spirit, let me also congratulate the newly elected leader of the Prison Officers Association, Mr Mike Rolfe. My Department looks forward to working with him to improve the situation of all prison officers. They do an invaluable job, and we should support them in every way we can.
Valerie Vaz
I associate myself with the Justice Secretary’s remarks. Secure colleges, criminal court charges, court fine enforcement and Saudi Arabian contracts— £40.7 million has been wasted so far. Will the Justice Secretary reveal to the House the full costs of those policy changes, and will he tell us which Minister is responsible for that waste of public money?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady started very well, in a bipartisan way. The point about each of the policies that she mentioned is that we made those decisions in both the national interest and the taxpayer’s interest.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
T3. Paul Gambaccini, Jim Davidson and Jimmy Tarbuck have all spoken about the appalling trauma and stress involved in the conducting of an investigation, following allegations, in the full glare of publicity, and then the closing of the case because no further action has been taken. That is quite apart from the appalling collusion of the BBC and the police over the investigation of Cliff Richard. Have the Government given any consideration to turning the clock back, so that such investigations can be conducted with no publicity until the person concerned has been charged?
Michael Gove
I absolutely take account of my hon. Friend’s point. The Government’s position is that, in general, there should be a right to anonymity before the point of charge, but the decision to release the name or details of a suspect in an investigation is an operational one for the police to make. Ministers should not interfere in the operational independence of the police, but I think that the case made by my hon. Friend and others is important. It is vital for us to recognise that the right to be regarded as innocent should be respected by everyone involved in the administration of justice.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Working Links, which runs three community rehabilitation companies in Wales and the west of England, is announcing redundancies of up to 44% of staff—some 600 jobs. If these redundancies go ahead, what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that standards of service and the safety of the public are maintained?
Michael Gove
The transforming rehabilitation reforms, which were introduced in the last Parliament by my predecessor, have enhanced the quality of probation support that offenders enjoy, and we needed to make sure the improvements that have been made are built on. Each of the individual community rehabilitation companies will make their own decisions about the mix and qualifications of staff required in order to enhance that service, but these transforming rehabilitation reforms are welcome and are in the interests of offenders and of community safety.
Andy Slaughter
The Lord Chancellor will have seen the reports today of the outrageous treatment of Andrew Waters, whose right to a private life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights was breached by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, which placed a “do not resuscitate” order on him, listing his Down’s syndrome and learning difficulties among the reasons. Given that these are exactly the rights the Government wish to opt out of, is it not time, in the week we celebrate international Human Rights Day, for the Lord Chancellor to do another of his famed U-turns and keep the Human Rights Act?
Michael Gove
The case the hon. Gentleman raises is indeed very serious, and I cannot imagine any human rights legislation, or indeed any legal architecture that any of the parties in this House would subscribe to, which would in any way countenance the sort of behaviour he has described.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
T5. A recent report revealed there had been nearly 400 illegal Traveller encampments across Warwickshire in the last three years, including four in Alveston and Bedworth in my constituency this summer alone, and these are costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds. The previous Justice Secretary pledged to address this issue, so will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss what progress has been made, and how the rights of local businesses and residents can always be put first?
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)
These illegal encampments cause real worry to communities, and I fully understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. I am more than happy to meet him, but I should also say the police and local authorities have substantial powers already. He might look at what happened in Harlow, where we had a very similar situation that has been completely resolved, because there was some backbone in the local government, which actually brought in orders, with the help of the police.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
T2. Many magistrates resigned over the fees that the Secretary of State has now reversed his decision on, partly because they felt people were pleading guilty when they were innocent, as the fees would be excessive. In taking his decision, what estimate did the Secretary of State make of how many innocent people pleaded guilty during that time?
Michael Gove
I take account of the hon. Gentleman’s point. In the circumstances, we have to let the judgment of those courts rest, but I invite every single magistrate who felt, for whatever reason, that they could not sit on the bench as a result of that policy to reconsider and revisit their decision.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
T7. Wimbledon is the home of one of London’s probation service resource centres, where there is a real focus on providing ex-offenders with the education and skills they need. Given the importance of education and skills to the rehabilitation of ex-offenders, does the Minister agree that it is essential that the next head of the probation service is someone who can really concentrate on that and on vocational training, as that is what the service needs?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)
I very much agree with my hon. Friend and welcome that point. He will be aware of the importance we are placing on improving education in prisons with the Dame Sally Coates review, but it must follow on through the gate, so that, for example, courses started in prison are completed in the community if they have not already been finished.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
T6. Further to my earlier intervention, may I simply remind the Minister of the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds that have been spent in recent years on the courts in Pontypridd and Bridgend? He urges me to consider the upgrading. They have been upgraded; do not close them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Access to justice comes in various forms. An African chief justice who visited me earlier this year told me that he wanted a justice system in which the people living in the villages outside the capital city could access their courts through their mobile phones. That is how the world is progressing, and we have to ensure that we keep pace with it. We will keep the majesty of the court building for those serious cases that require it, but we also need to recognise that modern technology requires different forms of communication, and that access to justice is not what it used to be in the past.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor’s speech to the Magistrates Association last week was very welcome on a number of counts, particularly his reference to the success of problem-solving courts in New York, such as that at Red Hook, which the Justice Committee has looked at in the past. Will he give us further details of his discussions with the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary on how we can take that process forward? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There was rather too little regard being paid to the fact that we were listening to a question from the Chair of the Justice Committee, a point of which I hope hon. Members will take proper note in future.
Michael Gove
There is broad bipartisan support for the idea of problem-solving courts. Lord Woolf, when he was Lord Chief Justice, and David Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary, both agreed that it was important to explore the potential of problem-solving courts, not just to keep our streets safe but to ensure that offenders changed their lives. I had the great privilege of meeting Judge Alex Calabrese last night. He has been very successful in this area, and I know that the Justice Committee has highlighted his work in America. We will make an announcement shortly on the joint work that the current Lord Chief Justice and I will take forward in this area.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
T8. The Government’s own figures reveal that the number of serious crimes committed by violent and sex offenders who are being monitored after leaving prison has risen by more than 28%, and that some 222 offenders under supervision in the community were charged with crimes including murder and manslaughter and with sexual offences in 2014-15. The National Association of Probation Officers has said that this is partly due to the privatisation of probation, which means that the exchange of information between agencies is not quick enough. What urgent steps is the Minister taking to address this issue?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to suggest that serious offences are a very serious matter from which we must learn every possible lesson to ensure that there is no repeat, but I do not agree that the transforming rehabilitation reforms are in any way responsible for a degradation of the probation service. I remind her that 45,000 criminals now receive probation supervision who did not get it before, because the last Government brought in probation for those who are sent to prison for less than a year.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that his Department is giving full consideration to the compelling, evidence-based and locally produced case for Lowestoft magistrates court to remain open.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
T9. Has the Minister read the recent “Locked out” report from Barnardo’s, which claims that changes to the incentives and earned privileges scheme mean that a child’s right to see their father is being withheld in order to enforce discipline? Does he think that this is good for the 200,000 children who have a parent in jail?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I have met representatives of Barnardo’s on a number of occasions, and I pay tribute to the work that they do in this area. The Secretary of State and I place the highest importance on maintaining the family links of prisoners, and we will continue to look at this policy and at all policies that affect strengthening prisoners’ family relationships.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
On 27 November, a transgender prisoner killed herself while serving in a male jail. What are the Government planning to do to address the concern about another tragic death in this vulnerable group of people?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)
We take every death in custody very seriously. The management and care of transgender people in prison is complex, and the Government take it very seriously. The National Offender Management Service is undertaking a review of the relevant Prison Service instruction to ensure that it provides an appropriate balance between the needs of the individual, and the responsibility to manage the risk and safeguard all prisoners. I can announce today that the review will be widened to consider what improvements we can make across prisons, probation and youth justice regarding the future shape of services for trans prisoners and offenders. The review will engage with relevant stakeholders, and Peter Dawson from the Prison Reform Trust and Dr Jay Stewart from Gendered Intelligence will act as independent advisers to the review, which we expect to conclude next year.
Mr Speaker
I say in a very kindly way to the Minister, whom I much esteem, that sometimes Ministers, who of course are ultimately responsible, must trim the officialese that is penned for them by others. The hon. Lady is her own best judge in these important matters, and I know she is perfectly capable of doing that herself.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
T10. The prison in Wrexham is extremely welcome, but has the Minister had a chance to look at the concerns raised by the First Minister about the healthcare costs for prisoners, many of whom are from England, falling entirely on the Assembly?
Andrew Selous
I had the pleasure of visiting Wrexham a couple of weeks ago, and I can tell the House that the prison is progressing well, and it has excellent work facilities. I am aware of the point the right hon. Gentleman raises, and we will continue negotiations with the Welsh Government on the issue. That is all I can say to him at this time.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Our courts system not only provides effective justice to us domestically, but is the forum of choice for much foreign litigation. When considering the civil courts charge, will the Secretary of State ensure that our courts remain not only effective places for the resolution of domestic litigation, but at the forefront of international dispute resolution?
Mr Vara
My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, but I think she also ought to bear in mind that the reason why people come to Britain for their litigation is not because of the fees, but because of the expertise we offer, the impartiality of our judges and the fact that UK law is used by a large part of the world as well.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
How is the transforming rehabilitation programme in Wales likely to achieve its targets if the only CRC—community rehabilitation company—is to base its operations in Middlesbrough and make 200 staff redundant?
Andrew Selous
These reforms give us the opportunity to bring down reoffending rates, which have been stubbornly high for a very long time. We are tracking the performance of the CRCs very closely and we will continue to do so, and in time I think we will see significant results from these reforms.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I recently wrote to the Lord Chancellor and received an uncharacteristically non-committal reply, unbelievable though that may seem. I therefore ask him again: does he believe the maximum tariff for child cruelty, which is set at 10 years, is too low, and will he use the upcoming criminal justice Bill to raise it to 14 years?
Michael Gove
Normally I like to give my hon. Friend satisfaction, but on this occasion I am afraid I will have to maintain the enigmatic prevarication that characterised my previous communication with him.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I hope the Secretary of State will be aware of the High Court ruling of 26 November on the legality of the benefit cap when applied to disabled people and their carers. What advice will the Justice Secretary give the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the light of that ruling?
Michael Gove
I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State later today.
New Member
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath required by law:
James McMahon, for Oldham West and Royton.
Bill Presented
Fracking (Measurement and Regulation of Impacts) (Air, Water and Greenhouse Gas Emissions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Geraint Davies, supported by Mike Weir, Jonathan Edwards, Kate Osamor, Tulip Siddiq, Neil Coyle, Caroline Lucas, Chris Evans, Dawn Butler, Mr Mark Williams, Dr Rupa Huq and John Mc Nally presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to measure and regulate the impact of unconventional gas extraction on air and water quality and on greenhouse gas emissions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2016; and to be printed (Bill 105).
Car parking charges at Congleton War Memorial hospital
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Congleton constituency signed by 621 individuals. This petition opposes the introduction of a car park charging system operated by a private company proposed by East Cheshire NHS Trust, and asks that this proposal be reversed. My constituents are aware that such a charging system used elsewhere, particularly nearby at Macclesfield district general hospital has resulted in severe distress to unwary patients and their visitors at highly vulnerable moments in their lives.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put pressure of East Cheshire Hospital Trust to remove car parking charges at Congleton War Memorial Hospital.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the introduction of car parking charges at Congleton War Memorial Hospital by East Cheshire Hospital Trust should be reversed; further that it is a misuse of the Trust’s power; further that the enforcement of the charges has been handed to a private company, who has the sole aim of profiting from people who need to use the hospital's facilities; further that charges have resulted in severe distress to unwary patients and their visitors; further that the shock of receiving penalty notices of £70 is potentially harmful to the health of the people receiving them and whose health is entrusted to East Cheshire Hospital Trust; further than Congleton War Memorial Hospital was built from the subscriptions of the people of Congleton, as a memorial to the people who had fought and died to preserve freedom, and was meant for the benefit of those people and others; and further that local petitions on this matter were signed by 583 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put pressure of East Cheshire Hospital Trust to remove car parking charges at Congleton War Memorial Hospital.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001596]
Reopening of Barlaston Railway Station (Stoke-on-Trent)
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I present this petition on behalf of the residents of the constituency of Stone in Staffordshire, and it relates to the reopening of Barlaston railway station, Stoke-on-Trent. It has been put together by many people, including Jon Heal, chairman of the North Staffs rail promotion group, and Rob McMillan of the same group.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Stone in Staffordshire,
Declares that the residents of Barlaston request the reopening of Barlaston railway station; further that the station was taken out of service and closed to trains as a consequence of the West Coast Main Line Upgrade in 2003; further that at present anyone wishing to travel by train from Barlaston must first take either one or two buses to Stoke-on-Trent or Stafford and/or undertake journeys on foot to rail replacement bus stops in Stone, which is a significant inconvenience and means access to the rail network is considerably difficult; further that the success of the reopening of Stone railway station in 2008 has demonstrated the potential for local stations to thrive; further that since Stone railway station reopened, Stone has seen a remarkable growth in its annual passenger footfall figures which have more than doubled from 48,000 in 2009-10 to 100,000 in 2013-14; and further that the London Euston–Crewe train already runs through Barlaston station without stopping.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to reopen Barlaston railway station.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001657]
Asylum (Unaccompanied Children Displaced by Conflict)
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the award of asylum seeker status in the United Kingdom to certain unaccompanied children from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Eritrea displaced by conflict and present within the European Union; and for connected purposes.
Just over three months ago, the tragic death of a little boy and his brother exposed the world to a refugee crisis that Governments, including our own, had been doing their best to avoid. That three-year-old boy was Alan Kurdi and his brother was Galip. Both were Syrian refugees travelling with their parents to seek safety and sanctuary in Europe.
The latest figures for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees show that more than 900,000 people have made similar journeys, over sea, to Europe this year and that 23% of them were children. That is more than 200,000 children who have fled their homes in search of a new life in this year alone.
Many of those children have travelled with their families, as Alan and Galip had before they drowned, but tens and thousands of children travel alone, without parents or relatives, and make their way to Europe in the toughest of circumstances. It is that particularly vulnerable group that my Bill addresses.
Over the past few years, Save the Children and other charities have been working across Europe, particularly in Italy and Greece, doing what they can to support unaccompanied children who have made lengthy journeys to seek safety in Europe. Children in this situation become separated from their relatives for a number of reasons. Some have lost family members in their countries of origin, or those closest to them have been victims of violence, leaving the children with little choice but to flee, and to flee alone. Others have lost their family members en route through illness or drowning.
In their desperation, these children put themselves in the hands of people smugglers and criminal gangs to facilitate their journeys. Save the Children in Greece and Italy has spoken to many children about the abuse, exploitation, and physical and sexual violence that they have experienced during their long travels to Europe. Those journeys can last months or even years. Once they arrive in Europe, they are still not safe. There are serious concerns, which have been echoed by Europol’s Chief of Staff Brian Donald, that vulnerable, underage refugees are being preyed on by organised criminal gangs intent on forcing them into prostitution and slave labour. Mr Donald also warned that there is a “tremendous amount of crossover” between those smuggling refugees across borders and the gangs trafficking people for exploitation in the sex trade or as forced labour.
When we start to look at the data from last year, the grim truth becomes apparent. According to the Italian Ministry of labour and welfare, of the 13,000 unaccompanied children who were registered there in 2014, almost 4,000 disappeared after arriving. That is 4,000 children who are without official protection of any kind. They have no access to education, welfare, healthcare or a safe home. We do not yet have comparable numbers for 2015, but given the rise in refugees this year, we can expect a much higher number of disappeared children.
This is not a far-off problem to be dealt with by distant Governments. It is here in Europe on our own shores. It is our responsibility to protect all refugees, and none more so than orphaned children with no other hope. It is shameful that this Government have so far ignored these children, and it is time that they did the right thing and helped them.
Three thousand children is just a small part of the overall number, certainly small enough for our local authorities to handle, given the appropriate resources and support, but it will make all the difference to the lives of every one of these desperate youngsters who deserve our help. It amounts to just five children per parliamentary constituency and is less than a third of the number of children taken in during the kindertransport, a programme very similar to this proposal. There is no doubt that it was right to take in those Jewish children in the 1930s, and with the same morals at the core of what it means to be British, there is no doubt that these children are also deserving of our help.
This is not the first time that I have called for this in Parliament, so I can perhaps predict what response this Bill might receive from the Government. They will tell us that they would not want to risk separating children from their families, and that there are some concerns that the proposed programme would do that. That argument is simply not true. Of course all efforts should be made to ensure that children remain with, or are reunited with, their families. However, for the children in this programme, reunification with parents or their primary caregivers is simply not possible. These are children who have been registered by the UN Refugee Agency in Europe as unaccompanied, have no family with them and no known family to be sent back to. From talking to civil society groups, I know that there are enough families willing to foster an unaccompanied child. For example, Home for Good has registered 10,000 prospective adoptive families. Although they will not be ready to step up immediately, if the Government support local authorities and agencies to provide the requisite training, the UK will be well equipped to support these children.
It could not be clearer that these children deserve our support and our help. And any suggestion that they do not is nothing to do with their own safety. It is solely to do with the inability of our Government to act on the values that they claim to uphold—values that include helping seekers of sanctuary and protecting the young.
It is time for the UK to stand up and be a leader. Instead of waiting for something high profile to happen before doing the minimum, as we saw after the tragic death of Alan Kurdi, the Government have the chance now to acknowledge a problem, acknowledge the desperate need of these children, and actually do something about it.
The UK could make a significant difference by working with UN agencies and civil society to put in place a relocation scheme for unaccompanied children in Europe. Under specific criteria and safeguards, relocation is one of the few viable long-term solutions for the protection of the most vulnerable unaccompanied children in Europe. If the UK were to initiate this programme, other EU countries would follow, and many thousands of children would reach the safety and security they so desperately deserve. Given the opportunity, British people have shown again and again throughout history our generosity of spirit, especially in response to refugees. There is no question but that this generosity of spirit still exists in our country today; it just needs our Government to do the right thing, and facilitate it for the 21st century.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tim Farron, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Mr Nick Clegg, Norman Lamb, Greg Mulholland, John Pugh, Mr Mark Williams, Yvette Cooper, Stephen Gethins, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Caroline Lucas and Liz Saville Roberts present the Bill.
Tim Farron accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March, and to be printed (Bill 104).
european union referendum bill (programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union Referendum Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 9 June 2015 (European Union Referendum Bill (Programme)) and 7 September 2015 (European Union Referendum Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Lords Amendments | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
No. 1 | One hour after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments |
Nos. 5, 6, 2 to 4 and 7 to 46 | Three hours after the commencement of those proceedings |
Subsequent stages
(4) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(5) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Question agreed to.
European Union Referendum Bill
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 253 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 1 engages financial privilege. Lords amendment 1 is the first amendment to be taken, and to move the Government motion to disagree I call the Minister, eager and expectant.
Clause 2
Entitlement to vote in the referendum
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Since this House gave the Bill its Third Reading in September it has been thoroughly and extensively scrutinised by the Lords, and I should begin by paying tribute to them for their diligent and considered approach. For the most part, their scrutiny has been fruitful, and the Bill returns to the Commons improved in a great many ways. However, on one issue the Lords made a decision that differs fundamentally from the view of the Government and, indeed, of this House. The Lords amendment would lower the voting age for the referendum to 16. This topic has been debated and divided on repeatedly since the general election in May. This House has twice rejected a lower voting age in the Bill, and did so for a third time yesterday, with a healthy majority in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. We have had this debate many times since May.
Other colleagues wish to speak, so I shall be brief. In short, the Government are not at all sure that it is right to lower the voting age, and even if it were, this is not the right way to do so. The voting age for UK parliamentary elections is set at 18, as it is in most other democracies in Europe and around the world. The age of majority is a complex issue.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Scottish Parliament has lowered the voting age, so how does the Minister justify that position to my constituents who turn 16 in the next month? They will be able to vote in Scottish Parliament elections in 2016 and council elections in 2017, but they will be denied a vote in the referendum.
John Penrose
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections is rightly devolved and is a matter for Holyrood. This decision is to be taken in the House across the UK as a whole: it is not a devolved matter but a reserved one. While it is entirely open to the Holyrood Parliament to make decisions on its franchise—and we all honour its ability to do so—it is an inevitable result of devolution that there are different views in different parts of the country, locally nationally, if I can use that phrase, on different franchises.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the answer that the Minister has just given, does he not accept that the participation of 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum in Scotland went well and that voters behaved responsibly? We ought to take advantage of the interest of 16 and 17-year-olds and their knowledge of these matters to support the coming EU referendum as well.
John Penrose
That is an entirely justifiable point, and it is noticeable that the Scottish referendum resulted in an upwelling of democratic engagement, not just by 16 and 17-year-olds but right across the age spectrum. I do not think that democratic engagement and involvement are the only tests that we should apply, but they are a factor that may weigh on other people’s minds—the right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I do not think that that is enough on its own to justify changing the franchise either in the Bill or in other measures.
Several hon. Members rose—
John Penrose
Let me make some progress and perhaps I can explain a little more.
As hon. Members will appreciate, a patchwork of restrictions applies to young people from the age of 16 all the way up to 21. There is no clear point at which a person becomes an adult, but it is at 18 that society usually draws the line. Even at 18 there are things young people cannot do. They must wait until 21 to adopt a child, supervise a learner driver, or drive a bus. In general, although I accept that this is not perfect, more things require parental consent for people under 18 than for people over 18. Joining the Army, getting married or having a drink in a pub at 16 need parental consent and approval. The vast majority of other decisions, where the consequences demand a careful, responsibly considered view, from serving on a jury to being tried as an adult, to holding a tenancy or mortgage, or buying a house all happen at 18. The Labour Government even raised the age for using a sunbed from 16 to 18. It surely cannot be right to argue that someone aged 16 cannot be trusted to decide on the risks of getting a tan, but can be trusted to choose who should govern the country.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
There is no defined age at which it would be reasonable for someone to be able to vote, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made the point that in Scotland people aged 16 were given a vote and they will have a vote in the future. Accepting that there is different decision making in the two places, how does the Minister explain to that young person that it is utterly legitimate for them to vote in Scottish Parliament and local government elections and in a referendum, but not in the EU referendum?
John Penrose
My answer to such a hypothetical voter in Scotland is the same as I gave earlier—a consequence of devolution is that the Holyrood Parliament is allowed and perfectly entitled to take its decisions on devolved matters. The Holyrood franchise is a devolved matter, but the EU referendum franchise and the general election franchise are a reserved matter for the entire country to decide and will cover the entire country as a result.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the European Union referendum is a once in a generation opportunity, and that for young people the outcome will have a direct impact on their rights as European Union citizens to live, work and study in other EU member states?
John Penrose
The hon. Gentleman is right; the referendum will affect all of us, but the argument that he is advancing applies equally to 15-year-olds and 14-year-olds, and to 55-year-olds and 64-year-olds. So he is right, but I am not sure there is a compelling argument for reducing the age just to 16.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is being generous in giving way. May I caution him, though, against invoking the somewhat patrician instincts of the Labour Government with regard to the use of sunbeds as a reason for denying 16-year-olds the vote now? He has given us the full list of links, but surely the one link that matters because it comes to the heart of what it is to be represented in this place is that at 16 people pay their taxes.
John Penrose
That idea has a long and distinguished history. People were throwing tea into the harbour in Boston, saying “No taxation without representation” a long time ago. However, the argument has grown weaker over time for a number of reasons. First, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who now pay income tax, though not zero, is a great deal lower than it used to be, partly at least because this Government and the previous one raised the threshold for income tax and also raised the school and training leaving age, so the number of people involved in paying income tax is significantly lower than it used to be. Secondly, there are now many more indirect taxes, so any six-year-old who buys whatever it may be will be paying VAT, among other things. Therefore the advent of indirect taxes rather weakens the logical foundations of that argument, one which I used to cleave to myself. I found myself in slightly uncomfortable positions as a result, because I realised that it was an eroded position.
Even if we were convinced that lowering the voting age was the right thing to do, this Bill would not be the place to do it, for two reasons. First, changing the voting age should not be applied to a single vote, even—or perhaps especially—if it is as important as this referendum. It is something that should be considered for all elections collectively and in the round, not piecemeal on an ad hoc case-by-case basis. Given the understandable sensitivity surrounding the EU referendum, making such a fundamental change to the franchise for this vote alone would inevitably and perhaps justifiably lead to accusations of trying to fix the franchise in favour of either the “remain” or the “leave” campaign. That is why we have chosen to stick with the tried and tested proven general election franchise. If it is good enough for choosing the Government of this country, surely it is good enough for the referendum too, and we should not jiggle around with it for a one-off tactical advantage either way.
Stephen Timms
On that specific point, as far as I know nobody has made any such complaint about the result of the Scottish referendum. I do not understand why the Minister feels that if it was done in this case, that criticism would be made.
John Penrose
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has in his own party people who are concerned and who will be on one side of the issue or the other during the referendum campaign. Equally, my party has people on both sides. There are huge sensitivities, even if they are not being voiced especially loudly at present, which need to be understood and honoured. We must make sure that this is seen as a studiously fair referendum which will therefore settle the issue for a very long time to come.
It is worth pointing out that young people themselves, the very people whose enfranchisement we are debating today, are not at all sure that that would be a good idea. The most recent polls show that although there is a reasonable majority of 16-year-olds in favour of this change, 17-year-olds do not support it overall, and just 36% of 18-year-olds are in favour. What that says about 18-year-olds’ opinion of their younger selves two years earlier I shall leave others to conclude. There is a solid majority against the change among all other adults over 18.
John Penrose
I will give way once more, then I will try to finish the point.
Peter Grant
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way even though he said he could not. Does he agree that in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum, young people below the age of 25 were resolutely opposed to extending the franchise to under-18s. After the referendum they and almost everyone else in Scotland, including the leader of his own party in Scotland, very nearly unanimously agreed that it was the right thing to do: the doubters have been persuaded.
John Penrose
I hope I can come on to that point in the next part of my remarks. The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a solid majority across the country against this change among all adults, as well as among 18-year-olds and, to a lesser extent, 17-year-olds. That shows that this is not some great progressive cause where an oppressed minority is waiting to be liberated by enlightened public support; quite the opposite. The risk is that for those watching our debate outside the Chamber, it will seem like a Westminster bubble issue, a trendy obsession for an out of touch political class, rather than a burning social crusade with widespread democratic support. Even worse, there may be a suspicion that some are supporting the proposition because they feel that they could gain some tawdry tactical party political advantage from it for one side or the other. None of these reasons would strengthen or help us as we decide on an issue as important for our country’s future as whether we stay in the EU or leave. We should have no part in such suspicions.
Finally, I want to touch on the financial implications. Mr Speaker has certified that this Bill engages the Commons financial privilege because extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the referendum would cost extra. Cost is far from the only reason the Government disagree with the amendment but, for procedural reasons, the House is not able both to waive privilege and to disagree with the amendment, so I want to be clear. The Government disagree on principled as well as financial grounds with the proposal to lower the voting age.
Mr Carmichael
This is probably the most novel aspect of our debate today. It is, of course, for the Speaker to certify whether financial privilege is invoked or not, but it is for the Government to decide whether they are to take advantage of that. The Government did not take advantage of that in relation to the 2014 Wales Bill for exactly the same issue. What is different now?
John Penrose
I think I have just addressed that point. We cannot waive privilege and disagree with the amendment for other reasons. We therefore need to engage financial privilege, but I am taking the opportunity of this speech and this debate to make sure that those other issues are given an airing as well. I hasten to add that there is nothing new in this. There is a long-established precedent in this House. I shall leave it to the procedural experts to lecture us all on the historical antecedents of financial privilege. We are not creating any sort of unusual precedent here.
I have not sought to repeat or rebut every argument. As I said, the subject has been debated many times in the Chamber already. I have, I hope, given everybody a taste of the issues and stated the Government’s position. The House has expressed its view on this matter many times, and I ask us all to repeat that once more.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I rise to oppose the Government’s proposal to reject Lords amendment 1 and to support the amendment passed by their lordships which extends the franchise for the European referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds. There is an ongoing, more general debate about franchise extension, but today I want to concentrate on the case for extending the franchise to younger voters for this particular referendum. Constitutional referendums are not like general elections, which come about every five years, or local elections, which come about every year. It is 40 years since this issue was voted on in this country. Major constitutional referendums are a once-in-a-generation choice, perhaps a once in a lifetime choice, about the country’s future direction. Our contention is very simple: it is that the young people of this country deserve a say in the decision that will chart our country’s future.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Why did the right hon. Gentleman’s party not choose to move this amendment before their lordships decided to impose it on us?
Mr McFadden
We moved it both in Committee and on Report, so I think that the hon. Lady’s memory fails her on this occasion.
On the first point about younger people having the vote, every British citizen, by virtue of the passport that they hold, has the right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, to live, work and study anywhere in the European Union. That right has opened up opportunities for millions, and it is used by the many British people who live and work elsewhere in the European Union. Those driving the argument that the UK should leave the EU have at the heart of their proposal the idea that the free movement of people should be stopped and withdrawn. Whatever they are for—it is often not easy to figure that out—they are certainly against that. However, if we do withdraw and go down that road, then reciprocal action will be taken against British citizens. Therefore, the rights, opportunities and futures of our young people are on the ballot paper.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In my constituency, people aged 15, 16 and 17 are telling me that they will vote in the next general election, that it is very important to them whether we are in or out of Europe, and that they want this vote because it determines their future. Next door in Gower, where the majority is only 27 votes, people are telling me that if their MP does not vote for them to have a vote, they will vote against him, so this will have a far-reaching impact on the general election as well.
Mr McFadden
I entirely agree that young people have an interest in this issue, for the reasons I have been setting out.
The argument is not only about the legal rights that we hold. This referendum, one way or another, will affect future trade patterns in our country. It will have an impact on investment, on funding for our universities, on our farmers, on regional spending, and on very many other areas of national life. It will say a huge amount about how we view ourselves and how the rest of the world views us. This is very much about the United Kingdom’s future, and we believe that young people, including young people aged 16 and 17 at the time of voting, should have a say in that future.
Then there is the question of practicalities. We already know from the experience of last year’s referendum on Scottish independence that 16 and 17-year-olds can successfully take part in a national poll. Young people there were able to engage in discussion and debate and to exercise their democratic choice in the same way as anyone else. Arguments about their lack of capacity to understand or engage were proven not to be the case. The post-referendum report by the Electoral Commission said:
“109,593 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland were registered to vote at the referendum and 75% of those surveyed after the poll said they had voted.”
Importantly, it continued:
“97% of those 16-17 year olds who reported having voted said that they would vote again in future elections and referendums.”
So we know that young people can take part and that, given the chance, many of them will do so; the issue is whether the Government will give them that chance.
This should not be a partisan choice. There is nothing intrinsically Conservative, Labour or nationalist about extending the franchise. The leader of the Scottish Conservatives has described herself as a
“fully paid-up member of the ‘votes at 16’ club”.
Some Conservative Members, as far as I recall, supported this proposal when we debated it in Committee and on Report, yet Ministers are still standing in the way.
The Government have said that extending the franchise in this way will cost £6 million, which has been enough to define the proposal as engaging the financial privileges of this House. But of course Ministers could ask this House to waive our privileges and accept the amendment. That is what has happened many times in the past when the Government have supported amendments. It could also happen now, and it is a course of action that we would support. In the end, this is not about the proposal being unaffordable; it is about the Government not wanting to do it. According to the autumn statement, total public spending in the next financial year is estimated to be £773 billion—£773,000 million, and the Government want to deny young people a vote for the sake of six of them. They would not even have to spend that amount every year; after all, this is a once-in-a-generation choice.
Let us be clear what this is about. Let us not make a constitutional crisis over a small amount of money or use an argument about what is, in the end, a straightforward policy choice in the Government’s wider campaign to neuter the House of Lords. The issue is this: do we believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should have the vote in this referendum because they have a right to have a say in the future direction of our country? We do, and that is why we support the amendment that was added by their lordships and will vote for it when the House divides.
Mrs Main
I rise to support the Government in this matter. I do not think it is reasonable that their lordships should decide to open the chequebook of this House for whatever amount. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) seemed to think that this is a fiddling amount of money of no consequence. I think he is missing the point somewhat. It is important that the will of this House is seen to be done, and the will of this House, as we have debated many times, is not to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.
I listen with interest to the regular contributions of Scottish Members who say, “We gave young people the vote in the referendum on whether Scotland should be independent, but this House is not giving them the vote in the wider referendum on the EU. If it’s good enough for Scotland, how do we explain to them that they cannot have it in this situation?” I remind Scottish Members that they cannot have it both ways. What they choose to do in Scotland is up to them, but they cannot then use it as a wonderful precedent to insist that we operate in the same way. Something that has just been done in Scotland with which I fundamentally disagree is the provision in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 whereby every young person under the age of 18 must have a “state guardian” appointed who will be expected to assess a child’s wellbeing under eight key indicators, including their being safe, healthy, included and respected.
Mrs Main
I will finish this point and then give way. On the other hand, I sometimes think that they take up a huge proportion of time in debates that concern the whole House, so I will not keep giving way every time I say the word “Scotland” to somebody who jumps up and down about the matter, if they will forgive me.
Ian Murray
I want to make two points. First, it is a point of principle that 16 and 17-year-olds should get the vote. Secondly, when the hon. Lady refers to Scottish Members, I think she means SNP Members.
Mrs Main
I am more than happy to say that I meant SNP Members. It seems that whenever the word “Scotland” is mentioned in this place, an SNP Member feels that he or she must stand up and speak on behalf of the whole of Scotland. The Holyrood Parliament has introduced things in Scotland that I would not support in this House. I do not want to jump up and down and argue that everything should be transported across the border. The SNP’s argument that this House should automatically follow its lead in the Scottish referendum is bogus.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
Surely the distinction is that it was this House that gave the Scottish Parliament the power to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish independence referendum. We gave it that power knowing exactly how it was going to be used. We may not have made the change ourselves, but, as the hon. Lady’s noble Friend Lord Dobbs puts it, we acquiesced in it. What is the difference now?
Mrs Main
The majority of Members in this House do not support extending the franchise, as has been shown in numerous votes. As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, if every 16, 17 and 18-year-old is allowed to do one thing, there is no obvious logical extension that allows them to do something else. We accept that some bizarre rules apply. On voting, however, many of us believe that it is a step too far to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds while at the same time exempting them from other things. I have not heard an SNP Member arguing for 16-year-olds to be Members of Parliament. For me, that is the logical extension of extending the voting franchise to them. I do not believe that a 16-year-old would have the experience, life skills or maturity to represent a constituency.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
On the matter of logic, does my hon. Friend agree that many of the Opposition Members who are arguing for this change are the same people who only a few years ago increased the smoking age from 16 to 18? If they think that 16-year-olds are not capable of making a decision as simple as whether or not to smoke, how on earth can they think that they are capable or mature enough to make a decision on the EU referendum or on how to vote in a general election?
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend makes a key point. Indeed, I wrote that exact thing in the notes I made before the debate.
Many of us accept that there are anomalies. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East said that this is a once-in-a-generation vote. I have never voted on it, so I accept that: as someone in her late 50s, my time has come and I am looking forward to voting in the EU referendum. However, if the logic of the argument is to be based on this being a once-in-a-generation vote, what about 15 and 14-year-olds? Where do we stop? This House has accepted that there must be an age limit for voting in UK parliamentary elections. That age is 18, and therefore those young people below that age will live with the consequences.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady accept that the proposal would be a huge change and that it therefore should not be made for just one type of vote, namely the referendum? If we are going to do it, we should consider it properly and address all the anomalies. It is ridiculous that 16-year-olds would be able to vote but not buy a cigarette. We should look at the issue as a whole and get it introduced for a general election, if that is what Parliament wants.
Mrs Main
The hon. Lady, who is well versed in these matters, is absolutely right. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister alluded to that point.
The SNP may well feel that it had it just right in Scotland, but it was its privilege to do that. I fundamentally disagree with the SNP argument that we should explain to the young people of Scotland why they cannot do it again. Frankly, that is ridiculous and bogus. This House has voted on numerous occasions that this Parliament does not wish to extend the franchise. The back-door method of using their lordships’ overwhelming majority to outvote this place is a very dangerous precedent to follow. To simply tack on such a fundamental change—as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has so wisely referred to it—is not the way to do it.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to talk as a Scottish MP about giving Scottish teenagers the vote in the European referendum.
It is something of an irony that it is the unelected upper Chamber that sent the issue back to this House. If Government Members are unhappy about that, we have a very simple solution: they should scrap the upper Chamber. In this instance, however, I am glad that the other place has given us the opportunity to debate this. When we previously debated the issue back in June, a number of Members, particularly Conservative Members, said that at some point the time would come but that now was not the time. I hope they took the opportunity to reconsider their position over the summer.
This is a question of democracy. The Minister said that this is a Westminster bubble issue, but I do not understand how giving more people the vote and the opportunity to participate in the democratic process is a Westminster bubble issue—in fact, it is quite the opposite. Those who will be 16 on the day of the European referendum will, I am afraid, have to live with the decision for longer than most of us in this Chamber. As we have noted, 16 and 17-year-olds can pay tax and get married, although I concede to the Minister that they cannot drive a bus.
On a more sober point, a 2010 Demos report showed that some of the first troops to lose their lives in the conflict in Iraq were too young to have cast their vote. This House recently voted on a similar issue, so it is worth reflecting on that.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman assist me by explaining why 15 is not the right age?
Stephen Gethins
We think that 16 is the right age, and that is why we have drawn from the experience of the Scottish independence referendum. It is a good age for participation and people pay tax at that age, although the Minister talked about six-year-olds paying tax. We think 16 is a good age to start voting.
The question of participation should always be high on the agenda of this House. We should always look at different ways to encourage more people to be involved in the democratic process. Evidence suggests that the earlier we involve young people, the more likely they are to stay involved. As the Electoral Reform Society has found, if people vote early, they vote often. Conservative Members might not like that very much, but we think it is positive.
Stephen Gethins
Not at the moment. The United Kingdom has a tale of two legislatures. On 18 June—the very day that this House struck down amendments to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote—the Scottish Parliament, which is clearly the wiser institution, passed the Scottish Elections (Reduction in Voting Age) Bill to extend the franchise to Holyrood elections. And you know what? It was passed unanimously. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) pointed out, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives has said that she is a
“fully paid-up member of the ‘votes at 16’ club now”.
I welcome that, along with the fact that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are now for votes at 16. In a rare show of unity—I hope I am not jinxing this—the most recent former leader of the UK Labour party, its Scottish leader and its current leader all appear to back votes at 16. I hope that I have not spoken too soon.
Patrick Grady
Given the comments made about the views of 16 and 17-year-olds on this issue, is my hon. Friend aware that both the Scottish and the UK Youth Parliaments have endorsed votes at 16?
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Electoral Reform Society has said that the
“UK Government should follow Holyrood’s example”
for the EU referendum and all other elections. SNP Members have a little bit of experience of referendums, and we should follow the gold standard set by the Scottish independence referendum. It is a shame that the issue of EU nationals has not come back to the House, but we are able to debate the vote for 16 and 17-year-olds. It is a shame that people from other European countries —EU nationals make such a huge contribution—will not be able to vote.
It is easy to see why politicians from across the spectrum—Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats—have been won over by votes for 16-year-olds. In the independence referendum, turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds was 75%, and 97% of them said that they would contribute by voting again. They accessed more information and were much better at accessing information than any other age group, which makes all of us much more accountable.
Mr Jackson
One wonders what we ever did before the SNP arrived with its 56 seats in this Parliament, but obviously we struggled on manfully. The hon. Gentleman will know that the franchise was extended to 18-year-olds in 1969. Since then, very rarely has turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds gone above 50%, although for the over-70s the percentage figure is in the high 70s. With more information available—we have never had so much information about policy and politics—why does he think that young people across the UK are so disengaged?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman is not of course the only person who is delighted to see so many new SNP Members bringing their wisdom to this Chamber. We refer to the independence referendum because we have the facts and the evidence to show that if we include 16 and 17-year-olds in the process, they get involved. To make the argument that Westminster elections did not inspire people to get involved in elections in the past is more of a reflection on Westminster politicians than on the public at large. We have the evidence that 16-year-olds got involved. It was good that they campaigned—good for those who got involved on the no side as well as for those who did so on the yes side. It was a positive thing all round, and I pay tribute to those people.
Just as with the rest of the population, if we give young people a genuine opportunity to get involved in a meaningful democratic process, they will do so, and the European Union referendum provides us with such an opportunity. To give the Minister and the Prime Minister more of an incentive, I suspect that 16-year-olds will be better informed and give their Government a fairer hearing on the deal they are negotiating with Brussels than will their own Back Benchers.
This House has been left behind on votes for 16-year-olds. It is happening in Scotland, the Isle of Man and elsewhere. Let us not be left behind again. Let us back votes for 16-year-olds.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I rise to support the Government on Lords amendment 1. A number of arguments have been deployed for extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in the European referendum. I have listened to them in this and other debates, and they can be distilled into two broad camps. The first argument—we have just heard an example of it from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins)—is that what has been done in Scotland should be done across the rest of the UK. The other argument is that this is about their future and, because this is a one-off referendum, they should be allowed to have a say in their future. I will address each point in turn.
I lived for a year on Deeside—in the Dee valley between Ballater and Aboyne—which is a truly beautiful and wonderful part of the world. From living there, I discovered that lots of things in Scotland are done differently from how we do them in England and Wales, but vive la difference: we do not necessarily want to create complete homogeneity across the whole of the UK. I suspect that one reason why SNP Members are so passionate about independence is that they want to do things differently from how they are done in England and Wales, so I find it slightly strange that, in their collective desire to be independent and different, they are suggesting we should all be the same.
Geraint Davies
The SNP spokesman’s point was that if we give 16-year-olds the right to vote, they become more valued and engaged, and there is increased representation. They become part of the fabric of democratic society and adopt responsibilities, which enriches our whole community. We should go ahead with it.
James Cleverly
Part of my speech will address the very point that the hon. Gentleman makes. If he will indulge me, I will not concertina in that part of my speech in response to his intervention. However, I will come back to it, and if he is not satisfied by the rest of my speech, I invite him to intervene again later.
I want to return to what happens in Scotland. There is one long-standing difference between what 16-year-olds can do in Scotland and what they can do in the rest of the United Kingdom. Gretna Green is famous because it is the first place where runaway lovers can take advantage of the different attitude towards the age of marriage. To say that because something happens in Scotland it must therefore happen in the rest of the United Kingdom is a hollow argument.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
James Cleverly
I will give way in a moment.
I advise SNP Members to be a little careful about what they wish for. If their position is that any devolved power they exercise must then, by extension, be absorbed by the rest of the UK, that will create a lot of friction and disharmony as people in rest of the United Kingdom—
James Cleverly
At least let me get to the end of my point.
Those people will feel aggrieved at the automatic assumption that devolved decisions made in Scotland are therefore going to wash across to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Carol Monaghan
The hon. Gentleman is somewhat missing the point. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) talked about the engagement of 16 and 17-year-olds. We have found in Scotland—the evidence backs this up—that by giving the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, they remain engaged in the political process beyond the age of 16 or 17. Although the rest of the UK may have had low numbers voting in Westminster elections, we have had much higher numbers—above 70%—in Scotland.
James Cleverly
I assume that the hon. Lady misunderstood the type of engagement I was talking about when I referred to Gretna Green. I will come on to her point later.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made a very important point about the natural implication of extending the voting rights in the European referendum to other elections. In a previous life, I was the youth ambassador for the Mayor of London. I spent a huge amount of time dealing with young people across London, so I know that there are many very well-informed, engaged, articulate, thoughtful people aged 16 and 17. There are also some very well-informed, articulate, engaged 15-year-olds. Frankly, there are some 40-year-olds I would not trust to tie their own shoelaces.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to know that I certainly do not support votes at 16. Over some years as the Chair of the Children, Schools and Families Committee, what worried me was the increasing pressure on childhood in our country. It worries me that people will be adults at 16. The implications of that have never been seriously looked at by my party. There has never been any investigation of the impact of bringing down the voting age to 16 on children and childhood. The Opposition, including the SNP, have never done a proper evaluation of the impact on children and on the protection of children, which should be our top priority.
James Cleverly
That leads me neatly on to my closing remarks.
There is a natural extension of this proposal. People say that this is a one-off and that there will be no extension, but we have just heard a number of speeches and interventions from SNP Members saying that they gave votes to 16-year-olds in the Scottish referendum and that they then gave votes to 16-year-olds at Holyrood elections. They suggest that this is the most natural evolution of the democratic process. They are making exactly the point that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) warns against. This proposal will unlock the floodgates for the change of the mandate to 16 at many other elections.
By mandating that 16 and 17-year-olds are to remain in education, society has made an explicit comment that we do not feel that they are fully formed. If we did, we would not suggest that they had to stay in education, we would not suggest that they could not book their own sunbed and we would not suggest that they should not even be allowed to buy their own sparklers on Guy Fawkes night.
It is a ridiculous notion that in a one-hour debate, tagged on to the European Union Referendum Bill, we should make a decision as fundamental as changing the electoral mandate. I strongly urge all Members of the House across the parties to support the Government’s position and reject the Lords amendment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. As Members can see, quite a few people still want to speak. The debate must finish at quarter to 2. If Members keep their contributions as short as possible, hopefully we will get everybody in.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
“Our young people are no longer children, and they resent being treated as such. Our view is that, if we entrust them with responsibility, they will act responsibly.”—[Official Report, 23 January 1969; Vol. 298, c. 1034.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the late Lord Stonham during the debate that led to the voting age being reduced from 21 to 18. That was in 1969. The world has changed since then and so must we.
This debate is about enfranchising young people in one of the biggest decisions that will affect their lives. I want us to go further. One of my first acts as an MP was to introduce a private Member’s Bill on this issue. The Representation of the People (Young Persons’ Enfranchisement and Education) Bill would give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, while increasing political education. It is now unlikely to be debated and voted on. I sincerely hope that the Government will see sense today and support the Lords amendment. I have spoken with many Government Members who agree with me on this issue.
Mr Jackson
I will speak briefly to support the Government in rejecting the Lords amendment. It is not unusual to be patronised by the Scottish National party, but I notice that the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is not in his place. I heard a rumour that he was unveiling a statue of himself made from chocolate so that he can first admire it and then eat it.
I am not opposing the amendment because I am against the substance of the debate. In fact, I am a floating voter on this issue, and over the past year or so I have begun to consider the experience of younger people. However, we need a proper debate and legislative framework, rather than have this tacked on to a Bill about an EU referendum.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I support lowering the voting age in principle, but when we want to make major constitutional changes we do not just have a vote in the Commons, we consult the public. The same should apply to this issue. We should have a national consultation, with all the other stuff that goes with that.
Mr Jackson
I agree with my hon. Friend. At the moment we have a gold standard template for the franchise that we measure at the general election. Over the years we have made changes to that franchise, most recently in 1969 and before that in 1924 and 1928, when we rightly enfranchised women as a result of the campaign by the suffragettes, which we celebrated only a few years ago. We accept all that, but let us have a wide-ranging public debate, not just through the prism of the Scottish referendum but across the whole country, because people have differing views.
Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) put her finger on the nub of the issue: this measure must not be tacked on; it must be seen within the context of all the other age restrictions, and of whether young people are well-formed and ready to take big civic decisions when voting. I say to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) that I find it inconceivable that turnout would rise from about 45% to 75% just because 16 and 17-year-olds were included. Those figures do not stack up.
Mr Jackson
I cannot take any interventions from my Caledonian friends.
In conclusion, it is a constitutional outrage that the superannuated, unelected, unaccountable panjandrums in the House of Lords have told us what the elected House should be doing even though we have a settled view on this. They should learn their place. They must be subservient to the elected House, and it is high time that we had House of Lords reform.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
After my experience in the previous Parliament, the irony of hearing Conservative Members arguing for reform of the House of Lords is never lost on me.
In the brief time available, the point I am making is that there is a fundamental inconsistency in the Government’s position. In the previous Parliament the Prime Minister gave power to the Scottish Parliament to extend the franchise for the Scottish independence referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds. We knew what they were going to do with it and, as Lord Dobbs put it in the other place, the Prime Minister acquiesced in it, and he did so for a number of reasons. He did it because it was the most important vote that we would ever face, because it was to be a once-in-a-generation decision, and because referendums are different. That is exactly the situation that confronts the House today.
On financial privilege, it appears that having lost the argument, the Government now want to play their trump card or pull out a joker to thwart a very laudable aim. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said that we were opposing the use of financial privilege because we do not care about where the money comes from. We do care about where that money comes from because it is paid by—among others—16 and 17-year-old taxpayers. They pay it, so they are entitled to a say.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
In the 20 seconds that remain to me—[Interruption.] It is now 19 and counting, so I will not take any interventions. I wish to argue that this measure makes sense. We need to trust our young people and empower them. Let us give them this vote and this chance.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 6, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 2 to 4 and 7 to 12.
Lords amendment 13, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 14 to 46.
Sir William Cash
I tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 because amendments were moved in the House of Lords, not the House of Commons, and accepted by the Government in respect of, in Lords amendment 5, a duty to publish information on the outcome of negotiations between member states and, in Lords amendment 6, a duty to publish information about membership of the European Union. That might sound all very well and good, but the problem is that they contain a whole raft of question marks that I want to raise today.
I will just give a brief outline of Lords amendment 5. On the outcome of negotiations, the Secretary of State will be under an obligation to publish a report,
“alone or with other material”—
we do not know what “other material” would involve—containing:
“a statement setting out what has been agreed by member States following negotiations”.
We have just seen the letter from Mr Tusk on the current state of the EU’s assessment of the negotiations and I do not think it makes for very pretty reading for the Government. In fact, I would go further than that. I find this quite astonishing, but the apparent point of the letter was to satisfy, and provide a solution for, the Prime Minister. I thought the real objective here was to satisfy the United Kingdom, in particular its voters. That, after all, is what the referendum is all about. It is not about what the Government think. Parliament is handing over the entire exercise to the voter, which is only proper and for which I have campaigned for 25 years.
Sir William Cash
I am confident that the European Scrutiny Committee will be looking at this carefully. During our examination of the renegotiations, we have been exercised by the desire to ensure that the Government do not just come forward with a final offer. The Minister knows what I mean. We do not want to be bounced by a final offer; we want to assess the negotiations as they progress. That is what we are doing, and what we will continue to do, because that is what our Standing Orders require us to do on behalf of the House of Commons. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention because it is important that the House not be bounced.
I spoke to, and received a note from, the Electoral Commission today. It regards the provision of the impartiality we would expect as beyond its own functions, which is extremely regrettable because it should have an opportunity to comment. My Committee will consider this matter carefully—the Minister knows what that means—and it is my clear assessment that any such report, if he could not guarantee it met the highest standards of impartiality and accuracy, would effectively mislead the British people. That is the test. If he tells me something along those lines, I will be prepared—
Sir William Cash
I am happy to give way to my right hon. Friend, as soon as I have finished my point.
It is important, if the voter is to make a balanced choice, that due accuracy and impartiality be implicit in any such report.
Damian Green
I am slightly puzzled. My hon. Friend is rightly demanding accuracy in the Government’s analysis, but he is also demanding impartiality. Does he mean, and is it the purport of his amendments, that the Government should not express an opinion on the most important issue facing the country for perhaps the next 40 years? I assume not, as that would clearly be absurd. Is he saying, therefore, that if the Government produce an accurate report and then reach a conclusion with which he disagrees, it could not, in itself, be impartial? There is a difference between accuracy and impartiality.
Sir William Cash
I will leave aside my own opinions on this point. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have strong views, which I will develop during the campaign, about why we should leave, but we already know from speeches made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that there is a presupposition that a reformed Union is the way to go. The test to be applied is whether the reforms amount to much, which I do not think they will, and meet the test of changing our relationship with the EU, which is also relevant. On these questions there will be much debate, but anybody with a fraction of judgment, in respect of this huge landscape and the trust to be placed in the voter to make the right decision, will have to consider whether there is any significant bias in the reports. We have already been through the whole of the purdah debate, which was about using the civil service machinery. If I may say so, I think we won that one. There should not be a back door to achieving the same objectives relating to a report of this kind.
On that note, I give notice that I propose to withdraw my amendment. I want to know from the Minister whether or not he is prepared to accept my point about impartiality and accuracy. He knows perfectly well what I mean, and he is more than capable of giving us a decent answer.
Mr McFadden
I shall speak briefly, particularly now that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has indicated that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lords amendments 5 and 6 quite closely reflect amendments that Opposition Members tabled in Committee and on Report. Amendment 5 calls for information and a report on the Government’s renegotiation process, while amendment 6 calls for a report on the rights and obligations entailed in membership of the European Union and invites the Government to outline the rights and obligations of certain countries that have relationships with the EU, perhaps through the EEA agreement, but are not members of it.
I refer Members to the recent Policy Network pamphlet on these issues, entitled “What does ‘out’ look like?”, which I think would make a great Christmas present for the Minister and for anyone considering these issues. I have some copies available if the Minister would like to see them. This is not the same as the purdah issue. We are talking about something that is 10 weeks out and we are not in the absolute heat of the campaign. We are not talking about a leaflet that is to be distributed to every household in the country or anything like that. What we are calling for is for the Government to publish information on both aspects—the renegotiation and what “out” might look like. That should give the public the best information possible on a very important decision.
The Government and the Prime Minister have placed great emphasis on the renegotiation itself, and we have seen the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the European Council, who published his initial reply yesterday. We know there will be some discussion of these issues at the European Council next week, but probably not a conclusion until the European Council in February next year.
It remains to be seen what the outcome of these renegotiations is going to be. We had some indication in the letter from the President of the European Council yesterday. Many Opposition Members do not place the same weight on this renegotiation as the Prime Minister does, because we think there is a broader case for membership beyond the four points that the Prime Minister outlined in his letter of last month to the President of the European Council. It is obviously also the case that many Government Back Benchers place no weight at all on the renegotiation, because there is nothing in it that could get them to change their minds about the outcome of the referendum. I believe it was the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) who asked during questions on a statement after he had seen the contents of the Prime Minister’s letter, “Is that it?”
Mrs Main
I understand that last point, but it is all part of the debate. What is being asked and the response to what is being asked are all part of the calculations being made by many people who may be considering what “in” looks like, as well as what “out” looks like. If the negotiations are not treated with the respect and gravity they deserve, even though they may be quite modest, that sends a big message to those of us who have concerns about our ongoing membership.
Mr McFadden
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but different people will look at the renegotiation in different ways. The point I am making is that there is a broader case about membership of the EU that goes well beyond the four items listed in the Prime Minister’s letter and the four cases in President Tusk’s reply. If, for the hon. Lady and for some voters, it is all about those four points, that is a fair judgment for them to make, but what I am saying is that for most Opposition Members there is a broader case for membership outwith the renegotiations. I would venture to suggest that when it comes to the referendum and voters actually casting their vote on whether we should remain the EU or leave it, it will not in the end be the finer points of the renegotiation that are in their minds. It will be the broader case either for in or out. That is what people will vote on.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
It seems to me that the Opposition are yet again falling into the trap of thinking that it is possible to trade with the EU only if we have a special arrangement with it, like Norway or Switzerland. Yet all the world’s countries trade with the EU, and the very badly drafted Lords amendment invites comment on all those different arrangements, many of which have no special deal at all.
Mr McFadden
I am not saying that the Norway example is the only one out there. There are others, but Norway is a real live example, which I think is relevant to our debate. Moreover, some in the campaign to leave the EU have drawn attention to it as a model, while others have drawn attention to Switzerland as a model. It would be good to understand from the Leave campaign exactly what model they seek to support. It is right that in advance of the referendum, the Government should publish as much information as possible so that the voters are clear about what is involved.
The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stone calls on the Electoral Commission to be the marker, as it were, of the Government’s homework, but the Electoral Commission has said clearly that it does not want to do that. It accepts that there is an appetite for more detailed information, but it states that
“we would not have the capabilities to do so…nor the required expertise to judge a report to Parliament”.
That is very clear.
Damian Green
I want to give the right hon. Gentleman another chance to plug his pamphlet. In it, he sets out the various options that would be available to this country. In the context of the Government providing information, this is quite a difficult ask. It is inevitably hypothetical; nobody can know what the divorce settlement would be. The Government would certainly not know. What the amendments are effectively asking the Government to do is to stick a finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing. It is quite difficult to call that “information”.
Mr McFadden
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views on this matter, but I am afraid I disagree with him. The amendments are not asking the Government to stick a finger in the air and speculate on what the UK’s arrangements would be after withdrawal. Amendment 6(b) shows that this is about
“examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union but do have other arrangements with the European Union”.
That is not speculation; those examples already exist. We can study the obligations on countries subject to these arrangements. They have been there for some time, and those countries have negotiated specific details with the European Union. That is not a matter for speculation; it is out there for us all to see.
I am pleased that the Government have, in effect, accepted requests that we made in Committee and on Report in the House of Commons. It is important for voters to be clear about the renegotiation, clear about the results of that renegotiation, clear about what being in the European Union is like and what it requires, and as clear as possible about what being out might look like. A referendum is a choice between two futures, not an opinion poll on only one future, and that is why the amendments are important. It is right for us to have access to reports of this kind, and it is right for the maximum amount of information to be made available to the public on what will be a crucial choice for the country.
John Redwood
I put my name to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) because I thought that Lords amendments 5 and 6 were ill considered and unwise, and that we needed to debate them for that reason.
Lords amendment 5 is easy to deal with and I have no particular problem with it, because it states the obvious—namely that, when the negotiations have been completed, the British Government should share their view of the outcome of those negotiations with Parliament and the people. Well, of course they will: it will happen naturally. There will be a statement, and I dare say there will be a written text as well. I therefore think that the amendment is an unnecessary addition to what was a simpler Bill before their lordships got hold of it.
Lords amendment 6 is far more worrying, because it is so sloppily drafted and because it leads to all sorts of arguments that are properly arguments for a referendum campaign rather than for good legislation to set up the referendum. The first part of the amendment says that the Government must publish information about the
“rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law”
from our current membership. As has already been remarked, if that were done properly it would result in a very long book, given that we are now subject to so many legal restrictions and obligations as a result of an extremely voluminous consolidated treaty and thousands of directives. I think that to fulfil that remit properly, the Government would have to set out all the directives, and explain to the British people why there are now very large areas of law and public practice that we in the House of Commons are not free to determine as we see fit and as the people wish. While that might be a useful thing to do, I fear that the Government might fall short because they might not wish to give a comprehensive list of our obligations, and it is not good law to invite people to do things that they do not really intend to do.
I look forward to hearing the Minister clarify whether he will be publishing a full list of the thousands of legal restraints that now operate on this Parliament in preventing us from carrying out the wish of the British people, and also on the British people, who must obey these laws as they are translated into British law, or else obey the directly acting laws. Of course, all these laws, and our own laws, can be construed by European justice through the European Court of Justice, which, rather than this court of Parliament, is now the true sovereign in our country because we have submitted ourselves to the ultimate judgment of the European Court.
Sir William Cash
Does my right hon. Friend attach the importance that I attach—and the Electoral Commission itself has attached—to the fact that the reports proposed by Lords amendments 5 and 6 should be produced on the basis of both impartiality and accuracy? We remember the review of competences: it was a whitewash. If these reports were anything like that, we would be significantly misleading the public, would we not?
John Redwood
Indeed. That is why I share my hon. Friend’s concern about Lords amendment 6, and fear that the Government might fall short of the full remit. Will they spell it out to people that we cannot control our own borders, our own welfare system, our own energy system and energy pricing, our own market regulations, our own corporation tax or our own value added tax, because all those matters have been transferred to the superior power of the European Union? That should be the very substance of the referendum debate about whether we wish to restore the full sovereignty of Parliament for the British people, or whether we wish to continue on the wild ride to political union that the EU has in mind, which will mean that even more powers are taken away.
The second part of Lords amendment 6 states that the Government must set out
“examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union but do have other arrangements with the European Union (describing, in the case of each country given as an example, those arrangements).”
I have not read or heard anything so woolly for a long time. The amendment refers to all the countries that are not in the European Union but have some kind of arrangement with the European Union without even specifying a trade arrangement, although the Opposition seem to think that it relates to trade.
The Opposition try to perpetuate the myth that our businesses and people would be able to trade with the rest of the European Union only if we resubmitted ourselves to some of the powers of that Union through some kind of arrangement like those entered into by Norway and Switzerland. Have they not heard that America is a mighty trading partner of the European Union that does not have one of these special trading arrangements, and certainly does not pay a contribution to the European Union in order to sell goods and services to it—nor does China, nor does India, nor does Canada, and nor does Australia—and have they not heard that some individual countries have free trade agreements with the European Union which are arguably better than the arrangement that we have as members of the EU, because they do not have to pay anything like the very large levies and contributions that we must pay for the privilege of trading from within the internal market?
John Redwood
That is another reason why I am very worried for the Government. I do not wish them to get into legal trouble over this sloppy drafting.
Those of us who have decided that we wish to leave the European Union have been invited to predict what the Leave campaign will announce when it is finally recognised and officially up and running. I think it would be pretty safe to say that we will not want to recommend either the Norwegian or the Swiss model, because, in our view, the United Kingdom is a far bigger country with a different set of relationships around the world, and one that will have senior membership of the world’s main bodies including the World Trade Organisation. We therefore think that there will be a British solution to our relationship with the European Union, which will not, for example, include paying any contributions to that Union in the way that we currently have to.
Peter Grant
The right hon. Gentleman has given examples of a number of countries that he would not want Britain to be like in the event of an EU exit. Will he give an indication of the countries that he would like us to resemble more? That might help the Government to decide which countries we should be compared to in the information that they publish. It is easy to say who we are not going to be like; will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who he thinks we should be like?
John Redwood
I have already done that. When the hon. Gentleman studies the report of the debate—if he is still interested—he will see that I have dealt with exactly that point with great clarity.
There will be a British answer, but it will be closer to the answer of those countries that trade very successfully with the European Union without accepting the need to pay money into the EU by way of special contribution, and without having to accept great legal impositions. Of course, anyone who trades with the European Union must meet its standards in respect of the goods and services that it wishes to buy, just as when we trade with the United States of America, we must accept its standards for the goods that we wish to sell to it. However, that does not mean having to enter into a common Government arrangement of any kind, and it does not mean having to pay special taxes in order to trade, because most of the world trades perfectly successfully with the European Union countries without having to do any such thing.
I hope that the Minister will appreciate that those of us who are on the Leave side have read the words that the Lords have actually written, rather than the words that the Opposition wish the Lords had written, and have noted their vagueness. It would, I think, be extremely foolish to specify the Norwegian example—which is not an example that anyone I know wishes to copy— rather than considering some of the larger countries, Commonwealth countries and others that have perfectly good trading arrangements. It would also be wrong of the Government, in answering this exam question, to confine themselves to the issue of trade, given that trade is mentioned nowhere in the draft law that is before us. We do need to consider the political arrangements that we have with EU countries, through NATO and so forth; we need to consider such matters as pipeline agreements, aviation agreements, and all those other arrangements that are clearly covered by this sloppily drafted piece of law.
My final worry with this clause is its asymmetry. The Opposition have shown us how they wish it to be asymmetric. They wish the leave side in the referendum to hypothesise about what our relationship with the EU will look like in two or three years’ time, whereas they do not seem to think it is incumbent upon the “stay in” side to similarly hypothesise. I would not mind betting that there will be even more change if we stay in, because if we vote to stay in, the rest of the EU will take that as an excuse to demand that the UK conform to many more parts of the Union than we are currently prepared to.
We know from the Five Presidents’ Report of the EU published this summer that as soon as our referendum is out of the way by 2017, they wish to press on with their move to capital markets union, full banking union and, above all, political union. We on the Leave side will be asking those who want to stay in to describe to us how Britain would relate to the political union and the very much stronger union generally which the euro members envisage. We should be in no doubt that the euro members wish to use the institutions of the EU as a whole for their own purposes, and it would be very difficult for Britain to be alongside but only half in—in the EU but not in the euro.
I would therefore like to see a symmetrical request. It is important to spell out what staying in looks like, as I believe that staying in is a wild ride to political union. That may not be possible or to the Minister’s liking when dealing with this clause and whether we leave it as it is, but I can assure him that it will be a very important part of the referendum campaign from the leave side.
Peter Grant
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is inclined not to press at least one of his amendments. It seems to me that there is, and will be, a need for information about the likely consequences of an in vote and of an out vote. I do not think it is right that that should be left entirely to individual campaigns, because we already know that there are arguments about who runs the campaigns and how they are going to be funded, and by definition they will tell at best one half of the story. It is perfectly in order for the UK Government to publish appropriate information that sets out the background to the referendum. A survey done about a month ago indicated that the EU member state whose citizens are worst informed about what the EU actually means is the EU member state whose citizens are going to have a vote as to whether or not they are going to leave. We cannot allow that to continue; we cannot allow the referendum to come upon us with a significant number of our citizens not really understanding what they are voting for, not because they cannot predict what the future might be if we leave, and not because they cannot predict what the future might be if we stay, but because they do not actually know what the present is. Too many people do not understand what the EU does for good or for bad right now. If we simply leave this to partisan partial campaigns, people are going to end up confused rather than better informed. Incidentally, it is one reason why this might be the time to extend the franchise, because we think that 16 and 17-year-olds do not understand it, but that their lack of understanding probably puts them less far behind adults than in most other election campaigns. That vote has been and gone, however, so we will leave it at that.
I do find it a bit surprising and ironic—I will not go as far as to say hypocritical—that, as we saw when the Bill went through its earlier stages, so many Conservatives express the concern that during a referendum campaign a Government might publish information that was a wee bit one-sided. Most Members would not have received what a number of SNP Members received shortly before the referendum last year, which was a glossy full-colour booklet published by Her Majesty’s Government making sure that we understood the wonderful benefits that accrued to us from membership of the United Kingdom. The UK Government recently advertised for a post, in the Department for International Development of all places, whose main job would be to persuade the Scots how lucky we were to be part of the Union. As long as that kind of stuff goes on, I do not think that we need to take any lessons from anybody on the Government Benches about the dangers of letting Governments get involved in a partial way in a referendum campaign.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The Committee I chaired in the last Parliament, the Public Administration Committee, conducted an inquiry into civil service impartiality in referendums in respect of the Scottish referendum. It is one thing if there is a Government in Edinburgh on one side of the argument and a Government in London on the other, each publishing arguments for and against a particular proposition, but where will the balance be in this referendum, given that there is only one United Kingdom Government who will only be on one side of the argument?
Peter Grant
It is perfectly in order for the UK Government to take an impartial, neutral stance once we get closer to the referendum. We do not know what stance they will take. There is a question as to whether it was appropriate for somebody else’s Government to interfere in our referendum, but I know that that is not an argument we will win just now. However, that degree of interference probably contributed to the fact that on most days these Benches are significantly more crowded than they were before. If the Government do not produce information, as opposed to campaigning opinion, about how the EU works now, who will produce it? If we are happy for the two opposing camps to produce the information, then they can go ahead and do it, but we know before we start that all that will happen is that people will be drawn to believing statements of fact because of their opinion of the politician or TV personality who has associated their name with them, rather than being presented with a factual, well-researched document that sets out how things are just now.
Peter Grant
I will give way to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee with pleasure.
Sir William Cash
I rise to intervene on a member of my Committee simply to say that we know that the broadcasts and the information that will be delivered and published by the designated organisations on either side will provide that information. We saw it in Ireland, and there are many other examples in other referendums in the EU. But the idea that the Government are not going to try and organise the view that they want, which is to stay in a so-called reformed union, is, I think, for the birds.
Peter Grant
I wish I could share the hon. Gentleman’s absolute faith in the impartiality of broadcasters during important referendums, but that might be one of the very small number of issues on which we disagree.
The point about broadcasters is that if they are found to be in breach of the requirement of impartiality, a sanction is available and there are ways in which they can be held to account—and certainly the BBC feels as if it is being very severely held to account by any number of Committees in this place just now.
Sir William Cash
I was not referring to the impartiality of broadcasters in this context; I was referring to the fact that under the designated arrangements each side will have the right to issue broadcasts and provide information by way of literature. That is what I was concentrating on.
Peter Grant
I apologise for misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
My essential point is that I do not think it is enough to leave it to campaign groups to provide information. The purpose of campaign groups is to persuade people to vote for the cause that they are promoting. They will provide information that supports their cause. They will choose not to provide or emphasise information that does not support it. That is what we all did in order to get elected, and as long as it does not involve deliberately making untrue statements or trying to mislead people, that is part of the democratic process; it is part of politics. It is up to the electorate to judge whose arguments they believe, but if the electorate are starting from a position of significant ignorance, or in some cases significant misperception and misunderstanding of what the EU is all about, there is a danger that they will not be in a position to exercise that judgment at a critical time.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
There is another issue when we talk about broadcasting and information being put in the public domain: how it is funded and whether there will be a balance in funding. That has been a big issue in past referendums, particularly the one in 1975.
Peter Grant
My own personal views about how political campaigns and parties are funded probably would not get a huge amount of support here, but that might be something for a ten-minute rule Bill some time over the next four and a half years. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It is important that nobody has the opportunity to buy a referendum any more than anyone should be given the right to buy electoral success. I certainly would not want to see us going the way of America where people need billions of dollars behind them before they can even stand for election.
We are still not addressing the fundamental problem that, no matter how well or badly funded the individual campaigns are, if we are starting from the position of having the least well-informed electorate in Europe on this important issue, someone is going to have to provide the necessary information to bring people up to a better level of understanding of, for example, what “ever closer union” means and does not mean—because it does not mean what it keeps being presented as meaning, even by the Prime Minister.
People need to understand which aspects of immigration to the UK the European Union is involved in and which aspects it is not involved in. They need to understand which aspects of our welcoming of refugees, or our failure to welcome them, involve a European Union decision, and which aspects come under the auspices of the United Nations, for example. These are massively important issues, and the debate in this Chamber over the last months has not always helped to increase public understanding and appreciation of what the European Union does and does not do.
If there are concerns that the Government might not be impartial, or that they might be over-enthusiastic towards one side or the other, I would be quite happy for the Electoral Commission to publish guidance and to require the Government and everyone else to comply with it. It would be inappropriate to ask the Electoral Commission to scrutinise, veto or censor Government documents in the first place, but it would be perfectly in order for it to issue guidance on the conduct of the referendum, including on the kind of information that could and should be funded and published by the Government.
I find myself in the strange position of almost telling Government Back Benchers that they are wrong because the amendment seems to be based on an unwillingness to trust Her Majesty’s Government. I am not the biggest fan of this Government, and I am not the biggest believer that we can trust them, but if they cannot be trusted to present a fair case to the public in this matter, we are in trouble. The media will not present such a case; the print media absolutely will not do so. The political campaigns will not do so because it is not their job to be impartial. It is their job to be partisan, although perhaps not in a party political sense, on the issues that they are campaigning on.
I welcome the fact, if it is confirmed, that the hon. Member for Stone is to withdraw his amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5. I hope that he will not press his amendment to Lords amendment 6 as well. There is a crying need for reliable, well-researched information to be put into the public domain. Let us not forget that, a few yards from here, we have one of the most highly regarded research facilities anywhere in the world. It is highly regarded not only for the quality of its research and the speed with which it is done but, most importantly, for its impartiality. If we cannot rely on the research facilities within this House to provide reliable, well-documented information, who can we rely on?
Mr Jenkin
I point out to the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) that, whether he thinks it an irony, an accident or something more sinister, it is the people who are in favour of Britain remaining in the European Union who are championing Lords amendment 6, while those who support the leave campaign regard it as a bit of a Trojan horse that would enable the publication of a lot of subjective judgments loaded in favour of one side and not the other.
I referred to the report published at the end of the last Parliament by the Public Administration Committee entitled “Lessons for Civil Service impartiality from the Scottish independence referendum.” The reason that we produced the report was to look at the question of impartiality. There is a rather modern, corrosive view that the concept of impartiality, when applied to civil servants, means simply that they should be prepared to work for whichever party happens to be in office, that by so doing they are therefore impartial and that their conduct can then be quite partial and loaded under the Armstrong doctrine, which states that they have to support the Government of the day. Actually, I think most people in this country regard impartiality as a rather more imprecise quality, with a higher moral tone. They see it as having something to do with objectivity, with balance and with not being compromised into becoming a mere cheerleader for one point of view or another.
Sir William Cash
My hon. Friend should bear in mind that the White Paper that led to the European Communities Act 1972, which went through by only six votes in this House, contained a very precise promise that the use of the veto in our national interest would never be abandoned, because to abandon it would be to endanger the very fabric of the European Community itself. Is that not an example of how unreliable White Papers and other Government reports can be?
Mr Jenkin
Indeed, but it is unavoidable that the Government are going to produce information of this kind.
The second duty, in Lords amendment 6, is not something that I expected to see. The Lords amendment asks the Government to produce judgments and opinions on a vast topic, using examples that, by their very nature, will be subjective. I am not at all surprised that the Electoral Commission has decided that it would be far beyond its competence to make a judgment about what such a document might be. The Government have accepted this amendment, but if they are to justify retaining it—as I expect them to do—they will have to answer some questions about it.
What do the Government mean by the word “publish” in the amendment? It would be one thing to place a learned, detailed and technical paper in the Library of the House of Commons in order to present the depth of analysis that the hon. Member for Glenrothes believes would be justified, but would the Government produce such a subjective document in a form that could be circulated to every household? How would we feel about that, 10 weeks before a referendum? It is reasonable for the Government to explain the outcome of their negotiations, but it would not be reasonable for them to use public money to present their entire world view on European Union membership as part of a campaign to remain in the EU.
Mr Jenkin
That is a good question. We all expect that, before long, there will be agreement among Ministers that some will not be toeing the Government line on this question. It is too big a question for it to be otherwise. The reason that we have referendums is that the questions split parties. We could not have a general election on a question that split the parties on both sides of the House. It would be impossible to decide on the issue in that way.
It would be absurd to have a referendum and then try to corral all the Ministers into one point of view. The precedent in 1975 was that collective responsibility was abandoned, although that does not mean there is not still a Government view—there is a Government view and a dissenting view. That is how it will work in this case, assuming that a vast number of Ministers do not leave the Government’s view too isolated to be any longer credible as being that of a Government.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the country at large still has trust in “the Government”—in the governance of this country— whether or not we think it is right to hold that view? Our electorate would therefore find it strange if, during a referendum campaign, they could not point to what the Government’s view was. The Government of the day would continue after the referendum, and people will want to know what the Government, whether collective or otherwise, think about the issue.
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have already said that the first publication is perfectly justified, as the Government are entitled to explain what they have negotiated and to give their opinion on that. If he would like to do so, he might explain how they are going to give
“information about rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law as a result of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union”
in a concise and simple fashion which is not loaded. Perhaps he could tell us which countries should be used as
“examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union”
in order to explain the consequences of leaving the European Union. We are talking about very subjective judgments, and of course that is what the debate between the yes and the no campaigns will be about.
My hon. Friend is right to say that people trust what the Government say, which is exactly why what they say should be curtailed and limited: it has a disproportionate effect on the voters. There is absolutely no doubt about that. If a leader of a party says something, that has less of an effect than if the Prime Minister says something. That is why we have a purdah period, and the House has forced the Government to accept that there will be a proper purdah period. Otherwise, if we have what we had in 1975, whereby the Government can carry on regardless, being the Government and yet expressing partisan views on one side of the argument and not the other, an unfair referendum would be created. That is why all referendums throughout the world have systems to try to contain what Governments do during the final phases of the referendum, in order to try to create some fairness.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen, as I have, the poster produced by the pro-EU BSE—Britain Stronger in Europe—campaign which co-opts the Governor of the Bank of England under the headline “Think UK’s economy is stronger in Europe”. BSE has also co-opted the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of India. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it appears that the campaign to remain in is willing to co-opt public officials, who ought not to be dragged into one side of such a campaign?
Mr Jenkin
I have to be mindful about whether that is taking us beyond the scope of what we are discussing, but it reminds me of a very controversial element of the Government’s conduct of the Scottish referendum, and I have some sympathy with arguments that have been made on this point. I refer to the use of a permanent secretary to give a speech on behalf of the Government’s view while this was purporting to be the publication of advice to Ministers. Such advice should never be published. On any orthodox analysis, the opinions of civil servants in the form of advice to Ministers should never be published, but this was used as part of the propaganda. Many Scottish National party Members would regard that as a gross misuse of civil servants during a referendum period, and we need to try to avoid that.
I leave two questions for the Minister as he responds to this debate on Lords amendments 5 and 6. First, what does “publish” actually mean? What do the Government intend to do by way of the publication of these two reports? Are they just to be White Papers or are they to be propaganda circulated by the Government in some way much more widely? Secondly, how will he ensure that this is done in the highest spirit of impartiality, using that word in the way most people would expect it to be used? How is he going to ensure that these publications are genuinely objective and not just a means of advancing one side of the argument against the other?
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Governor of the Bank of England giving advice, for example, with the Monetary Policy Committee on interest rates, is in a very different position from other public officials, because his advice is often made public? It is perfectly clear that if he has any advice on this, it should be a matter of public interest.
Mr Jenkin
The Governor of the Bank of England is a different case. He is not a civil servant, so he is not bound by the civil service code and he does not advise Ministers as a private civil servant—he gives his advice very publicly. Although I was prompted by that example, I think it is reasonable for the Governor, judiciously, soberly and carefully to proffer his advice. I think his advice on the currency question in the Scottish referendum was very germane, but I do not think it was necessary for the permanent secretary at the Treasury to give similar advice. On the speech that the Governor made on the European Union, the remarkable thing about it was how little he was prepared to say which supported the Government’s view. He did not put himself out on a limb. It was an incredible damp squib of a speech as far as the remain campaign was concerned, and it had extraordinarily little impact, because he was very careful about what he said. That might be because he sees that both business and the country are divided on whether we should remain in the EU and that the arguments are much more finely divided than on the currency question in the Scottish referendum.
I wish to deal with Lords amendment 13 and amendment (a) proposed thereto, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and other colleagues. This relates to another startling change made in the other place on the designation of organisations to campaign for or against the particular proposition. I should declare an interest here—it is not a remunerated interest. I am a director of the company Vote Leave, which will be applying for designation
The Lords amendment added a provision that suggests that it is perfectly okay for the Electoral Commission to designate one campaign supporting one proposition but not another campaign supporting the opposite proposition. The reason why that has been put into the Bill is perfectly understandable; in the 2011 referendum in Wales there was no application from a no campaign and therefore it was impossible for the Electoral Commission to designate a yes campaign, even though there was a very respectable yes campaign. It was suspected that there was an element of sabotage by the no campaign, because it wanted to prevent the yes campaign from getting designation as the no campaign was going to be incredibly weak, whether or not it was designated.
The result of this provision, which was included in the Scottish legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament in order to prevent the same thing from recurring, is extraordinary. It offers the possibility that the Electoral Commission “may” designate one campaign and not another without any restraining factors. In good faith, I do not think we should question the bona fides of the Electoral Commission as to whether it would ever do such a thing, but this is what the Lords amendment actually contemplates. It would be unconscionable, in this of all referendums, for there to be only one designated campaign. It would be intolerable if Parliament let this go on to the statute book without even a discussion about what the consequence would be. It would completely invalidate the result, it would destroy the purpose of having a referendum and it would mean that this issue was not settled in a fair manner at all. We have framed an amendment to the new clause, which I hope will at least draw the Minister out to explain how everything might work.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Let me thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and say that I am enjoying listening to his observations. Does he agree that, if the Electoral Commission was to take the bizarre decision to designate only one campaign when there was clearly a coherent and legitimate campaign for the other side, it would be clearly open to judicial review on that point?
Mr Jenkin
I am waiting to hear what the Minister has to say on that point. The proposed amendment changes the wording. It now says that it should be allowed to make that decision only if
“no permitted participant makes an application to be designated under section 109 as representing those campaigning for that outcome except for a permitted participant whose application the Commission states is, in its opinion, vexatious or frivolous.”
That would mean that, provided there are two legitimate applications for designation, the obligation would be clear in the Bill that the commission has to designate two campaigns. That is not clear in the Bill at the moment. If one such campaign was “vexatious or frivolous” and was clearly just there to spoil in some respects, the Electoral Commission would have to justify its action. I hope the Minister will tell us that he can accept our amendment. If he cannot do so, I hope that he will make it clear that the substance of the amendment should be understood, and that it would be unconscionable to have only one campaign designated in this referendum. If an application is made in such a way as to be construed as vexatious or frivolous, such an application would have to be considered. We should be in no doubt that there will be an application in respect of both sides of this campaign.
Sir William Cash
I endorse what my hon. Friend has just said. Let me repeat for the sake of clarity that these amendments are the result of ping-pong between the Commons and the Lords, which is not the best way for them to be considered. We have not had enough time to have a really good look at this matter, and I hope that the Minister will take that into account when he gives us the very full explanation on amendments 5, 6 and 13.
Mr Jenkin
In closing, let me add that in all three amendments we have been discussing the potential role of the Electoral Commission. In respect of amendments 5 and 6, the Electoral Commission has shrunk from the possibility of being given an obligation for which it is not fit. It is worth reminding ourselves that we have already developed one new role for the commission during the passage of this Bill, which is that it will give its advice about possible new regulations on the restriction of section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in respect of purdah. It did not want that obligation, but we gave it to it. Electoral commissions in countries such as Ireland or Denmark have a very much more active policing role in respect of fair referendums, and that is a role that we, in this country, have not set up the Electoral Commission to undertake.
Sir William Cash
With both amendments 5 and 6, we need to bear in mind that a duty would be imposed. That duty would imply and carry with it the potential for judicial review. If there were any failure in carrying out that duty in the manner that was expected under all the precepts of administrative law, the Minister should accept that there is more than a high probability of a challenge in the courts. That challenge could arise not only because of the manner in which a report arose, but if any of the information were misleading in any way.
Mr Jenkin
I agree with my hon. Friend, and will add that, where the Electoral Commission clearly has a duty, its decision can be judiciously reviewed. In respect of the designation of only one campaign, I have absolutely no doubt that there would instantly be a judicial review, and I speak with knowledge aforethought.
In the absence of the duties on the Electoral Commission —for example, to provide for impartial and objective information from the Government—it is a moral imperative on Ministers to ensure that they undertake their obligations in the spirit of a fair referendum, and not to abuse the trust that this legislation places on them with regard to the publication of that information.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
On 9 June, I began my parliamentary career with a maiden speech on this very Bill. I am incredibly grateful to be given the opportunity to speak again on this matter as the Bill makes its way through this House.
Deciding on whether we should continue to be a member of the European Union is one of the most important issues of our generation. We should be thankful about some elements of our relationship, particularly our access to the single market, and our non-involvement in Schengen and in the euro. There are other areas in which we are not getting a good deal, and the Prime Minister is right to renegotiate our relationship to request a better deal. He and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, along with other Members, have said that we should not be afraid to leave if we find that the deal is not good enough for our country and our future.
As the country makes its decision, and as the referendum period begins, I am mindful that the public will need information about the offer on the table. They will need factual and speculative information about what “in” and “out” mean, and about what our future might be under a different arrangement. The public will also need legal, political, financial and economic information. Above all, they will need a well-run and well-administered referendum, and therein lies a key role for the Electoral Commission. The public will also need information on what the Swiss and Norwegian models look like to see which would be a good fit for this country, and whether we are better off staying in a reformed European Union.
Mr Andrew Turner
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are not just two alternatives—Switzerland and Norway—but lots and lots and lots of alternatives?
Mr Mak
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. I certainly agree that there are a number of alternatives. I look forward to referendum debates in the media, in this House and in many other forums.
I wish to return now to the central role of the Electoral Commission. My view is that the Electoral Commission should not be drawn into playing any sort of quasi-judicial or quasi-campaigning role. It should play a central role in the good functioning and administration of the referendum. We should always be mindful of the commission’s own views, which have been set out in a letter that has been distributed to Members across the House, and to which we should pay heed.
I am also heartened about the vibrancy of our democracy. Even though we are still in the early stages of our debate, it has already produced a number of campaigning groups. I am very pleased to see some senior Members from across the House participating in today’s debate. The campaign groups that have been set up include: Vote Leave, Take Control; Leave.EU; and Conservatives for Britain, which has been skilfully organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) who have played leading roles in the campaign. On the Opposition benches, we have Labour in for Britain, which is led by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson); and Britain Stronger in Europe, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) plays a leading role. Even before the referendum gets under way, there is a vibrancy of debate across the House and also in the country, which is very positive.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is right to set out the span of organisations. I do not know whether my inbox in my constituency of North Dorset is at odds with those of the rest of the House. I get lots of emails about lots of things—hundreds about bees over the weekend—but I cannot think of the last time I received an email about the EU. We in the House are inclined to obsess about it, and we forget that outside, people are trying to live their lives and all they want to know is that the Government are on their side. We should not focus down to what is happening here.
Mr Mak
I thank my hon. Friend for his characteristically cogent intervention. He is right that, beyond the walls of this place, men and women, families and businesses and community organisations play their day-to-day role, focus on other priorities and are not necessarily concentrating on the EU referendum or those issues on which this House concentrates.
Sir William Cash
I refer vicariously to the most recent opinion poll, which showed that 52% of the United Kingdom electorate thought that they should leave and only 48% thought that they should stay in; 60% of those in the south-west said that they wanted to leave.
Mr Mak
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was just finishing my response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). I hope that through debates in this House we shall be able to take a lead on the issues. I welcome emails from people on all sides of the argument.
John Redwood
Surely the point that the British people fully understand, which is why they now wish to leave the EU, is that concerns about migration, jobs, taxation, the £10 billion that we have to pay to the rest of the EU, which we cannot have as tax cuts or extra spending, and our inability to form our own welfare laws are vital concerns, and they are all European issues.
Mr Mak
I thank my right hon. Friend for his characteristically passionate intervention. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, those issues are certainly important, and I welcome more emails over the next year or so—maybe that is not necessarily the best message for my constituents in Havant! I know that hon. Members across the House will be receiving representations from their constituents arguing on all sides of the debate, whether in letters, emails or petitions. That is an important part of our increasingly vibrant democracy.
Mrs Main
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) mentioned bees, but the issue relates to the EU directive on the neonicotinoid ban, so his emails are about Europe. It is just that his constituents are not mentioning the word “Europe”. The emails are about EU regulation.
Mr Mak
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We debate many issues in this Chamber, Westminster Hall and other forums on the parliamentary estate, and Europe makes an important intervention in those issues, which we should be mindful of.
I want to talk about the role of the referendum and Lords amendments 5, 6 and 13. I want to remind the House of the text and intention of Lords amendment 5, which introduces a new clause that will create a duty for the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out what has been agreed by the member states following the renegotiation of the UK’s membership of the EU that has been requested by the UK Government. The report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex said, will also require the UK Government to set out an opinion about what has been agreed, and it will have to be published at least 10 weeks before the date of the referendum. The Secretary of State would also be required to place a copy before Parliament.
Lords amendment 6 introduces a new clause that creates a duty on the Secretary of State—probably the Foreign Secretary—to publish a report setting out information about the rights and obligations that arise under EU law as a result of the UK’s membership of the EU. The rights in this case refer to the rights that the UK has as a member state and rights that are granted to individuals and organisations under EU law. Those could include rights of access to the single market. The obligations arise under EU law and apply to the UK as a member state and to organisations or individuals. Those could include the obligation on the UK as a member state to amend national law to bring it in line with EU law in a particular area.
The duty in Lords amendment 6 would also require the Secretary of State to include a report about examples of arrangements that other countries have with the EU, whether that is Switzerland or Norway or other countries that have a relationship with but are not members of the EU. Again, the report would have to be published at least 10 weeks before the referendum date and the Secretary of State would be required to lay a copy before Parliament.
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend is going over the impact of making the Electoral Commission quasi-judicial, but Secretaries of State and Ministers are answerable to this Parliament and in particular to this House. It would put the commission in the role of partly taking on the job of Parliament.
Mr Mak
My hon. Friend makes an outstanding point. To give the Electoral Commission a role beyond its current role would be to tread on the feet of hon. Members and encroach on the democratic freedoms and roles of this Parliament. My hon. Friend is right that the Electoral Commission does not agree with the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) says, there are better sources of information—such as literature from the various campaign groups that I mentioned and information from public bodies such as the Office for Budget Responsibility or the Bank of England. I would encourage members of the public to read Hansard, where the speeches of many distinguished hon. Members can be found, including from this very debate.
Sir William Cash
It would be useful, if people really wanted to hear how the debate was progressing, for them to follow the transcripts of European Scrutiny Committee, Treasury Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee proceedings. That will tell them an enormous amount about what is going on and what questions are being asked of Ministers.
Mr Mak
My hon. Friend makes a cogent point. The proceedings in this Chamber are available not only in Hansard but on parliamentlive.tv as well as BBC Parliament. I encourage all members of the public and all those who are interested in the proceedings of the House to tune in, particularly to my hon. Friend’s Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee, which he has led with distinction for many years, and other Select Committees, including my own, the Procedure Committee, which has been involved in numerous deliberations. I am delighted to see two of my distinguished Committee colleagues in the Chamber today.
The Electoral Commission undertook research as part of its statutory assessment of the type of information that the public would want to know as the referendum process began. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay and the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said, it found that members of the public were not necessarily clear about what the consequences of the referendum would be. There was no real understanding among large sections of the public about what leaving would entail. There was not enough information about what staying in would entail. There was certainly some confusion about the very many campaign groups that have sprung up, which I mentioned as I opened my speech.
What the Electoral Commission did say, which I found heartening, was that there was a strong appetite for more information about the implications of leaving, as well as an appetite for information about the implications of remaining and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, information about other models of engagement, including Switzerland, Norway, other members of the European economic area and, indeed, countries in Asia, Africa, Latin and South America. He is absolutely right: there are a number of models that can be invoked and, according to the Electoral Commission, the public are keen to have more information. As the hon. Member for Glenrothes said, there is an appetite for more information.
The Electoral Commission found that the public do not simply want dry facts. They would like contextual information, including worked examples, explanations and case studies, giving the views of right hon. and hon. Members. The Electoral Commission recommended that campaign groups, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, include on their websites and in their literature worked examples and real-life case studies, along with testimonies from Members of Parliament, Members of the other place and members of the public who wish to share their experience. That would help a great deal to educate the public about the choices to be made.
The Electoral Commission said in its letter that it would be reluctant to adopt the extra powers that some hon. Members believe that it should have, as it has no powers to police information that is put into the public domain alongside Government reports. It has no legislative powers to regulate such information. Finally, the Electoral Commission made a good, cogent point with which I agree. It does not have the capabilities to undertake an extension of its role, which some Members of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons have proposed that it should have. It said in its letter, referring to the extension of its powers regarding the referendum and the Government report, that
“it is also the case that we would not have the capabilities to do so”.
It also said:
“We will have no insider knowledge of the negotiations, nor the required expertise to judge a report to Parliament about the UK’s membership of the EU.”
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the Electoral Commission’s extensive assessment of the amendment. Does he agree that the fatal blow for the amendment is the fact that the commission has opined that it does not have the capabilities or insider knowledge to carry out the duty that it would impose on it?
Sir William Cash
My hon. Friend will have heard that the Electoral Commission has had duties imposed on it by Parliament, but what the amendment is driving at above all else, with respect to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), is that there should be proper impartiality and accuracy in the information. If the commission cannot do that, the Government can. If they do not do it, the courts will ensure that they do.
Mr Mak
I thank my hon. Friend for his explanation. My interpretation of the letter is that the commission did not want to take on more powers, as it already has core duties, including the good administration of elections and of the referendum. It conceded that it was not an expert in constitutional law, politics or negotiations about the UK’s continued membership of the EU; it was merely a good administrator, and that is the role that Parliament centrally wants it to fulfil. It is certainly the role that I want it to fulfil as the referendum process continues. The commission was saying, frankly and openly, that it lacked the expertise to make any determination about the Government report.
Next year, as many right hon. and hon. Members will know, we will have local, county and mayoral elections, as well as police and crime commissioner elections, which will increase the workload of the commission in its current guise, whether it is arbitrating on voter rolls, interpreting various aspects of election law or undertaking other statutory duties, which are all a drain on its resources. The Electoral Commission lacks the necessary expertise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) said, and will be burdened with a heavy workload next year, given the frequency and geographic spread of elections in which it will be involved, particularly from an administrative perspective. There is therefore no role for the commission as proposed by the amendment, so the Government’s view should prevail.
May I turn briefly to Lords amendment 13, which was tabled by Baroness Anelay of St Johns and has some support in this House? I should like to elucidate what it does and to share my views on its place in this House. As hon. Members will know, section 108 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 allows the Electoral Commission to designate permitted participants—that is likely to be the campaign groups that I mentioned earlier—as organisations to which assistance is available under section 110 of that Act. Such assistance could be logistical or financial, and in some cases there would be media opportunities. Where a referendum has only two outcomes, which is the case for the EU referendum, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and others have said, under section 108, the Electoral Commission can exercise the power to designate one organisation for each of the outcomes or not designate any at all.
Lords amendment 13 would enable the Electoral Commission to designate a lead campaigner for one side of the argument, whether that is to remain in the EU or to leave it, at the referendum without designating a lead campaigner for the other side. That would apply only where for a particular outcome, whether to leave or to remain, there were no applications on the other side or the Electoral Commission was not satisfied that there was an applicant who adequately represented those campaigning for that outcome. For example, vexatious or clearly inadequate groups would be disregarded by the commission.
In the event that only one campaigner was designated, that campaigner would be entitled to a higher spending limit, a free mail-out to voters and access to meeting rooms—for example, in council or other municipal buildings—which is a positive. However, it is important for the House to note that that campaigner would not be entitled to a grant from the Electoral Commission of up to £600,000 under section 110 of the 2000 Act, nor would they be allowed to make a referendum broadcast to the people of this country under section 127 of that Act.
Having reviewed the amendments in this place and the other place, and having read representations from the Electoral Commission and from broadcasters, my view is that that is a fair compromise. The amendment implements recommendations that the Electoral Commission made following the 2011 referendum on the voting system. As I said at the start of my remarks, we must pay heed to what the Electoral Commission says, while also taking into account hon. Members’ views. Based on the experiences of 2011, the Electoral Commission recommended that steps should be taken to reduce the potential advantages under the 2000 Act designation model for a prospective lead campaigner to decide against applying for the designation. The Electoral Commission had identified an example where a campaigner might have a tactical advantage in not seeking designation with a view to frustrating the other side’s access to additional benefits. I find that a cogent observation on the part of the Electoral Commission.
I said that I would touch briefly on Lords amendment 13. The Government’s position on all the amendments deserves the support of the House.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) was even so generous as to offer an additional filler for my Christmas stocking. I am sure the pamphlet that he proffered to me will take an honoured place on my shelves, alongside the collected works of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
The House will be aware that this Bill received detailed scrutiny in the Lords. The amendments in this group are part of a wide range of changes that the other House imported into the Bill. Many of those amendment were technical and procedural and were designed to strengthen the fairness and robustness of the campaign framework. The Lords also made technical amendments that ensure that the Bill works appropriately for Gibraltar and responds to recommendations from the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Finally—these are the subjects that have preoccupied the House most this afternoon—in response to concerns from Members of the House of Lords that the British people might not have access to the information they needed to take an informed decision, the Lords added to the Bill the duty to report on three topics: the results of the renegotiations; what membership of the European Union entails in terms of our current rights and obligations; and examples of already existing alternatives to EU membership. In the time that remains I shall address these areas of change in turn.
Amendments 5 and 6 deal with the provision of public information. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) both acknowledged, at the end of the negotiating process the Government will express their view and their recommendation to the British people for when the electorate vote at the promised referendum.
What we now have are obligations written on the face of statute for the Government to publish particular items of information. There was a clear appetite in the Lords for such statutory provision. The Lords tabled and debated a series of amendments calling for the Government to set out in very prescriptive detail the potential consequences of remaining in the European Union and also what the consequences of withdrawal would be in a number of areas of national life. Noble Lords called on the Government to set out what their—that is, the Government’s—envisaged relationship with the European Union would be in the event of a vote to leave.
For our part, we did not agree that the Government should speculate on potential consequences in this way and in the detail prescribed by the Lords amendments. In our view, it is for the designated lead organisations to lead the debate on the two sides of the argument. However, the Electoral Commission, in its research into the question, did identify that there is an appetite among the general public for information both on what remaining in the EU would mean and on what leaving could mean. Given the strongly held views that were expressed in the other place, we accepted the principle that the Government should be obliged to play a limited role in ensuring that the public are able to make an informed decision. In our view, the most useful role for the Government is to give information on the renegotiation deal that is achieved, and on the factual nature of membership, to try to aid understanding and to inform the public. Then it will be for the designated lead campaigners to interpret that information and provide their own arguments on both sides.
Amendment 5 is based on an amendment tabled in the Lords by my noble Friend Lord Forsyth, who I think everyone in the House would accept is not someone usually regarded as an unqualified admirer of the European Union. The amendment set a requirement for the Government to report on the outcome of the renegotiation. Building on this, the version of Lords amendment 5 that we now have before us would require the Government to report on what had been agreed by EU member states as a result of the renegotiation and to give their view on this.
Amendment 6 takes us further by requiring the Government to publish a report that would set out
“information about rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law as a result of the UK’s membership of the European Union”.
This would enable us to describe what membership of the EU entails for this country.
Mr Lidington
Amendment 6, as it currently stands, was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Anelay, following debate in the Lords, as a way to try to build consensus in that House to enable it to give passage to the Bill.
Perhaps it would be useful for me to explain, in response to comments made in this debate, how the Government interpret the obligation imposed on us by the amendments and how we would propose to see those obligations implemented. By “rights”, as set out in amendment 6, we mean rights that the United Kingdom has as a member state of the European Union, and also the rights granted to individuals and businesses as a result of our membership, such as access to the single market. By “obligations”, we mean the things that our membership of the European Union commits us or obliges us to do. Most obviously, this is at member state level, but there would also be implications for businesses or individuals. An obvious example is our obligation as a member state to transpose EU law in particular areas and to accept the primacy of the EU so long as we are a member of the European Union. The duty written into amendment 6 does not require the Government to set out information about every single right and obligation. Such a report would not be meaningful, and the purpose of the duties is to provide useful and relevant factual information to allow for greater public understanding.
Amendment 6 requires the Government to describe some of the existing arrangements that other countries that are not EU members already have with the EU.
John Redwood
I do not understand how the Minister can say that only some of the obligations are mentioned. Surely the Bill as drafted says “the obligations”, which must include all the legal requirements on individuals, companies and the state, as well as the massive contributions and legal supremacy involved. I hope that he is going to mention that nothing is said about trade. He must not limit himself to the trade arrangements but must also look at the defence arrangements, the political arrangements, and all sorts of other arrangements.
Mr Lidington
The amendment refers to “rights, and obligations”, not to “the rights and obligations”. It gives the Government the discretion to select for presentation the rights and obligations that we think will best aid public understanding. I want to make it clear that our purpose in recommending acceptance of these amendments is that they should enable us to provide for greater public understanding. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that membership of the EU touches on matters other than trade or economic policy. I am sure that the relative balance of advantages and disadvantages that arises out of EU membership on all those issues will be a matter of vigorous debate during the referendum campaign, but we do not envisage that debate taking place in the context of the obligation placed on us by amendment 6.
Lords amendment 6 is about providing factual information on the basis of which the public can take an informed decision. It is also about describing some of the existing arrangements that non-member countries already have with the European Union. We think that that is a better course of action than for the Government to attempt to hypothesise about what the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the EU would be in the event of a vote to withdraw, because that depends on assumptions made about not only the future intentions of the British Government, but the likely response of other European countries.
Sir William Cash
On rights and obligations, the Minister is already beginning to move the argument into the arena of the question of impartiality and accuracy. If the Government pick and choose, the public will not have a clue whether what is chosen suits the Government or them, and it is the voters who will have to make the final choice.
Mr Lidington
To follow my hon. Friend’s logic, the implications of a requirement to provide an exhaustive list would mean going through the entire corpus of EU law—not just the particular areas of competence, as specified in general terms in the treaties—and trying to draw out from that what would be a voluminous list of both the rights and the obligations that derive from each of the measures. I simply do not think that that would aid public understanding. Actually, I think it would act as a formidable deterrent for many members of the public to read the document at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) asked about the form of publication. No decision has been taken yet, but I envisage it being comparable to a White Paper, if not an actual White Paper. As is normal these days, such a publication would be available online, so it would be widely accessible. The reports would have to be published at least 10 weeks before the referendum, which would give the campaigners clear time to lead the public debate. I emphasise that neither Lords amendment 5 nor 6 in any way affects the section 125 restrictions on Government publications during the final 28 days of the campaign. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in view of what I have said and of the Electoral Commission’s express view that it does not agree with his amendment, will agree to withdraw it.
Sir William Cash
Before I declare whether I am going to withdraw my amendment, I have asked my right hon. Friend several times to make it absolutely clear, on behalf of the Government, that when they give information under Lords amendments 5 and 6 they will do so with due accuracy and impartiality. Is he going to do that or not?
Mr Lidington
Certainly, that is the case, because it would probably have a perverse impact on the Government’s recommendation if they were to be seen to be acting in an excessively partisan manner. I say again to my hon. Friend that, at the end of the negotiation, the Government will express their view, their recommendation and their reasoning, but we see the statutory provisions laid out in the Lords amendments as being about the provision of actual and factual information.
Lords amendment 13 has also been debated in detail. It would allow the Electoral Commission to designate a lead campaigner for only one side of the argument in the event that either there were no applications for a particular outcome or the Electoral Commission was not satisfied that any applicant met the statutory test of adequately representing those campaigning for that outcome. Given the vigour we already see in opposing campaigns, it is very unlikely that we will end up in such territory. I hope that the House will accept Lords amendment 13 to prevent gaming by one side of the campaign to the disadvantage of the other.
Sir William Cash
I simply say that in the light of the clear assurance that there will be due impartiality and accuracy, I will not press my amendments to Lords amendments 5, 6 and 13. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lords amendment 5 agreed to.
Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 26 / Noes: 503 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Sir William Cash. The amendment will be debated together with the motion, and the questions necessary to dispose of the amendment and the motion will be put at the end of the debate.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move,
That this House, wishing to see serious crimes solved, to counter terrorism and to see foreign criminals prosecuted and deported, supports opting in to the Prüm Decisions; notes the views of senior law enforcement officers that the Prüm Decisions are an important aid to tackling crime; notes the success of a pilot that demonstrated that the Prüm Decisions mechanism is both swift and effective; and further notes that only a subset of the relevant national DNA and fingerprint databases, containing data relating to individuals convicted of recordable offences, will be made available for searching by other participating States, and that the higher UK scientific standards will be applied to matches in the UK.
Recent events in Europe, particularly in Paris, have highlighted the very real need to co-operate with other countries in order to keep our citizens safe and to hunt down criminals and terrorists. Following the attacks in Paris, we know that the French authorities have been co-operating and co-ordinating with a wide range of law enforcement agencies in other countries, and that one of the tools they have found most effective has been the Prüm mechanism, the subject of today’s debate. Indeed, it is thanks to Prüm that they were able to identify at least one of the attackers so quickly.
Prüm—so-called after the German town in which it was agreed to develop the mechanism—is about the sharing with other countries, in strictly controlled circumstances, of DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration data in order to prevent and investigate crime. My French counterpart, Bernard Cazeneuve, wrote to me recently to set out his first-hand experience of Prüm and his hopes that the UK and France can improve our co-operation through it. While I never accept the views of others unquestioningly, I think it is wise to listen carefully to those with recent experience of such chilling events, and they believe this system to be hugely beneficial. The experience of France and others, and our own detailed study of Prüm, leads me to conclude that it is in the national interest to sign up to it, and I will set out in more detail why I think so.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that the dreadful carnage in France was to some extent the result of the failures of the authorities in that country. Why should we place so much trust in those who have had that kind of experience?
Mrs May
I have to say that the blame for the carnage in France lies fairly and squarely with the terrorists who caused it. I believe it is absolutely right to listen to those with experience. I will come on to describe other examples of how the exchange of data is beneficial in a variety of circumstances. Before I do so, it might be helpful to the House if I set out how we have come to this point, exactly what the system is and what it is not.
As I have said, Prüm is primarily about the sharing of DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration data with other countries in order to prevent and investigate crime. It is worth noting at the outset that we already share such data with other countries via Interpol, so this debate is not about whether we should do so, but about how. This system automates the front end of an existing manual process to access that information. It will make information exchange subject to the touch of a button, rather than a lengthy manual process. That means that it will be quicker and easier for our police to check the national databases of other member states, hugely increasing the reach of UK law enforcement. It is important to remember that this is not a centralised EU database.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes a very strong case for this technical function, but I am concerned that the threats we face extend far beyond Europe and the European Union. Will she say more about why it is so difficult to get Interpol and its member countries to adopt a similar system?
Mrs May
Because of the number of countries involved in Interpol and the amount of information that is available, there are very real difficulties and physical issues in getting all those countries to agree to such a system. In the European Union, countries have come together and decided that it would be beneficial to have such an automated process. So far, Interpol has retained the manual processes. Later, I will exemplify the difference in timing between the automated process of Prüm and the manual processes of Interpol.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is absolutely right to opt in to this mechanism. It is not about giving information away in its totality, but about sharing information. One of the lessons from Paris is the importance of EU countries knowing who is coming through the external borders. Does she agree that it is essential that when countries have concerns about individuals, they put them on the databases as quickly as possible?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. One of the arguments that we are making in Europe is that we should make better use of other databases, such as the Schengen Information System II border database, to ensure that we do the job that we all want to do. Criminals and terrorists do not recognise borders and do not stop at borders. It is therefore important that data are shared between countries so that we can identify them and bring them to justice.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Ideally, we would want Interpol to come to a similar agreement on the sharing of information through an automated system. The fact that Interpol is not in that position today does not mean that we cannot take action now with our European partners and share the information in an automated fashion. Given the tragic events in France, is this not a time for further collaboration and co-operation with our European partners, rather than retrenching into our own silo?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the interplay between Prüm in the European Union and Interpol, and he is right that now is the very time when we need to work more in collaboration with our partners to ensure that we share the data that are necessary to keep us safe.
John Redwood
I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. As someone who wishes her to use all decent means to track down terrorists, I think it is a good idea to get access to more information, but I also want her to help us uphold our manifesto promise that there will be no transfer of powers to the EU and that there will be a reduction in the EU’s powers, so why can we not do this by intergovernmental agreement, rather than by submitting it to the European Court of Justice?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend has challenged me on similar issues in relation to justice and home affairs measures in the past. The fact is that because Prüm already exists within the European Union, attempts to exchange these data in other ways would require not only an intergovernmental agreement, but the building of separate systems. That would take far longer, and we would not have access to the data for a significant period. Other member states would point out that a mechanism is already available, and that if we wish to exchange data in such a way we should join that mechanism.
Let me explain a little more about the sort of data exchanged and the processes. For DNA, a crime scene profile is sent from one country to all the other countries simultaneously, and it is automatically searched against the profiles held in those countries’ databases. If there is a match, the requesting country receives a hit report back. At that stage no information is exchanged that would allow a person to be identified—none.
Prior to any personal details being released, all hits must be verified scientifically. In broad terms that is the same system as for fingerprints. Hits are reported within 15 minutes for DNA, and within 24 hours for fingerprints. With Interpol the same manual process means that the average time to report a hit is more than four months. For vehicle registration data, a country that is investigating a crime in which a foreign-registered car is believed to have been involved can request details of that vehicle. Those details are provided in 10 seconds. I think that bears repeating: our police would be able to get details of foreign-registered vehicles in 10 seconds, rather than the months it can take at the moment.
As I said to this House in July last year, Prüm is about the
“easy, efficient and effective comparison of data when appropriate”.—[Official Report, 10 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 492.]
Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt recall that Prüm was part of the 100 or so measures that we opted out of last year when we exercised an opt-out that the Labour party negotiated but had no intention of using—that was the greatest repatriation of powers in this country’s history.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Have there been any discussions with the Republic of Ireland about introducing Prüm, and does she believe that that will happen in future?
Mrs May
I have not held any of those discussions. Within the European Union a small number of member states have not yet joined Prüm, but they are being encouraged to do so precisely because of the value that has been noted by member states already using the system.
As I said, we repatriated those powers, but we did not seek to rejoin Prüm at that time. That was because although the Labour party signed us up to a measure, it did nothing to implement it. If we had then rejoined, that would have opened us up to fines for non-implementation that could have run into tens of millions of pounds. A pragmatic decision was taken at the time, but as I also said:
“All hon. Members want the most serious crimes such as rapes and murders to be solved and their perpetrators brought to justice. In some cases, that will mean the police comparing DNA or fingerprint data with those held by other European forces. Thirty per cent of those arrested in London are foreign nationals, so it is clear that that is an operational necessity. Therefore, the comparisons already happen, and must do so if we are to solve cross-border crime. I would be negligent in my duty to protect the British public if I did not consider the issue carefully.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 492.]
By way of consideration, I promised to run a small pilot with a small number of other countries focused on DNA, and to produce a full business case on Prüm. I also made clear that the final decision on whether to sign up to Prüm would be one for this House. We have now run that pilot, and we have published a thorough business case by way of a Command Paper. We are here today to debate and decide whether we should participate in Prüm or not. I believe strongly that we should.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
In such matters there are inevitably balances to be struck between sometimes conflicting interests. I think that the Home Secretary has broadly got this one right, and she will have the support of the Liberal Democrats. She will be aware that the briefing provided from Big Brother Watch today refers specifically to the European arrest warrant. What will be required for the use of a match coming from Prüm and relating to extradition under the EAW?
Mrs May
If, for example, the DNA profile is sent, the first response is about whether or not there is a hit on the database. There is then a separate process to determine whether the individual’s personal details will go forward. As I will come on to say, we intend for there to be scientific consideration of the match to ensure that it meets the requirements and thresholds that we set. We will be setting higher thresholds than other countries. It will be possible, if the other country wishes, to move to a European arrest warrant to arrest an individual if there is sufficient evidence. We have brought in extra safeguards in relation to the use of European arrest warrants. It will also be possible, through the EAW, for foreign criminals here to be extradited elsewhere and for criminals who have undertaken activity here in the UK but have then gone abroad to be brought back to the UK for justice.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
On that specific point, will the second check—the second set of scientific safeguards, as I believe the Home Secretary called them—be a manual check done by a human, or will the process be automated?
Mrs May
I think there will be an automated element to it. If my hon. Friend is concerned that the whole system will immediately undertake the check, there is a decision to make that check and we are setting a higher threshold. I am getting into scientific waters that I am perhaps not best qualified to refer to, but the issue is what are called the matches of loci on the DNA. Many countries will use six, or potentially eight, loci. We will actually use 10 loci, which is the threshold we normally set in the UK. If 10 loci are being matched, the chances of a false positive are less than one in a billion—an important safeguard that we have.
One reason I believe we should opt in to Prüm is the result of the small-scale pilot we conducted and to which I just referred. I was very clear that the exchange could only occur after we had put memorandums of understanding in place with the Netherlands, Spain, Germany and France, and that exchange would only take place under tight safeguards. Matching profiles found at crime scenes in the UK against the four overseas databases saw an impressive 118 hits. That is nearly double the number of profiles our police sent abroad for checking in the whole of 2014. We got hits from each of the four countries. We got hits to serious crimes. We got hits to people who were French, Dutch, Romanian and Albanian, and from various other countries. We did not get hits to Britons. Crucially for the police, this is leading to the arrests of foreign nationals that would not otherwise have taken place—foreign criminals whom we can then kick out of the country, making our streets safer.
A DNA crime scene profile recovered from an attempted rape was sent to all four Prüm pilot countries. The profile hit against a profile held in France, following an arrest there for a burglary. Following the verification of the hit, and after further co-operation with France, the National Crime Agency obtained demographic information on a Romanian national. This individual was stopped in London on 10 November 2015 on suspicion of a motoring offence, which would not have led to a DNA swab being taken or any search domestically of our DNA database. Owing to the Prüm hit, however, the warrant for his arrest was revealed. He was arrested and charged with the attempted rape and is currently on remand. In other cases of rape, we know the police have requested extradition papers. As the director general of the National Crime Agency, Keith Bristow, has said,
“these would not have been detected without the pilot”.
It is because of cases like this that Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, has said that Prüm will:
“reduce the number of unsolved crimes, such as murder and rape, committed by foreign nationals, and provide an improved service to the public, victims and their families”.
If the House votes to re-join Prüm, we will be setting in place a process that will catch foreign nationals who have committed crimes here. We will be setting in place a process by which these criminals can be deported. We will be setting in place a process by which foreign nationals who have committed crimes in the UK can be linked to crimes abroad and sent to those countries to stand trial. In short, it will be a vote to keep foreign criminals off our streets and make our communities safer.
The numbers here are stark. If, and I hope when, the UK connects with all other Prüm countries, the evidence suggests there could be up to 8,000 verifiable hits following the initial connection. That is up to 8,000 foreign criminals our police can track down for crimes they have committed in the UK. There will then be an ongoing daily process that will produce more hits. Such exchanges will become part of business as usual, with the reach of our law enforcement extended across Europe at the touch of a button. This is the sort of progress we must grasp. Experience from those already operating the system in other countries shows just how important it really is.
To those who say we do not need to be in Prüm to do this and that we can do it already, I just say look at the figures. The existing processes are so cumbersome and convoluted that last year police sent just 69 DNA profiles abroad. The ease of the processes we used in the pilot means we have already sent 14,000% more this year. Furthermore, changing the Interpol process would require the agreement of all Interpol members, which would be a near impossibility. It simply is not true to suggest, therefore, that we can go on with the current processes or can easily improve them.
For fingerprints, there is an additional benefit. Countries signed up to Prüm can also check the EU database containing the fingerprints of asylum seekers and others detained illegally crossing the EU’s borders. It was this ability to make checks with that database that allowed the Austrian authorities to identify eight of the 71 people so tragically found dead in the back of a lorry on 27 August. It was that same ability that allowed the Austrians to identify one of the suspects in that case. We also know that one of the individuals involved in the Paris attacks entered the EU via Greece. With the unprecedented flows of migrants at the moment, it is clear that the police would benefit from having this capability. By that, I mean police from across the whole of the United Kingdom.
During this process, we have engaged closely with the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, the Northern Irish Department of Justice and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, whose views the Government have given great weight in formulating policy. That is why the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority, the Northern Irish Department of Justice and the PSNI will have places on the oversight group. Their views will continue to be important to me personally and the Government more generally as we progress this matter, and we will of course consider the representations from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) about other bodies. We will ensure that every corner of the United Kingdom has its voice heard. I am sure that is why I have received letters of support for linking us up to this capability from Police Scotland, the Scottish Government and the PSNI.
I have also received support from Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who has said:
“The scale of the potential for individuals to commit crime across Europe is such that a solution such as Prüm, with all the necessary safeguards, is the only effective way to track down these highly mobile and potentially dangerous criminals.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am as keen as anybody to ensure that our streets are safe. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that these powers could be exercised by our immigration authorities at the point of entry in relation to anybody seeking to enter this country, whether they be an EU or non-EU citizen?
Mrs May
There are separate arrangements of course. One reason we opted back into SIS II was to give our immigration officials the opportunity to deal with these issues as people crossed the border. As I said, it is possible to check the EU database for the fingerprints of asylum seekers and others detained crossing the EU’s borders illegally. I welcome my hon. Friend fully supporting our being able to take measures to tackle criminals and identify those who should be brought to justice, and I look forward to his joining me in the Lobby to support our entry into Prüm.
While it is incumbent on us to give the police the tools they need, it is also incumbent on us to balance that against any civil liberties worries that some may have. The Government have not made this decision without looking hard at how to protect British citizens. I was proud to be a member of the Government who abolished identity cards, stopped the indefinite retention of DNA profiles and fingerprints of those arrested and not convicted of offences and reformed stop and search. Where there have been genuine concerns, I have listened.
The first concern I have heard about this system is that innocent Britons could get caught up in overseas investigations. I believe this should be about catching criminals, so we will ensure that only the DNA profiles and fingerprints of those convicted of a crime can be searched against. We will write that into legislation. Innocent Britons will have nothing to fear. Secondly, I know there has been concern that some countries use lower scientific standards than the UK does when assessing DNA, as I mentioned earlier, and that this could lead to false positives in matches. That is why we will legislate to ensure that UK scientific standards apply before any personal data can be provided. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), this means there will be a less than one in a billion chance of the match not being a true one. We accept these standards domestically, and I will ensure that we apply them internationally. To suggest we go beyond that, however, would be to harm our ability to solve crimes.
Mrs May
Yes. How we deal with the data on the databases held here is a national matter. The European Court of Justice does have some jurisdiction—my hon. Friend is right about that in respect of some matters—but its jurisdiction is over the “hit/no hit process” or mechanism. Beyond that, how we hold the material on the database is a matter for national decision.
Mrs May
No. I have to explain to my hon. Friend that we are able to determine the database, and that how we hold that database and the information that is held on it are matters for national decision. Articles 2(1) and (3) of the principal Prüm decision say that we need to inform the general secretariat about which profiles will be made available for searching under Prüm, while article 5 makes it clear that the follow-up process to a hit is subject to national law, not EU law.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very persuasive case. I ask for a moment of clarity regarding the expansion of judicial engagement into areas that have formerly been for the court of Parliament, which has been a form of mission creep that can be seen in various areas. Will my right hon. Friend make very clear the precise remit of the UK courts on this matter, so that when it comes to a judicial review—as I am sure, sadly, it will—or a trial in front of the Supreme Court, it will be able to look back at the words my right hon. Friend has spoken from the Dispatch Box today. It would then be able to see the will of Parliament in the decision and not the interpretation that is chosen at that particular moment.
Mrs May
I am happy to confirm that I am willing to comment on the application of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and how it affects our position. As for the legislation that we are bringing forward, if my hon. Friend looks at the command paper, he will see that we are making clear those areas where national laws apply. As I tried to explain earlier, the Prüm decisions are all about the exchange of data, not the manner in which the data are held here in the UK. Article 72 of the treaties makes it clear that how we deal with DNA for our own security is a matter for member states, not for European jurisdiction. As a further safeguard, we will ensure that if a person was a minor when the DNA or fingerprints were taken, demographic details could be released only if a formal judicial request for assistance were made.
Finally, I referred earlier to an oversight board and I will establish an independent oversight board to ensure that Prüm operates in a just and effective manner. Both the biometrics and information commissioners will have seats on that board, and so will the Scottish Police Authority and the other bodies from Scotland and Northern Ireland that I have mentioned.
It was on account of all those clear and stringent safeguards that the National DNA Ethics board felt that it could write to me in support of our decision to recommend participating in this system. I therefore hope that those who I accept have principled civil liberties concerns will listen to its views.
Costs are associated with implementing this capability. When the Labour Government initially signed us up to Prüm, they estimated that it would cost about £31 million —about £49 million in today’s prices. That was without providing any safeguards and without ensuring that Scotland and Northern Ireland would benefit fully and be fully involved. I have looked at this very carefully and am pleased to tell the House that at the same time as ensuring that the operational benefits are nationwide and that UK citizens get the protections they deserve, the Government will need to spend only £13 million. The money spent implementing Prüm will be recouped many times over in savings that the police will make through using it.
Hon. Members will have read about Zdenko Turtak, who earlier this year attacked and raped a woman, leaving her for dead in Beeston. In investigating this crime, the West Yorkshire police had only the victim’s statement and the attacker’s DNA on which to proceed. Suspecting that the assailant might have not been British, they submitted forms to Interpol and had the DNA profile searched against profiles held in other European countries. It took over two and a half months for a match finally to be reported by Slovakia. During that time, the police pursued over 1,400 separate lines of inquiry at a cost of £250,000. If the United Kingdom and Slovakia had been connected through the Prüm system, that initial hit, instead of taking two and a half months, would have taken 15 minutes. Just think of the time and money that that would have saved the police, not to mention the benefit to the victim of knowing that her attacker would be brought to justice.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mrs May
If my hon. Friend will permit me, I need to make progress. I am nearing the end of my speech.
I agree with Russell Foster, the assistant chief constable in West Yorkshire, who has said:
“I can state without any doubt whatsoever that enabling the EU Prüm Decisions in this country will be of significant benefit to all UK law enforcement agencies.”
So, do we want to save the police time and money? Do we want to catch more foreign criminals and kick them out of the country? Do we want to speed up and improve our co-operation with some of our closest allies, such as France? Do we want to extend the reach of our police across Europe, and help to solve serious crimes like rape? Do we want to benefit the whole of the United Kingdom, and help to keep our citizens safe? The answer to all those questions must be yes, and, given the safeguards that I have set out today, I am confident that we can protect the British public while also protecting their civil liberties.
Prüm means more crimes solved and justice for victims, more foreign criminals caught and removed, money saved, the whole United Kingdom benefiting, and civil liberties protected. It is clear to me that signing up to Prüm is in the national interest, and I commend the motion to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
Way back in what seem like the mists of time—in May 2005, to be precise—I was appointed to the Home Office and given ministerial responsibility for the development of the European arrest warrant, and today I think back to the discussions that I used to have with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on that very issue. I remember that it was something of a hot potato, and I also remember that the nature of that debate changed very quickly in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings and, subsequently, the failed bombing at Shepherd’s Bush on 21 July. It was found that one of the bombers, Hussain Osman, had taken the Eurostar to Paris in the immediate aftermath of that failed bombing, and had then travelled on to Rome, where he was finally arrested on 29 July. A European arrest warrant was issued by the British police, and was agreed by the Italian courts on 17 August. Following the rejection of an appeal, Osman was flown back to the United Kingdom on 22 September, just two months after the failed bombing.
That case proved the value of the European arrest warrant, took the heat out of the political debate about it, and illustrated how the security of people here in the UK is, in fact, better served by ever closer co-operation between European law enforcement agencies.
Sir William Cash
As the right hon. Gentleman referred to me a moment ago, may I point out that in Staffordshire there was a case under the European arrest warrant in which a person was actually convicted of murder and was subject to penalties, although it was clear from subsequent evidence that he had not even been in Italy at the time, but had actually been in Staffordshire? There are many similar examples.
Andy Burnham
In any judicial process, there is the potential for mistakes and a miscarriage of justice. Is the hon. Gentleman honestly saying that he was right about the European arrest warrant all that time ago, and that it has been a bad thing and should be scrapped? If so, I think that he is in a small minority in the House, because people have seen the benefits that have come to UK law enforcement following its introduction.
I mentioned that case at the beginning of my speech because I see a parallel between the debate that took place then and the debate that we are having today. Ten years on, as the Home Secretary said, we find ourselves in the aftermath of an horrific attack in one member state that was conceived and planned in another—and I note the letter that the Home Secretary received from Minister Cazeneuve encouraging our full participation in Prüm.
In these difficult times, we—all of us in the House—have an obligation to consider every possible measure to protect the public. It seems to me that the case for greater data sharing and access to data that are held across Europe is now unanswerable, and that we have an obligation to support that case. It is no exaggeration to say that our national security depends on it. That is why, as the Home Secretary said, the last Labour Government made the original decision to sign up to the Prüm decisions in 2007, recognising their potential for our law enforcement agencies. It is also why, back in July 2013, we explicitly warned the Government against opting out of a whole range of EU justice and home affairs measures including Prüm. As I understand it, the Government received warnings from other senior figures in UK law enforcement, and they should have listened to them because, as was pointed out back then, that decision seemed to be driven less by an objective assessment of the impact on crime prevention and detection, and more by a political desire to appease the never-satisfied forces of Euroscepticism on the Conservative Benches. Tempting as it is to say, “We told you so” to the Home Secretary today, we will try and resist that and instead congratulate her on eventually arriving at the right decision and encourage her to resist the blandishments of the forces of darkness who are again rearing their head today.
Andy Burnham
The case the Home Secretary has just set out from the Dispatch Box was compelling and powerful, revealing, as it did, the zeal of the convert to the cause. She was right to make her case with such force, and I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that the problem with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stone and others this evening is that it invites the House to prioritise the civil liberties of British citizens and risks to UK sovereignty over and above risks to national security. That is what the amendment to the motion invites us to do.
Of course our liberties and our sovereignty are important considerations, but the safety of the public must come first. That is the primary duty of any Government, and it is why the Government are right not to listen to the hon. Member for Stone. The truth is they got themselves into difficulty two years ago by listening to those siren voices, and I hope Members on the Treasury Bench will not make the same mistake today. Indeed, I hope they would have learned an important lesson from this whole episode. It was the European Council that required the Government, after notification of the opt-out, to conduct and publish a business and implementation case assessing the costs and benefits of Prüm. In other words, the EU forced the UK Government to face up to the benefits of European co-operation and in bringing this motion to the House tonight they are effectively conceding the EU was right all along.
That assessment was informed by a pilot undertaken by the Government which the Home Secretary referred to. It found an overwhelming case to opt back in. It involved DNA samples from 2,513 unsolved British murders, rapes and burglaries which were automatically checked against European police databases in France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. Searching the profiles against the databases of those four member states revealed 71 scene-to-person matches and 47 scene-to-scene matches, five relating to rape, two to sexual assault and 23 to burglary.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On an earlier point, is not the greatest defence of the nation’s security the civil liberties of the people?
Andy Burnham
I would put it to the hon. Gentleman that security comes first and that is the primary duty of any Government—to keep the public safe. Once we have secured people’s safety, then liberty comes from that security. That is why I believe the amendment before the House tonight has got things the wrong way round. I conceded they are incredibly important considerations, but they are not more important than national security and any measures that enhance the security of the public here in the end contribute to enhancing their liberty. That is why security must come first.
As well as finding those matches, the pilot also found that information was provided in a much more timely manner than it had been under the old arrangements, as the Home Secretary said. It found that information was being provided in a matter of seconds, minutes or hours, drastically improving the speed and quality of investigations. At present, requests by the British police for DNA checks from other European forces involve a request to the National Crime Agency, which is then passed to Interpol before being passed on to the relevant national police force. On average, it takes 143 days for the results to come back. The benefits to UK law enforcement of opting into the Prüm decisions on data access are therefore abundantly clear, in terms of speed of investigation and of resources. DNA checks will be available within 15 seconds, automated number plate checks within 10 seconds and fingerprint matches within 24 hours.
Andy Burnham
I think the hon. Gentleman is conflating two issues. We are not discussing that issue today. Let us be clear, to avoid any misconceptions, that we are talking about the DNA of people who have been convicted of a recordable crime. It seems to me that that provides sufficient safeguards against the abuse of such data. If the hon. Gentleman is making an argument for the wider collection of DNA, as opposed to fingerprints—the fingerprints of people entering the country are collected—that would raise other civil liberties concerns that he would have to discuss with his colleagues. He seems to be envisaging going even further than the Prüm decisions, but I do not believe that we are at that point right now. Perhaps he will return to that issue with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
In these times in which we live, the speed of investigation is essential. I invite every Member of the House to cast their mind back to the hours after we heard about the Paris bombings, or indeed to the hours after the shocking attacks in London a decade or so ago. People were hanging on to the news, waiting to hear of leads against those who might have committed those atrocities. That is what people want. They want the police and the security services to have, in those moments, the clearest possible line of sight across Europe, so that they can pursue immediate leads and track the suspects down. That is what we need to remember when we consider these issues. We need to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to give the police and the security services, not just here but across Europe, that ability to get on the trail of people who are committing atrocities against us and to track them down. In my view, the case is unanswerable: we should give them that power.
We should also ensure that the British police and security services have access to a much larger collection of biometric and biographical data, which will lead to more crimes here being solved and to more victims here getting the justice that they are being denied today. The earlier detection of crime and the conviction of the individuals responsible must be in the forefront of our minds.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Would the right hon. Gentleman like other countries, such as Iceland, to join Prüm?
Andy Burnham
I personally see no objection to that, but let us start within Europe. Let us get a clear set of standards and arrangements within Europe first. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that one of the benefits of the European Union is that it sets a standard that the rest of the world then begins to follow. We are seeing that now with Norway and Iceland. In effect, they have to follow all the norms of the European Union if they want to be a full trading partner. So I would not see a problem with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. The Home Secretary has said that there will be many safeguards. I put it back to the hon. Gentleman: would he be happy with somebody who has committed a crime going back to Iceland and thus avoiding justice? I would not be happy with that and I would want measures in place to ensure that they could be brought to justice. Opting in will also lead to a much better use of police time and resources, as the Home Secretary has said, and will improve the intelligence picture that the crime and terrorism authorities have, so that they can better understand the patterns emerging across Europe.
Chris Heaton-Harris
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have huge respect for him, but I want to tease something out a tiny bit further. He said that security trumps civil liberties. Does he believe that security trumps the protection of our common law system?
Andy Burnham
I reiterate that security comes first. The first responsibility of any Government is to secure the people who live here by taking reasonable measures to reduce the risks to them, because from that foundation of security come all our traditions, our laws and our liberties. That is why co-operation in this field is a good thing, given that the nature of crime now is international. If we fail to understand that, our own legal system will never be able to respond to the changing nature of crime that we face.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, which is that it is sensible to co-operate, but does this co-operation need the institutions of the European Union?
Andy Burnham
Why should it not, if the co-operation is improved by those institutions? The hon. Gentleman is putting an in-built dislike and distrust of them ahead of the actual issue before us. That is what some Conservative Members are doing, but they should judge this on its merits. Surely the better we can facilitate that co-operation, the more benefits it will bring back to the police and security services. I would imagine that co-operation will be enhanced by working with established institutions, as opposed to making ad hoc arrangements, Government to Government. That is the benefit of the European Union, although I know he probably does not accept that.
The Government have come to the right decision, albeit in a roundabout way, but I wish to press the Home Secretary on a few points of detail, the first of which is on the cost. She said that in the original assessment the cost of opting into Prüm was put at £31 million, but she now says it is £13 million. We are prepared to accept that at face value, but can she say what is responsible for such a significant reduction in the cost? The business and implementation case says that the estimate is based on “high level requirements”, which implies that it is based not on a fully fledged implementation of Prüm but just on the “high level requirements”. Will she say more about that? What are the “downstream operational running costs” to which the business case refers? How much will it cost every year to run the system, set against the benefits that she said it would bring? My next point may be of interest to those who have signed the amendment. Will the Home Secretary say what the UK will be liable to pay back to the EU if the House does not back this decision this evening? I understand that it is a significant sum, and perhaps it would help the House to know what it is.
I now wish to deal with the safeguards. We welcome the appointment of the oversight board, although there is concern that extradition should not be possible under a European arrest warrant purely on the basis of a DNA or fingerprint match. I think this was the point that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) was raising earlier. The point was that other corroborating evidence should always be required before extradition can be granted. I think the Home Secretary was confirming that was the case, but it would help the House if she or one of her Ministers could say a little more on that at some point.
Mrs May
I am grateful for the opportunity to do that, and I apologise to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) if I slightly misunderstood his question. It would be my expectation that an EAW would require more evidence. We have put a number of safeguards into the way in which EAWs are operated, to ensure that we do not see people erroneously being extradited from the UK, and I would expect there would be more evidence as the basis for issuing an EAW. And those normal EAW processes will apply even when there has been a Prüm hit.
Andy Burnham
I think the whole House will find that explanation helpful. I would share the concerns of the hon. Member for Stone and others if the match could then trigger a European arrest warrant immediately without any other evidence. I think everybody would find that worrying, but the right hon. Lady has reassured the House on that point.
It is also reassuring that only people convicted of recordable crime can be searched by another police force. That still does not take away the higher level of concern that there would be over the sharing of DNA profiles from named individuals. Does the Home Secretary feel that there should be a higher proportionality test in this area, linked to more serious crime and terrorism, and does she favour a stricter test before DNA information can be shared with another police force? That is an area in which a higher safeguard could be introduced. It might be effective in limiting blanket person-to-person searches, which bring potential for abuse.
Who will take the decision to share personal information if a match is made? Will it be a designated individual in a police force or will all decisions be taken at a national level by NCA officials? It is important to be clear about who will be making these decisions. Will it be an individual who makes only one or two such decisions in the course of a year, or an official who deals with many of them? I think people will have more confidence in someone who deals with a good number, because they will be able to weed out the more frivolous requests.
Will all participating nations collect DNA profiles and fingerprints from crime scenes using a shared quality assurance standard? There is concern about the lack of uniformity across Europe, and people will want some reassurance on that matter. Finally, will the Home Secretary expand on the role of the European Court of Justice when it comes to the Prüm decision, if we choose to opt into it? As I understand it, it is quite a minor extension of its jurisdiction and there is not the fear that has been expressed by some in the motion.
With those caveats—I insist that they are just caveats—I conclude by saying that we on the Labour Benches believe that the Government have reached the right decision, albeit they have done so in a roundabout way, and that they deserve our support this evening. I hope they agree that this whole issue and the way in which we have arrived at this point illustrate how our continued membership of the European Union enhances the security of our country in these difficult times. The Home Secretary has made a convincing and powerful case tonight to rejoin the Prüm decision, and she will have our support in taking an important step to catch more criminals and keep our country safe.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In these troubling times, this debate raises troubling questions about vital matters of policy and principle, not only for the United Kingdom as a whole and our Parliament but for our civil liberties and our common law.
First, before reaching a decision on our participation in Prüm, we should consider very carefully the implications for our parliamentary sovereignty, from which all law should ultimately derive. If we opt into Prüm, in which areas would the UK be accepting exclusive EU competence? The Government must be clear on that, because only the EU could act in those areas, which would mean taking the decision away from Parliament.
I have to ask the Home Secretary this: how assiduously have the Government considered alternative means of securing the benefits that Prüm offers in a way that would be less damaging to our parliamentary sovereignty? Furthermore, what is so special about the European Union when it comes to security, terrorism, organised crime and all those things that we deplore and want to control as compared with matters that arise in other parts of the world? What is the real distinction to be drawn as we seek to protect our citizens in the EU or any other country in the world?
Secondly, by participating in Prüm, the United Kingdom would be compelled to accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. The extension of that Court’s jurisdiction under the Lisbon treaty to sensitive areas of policing and criminal law was the key factor in the previous Government’s decision to opt out.
Andy Burnham
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. He asked what was so special about national security that it required a European dimension, if I heard him correctly. Does he agree that the fact that the Paris attacks were exclusively planned in another member state answers his question?
Sir William Cash
It does not. The reasons why that terrible carnage took place have a great deal to do with insecurity and instability as a result of the failures of border controls and the manner in which people made their way to Paris. We do not have time to go into all those matters, and they are not the subject of this debate, but I question whether national security for United Kingdom citizens, which is our prime concern, will be advanced by surrendering these powers to the European Court of Justice.
The Government concede that accepting the Court’s jurisdiction is not risk-free. They should have explained what practical impact they expected the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction in relation to the UK to have, and they have not done so.
Thirdly, the Government say that they intend to put into place extra safeguards to ensure that Prüm would operate in a way that
“respects fully the civil liberties of British citizens.”
Liberty gave evidence to the House of Lords on a number of matters in this respect.
In the report of the European Scrutiny Committee that was published the other day, we make it clear that there is an important balance to strike between law enforcement co-operation, especially when it involves the exchange of personal data, and the need to protect individuals against the risk of false incrimination and unwarranted interference with their right to privacy. The Government’s business and implementation case can provide only anecdotal evidence of cases in which Prüm has been instrumental in advancing an investigation or securing a conviction. The paucity of evidence that we have been given on the value and impact of Prüm in respect of law enforcement makes it difficult to measure its added value and to ensure that an appropriate balance is being struck. We find that lack of transparency and accountability troubling.
Mrs May
I can only assume that I slightly misheard what my hon. Friend said. He seemed to say that the only evidence that we had given about the benefits of Prüm was anecdotal. We have undertaken a pilot with four other EU member states. That pilot was based on the exchange of a certain number of DNA profiles. It led to hits. As in the case of the Romanian that I identified, it led to someone being charged, who is now on remand. That is not anecdotal; someone has been brought to justice as a result of Prüm.
Sir William Cash
I think that the Home Secretary used the expression “pilot scheme”. She surely concedes that it was a small scale pilot scheme. That is the basis on which I question the extent to which the evidence is sufficiently broad-based to justify this extremely grave extension of powers to the European Court of Justice. The main risks highlighted by the Government are the remaining possibility of false positives, leading to the false incrimination of innocent individuals, cost, conferral of jurisdiction to the Court, and a high volume of requests, bearing in mind the fact that the UK has the largest criminal fingerprint and DNA databases.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s exploration of the issue, but I wish to pick up on the point he made to our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the small scale of the pilot. What does he say about the fact that our law enforcement service will have access to more than 5 million fingerprints and DNA profiles? In the pilot, the British police sent out more than 2,500 profiles. When it comes to scale, the evidence is compelling.
Sir William Cash
The scale has to be weighed against the extension into the realm of the European Court of Justice. That is the key issue. The European jurisdiction has been conceded by the Government, although they refused to do so before. In addition, this entire exercise represents the most massive U-turn in Government policy since 2013.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
There has been a focus on the scale of the pilot scheme. Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to consider page 23 of the Command Paper, which helpfully outlines the delays associated with the Interpol system? Indeed, the very first example is of someone who, after four or five months of an Interpol application, having committed more offences from London to Essex, was detected in relation to another crime? With Prüm, he could have been detected much earlier.
Sir William Cash
There is no doubt that there are a number of cases where improvements can be made. With respect to the difference between what we are doing in the European Union as it affects the United Kingdom and what is happening in the European Union regarding other countries, we still have those problems in other countries. Extending the jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice will simply not deal with the problem.
Furthermore, in reaching a decision Parliament is entitled to know which measures the United Kingdom would opt back into by rejoining Prüm; the relevant factors that prompted the Government’s change of policy on UK participation in Prüm; and how concerns expressed by the coalition Government in July 2013 have been resolved, as we have heard almost nothing about that today. The Government motion is far from clear about the measures that the UK will rejoin if Parliament votes for it today. It refers only to Prüm decisions, but there are three measures. Two Council decisions were adopted in 2008, and the third Council decision was adopted in 2009 on the accreditation of forensic service providers. The Government should explain why the framework decision is not expressly referred to in the motion and whether they accept that it is an integral part of the Prüm package.
In July 2013, the previous Government told Parliament that Prüm would be too costly to implement. The estimate, I understand, was £31 million. The Government expressed concern that Prüm’s technical requirements were out of date and that it would be better to see whether there was a more modern solution that allowed better exchange of information, for example, producing fewer false positives or requiring less human intervention. The Government now suggest that implementing Prüm would be significantly cheaper—about £13 million, not £31 million. Can they account for such a significant reduction in such a short space of time, and how credible is the cost assessment on which the revised estimate is based?
Furthermore, the Government do not explain what efforts have been made to craft a more modern solution based on up-to-date technical requirements which would substantially reduce the risk of false positives, not just in the UK but in the EU. The Government say that they will apply higher technical standards than required by Prüm—of course—for the UK’s DNA and fingerprint databases, but we should recall that DNA profiles and fingerprints of British citizens may be held on foreign databases, which may be subject to less rigorous standards than those proposed by the Government.
All in all, this is not a motion that should be passed, for the reasons that I have given: it interferes with parliamentary sovereignty, it extends the range of the European Court, and the Prime Minister himself has made it clear that he does not want an extension of EU jurisdiction. Indeed, I think the Home Secretary has said as much. The motion therefore does not stand up. We should not opt into these proposals. For many of us, this is a step too far.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement today and for the courtesy of keeping me and the Scottish Government informed of her plans in advance of today’s motion. I agree with the shadow Home Secretary that the Home Secretary made a convincing and powerful case for participating in the Prüm decisions. It seems clear that the United Kingdom’s participation in those decisions will give police forces across the UK accelerated access to millions of fingerprints, DNA profiles and car registration records held across Europe. Such police co-operation across Europe can only be a good thing, provided that there are inbuilt safeguards respecting civil liberties and adherence to the highest scientific standards.
I welcome the UK Government’s engagement with both the Scottish Government and Police Scotland in developing the business and implementation case. I and my colleagues at Holyrood are encouraged by the progress to date. On the basis that the necessary civil liberties safeguards and high scientific standards will be built into the legislation and that there is proper and full involvement of the Scottish Government, the Scottish National party will support the motion.
I thank the Home Secretary for confirming clearly that the Scottish Government, the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland will be included in the membership of the group to have oversight of Prüm. I thank her also for confirming that the UK Government will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that the views and concerns of the people of Scotland are given due consideration in the implementation of these decisions.
Clear benefits of Prüm for Scottish policing have already been shown. The Home Office pilot exercise which was used to inform the business case has already produced two hits for serious historical sexual crimes in Scotland, and these hits are currently being assessed and investigated. Prüm clearly offers advantages to Police Scotland over the current system in terms of both the speed of response and the ability to identify perpetrators more quickly and bring them to justice sooner. Under the current system, as we heard, all international inquiries have to be routed through Interpol. Even in a very serious case, it can take several days for a response to be received. For less serious crime requests, as we heard, it can take many days and even weeks or months for responses to be received.
However, under Prüm, DNA and fingerprint data will be uploaded to the Prüm database from the relevant national databases. These data can be automatically searched, with any hits being notified immediately in the form of anonymised data in the first part of the two-stage process that the Home Secretary explained. Further data quality checks can then be carried out by member states, and on completion full data exchange can take place. This will be much quicker under Prüm than under the current system. The same applies to vehicle registration checks—an EU-wide vehicle registration check could be completed instantly under Prüm, compared with the several days that that takes at present.
On oversight, it was originally proposed by the Home Office that the Information Commissioner and the Biometrics Commissioner would be responsible for auditing UK compliance with Prüm. This was problematic for Scotland because, although they have a UK-wide role, both these officials have a limited remit in Scotland. For example, the Biometrics Commissioner’s role is to keep under review the retention and use by the police of DNA samples, profiles and fingerprints, but their functions in the main do not extend to Scotland. Collection of DNA profiles and samples in Scottish criminal cases does not fall within the Biometrics Commissioner’s remit because these issues are wholly devolved as they form part of Scottish criminal procedure.
Against that background, I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for confirming that the oversight group that is to be set up will include members from the Scottish Government, the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland, as this will provide a vehicle that can be used to feed in any views and concerns about compliance in Scotland. As I said, Prüm is a mixture of reserved and devolved matters, and that is why discussions are ongoing between officials of the Scottish and UK Governments to establish what, if any, legislation will need to be laid before the Scottish Parliament. Once again, I thank the Home Secretary for her continued co-operation with the Scottish Government in this regard.
Turning to civil liberties and safeguards, SNP Members were pleased to read in the business and implementation case that the Government recognised that there were significant civil liberties concerns about the operation of Prüm. I am pleased that they have taken on board some of the key objections put forward by civil liberties groups such as Justice, Liberty and Big Brother Watch. I note that the Home Secretary said that she renews her commitment to addressing civil liberties issues in relation to Prüm.
It is crucial that a correct balance is struck between preventing crime, protecting national security and protecting individual civil liberties, particularly the right to privacy. The Home Office has proposed a number of safeguards that we are pleased to support. In particular, we are happy with the suggestion that any personal data that the UK sends to another member state must not be stored permanently on its systems or databases, and cannot be stored for longer than would be legal in the country sending it. We are also pleased that there will be oversight of, and periodic checks on, the lawfulness of the supply of data and compliance with Prüm.
I understand that if a foreign member state searches for DNA or fingerprints and that search is matched with a UK citizen aged under 18, their personal data can be accessed only if mutual legal assistance channels are used, and that the UK will not share data on those under 18 through Prüm. I also understand that there is an appreciation that if the crime for which someone is matched is very minor, the UK can refuse to send personal data.
Then there are the higher scientific standards in relation to DNA profiles to which the Home Secretary alluded, whereby rather than the minimum requirement of Prüm for at least six full designated loci, the UK Government will require that personal data will not be supplied unless the DNA match is at 10 or more loci. As she said, that means that the chances of a hit being wrong are less than one in a billion, which under Scottish criminal procedure would put the matter pretty much beyond reasonable doubt.
I welcome the undertaking that the United Kingdom will ensure that only those who have been convicted of a crime can be searched in the DNA or fingerprint databases. I applaud this as being in line with what has been standard practice in Scotland for some years. I appreciate that the coalition Government also embarked on this route in recent years.
As I said, these safeguards have been welcomed by civil liberties groups, but some, particularly Big Brother Watch, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, still have concerns about certain aspects of Prüm. They have raised a particular concern about the vehicle registration database, which holds the personal data of all drivers, the majority of whom are not, of course, criminals. Safeguards are to be built into the system with regard to access to DNA and fingerprint data to protect innocent people’s data, so I wonder whether consideration might be given to whether, at least to some extent, such safeguards should be built into the recovery of vehicle registration data. The Home Secretary said that innocent Britons will have nothing to fear, and perhaps that ought to be borne in mind in this respect.
Big Brother Watch raised similar concerns in relation to Eurodac—the EU-wide database of asylum seekers’ and illegal migrants’ fingerprints. The persons whose fingerprints are on this database are not necessarily criminals, so I wonder whether the Home Secretary agrees that it is appropriate that we look at putting in place safeguards to ensure that it is accessed only in the most serious cases.
On the European arrest warrant, I thank the Home Secretary for addressing a concern that I had, and that was raised by Big Brother Watch, about whether the match of a DNA sample, a fingerprint or a vehicle number plate would be enough to request the extradition of a British citizen, or whether further evidence would be required. I was pleased to hear her confirm so clearly that further corroborative evidence would be required before a European arrest warrant could be issued or implemented.
In conclusion, unlike others in this House—we have already heard from them today—the Scottish National party does not fear the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Unlike those who have tabled amendment (a), we believe that, far from threatening the civil liberties of British citizens, the Court of Justice will ensure that they are upheld, having regard to the charter of fundamental rights. It is, of course, open to this Parliament to set higher standards in relation to human rights and civil liberties, if it wished to do so.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I support the Government’s proposals, partly as a result of my own Home Office experience of seeking to fight not just criminality, but, specifically, cross-border criminality. Members on both sides of the House have made the powerful argument that taking this decision will actually make our streets and citizens safer. I cannot think of a better use of parliamentary time, particularly at this moment. The Government’s decision could not be more timely, given the terrible events not just in European countries, but around the world, in recent weeks and months. It is well worth this House doing everything we can to protect our citizens and to reassure them that everything is being done to make our streets as safe as possible.
It is relatively unusual for the Home Office to be able to invite the House to take such a decision on the basis of hard evidence. When adopting a new policy, it is often the case that we have to assume that it is going to work. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not, but in this case we have had the benefit of the pilot, which has been much discussed, and it seems to me that the arguments cannot be gainsaid at all. Clearly, even the small-scale pilot has already made this country’s streets safer, so extending that so that we can experience the full benefits of the Prüm measures is extremely sensible.
That is why the proposal is supported by people throughout the criminal justice system. The Home Secretary has herself quoted a number of senior police officers, including the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the director general of the National Crime Agency and a chief constable who has been involved in a particularly sensitive case. It is interesting that, further down the criminal justice pipeline, the Director of Public Prosecutions also supports the proposal. She has said that it will
“reduce the number of unsolved crimes, such as murder and rape, committed by foreign nationals, and provide an improved service to the public”
and victims—a group we should always be particularly concerned about.
The advantages are spread across a number of areas. They include not just the simplified processes to request information and data, though they are vital, but efficiency gains in international searching, which will allow simultaneous searches to take place in a number of countries at once. That is a significant step forward in practical crime fighting.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Speaking as one of the forces of darkness referred to earlier, I abhor giving more power to any other body, but I accept my right hon. Friend’s argument about the international element; it is not just about the European element. In that case, I support the sharing of data, because it makes our streets safer. What I object to is that it is framed in this European way, but we are where we are, unfortunately.
Damian Green
I can only say to my hon. Friend that it would be absurd to let the best be the enemy of the good. It would be wonderful if 185 states all had the technical capacity and ability to exchange information in this way, but they do not. In fact, I think only 21 of the current member states of the European Union can actually do this. I know that this is not true of my hon. Friend, but I sense that other hon. Friends want to use that as a reason not to sign up to the proposal, but that is nonsense, because it would continue to leave our streets not as well protected as we would all wish them to be.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
For me, the problem of cross-national justice is that countries are sometimes very keen to convict foreigners, and there is therefore a propensity to miscarriages of justice. We saw that with the plane spotters in Greece, as my right hon. Friend may remember. He has of course been in the position of suffering a politically driven miscarriage of justice. What is interesting for me is that the Home Office has done a very good job in preventing the false positives and miscarriages of justices. Does he agree?
Damian Green
As so often, I do agree with my right hon. Friend. He is right that, for obvious reasons, I am not an uncritical admirer of everything that the police do. I regard myself as a candid friend of the police. It is extremely important that the technical measures that can be taken to minimise false positives and possible miscarriages of justice are taken at all times. I agree with him that the reassurances the Home Secretary has been able to give on that matter are extremely important.
Before I move on to the potential risks, I want to mention one advantage: access to Eurodac, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) referred. Eurodac is the EU-wide database of the finger- prints of asylum seekers and illegal migrants. This change will allow it to be used in criminal investigation searches. It will be precisely aimed at potential criminals, not at innocent people who may have been caught up in something. That underpinning safeguard is absolutely key.
The overwhelming advantage is the straightforward one of speed. Anyone who looks at practical law enforcement will know that speed of response is hugely important in making police operations more effective, particularly internationally. Regrettably, it is topical to say that this is particularly true when the police are attempting to deal with a terrorist outrage. The fact that it may take minutes or 24 hours, rather than months, to get evidence is absolutely vital. The advantages are therefore clear cut and widespread.
People have expressed two areas of risk associated with this system. One is genuine and the other is the result of applying some wrong-headed ideology. Let me deal with the genuine one first: the fear that the measure will intrude on our privacy or damage our data protection and therefore adversely affect our civil liberties. I take that very seriously. It is extremely important to deal with security alongside other civil liberties. I agreed with a lot of what the shadow Home Secretary said, but I do not agree—I may have slightly misunderstood him—when he said that we must have security, and once we have security we can worry about civil liberties. I think that security is one of the important civil liberties that Governments should guarantee, but other civil liberties are extremely important. We must try to defend them all in parallel and, if necessary, strike the right balance. I think that the measure does that.
There will be stringent safeguards. I return to the point that the key safeguard is to ensure that the measure is used to target convicted criminals. It seems to me that if we use large-scale databases, particularly on an international basis, we want to target people convicted of a crime, not just to trawl the records of innocent people. That is absolutely essential at a national level, and it is even more essential at a European level. The proposals before the House pass that test. I imagine that that is why the National DNA Database Ethics Group has given this a “wholehearted welcome”, which is quite a good badge of respectability for the Home Office.
Like other hon. Members, I have read carefully what Big Brother Watch has said about the measure. It is an organisation that does a lot of good and helps to hold Governments to account. I confess that I was slightly surprised at the tone of the response from Big Brother Watch, which welcomed the safeguards that the Home Secretary has introduced. It did say that there were areas of concern, but against the normal standards of comments by civil liberties groups on Home Office proposals, that is warm approval. That should be taken seriously.
I echo the words of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and hope that the Minister deals with the vehicle registration database and the specific worries that Big Brother Watch has raised. It asks:
“Will searches only be for serious crimes or will they include offences such as speeding or driving in a bus lane?”
It also asks:
“Will foreign police forces have access to ANPR cameras or historical ANPR data?”
The House ought to be reassured on those points.
All those civil liberties issues pose a genuine risk, but I think that they have been dealt with. The other line of criticism, which appears in the amendment, says that we should not use these procedures because they are procedures of the European Union. That is a damaging ideology. These measures help the police to catch criminals, prevent terrorist attacks, save lives and keep our streets safer. In those circumstances, it is irresponsible to say that we should not sign up because of an anti-European ideology and a fear of the European Court of Justice. The British people know that we live in a dangerous world and, frankly, will not forgive politicians who make it more dangerous by indulging in anti-European gesture politics in this field.
It has been argued that there are other ways to achieve the same effect, but it has been amply demonstrated in the course of the debate that nothing that is available is as efficient as this measure.
Mr Andrew Turner
Will my right hon. Friend assist me by saying whether Iceland, for instance, should be encouraged to join?
Damian Green
Iceland is not a member of the European Union. If Iceland wished to sign some kind of deal with the European Union, I assume that it would be open to Iceland to do so, but I have seen no sign that it does. It is not within the purview of this House to dictate to the Icelandic Government and people what they should do. I imagine that they want to keep their streets safe as well.
Mr David Davis
I take my right hon. Friend’s point about the European Court of Justice, but the fear in respect of some of the protections he has talked about, such as the extreme case of whether the database is used for speeding offences, is that the Court could change the guidelines in a way that is outside our control. I do not think that it is true that that could happen in this case, but I think that he should address the point, rather than just dismiss it.
Damian Green
I do not dismiss it, although my right hon. Friend is right that it is not true in this case. The Prüm measures specifically say where the European Court of Justice has jurisdiction, and it is quite limited. One thing that the Court seeks to do is to defend individual citizens against over-mighty states.
Damian Green
My right hon. Friend knows that. The idea that everything that the European Court of Justice does is bad or somehow goes against civil liberties and freedoms is simply wrong, as I am sure he would acknowledge.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
It is worth putting it on the record that the Prüm decisions are caveated by national law. Article 12 states that the searches must be conducted
“in compliance with the searching Member State’s national law.”
Damian Green
I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that that reassures those who have doubts on that score.
It has become fashionable in this House in recent days to quote dead communist dictators.
Damian Green
I may be the first Member to do so on this side of the House, but I am sure that I will not be the last.
In this case, I want to refer to a concept that Lenin introduced: that of the useful idiot. It refers to people who do something by accident that gives comfort to those whom they normally oppose. I am afraid that some arguments against this proposal fall into that category. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are advancing these arguments are not idiots, so I urge them to think hard, and possibly not to press the amendment.
This kind of European co-operation in fighting serious crime and terrorism is essential in today’s dangerous world. It is to the European Union’s credit that it has devised a practical system to help keep people safer, and to the credit of the British Government that they have agreed to sign up to it. I hope that tonight the House will agree on that significant step forward in fighting terrorism and serious international crime.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). I woke up this morning by reading his article in The Daily Telegraph on this subject, and here he is live this afternoon quoting Lenin, who I am sure is required reading for all his electors in Ashford.
I will not quote Lenin, but I will quote the Home Secretary who, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we revere on this side of the House. In 2014 she said that
“we have neither the time nor the money to implement Prüm by 1 December. I have said that it will be senseless for us to rejoin it now and risk being infracted. Despite considerable pressure from the Commission and other member states, that remains the case.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 492.]
I was delighted to see her conversion, which was based—of course—on very strong evidence from the pilot that the Government put in place, and on a powerful case that we should join this important part of the EU. She has obviously thought about it carefully over the past 12 months, and I appreciate the courtesy of the Immigration Minister who rang me a week ago and told me what the Government planned to do.
All the arguments have been made. I could just say, “I agree” and sit down, but this would not be Parliament if I were to do that. It is rare for those on both Front Benches to speak so eloquently in support of a motion—perhaps that will be a feature of European debates to come.
Mrs Main
I disagreed with the shadow Home Secretary when he said that those who wanted to vote in favour of this motion would be expressing their delight at an ever closer union. I disagreed with him about that, and I felt—perhaps this is the useful idiot bit—that he was losing me at that point.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Lady is right. Voting for the motion does not mean an ever closer union—that issue is still under negotiation with the Prime Minister and the rest of the EU—but it does mean helping us to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime. I hope that she will vote with the Government on this occasion, as I am sure she has done on many other occasions since she came to the House.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
My right hon. Friend is making a compelling argument. We all, including those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, want issues of cross-border crime to be dealt with and eliminated. Does he agree, however, that data protection must not be sacrificed and that civil liberties must be protected?
Keith Vaz
I do agree with that, but I am reassured by what the Home Secretary has said about the creation of the oversight board, and the fact that information about those on the database who have not committed criminal offences will not be shared.
That brings me to an important point. I am getting confused with all these various databases, so I asked the Library which databases on criminal and terrorist links are available and could be shared with the rest of the EU. It came up with an awesome list of databases that contain hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of names. The police national computer holds a number of pieces of information—11,559,157 names. There is the Police National Database; ViSOR; the DNA database, which currently holds 5,094,325 names; Semaphore, which is about to be improved because the Home Office announced an extra £25 million to improve its capability; and the Warnings Index, which is also capable of improvement—I will make reference to this—because we heard recently that it is not as effective as it ought to be in tracking those who come into this country. We do not know how many are on the Warnings Index, of course, because it is confidential. Again, we do not know the numbers on the Watch lists database, but it is still of interest. As far as the European Union is concerned, there is the second generation Schengen information system, SIS II, the Europol information system and the Interpol database. Again, we do not know how many names are on those databases.
We are talking about an awful lot of databases. When the Minister comes to wind up, it would be very helpful if he told the House which of the UK databases will be subject to this decision and which of the European and international databases—it may be all of them—are also going to be part of the decision we make today. I support what the Government are doing, but it is nice to have clarity for those who think that every single bit of information ever collected about a British citizen will be made available.
My concern is the security of the border, especially after the events in Paris. I believe the decision of the Government will help us to track people who leave this country and end up in the European Union; people like Trevor Brooks and Simon Keeler, who on Wednesday 18 November were arrested at Hungary’s border with Romania. One of them was subject to a Home Office ban, but managed to leave the country, cross our borders and go into the rest of the EU. On Sunday, The Sunday Telegraph reported that a senior Daesh fundraiser, Mohammed Khaled, who was under a strict counter-terrorism order, managed to flee the United Kingdom to join jihadists in Syria. As we have heard in the media, one of the Paris attackers, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was wanted for previous offences in Europe but managed to travel to Syria and back without detention.
The problem—I put this to the Home Secretary when I intervened—is our European colleagues not putting suspects’ names on the databases as soon as they become people of interest. It is very important that they do so. If suspects cross borders and we want to know where they are, it is important that they are on the database in the first place. The Greek ambassador gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee two weeks ago. He lamented that in the case of one of those involved in the Paris attacks, even though the French decided this individual was a person of interest, his name had not been put on the database. When he crossed the border between Turkey and Greece it was not possible for his name to be flagged up on the system, so they were unable to alert the French. We therefore want to be sure that this happens as quickly as possible. We welcome the speed of the new arrangements; I think the Home Secretary said 15 minutes as opposed to two-and-a-half months, which sounds absolutely incredible. That is fine, but the names have to go on the database in the first place.
Only yesterday, the head of Europol, Rob Wainwright, said there was a “black hole of information” that hampered co-operation on counter-terrorism. He mentioned the fact that fewer than half the foreign fighters identified by national counter-terrorism authorities are registered in our system, which is meant to provide a basic cross-European data check. As we know, 18 million or so people are not part of the passenger name recognition system that the Home Secretary has been battling away—I think for all the years she has been Home Secretary—to get the rest of the European Union signed up to. The fact is that just one person coming into our country who we do not know affects the security of our borders.
We should take the head of the Europol at his word and try to assist those international organisations. A few years ago, the Committee suggested the creation of an international counter-terrorism platform as part of Interpol. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. Interpol and Europol have a great deal of information and data, and we should be building on what they have got. That is why I am pleased that on 1 January Europol will be launching the EU’s counter-terrorism centre, which will help us enormously in the fight against terrorism.
Finally, I turn to the European arrest warrant, which is not the subject of the debate but to which right hon. and hon. Members have referred. The Committee, in successive reports, has pointed to real problems with the EAW. It is a great idea, but there are technicalities that cause problems for British citizens, and we should be extremely careful about taking the view that signing up to these agreements means that everything will be all right. We need to monitor carefully what is being suggested, and if, for any reason, we need to change our involvement, we should do so.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Thanks to the European arrest warrant, my constituent, Michael Turner, of whom I know the right hon. Gentleman is aware, was sent to jail in Hungary for four months without trial. We fought it very hard, and the Government assured us the matter would be looked at, but I am afraid I have no confidence in European jurisdiction, and this move concerns me, despite the fact that we all want to fight terrorism, regardless of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) rather unhelpfully said.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is right. He fought very hard for his constituent, Michael Turner, who, thanks to the hon. Gentleman, gave evidence to the Committee. He was let down by the system. It is wrong that someone who is completely innocent should be arrested and held in another country for so long. Apart from anything else, the damage to reputation and personal integrity is enormous. There are problems with the EAW that we need to look at, but, as an idea, it is right that we are able to trace people throughout Europe. The actual implementation and practicalities, however, cause hardship to people such as Michael Turner.
In conclusion, the Home Secretary’s conversion is welcome and her case powerful. I hope we can use this system to ensure that criminals do not escape without being brought to justice and that those who seek to enter our country to undermine our values through terrorism are caught at the border and sent back to where they belong.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
It is with a heavy heart that I stand to speak in this debate, as I am one of our Home Secretary’s most ardent supporters. Our nation is lucky indeed to have someone so entirely committed to protecting our citizens and doing all in her power to make our Home Office functions work as effectively as possible. However, I have been more than a little bemused by this proposal that the UK sign up by 31 December 2015 to reciprocal data-sharing of our DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration databases with EU member states that have already signed up to Prüm.
I was under the impression before I came to the House that we had opted out of all police and criminal justice measures, including the Prüm decisions, agreed before the Lisbon treaty. There was a good deal of noise about this last year when, in the run-up to 1 December 2014, the British Government declared that we would rejoin 35 measures in the national interest—I am led to understand that that number would have been smaller had we not been in coalition—but we did not seek to rejoin Prüm. It seems that the reason for not opening up our databases to fellow EU states was not one of national interest or protection of our citizens’ data from different police jurisdictions, but simply that we would have been fined because we could not have built the computer system in time for the deadline and so would have been at risk of infraction.
I commend that decision on financial prudence grounds, as well as data protection ones, but I am bemused because I remember the Home Secretary saying the European Court of Justice should not have the final say over matters such as criminal law and that Her Majesty’s Government should be able to renegotiate such arrangements as they saw fit. That is why I have been confused. While there is an opportunity, the window for which closes on 31 December, for us to sign up to Prüm, we could just as easily not sign up now to taking us into Prüm under the Lisbon treaty framework, with the attendant risk of putting our most personal biometric data and its management under ECJ jurisdiction. We could instead build our own portal and allow other countries—including those outwith the EU, not just EU countries—to access our DNA and fingerprint records under our own legal framework and control. The fact is that criminals and those wishing the British people harm come from all over the world, not simply from EU countries.
I accept that there might well be biometric data on foreign criminals in EU databases, as we have in ours, but surely it would be more sensible to build a database that we use to assist police forces around the world, with whom bilateral agreements already in place could be enhanced by such data-sharing. I am not against the concept of sharing data in and of itself, but the safeguards for those who could be wrongly identified and pursued by foreign police forces must be absolutely watertight.
I commend Ministers for the detailed specifications set out in the command paper about when a positive hit on a biometric should be progressed for handing over personal information. The fact that only the biometrics of adults convicted of recordable offences should be shared is a good safeguard. In the UK, however, we also hold the biometric data of juveniles convicted of recordable offences, of those arrested and charged but not convicted of many serious offences and of those whose cases have not yet been concluded. Again, my concern remains that while we intend to safeguard most of the UK data held from view by EU states through Prüm, we risk ECJ jurisdiction over our citizens’ data—as was said earlier, the lines are moving—when there are other options available to Great Britain’s police forces for accessing other countries’ records when trying to track down criminals.
The command paper states that of the 15% of crimes committed by foreigners, half are by EU citizens, and the other half are not. I know that every police force, anywhere in the world, will always want more tools to help them fight crime and solve serious offences. I was more than a little concerned by the shadow Home Secretary’s comments that security will trump civil liberties. I am afraid that that is not a view that I hold. There must be points at which we in this House determine the security of our citizens’ most personal biometric data, which must not be put at risk. We must retain complete control of our data records.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am also concerned at a practical level that the proposed cost of £13 million to build this portal to access British DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data is quite likely to be an underestimate. Since I was elected, I have sat in hearings week after week to listen to the justifications of Departments as to why IT projects have not gone according to plan or budget. The reality is that any new IT programme is fraught with challenges, but to build one that will need so many safeguards will undoubtedly be the cause of many problems, delays and unexpected cost increases.
I do not suggest that we should not be trying to build a portal of some kind to assist international law enforcers in the medium term to gain faster access to data, just as we see the benefits of accessing the data within other EU states, but I am not convinced that giving the green light to do this under pressure from states signed up to Prüm that are keen to get into our databases is the way forward.
I hope that Ministers will be able to assuage my anxieties on these matters for my constituents. I thank the Minister for giving me time to discuss these matters in detail last week. We have choices in how we go about increasing our biometric data sharing with other nations. I am simply unable to see why a rush to sign up to Prüm before new year’s eve is out is the right way to go. I will continue to listen to the debate and to Ministers’ honourable and considered positions on Prüm in the hope that my fears for both IT costs and potential failures will be proved wrong. I hope the Government will see that criminality extends beyond a few EU states in the complex global network that we all live in today.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan). The first question I pose is whether we want to ensure that we are tough against terrorism; then whether we want to ensure that the United Kingdom takes every action possible to combat terrorism; and then whether we want the public to feel safer by our actions in combating terrorism. I think we would all say yes, of course we do.
I have noted that a number of Members who have spoken are anxious to protect civil liberties for all our citizens, and I have heard the Home Secretary talking about the protections and safeguards that are in place. I agree that civil liberties protection is important, but what about civil liberties protection for the victims of our society as well? We need to realise that a huge amount of victims require it, not just the people whose information is going on to the database. We need to be absolutely clear about the fact that this concerns protection for our citizens—not the citizens of the United Kingdom but the citizens of countries that are our near neighbours. I must say to those who oppose this proposal that although I am not the greatest supporter of the European Union and, indeed, have supported the actions of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on many occasions, I disagree with some of what the hon. Gentleman has said today. In particular, I disagree with what he said about civil liberties, because I have noted the safeguards that will be introduced.
We in Northern Ireland have been subjected to terrorism for many years: the terrorism of people being murdered, and of bombs and shootings in our society. We have also suffered because of a lack of information from our near neighbours, the authorities in the Republic of Ireland. I understand that they have not signed up to these proposals either, but I hope that, being the strong European Union supporters that they are, they will do so in the near future. I hope they will come to realise that that might be helpful to our neighbours in the United Kingdom, France, and any other country that is situated nearby.
Sir William Cash
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. As he well knows, I am a strong supporter of most of what comes from Northern Ireland in the shape of the Democratic Unionist party. Does he not accept, however, that there are ways of dealing with this problem that do not involve our surrendering to the European Court of Justice? That is the key issue for most of us in this matter. It is not that we do not want to restrain terrorism and exchange information; what concerns us is the manner in which that is being done, at the expense of Parliament and, in our view, of those who wish to leave the European Union.
Tom Elliott
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and for explaining his position. I certainly accept his position on the European Court of Justice, but there is a balance to be struck and there are decisions to be made. I think that we must take a balanced view when people’s safety and lives are being put on the line, and my balanced view is that it is better for us to try to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom and those of other parts of Europe.
Had these databases been in place when the Provisional IRA were planting bombs in Germany and the Netherlands, perhaps the people responsible could have been apprehended before the bombs went off, or at least could have been brought to justice after the explosions. I think that if the Republic of Ireland were to be involved in Prüm, the United Kingdom, and particularly the Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom, could be in a much better co-operative position, and could share information much more easily than is possible at present. I know that co-operation between the security services in the Republic and those in Northern Ireland has already improved to some degree, but there is still no stream of information, and I think it would be helpful to all our citizens if that information were shared.
If we have nothing to hide from the rest of our society, we have nothing to fear from these proposals. I do not mind if my information is on a database if I have nothing to hide, and in any case I understand that there is a safeguard that will ensure that people’s personal information will not be put on to the database if they are not criminals.
This is not just about terrorism; it is about wider organised crime as well. It is about human trafficking and drugs trafficking, which are a scourge on our society throughout Europe. We have seen the public aspect of terrorism in Paris and elsewhere, and we know how many people have been murdered, but other organised crime—such as human trafficking and the trafficking of drugs—brings just as much devastation to society and to individuals. It affects as many people and ruins as many lives as terrorism. We need to be ever mindful of that.
I do have a question in relation to Northern Ireland. Will this take a legislative consent motion in Northern Ireland, or will it take the approval of the Northern Ireland Executive, or is it automatic? That is a simple question, which I assume requires a fairly easy answer, because I would not like to see delayed in Northern Ireland the positive aspects that could be helpful to us in our society as well.
The information on the databases is only as good as what is put on, so I implore that we do need a proper system for the inputting of that information, so that the proper information is available to all in our society.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott). I rise in this debate just briefly because I am a great believer in co-operation between European member states and, indeed, between all countries on an international basis if the aim of that co-operation is to eliminate terrorism and fear and improve national security, but a couple of things need to be said. This is not necessarily about the detail of the database—how the data are held, what is on the database, how it is populated, how many databases there might be, whether they are a good thing or a bad thing. There is a tiny bit of principle that underlies all these points that I want to check that we have covered off.
When the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made his opening remarks for the Opposition, he reminded us of the job he held in 2005. He had been given a job by Tony Blair at that time to bring in the European arrest warrant. At that time, I was a Member of the European Parliament and I participated in debates there about the extensions of powers this might bring. There was a genuine concern from the current major Opposition party here, the Labour party, about the direction of travel in the European criminal justice system, hence the big opt-out which came about. In fact, let me quote someone who does not get quoted much in this House any more—former Prime Minister Tony Blair. On 25 June 2007 he was talking about the opt-out from the criminal justice system and said:
“It is precisely the pick and choose policy often advocated. It gives us complete freedom to protect our common law system”.—[Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 21.]
That was why I asked the right hon. Member for Leigh whether security trumps common law. I will challenge him privately, maybe, over a pint later on his answer to that, because we have to understand that common law is the underpinning of our structure of law in general in this country and we must uphold that. Yes, security is super-important, but we must uphold our common law principles as well.
I was in the European Parliament at the same time as a great gentleman, Professor Neil MacCormick, who was an SNP Member of the European Parliament. He chastised me when I was flirting with the idea of how a European system of criminal justice might look going forward. He reminded me that actually a European system of criminal justice goes against corpus juris in many ways and could undermine our common law. He kept on reminding that Parliament that we must be very wary when we look forward at measures in the emerging European criminal justice system, as while they might be—as many of them are—sensible progressions of policy, we must make sure none of them undermines our system of common law.
A former Labour Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, probably put this as well as I will ever be able to:
“In negotiating the justice and home affairs chapter, the Government made clear their absolute determination to protect our common law system and police and judicial processes. We were clear that EU co-operation in this area should not affect fundamental aspects of our criminal justice system.”
She went on to make a point that we need to note today, bearing in mind that, having used our opt-out, this Government are now using a process of opting back in. She said:
“The extended opt-in arrangements that we have secured mean that we have a complete choice as to whether to participate in any JHA measure. We have also ensured that the jurisdiction of the ECJ cannot be imposed on the UK in this area—it will apply only to the extent that we have chosen to participate in a JHA measure.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 183.]
The Government are to be commended for certain aspects of the process that they have undertaken on this measure, instead of simply opting in without thought. The Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), will understand that I have real reservations about how these measures work in conjunction with our system of common law, but at least we have had a sensible pilot and a sensible assessment, and we have put in extra safeguards to ensure that the data transfer is more on our terms.
I like it when we co-operate with our EU partners—and, indeed, our international partners—on these matters. My only concern is to ensure that the Government and this place, the House of Commons, have squared off opting into things like this against the continuing development of a European system of criminal justice based on a legal code that directly challenges corpus juris and our common law system. I hope that the Home Secretary will understand my concern, and I hope that the Minister will be able to cover off the points that I have made. In his assessment, will going deeper into ECJ jurisdiction be a price worth paying for these measures?
Several hon. Members rose—
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. There was not much choice left on this side of the Chamber. You have a distinct advantage over many Members here, in that when you entered the Chamber about 10 minutes ago, you at least knew what the subject matter was. I have sat through the debate for almost two hours, and some of the contributions would lead people to think that this was a dangerous proposition that posed a fundamental threat to our country. I do not believe that that is the case.
I am incredibly grateful to the Home Secretary and, in particular, to the Minister for Immigration for our conversations over the past few weeks, for their thoughtfulness and their willingness to assuage our concerns, and for preparing and publishing the Command Paper. If Prüm was about the United Kingdom Government sending shedloads of data to 27 other EU member states, I would be voting against it. If it was about asking 27 other EU member states to come over to the United Kingdom and have full, unfettered access to our data, I would also vote against it. However, that is not what is being proposed. The indications from the Home Secretary and from the Command Paper that the cost has been significantly reduced, from £31 million to £13 million, are to be welcomed.
I would be grateful if the Minister or the Home Secretary could help me with a little confusion arising from the contribution of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). He suggested that we needed to put certain information on a database. My understanding was that we had three databases—one for vehicle registration, one for DNA and one for fingerprints—and that it was through those existing databases that the information would be handled.
Mrs May
I am grateful for this opportunity to confirm what the hon. Gentleman has just said. There is a DNA database—we will restrict the information that is available for the Prüm checks—a vehicle registration database and a fingerprint database. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), mentioned a whole variety of databases. There are some issues within the European Union about the connectivity of certain databases to help us to catch terrorists and so forth, but in regard to the Prüm decisions, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) is absolutely right to say that it is those three databases that we are talking about.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful for that explanation. It satisfies my confusion, as opposed to there being any error on the part of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Gavin Robinson
I am a Eurosceptic, but pragmatically so. [Laughter.] I hear some laughter coming from across the Chamber, but it is important that when we agree on certain constitutional issues and the future of this country, we coalesce and unite around those issues. I do have a difference of opinion with those who have signed the amendment and it is important to outline—
Sir William Cash
I am so glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is a Eurosceptic, and I take it from what he said that he would be inclined to leave the European Union. Does he accept that if he were to—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are definitely not going on to that debate at this stage.
Gavin Robinson
You do not need to save me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will decline to answer. I can talk to the hon. Gentleman about that issue outside the Chamber.
As a pragmatic Eurosceptic, I have to look at the Command Paper and assess the details. The important details that are published there recognise that the PSNI was a part of the pilot and that there were two instances of a successful hit that involved a rape case and a German national. When I read statistics for 2013-14 in the Command Paper saying that a third of all crimes in London were carried out by foreign national offenders and that a third of them—33,500 individuals—were EU nationals, I think we need to look at ways in which we can speed up the investigative process, without hamstringing our investigative authorities in this country. That is why when I intervened on the hon. Member for Stone I made reference to page 23 of the Command Paper and the inherent delays associated with Interpol. Although Interpol will continue to be the system for dealing with those 34,500 foreign national offenders who are not from the EU, we have the opportunity to protect citizens in this city and in this country by taking this important decision today.
Reference was made earlier to the Republic of Ireland. It has not yet taken this decision, but I hope it does so. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee this afternoon, and she will know that there have been 16 terrorist attacks carried out in Northern Ireland this year that are of national security concern. Many of those involved in dissident republican circles will be operating across the UK-Republic of Ireland border.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we send a strong message of support for Prüm, we will send the message to the Parliament in the Republic that it is time for the Republic to join this and thus make it easier to tackle things such as the cross-border fuel crimes that we have been talking about in other contexts of Northern Ireland security?
Gavin Robinson
I agree entirely and I am grateful for that intervention. We have engaged, through the PSNI, and it is crucial that our colleagues and friends in the Republic do so, too. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate that discussions are ongoing with the Republic of Ireland, so that we can share our information, data and experience obtained during the pilot with the Republic of Ireland and it can similarly benefit from the directive.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The facts and figures show that there were 1,109 detections of marked fuel oil and oil laundries in Northern Ireland by the PSNI, with 50,340 litres of oil seized; and that there were 5,852 seizures of cigarettes, with 53 million cigarettes seized to a value of €25.5 million. That is what the PSNI can do. If it had help from the Garda Siochana and other countries, it could do even more.
Gavin Robinson
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend —I never could. That is probably the 10th time he has contributed to proceedings in this Chamber today and there will be many more such contributions.
I will not labour the point. We support this proposal from a pragmatic perspective. I wish to conclude with two gentle points for the shadow Home Secretary. First, I agree with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others in this Chamber who have taken issue with the suggestion that if we look after national security, civil liberties will look after themselves. There are countless examples of draconian societies in this world where national security is very much at the expense of civil liberties. The considered point about a balance between the two is much more appropriate.
Although it is not my role to stand up for, defend or come to the rescue of the Home Secretary, I have to say that I see no U-turn from her. What was said by the shadow Home Secretary, and indeed by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who had a smile on his face, misses the point. In July 2014, the Home Secretary was quite clear about the reason for delay, which was a wish to avoid infraction proceedings from the European Union. I will go one step further, as there is one point in this paper that has been missed by many.
At that time, Northern Ireland representatives, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), were standing against the decision to close the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Coleraine. A key component of Prüm was that this country had to have centralised collection of data for vehicle registration. The Government could not proceed until they had closed the facility in Coleraine. They may not be honest about this, but because a centralised service in Swansea was only offered up on 21 June 2014, the decision had to be made to delay Prüm.
Although I take no enjoyment in highlighting that fact, it does serve to illustrate that the Home Secretary could not proceed when the key component was a centralised data centre. She did not have that centre until our vehicle licensing centre in Coleraine was closed. With that point, and perhaps a nod to those who are unhappy today, I wish to indicate our pragmatic support for the proposal that will reinforce the security efforts and the safety of citizens not only in this country but throughout the European Union.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is becoming something of an annual event that the Home Office should bring forward a further passing of powers to the European Union. Just over a year ago, we had the arrest warrant and all that went with it, and now we have Prüm, or Proom depending on one’s preferred pronunciation.
I must confess that this is a grave disappointment, because one had begun to read briefings in the press that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was going to become the Boadicea of the Leave campaign, and on her winged chariot she was going to be putting the case for why we should have less Europe rather than more. Instead, we get this order brought before us today on the grounds of necessity. She says that it is the only way in which we can co-operate with our friends in Europe—countries that wish to assist us and that we wish to assist.
The arguments for the order are, superficially, very attractive. There is no one in this House who wants to aid terrorists or stop them being arrested. There is no one who wants rapists to go free, or who wants petrol smuggled between Northern and southern Ireland. We want the law to be obeyed and the wrongdoers to be arrested. We want them to be caught and put in prison. That is all true, and we want efficient systems to be put in place that ensure that that happens. There is absolute unanimity in this House, and probably—except among the criminal fraternity—in the country at large. Then we hear why it can be done only this one way, which is more Europe, with the Commission and the European Court of Justice.
Interpol, according to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others who have spoken, sounds as though it is run by Inspector Clouseau and uses cleft sticks to carry messages between countries. It is so incompetent and slow that it is hard to understand why it exists at all. If it is quite so incompetent at gathering information and quite so lazy and idle at passing it around the world, why are we contributing to its upkeep? Is there not a case for fundamental reform of Interpol? Should we not do something about it to ensure that, internationally and not just in the narrow European sphere, there is a means, a method and an ability to transmit information relating to these dangerous criminals? But oh, no, we will not bother with that. That might be hard work. It might mean that something has to be done, that it will upset the nice, expanding, imperial European Union that has of course to have more powers gathered to itself. No, the only thing that can be done is to use the full mechanism of the European Union; there is no other way.
We assume that if we offered bilateral intergovernmental agreements, they would be refused. The Home Office states that they would be refused; that that would be too difficult because there is another mechanism within the European Union. But that makes the assumption that our friends, our partners, our allies in Europe are so wedded to the idea of the European Union that they will not do something that they themselves wish to do because we will not agree to their specific structures for doing it. Therefore, we must accept the structures rather than negotiating with them over what those structures may be.
This strikes me as perverse. We know that our friends in France are keen to have this exchange of information. Is the Home Secretary really saying that the French would not agree to an intergovernmental bilateral agreement that we would give them information and they would give us information because it did not meet the highfalutin European ideal? Is that really what Her Majesty’s Government are saying? Is that the case with Germany, Italy and Spain? Are they all saying that they attach so much importance to the European Union that, even though they wish to share information with us, even though they think it is important, even though they think that it would cut crime, they are not willing to do so?
Sir William Cash
We must also take into account the decision taken by Denmark only a few days ago in this enormous description of the kaleidoscope of European unity.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right. The Danish question is one of the greatest importance. Denmark had a referendum, having trusted their people, which I believe we may be doing at some point. But of course we are not trusting them on this measure, because it is instrumental to catching terrorists, and the people cannot be trusted to decide whether they want to do that or not. No, this must be done by the Government after a three-hour debate—though lucky us to get even a three-hour debate. Last year we did not get a debate on the European arrest warrant. We had it on something else.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that we have a series of bilateral agreements with 20-something EU member states, but is that not essentially what is being done tonight, albeit in a more efficient way?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is only partly right—a bit of a curate’s egg, if I may say so, but it is regrettably rotten in parts. If the agreement is done in this way, it comes under the competence of the European Court of Justice and infraction proceedings can be brought by the European Commission. Why is that important? I accept that protections are built into Prüm, and that there are limits on the application of what the ECJ can do, but it needs to be seen as part of a whole package. We are agreeing today that the investigatory function in relation to data held by Governments should be centralised at a European level. We agreed a year ago that the arrest function should be centralised with a European competence. So we have investigation, we have arrest, and we have a proposal from the European Commission for a European public prosecutor—so far, resisted, but this measure was resisted a year ago, and the European arrest warrant was not Conservative party policy until a year ago.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman sees where I am going. This is part of a package of creating a European criminal justice system. It comes one by one and bit by bit. On every occasion, the measure is said to be essential and we are told that there is no opportunity of doing it differently, but if there is no opportunity of doing it differently, why is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister racing around European capitals trying to organise a renegotiation? If there is never any other possibility, is that not banging our head against a brick wall? Surely we should be saying—the Government intimated this a year ago, but there has been no delivery at all—that we will make the European arrest warrant and all that goes with it part of the renegotiation. We would go back to the status quo ante—where we were prior to the Lisbon treaty: that we do these things on an intergovernmental basis.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone—I am sorry, I mean hon. Friend; he ought to be right honourable; it is extraordinary that Her Majesty has not yet asked him to join the Privy Council—pointed me in the direction of Denmark. Denmark has said no. Denmark will want to make arrangements with fellow European Union states to exchange data with their friends and allies, and we could make arrangements with our friends and allies to exchange data and do all the sensible things of which everyone in this House is in favour. It is the right thing for us to do, but it is better than that. If we did it on an intergovernmental basis we might decide that there are some EU member states whose criminal justice systems are not up to it. That is an important point. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) referred to his constituent and the disgraceful way in which he was treated in a country where we do not have the same confidence in the criminal justice processes that we have in, for example, Germany and France, or, for that matter, the United States and Canada. Such an arrangement would give us greater flexibility, and there are a number of ways in which it could be done. We could have intergovernmental agreements with the European Union as a body. The EU has legal personality, so it is possible to do it on that basis, but maintain control and keep the rights that we enjoy, and stop the rush—that is perhaps an exaggeration, as the last debate was a year ago, but it is a rush in European terms—to establish a single criminal justice system.
It is worrying that a Government who portray themselves in election campaigns, propaganda and statements as Eurosceptic, when it comes to the details of what they are doing, turn out to think that the answer is more Europe. They then say that this has to be done because we are in danger if we do not do it. The only reason we are in danger is that we assume that the EU and its member states are not rational in their dealings with us, so we must always give in to them. One of the greatest Prime Ministers that this country ever saw, William Pitt, said:
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
This argument is dependent on the necessity. I do not wish this Government to be tyrannical, nor do I wish to be a slave.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made a strong case for the functions that the measure would deliver, because there is a strong case for that. Indeed, I am astonished not only that Interpol does not, in the 21st century, make such functions available to the whole world, but that we seem to have given up on making Interpol fit for the 21st century and a world of global crimes in which we ought be able to pursue people, wherever they come from, not merely in the European Union.
The key problem is rehearsed in the Government’s business case for Prüm. The Command Paper says on page 51:
“The current Government would not have ceded CJEU jurisdiction over the field of policing and criminal justice during negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty.”
We can see immediately where the Government’s heart is. The Command Paper continues:
“It is clear that accepting CJEU jurisdiction over measures in the field of policing and criminal justice is not risk free. This is because the CJEU can rule in unexpected and unhelpful ways.”
It goes on to discuss how difficult it is to overturn decisions made by the Court, and says:
“The Government considers, however, the risk of CJEU jurisdiction to be at its greatest as concerns matters relating to substantive criminal law. This is a matter that should be determined by our sovereign Parliament, particularly given that the relevant measures are often open to wide interpretation. This also reduces the risk of the EU obtaining exclusive external competence in relation to such matters.”
The Government express concern about the prospect of third-country agreements. That is the problem. If we hand over control of this area, the EU will be able to enter into third-country agreements and we will not be able to do anything about it because we will be under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is the heart of the matter: again and again, the Government are a foot-dragging and reluctant participant in European measures, yet we go ahead anyway, despite all our misgivings.
This is something that we really ought not to go ahead and do. Although other Members have played it down, it is a serious matter that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) explained, we are progressively surrendering our own common law system of justice and home affairs. It is not right that we should constantly position ourselves as judging on merit, moment by moment, yet continuing down the path of integration. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have made similar remarks in the past. I shall not torture them by rehearsing those and putting them on the record now.
It seems to me that there is a clash between heart and head. In our hearts we want our Parliament to be sovereign, and we wish to co-operate in pragmatic and reasonable ways. Of course we do—we all do. But the Government’s pragmatism takes over. They see that in order to co-operate on an intergovernmental basis, the right to bring forward such a treaty lies with the European Commission. The European Commission is not interested in bringing forward such a treaty because the Prüm arrangements have already been drawn up, so what do we do? Instead of asking the Prime Minister to renegotiate this set of powers in his outstanding renegotiation, which would be consistent with what he has said before and consistent with the tone of the report, we do what is easy—we opt in because the arrangements are before us.
We should go another way. We should vote to leave the European Union, take control back to our Parliament and yes, of course, deliver these practical, sensible measures with safeguards over which this Parliament can have authority. We should go forward on the basis of trade and co-operation and act to deliver it as though we mean it.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am glad that we have had the opportunity to debate the business and implementation case for the Prüm decisions. I appreciate the fact that it has been a wide-ranging debate. I support the conclusion in favour of rejoining. I welcome the Government’s change of heart relating to these decisions, even if that has taken them over a year. I am glad they are now listening to the evidence, rather than just to their Back Benchers’ fears about the EU, and recognise that these measures improve policing capability both in the UK and across the EU.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who referred to the fact that our freedoms, civil liberties and laws are built on the foundations of security and safety for all our citizens. Prüm seeks to enhance that. The recent attacks in Paris demonstrated the importance of working closely with other member states to ensure that our police forces have the best possible means at their disposal for combating crime and ensuring the protection of our citizens.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Interpol has a motto, “Connecting police for a safer world”. It could do this very well not only in Europe but across the world if it got its act together.
Sarah Champion
Personally, I think we should use all the measures and all the tools at our disposal. Particularly in my field, abuse, I see that criminals are working internationally now and we must do all we can to prevent that.
I am aware that opting in to Prüm may seem like a technical matter, but it speaks to a deeper issue—that we can and do achieve more by co-operation with our European partners than we can individually. Labour firmly believes that by working with our European partners on such matters, we are more than the sum of our parts. As we have heard, these decisions establish requirements for sharing data related to DNA profiles, vehicle registrations and fingerprint images. The Labour Government were right to support these as vital means of improving policing across the EU. However, in an attempt to appease their Eurosceptic Back Benchers, this Government opted out of them in 2013, with effect from 1 December 2014.
Although the Government opted back in to 35 EU justice measures, the Prüm decisions were not among them. Labour was opposed to that decision at the time, so we are pleased that the Government have come to their senses and now see the benefit of these measures. Before I come on to why we support rejoining Prüm and set out some outstanding questions that I have for the Minister, it is important that we set the original opt-out in context. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) reminded the House that in justifying the decision not to rejoin Prüm in July last year, the Home Secretary stated that the Government had
“neither the time nor the money”.—[Official Report, 10 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 492.]
I am pleased that they now have the time and the money to devote to this important issue. However, it is hard to shake the suspicion that apart from time and money, last year they lacked the inclination because of the need to appease their Back Benchers. We all remember the pressure the Government were under with regard to the European arrest warrant, and we have seen today the divisions within the Tory party regarding Prüm. While I welcome the change in stance and the party’s willingness now to stand up to its Back Benchers, I wish that there had not been the need for a delay of over a year. The demonstrated benefits of Prüm mean that this delay is likely to have had a negative impact on British policing, so it is important that legislation is now introduced as soon as possible.
Although the business case and the pilot study clearly show that there would be operational and public protection benefits, there is of course a need for balance and safeguards. I have a number of questions relating to these issues, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could answer them.
It is right and proper that we send information abroad only about people actually convicted in the UK, and that additional requirements be applied prior to the release of information relating to minors. The risk of false positive matches is another serious issue. While it is promising that the Government’s business case found that there was increased convergence in DNA testing standards across member states, we would like a requirement under Prüm that data is collected using a system of quality assurances for crime scene examination. Will the Minister confirm that the standard requirement prior to transferring DNA information will be maintained at 10 loci rather than the minimum of six loci required by Prüm?
I have a number of questions about the proportionality test mentioned in the implementation case. Will the Minister give an example of when he thinks that the test will prevent personal information from being sent abroad due to the offence under investigation being insufficiently serious? Given that the proportionality test is not explicitly included in the Government’s proposed draft legislation, will it be contained in any legislation, and who will be responsible for taking these decisions?
In addition to those concerns about sufficient safeguards being put in place, I have a number of other outstanding issues that I would like the Minister to clarify. The business and implementation case estimates that the cost of Prüm will be £30 million, although it acknowledges that there will be additional downstream costs. How are the savings of £18 million being made from the previous estimate of £31 million? What are the annual costs expected to be for the rest of this Parliament? It is important that ongoing transparency and scrutiny is applied to ensure that the measures are operating effectively. What plans are there to publish details of the number of pieces of information being sent abroad from the UK, as well as the number being denied due to failing the proportionality test?
Will the Minister tell the House about the timeframe for bringing forward the legislation needed to give effect to the decision to rejoin Prüm, and how long it is expected to take for the system to become operational? Given the delay already caused by the initial opt-out from Prüm, preventing any further delays should be a matter of priority for the Government.
In summary, Labour supported the Prüm decision when in government and opposed the initial opt-out from these measures during the previous Parliament. We are therefore happy to support this motion authorising the Government to rejoin.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I thank all those who have taken part in this debate. We have been listening very carefully to the range of opinions expressed and the different views provided by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott), my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and for Wycombe (Mr Baker), and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). It is good that we have had a debate representing all the different points of view. It is also right that we underline the benefits that are provided through the Prüm decisions.
Before I respond to the specific points that have been raised, I would like to make some opening comments and observations. The evidence gathered, both from our own pilots and from others already operating the system, shows overwhelmingly that signing up to Prüm will benefit our police and help to keep the country safe. This is not a case of guessing what will happen—we actually have the evidence. As the now Leader of the House told us in July 2014, we want to “participate in measures” that contribute to
“the fight against international crime”.—[Official Report, 10 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 547.]
That remains our position, and in our judgment Prüm is clearly in that category.
When I see that a foreign national who was walking around free in the UK is now behind bars because of our pilot, I can only conclude that that is a good thing. I want to see foreign criminals arrested and kicked out of this country, and I know that that view is shared across the House and by the public. Prüm’s use in investigating and identifying at least one of the Paris attackers seems particularly pertinent at this time. From my time as Security Minister, I know how important it is that we give the police the tools they need to do the vital job of keeping us safe. Indeed, keeping the public safe is the most important task entrusted to us as Members of this House.
We already exchange information with other countries. Prüm is about automating and speeding up that co-operation, making it business as usual for our police and increasing their capabilities to solve crime. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke earlier, she quoted various senior law enforcement officers who support joining Prüm. When one thinks that it can take months for the Interpol system to work, but that, under Prüm, vehicle data, DNA and fingerprints would be available in only 10 seconds, 15 minutes and 24 hours respectively, one begins to understand why they are supportive. When the heads of the Metropolitan Police, the National Crime Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service are all so unequivocal about that fact, it is important that we pay attention.
It is worth repeating that the Director of Public Prosecutions has said that the existing process, most notably the lack of response times,
“often leads to delay and can, in some cases, take many months for a response to be processed. Delay provides the assailant with time to leave the UK or even commit further offences both of which are unacceptable.”
She added:
“The automated search and comparison of data provided by the Prüm Decisions, together with mandatory response times, is more likely to lead to the earlier detection of crimes and detention of those responsible. Prosecutions will be able to take place with evidence which is otherwise unavailable. This will in turn reduce the number of unsolved crimes, such as murder and rape, committed by foreign nationals, and provide an improved service to the public, victims and their families.”
Therefore, this is not only about locking up criminals, but about justice for victims.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Minister will know from the comments made by a number of Members that there has been criticism of the fact that the Irish Government have, to date, not signed up to the convention. I am curious to know whether any Home Office Minister has spoken to any Irish Government Minister about improving co-operation in policing and fighting terrorism. It is really important that the British and Irish Governments co-operate on that very serious issue.
James Brokenshire
I assure the hon. Lady that we have regular discussions with the Republic of Ireland Government about issues of security and safety and the operation of the common travel area, recognising some of the shared risks and themes. Indeed, the most recent discussion took place only last week, when I had a conversation with the Irish Justice Ministers. We take these things extremely seriously, recognising the specific issues and challenges that we need to keep in mind, which is why there is open dialogue.
Bob Stewart
I am still confused about why Interpol takes months to provide such information when this Prüm organisation can do it in minutes or seconds. Something is wrong. Why is Interpol so incompetent?
James Brokenshire
In making his point, my hon. Friend conflates two different things. The Prüm process that we are contemplating is an automatic one: in effect, it is a means, a system or a portal through which member states can search information held by other member states. Interpol processes are much more manual and therefore more intensive, which explains the differences in time. We have obviously considered the issues very carefully. The Interpol arrangements remain absolutely valid, and we will continue to seek further improvements in them, but that does not stand in the way of what has proven to be an effective and fast system that will aid us in the fight against criminality.
Crucially, security, public protection and civil liberties all need to be balanced. I have been very clear about that from the outset. That is why I, along with the Home Secretary, have insisted that searches should be made only against the DNA and fingerprints of those convicted, that UK scientific standards apply before we release any personal data and that both the Biometrics Commissioner and the Information Commissioner will be involved in the process. With the oversight arrangements that have been outlined, drawing in representation from across the United Kingdom, that point remains valid. I believe that we have got the balance right: Prüm will help us to protect the public in a way that fully respects civil liabilities. The National DNA Database Ethics Group believes the same. That is why we have brought the motion before the House today.
I will respond to several of the themes expressed, particularly in relation to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I want to make it very clear to the House that the UK is clear that it cannot support an EU criminal justice system. In any case, Prüm is about making existing co-operation work more efficiently, rather than about creating rules of criminal procedure.
To respond to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry and for Berwick-upon-Tweed, we will look at new proposals in this area case by case. We will put the national interest and the benefits to our citizens and businesses at the heart of our decision making. We will consider each opt-in decision with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting civil liberties, preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system and our common law systems, and controlling immigration. Equally, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that this Government will not opt in to a proposal concerning a European public prosecutor.
On the specific issues of the oversight and role of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—for example, whether it has an impact on the operation of our DNA database—I underline that Prüm decisions are all about the exchange of data, not the manner in which we hold data for domestic purposes. Article 72 of the treaties makes it very clear that how we deal with DNA for our own security is a matter for member states.
On the broader themes of ECJ jurisdiction, I repeat what the Home Secretary said earlier. It is very clear that we are allowed to limit searching to conviction-only profiles. Articles 2.1 and 2.3 of the principal Prüm decision make it clear that we simply need to inform the general secretariat of the Council about which profiles will be made available for searching under Prüm. In terms of imposing a higher scientific standard before we release personal data, article 5 of the principal Prüm decision makes it clear that the process for following up a hit is subject to national law, not EU law.
Points have been made about whether there is evidence of benefits, and I think reference was made to anecdotal data. I would highlight the results of our pilot: about 2,500 pilot crime scene profiles were sent to four member states, which yielded 71 scene-to-person matches and 47 scene-to-scene matches. Those hits involved a wide range of crimes, including rape, sexual assault and arson, as well as domestic and commercial burglaries. That again highlights the real benefits that have been shown by the measure.
Tom Elliott
When we are in the Prüm system, how will things be different from what we have now in relation to the European Court of Justice?
James Brokenshire
Obviously, in deciding to opt into the Prüm decisions, the Prüm decisions will become subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish, many other European countries have been subject to this for a number of years. It is about the interpretation of the decision and is therefore about the practical operation. That is why I made the distinction about the safeguards that are contained in the Prüm decisions in respect of how we hold data. The decisions state that that will be subject to national law, as will the action that is taken against the hit. Therefore, it is national law that will determine the decisions that are made. That is why the Prüm decisions are expressed in the manner they are. The extent of the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction therefore relates to the automaticity of the process. That is why it is our judgment, again to reflect the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, that it is in the best interests of this country to opt into Prüm because of the practical co-operation measure it provides.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone asked about a legislative consent motion. Obviously, no requirement for one arises directly from the motion, but there are ongoing discussions regarding implementation and whether the regulations, a draft of which has been published, will require a legislative consent motion.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West highlighted the Eurodac regulations. They state that a Eurodac search for law enforcement purposes should take place only to investigate serious crime, including terrorism. I hope that provides her with some reassurance.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford asked about ANPR. There will be no access to historical ANPR data through Prüm. Any request for such data would have to be made through a judicial mutual assistance request. I hope that is helpful to him. The vehicle data are very basic. They include keepers’ details and details about vehicles. That may be relevant if one is trying to establish whether the authorised person was driving the vehicle and whether a vehicle has been used in connection with serious crime.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West asked about the nature of that database. We do not split the DVLA’s database into those who have been convicted of an offence and those who have not. Practically, it would be very difficult to do that. We take the pragmatic view that it is appropriate to allow the search. Information on the keeper to whom a vehicle is registered may be relevant to an investigation into who was driving the vehicle. We therefore judge that we have the appropriate balance.
I underline that there are separate processes to determine what further steps may be taken. The European arrest warrant has been highlighted. That is a separate process from the Prüm process, which is about identifying whether there is a hit and whether further investigation should happen. Any actions that follow will be determined through separate processes. I underline the steps that the Government have taken to provide further protections in respect of the European arrest warrant, pre-trial detention, proportionality and various other matters.
Ultimately, the choice before the House this evening is straightforward. Do we want to give our police the tools they need to do their job; tools that will let them solve crimes and lock up foreign criminals; tools that have been shown to work; tools that will keep the British public safe, but that will do so in a way that is consistent with our values and that will protect the rights of British citizens? I believe that we should do so. That is why the Government support signing up to Prüm and why we judge that the measures are appropriate. We judge that they are bounded by safeguards that will be effective, but that they will make the difference in the fight against crime and the fight against terrorism by ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to keep our country and our citizens safe. I commend the motion to the House.
Amendment proposed: (a), leave out from ‘deported’ to end and add—
‘, does not support opting in to the Prüm Decisions because of the need to protect the civil liberties of British citizens, because of the risks to UK sovereignty posed by accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in this area and because it would mean missing the opportunity to require a better arrangement, noting that the Government’s policy is to renegotiate the jurisdiction of the ECJ and the result of the referendum in Denmark preserving that country's opt-out from such measures that will require Denmark to negotiate on an intergovernmental basis; notes that necessary international cooperation against terrorism and serious crime does not, and did not prior to the Lisbon Treaty, require the UK to accept the supremacy of EU law, the jurisdiction of the ECJ or the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and therefore requires the Government to secure alternative arrangements outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.’.—(Sir William Cash.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Petitions
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Congleton constituency signed by 621 individuals. This petition opposes the introduction of a car park charging system operated by a private company proposed by East Cheshire NHS Trust, and asks that this proposal be reversed. My constituents are aware that such a charging system used elsewhere, particularly nearby at Macclesfield district general hospital has resulted in severe distress to unwary patients and their visitors at highly vulnerable moments in their lives.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put pressure of East Cheshire Hospital Trust to remove car parking charges at Congleton War Memorial Hospital.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the introduction of car parking charges at Congleton War Memorial Hospital by East Cheshire Hospital Trust should be reversed; further that it is a misuse of the Trust’s power; further that the enforcement of the charges has been handed to a private company, who has the sole aim of profiting from people who need to use the hospital's facilities; further that charges have resulted in severe distress to unwary patients and their visitors; further that the shock of receiving penalty notices of £70 is potentially harmful to the health of the people receiving them and whose health is entrusted to East Cheshire Hospital Trust; further than Congleton War Memorial Hospital was built from the subscriptions of the people of Congleton, as a memorial to the people who had fought and died to preserve freedom, and was meant for the benefit of those people and others; and further that local petitions on this matter were signed by 583 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put pressure of East Cheshire Hospital Trust to remove car parking charges at Congleton War Memorial Hospital.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001596]
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I present this petition on behalf of the residents of the constituency of Stone in Staffordshire, and it relates to the reopening of Barlaston railway station, Stoke-on-Trent. It has been put together by many people, including Jon Heal, chairman of the North Staffs rail promotion group, and Rob McMillan of the same group.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Stone in Staffordshire,
Declares that the residents of Barlaston request the reopening of Barlaston railway station; further that the station was taken out of service and closed to trains as a consequence of the West Coast Main Line Upgrade in 2003; further that at present anyone wishing to travel by train from Barlaston must first take either one or two buses to Stoke-on-Trent or Stafford and/or undertake journeys on foot to rail replacement bus stops in Stone, which is a significant inconvenience and means access to the rail network is considerably difficult; further that the success of the reopening of Stone railway station in 2008 has demonstrated the potential for local stations to thrive; further that since Stone railway station reopened, Stone has seen a remarkable growth in its annual passenger footfall figures which have more than doubled from 48,000 in 2009-10 to 100,000 in 2013-14; and further that the London Euston–Crewe train already runs through Barlaston station without stopping.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to reopen Barlaston railway station.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001657]
Disabled Parking Permits (London Borough of Harrow)
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I first raised this topic during business questions some weeks ago, when I asked the Leader of the House to arrange a debate. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Speaker for giving me an opportunity to raise it again this evening. I want to discuss two issues on this occasion: the abuse of disabled parking permits, which is obviously a scourge, and the fact that Harrow has introduced a system that is preventing a large number of my disabled constituents from receiving permits when they should be receiving them.
The blue badge scheme was created to give
“free and dedicated parking close to amenities for drivers and passengers with mobility-related disabilities, or who are blind.”
Those with such permits are able to park on yellow lines for up to three hours, and are also exempt from the central London congestion charge. Passes are valid for a maximum of three years, after which passholders must reapply. Let me stress at this point that the various individual cases that I shall cite later in my speech are those of people who were in receipt of disabled badges, but have had them taken away.
I am sure that we all feel annoyed when we witness abuses of the system by, for instance, individuals who, although they are perfectly able-bodied, borrow blue badges and then park unlawfully in controlled parking zones. We must condemn the people who take such action, which is particularly common in the vicinity of football grounds, in supermarket car parks, and in other areas where parking is at a premium. Abuses of that kind have been a problem in Harrow.
The general misuse of a blue badge can carry a fine of up to £1,000, and stolen or fake badges involving the use of a pass from a deceased person can result in a sentence of up to 12 months in prison and/or a £5,000 fine. I congratulate Harrow’s fraud team on its numerous operations to tackle the issue. In June 2010, under Operation Cactus, 15 badges were seized. In July of that year, under Operation Daffodil, 16 were seized, and a further 16 were seized in December, under Operation Elderflower. In May 2011, 13 badges were seized under Operation Foxglove. You may note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a theme is emerging here. In July 2011, under Operation Gentian, another 16 badges were seized. Over that period, a total of 76 badges were seized, and there were two prosecutions, 32 cautions and one warning. Operations continued in 2013, when more than 60 badges were seized.
It is clear that there have been a number of abuses of the system, which have taken place over many years. When relatives “borrow” a pass, they are taking away a space that should be used by a genuinely disabled person, so there is no doubt that a crackdown was necessary, and it is no surprise that Harrow Council made efforts—which I applaud—to toughen up the entire system. Spot checks have continued, and the council is still finding people who are abusing the system. However, the problem is that this has gone too far the other way, with genuine blue badge applications suddenly being denied and the process for getting one made intentionally far too difficult.
Bob Blackman
I have the privilege of representing the area of London that has the longest-lived people. As we all know, life expectancy increases as one goes up the Jubilee line from east London to north-west London, so the people of Stanmore in particular have the longest lives in London, and I therefore represent many people who apply for, and have, blue badges. The drawback of that is that getting around my constituency is often very difficult for those elderly people on public transport.
In the past two years alone, 82 residents have come to me with problems related to the system of renewing their blue badges. Every single one of those cases represents someone with a genuine need for a badge due to mobility issues related to age or disabilities. Because Harrow Council has outsourced the process, there is now no oversight and it is very difficult for councillors or for me and my MP colleagues to bring genuine cases forward and complain when an obvious injustice has occurred.
The current application process is as follows. A resident makes an application to Harrow Council either to renew the blue badge or for a new one, and a decision is made. If refused, there is a right of appeal, but if the resident pursues the appeal process, they often meet with an external company, Access Independent, and undergo a medical and a final binding decision is made. There is no further appeal. If there is another refusal, the resident cannot apply again for a set period of time. This means that disabled people are left high and dry without the ability to put their case forward until they have waited six to nine months before lodging another application.
When my office submits concerns on behalf of residents, we receive what is frankly a cut-and-paste answer: a one-paragraph, copy-and-paste reply saying basically, “It’s nothing to do with Harrow Council. It is to do with the Department for Transport and the guidelines that are issued. We have outsourced the process of assessing the applications and therefore we can’t do anything about it.” Councillors face the same problem and receive the same messages. That leaves us in the difficult situation of not being able to highlight and resolve these genuine cases where appropriate blue badges should be received.
The testing and appeal process is usually handled by Access Independent, as I have mentioned. It is an occupational therapy firm based in Cambridge. It operates a cut-throat process. More often than not, no doctor or medical expert is consulted and medical professionals see their diagnoses completely ignored.
One of the tests is that the applicant is made to walk for as far as possible, either down a hallway or in the main car park. This creates the following problems. Neither of those surfaces is representative of the pavements, roads and so on that people walk down, thus creating an illusion that they can walk fine; they are often walking on imperfect surfaces when they need to park close to facilities, whereas when they are tested they are walking on much better surfaces. Also, the method itself is fairly corrupt. Forcing people with mobility issues to walk as far as possible feels almost like a “Hunger Games” approach to testing eligibility. Often applicants I meet are very proud people who try and walk even when they are in severe pain, and I think that is unfair on them as individuals.
I have a range of individual cases that I am going to quote to give an illustration of where the system does not seem to work. In all these cases, I have sought and obtained the permission of each of the individuals to quote their details.
My first example is that of Mrs Suzanne Bard. I believe that the Minister has a copy of the local press coverage of her case. Suzanne lives in Bentley Priory, which was the headquarters of the RAF fighter command during the battle of Britain. The development is nearly a mile away from any form of public transport. She took her case to the Harrow Times, and hers is probably the strongest case I have seen. She is an 83-year-old widow who has held a blue badge since 2006. She suffers from severe arthritis, cervical spondylosis, obliterated joints—on which she has had multiple operations—and depression, and her application included no fewer than eight supporting letters from medical professionals. Mrs Bard witnessed various council officials and contractors completely disregarding advice from the best medical professionals she had been able to identify. The removal of Mrs Bard’s blue badge has effectively left her stranded up in Bentley Priory, which is grossly unfair on this widow.
I should also like to highlight the case of Joyce Richiardi from Stanmore. She is 93 years old, has a complex medical history and is severely restricted in what she can do without a blue badge. Her GP supported her application, but the case was rejected on the basis that she was deemed not to be “immobile enough”, even though she had previously suffered a heart attack and had two blocked arteries and severe breathing difficulties which restrict how far she can walk.
A further example is Caterina Gargano, an 80-year-old woman who lives with her husband Giuseppe in Stanmore. She suffers from dementia, with cognitive decline, and chronic lower back pain. She suffers from intermittent confusion as a result of both conditions. Giuseppe struggles to look after her, and Mrs Gargano can walk a maximum of only 20 to 30 metres. My staff have spoken with Giuseppe on numerous occasions and he gets very upset, almost tearful, when he tries to speak about it. The entire affair has angered him immensely, and he has every right to be upset.
We can draw a number of conclusions from these issues. Yes, there is abuse of the system when people use badges that are not their own, but it is not being carried out by the obviously elderly and frail applicants who need them. It is often carried out by relatives who abuse their position. In tackling the people using blue badges when they have no need of them, the answer cannot be simply to deny them to people with genuine needs. Harrow Council should not be penalising innocent users for the actions of a few.
I have some questions for the Minister, and I would be pleased if he could answer them in responding to the debate. What changes, if any, have been made to the rules relating to the issue of blue badges that were instituted by the Department, and which Harrow Council may be highlighting? Is the council taking far too restricted a view on who should be eligible for a blue badge? Given that the decision making is outsourced, has the council made the decision making too restrictive? Should there be an appropriate appeals process that involves Harrow Council, rather than the company that it has outsourced decision making to? What consideration should be made of the detailed medical evidence submitted on behalf of applicants, which at present seems to be being completely ignored?
I raise these questions on behalf of the large number of residents who have contacted me about this matter. I hope and trust that we can get some movement on it, so that the genuinely disabled, elderly and frail people of Harrow can have the badges they deserve, and the opportunity to visit shops and other amenities without fear of being penalised in such a way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate about the assessment of applications for a blue badge. Let there be no doubt that I share his concerns about the wellbeing of people with disabilities, especially when it comes to ensuring that the impact of their condition on their quality of life is minimised. Although it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, I would like to outline some aspects of the operation of the scheme.
The blue badge scheme has been in place since 1971, and its primary focus has always been on helping those people with permanent and severe mobility problems. The scheme enables about 2.5 million people with disabilities to retain their independence by allowing them to park close to where they need to go, providing access to jobs, shops and other services. Approximately 75% of blue badge holders have said that they would go out less frequently if they did not have a badge, and about 64% would be more reliant on friends and other family members. The Government are committed to the blue badge scheme and want to protect it for those who rely on it.
The Government are responsible for the legislation that sets out eligibility, the terms of the concession itself, the design of the badge and the enforcement framework. Badges are generally valid for three years, and the badge is for the holder’s use and benefit only. Local authorities can charge a fee of up to £10 for a blue badge. The scheme primarily improves accessibility for people with disabilities, but it has become increasingly advantageous financially. In return for the £10 fee, the scheme provides a generous package of benefits for people with severe disabilities. It enables parking on single or double yellow lines for up to three hours. Badge holders may also park for free for as long as they need to at on-street parking meters and pay and display machines. They can park for free in on-street disabled parking bays, and, unless signs say otherwise, this is also without time limit. Blue badge holders also receive other benefits—for example, no congestion charge in London. It is estimated that the annual benefit of the scheme to people with disabilities is about £250 million—nearly £100 per annum on average for each badge holder. The benefit per person ranges from £35 for people living in rural areas who make one trip a week to more than £5,000 for those who use a badge to travel to work in London every day.
Not surprisingly, the financial benefit of a badge could lead to abuse in a variety of forms. Therefore, in 2011, following a review of the scheme, the Government set out their proposals for improving the administration and enforcement of the scheme. Our aim was to ensure that the scheme was administered efficiently, consistently and fairly. In 2012, our reform strategy delivered the most comprehensive changes to the scheme for 40 years, helping to tackle widespread abuse of the scheme and ensuring that badges go to those with the greatest need. The reforms supported the Government’s agenda of promoting freedom and fairness, and meeting the needs of older and disabled people. The improvements to the scheme included: the use of independent mobility assessors to make assessment fairer and more consistent; and new legislation so that local authorities can now withdraw a badge following one criminal conviction for misuse, rather than three, as previously.
Some time ago, I spent time in Leeds with the enforcement officers checking up on the correct use of badges, and I am pleased that similar operations have been ongoing in Harrow. Indeed, a number of operations have taken place—I think they could be described as a bouquet—to make sure that abuse is minimised. Other improvements included: new powers for local authorities to seize badges that are being misused on-street, where previously only the police could do this; a new high-security, fraud-resistant badge designed to make it harder to copy or alter; and the launch of a single national database of all badge holders and their details in order to help prevent multiple and fraudulent applications. That also enables quick and easy validity checks by on-street enforcement officers from anywhere in the country.
Eligibility for a blue badge is not based on the type of disability. People with physical, mental or cognitive conditions can receive a badge if their walking is sufficiently affected. In order to qualify for a badge, a person needs to meet one of the eligibility criteria set out in the regulations that govern the scheme. They can be eligible either “without further assessment” or “subject to further assessment” by the local authority. People are eligible for the “without further assessment” category if they are over the age of two and receive the higher rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance; or receive eight points or more under the “moving around” activity of the mobility component of personal independence payment; or are registered blind or severely sight impaired; or receive a war pensioner’s mobility supplement; or have been both awarded a lump sum benefit at tariffs 1 to 8 of the armed forces compensation scheme and are certified as having a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
People who do not qualify without further assessment may still be eligible subject to further assessment if they are over the age of two and are unable to walk or have very considerable difficulty in walking because of a permanent and substantial difficulty; regularly drive a car but are unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty in operating, a parking meter on account of a severe disability in both arms; under the age of two and have a condition that requires that they always be accompanied by bulky medical equipment or that they be kept near a motor vehicle in case of need for emergency medical treatment.
On 1 April 2012, the Government introduced a change, which may be at the heart of my hon. Friend’s concerns. Evidence was showing that the badge issue rates vary significantly between local authorities. That could not be fully explained by population characteristics. Indeed, assessment procedures also varied. We introduced new legislation to require that where a person’s eligibility is not self-evident, the local authority must use an independent mobility assessor such as an occupational therapist or physiotherapist to help determine eligibility. That means that unless the local authority determines that an applicant’s eligibility or otherwise is clear cut, their eligibility will need to be confirmed by an independent mobility assessor. For badge eligibility decisions to be fairer and more objective, assessments should be undertaken by professionals who are independent of the applicant rather than referring to the applicant’s GP.
There was a lot of evidence to support that change. The Department of Health’s care services efficiency delivery programme noted that the involvement of GPs had only been at the discretion of the council and that a GP might not examine a person but instead rely on records. It indicated that it was rare for a GP not to support an application and that the GP-patient relationship could be compromised. It reported that the use of on-site occupational therapists allowed for a speedier and more effective decision.
Furthermore, independent research commissioned by my Department concluded that there was concern that some people who might not have had a clear and compelling need for a badge could still receive them. A majority of local authorities also believed that that was the case. The new assessment was supported by disability-represented organisations, including the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and by the Transport Committee, which reported that using an applicant’s GP to assess eligibility was likely to produce a bias in favour of approving the application. These groups agreed that greater use of independent mobility assessments was needed to determine eligibility fairly and robustly. Indeed, a consultation showed 84% of respondents in favour of greater prescription from central Government on eligibility assessments. Focus group discussions with badge holders also revealed support for that approach provided it was delivered by an appropriately qualified healthcare professional.
An independent review commissioned by my Department in 2011 found compelling evidence that intelligently combined desk-based assessment and independent mobility assessments offered a substantially more robust assessment procedure. It concluded that mobility assessments achieve more efficient badge issuing; improved fairness for applicants; greater assurance that assessment is thorough and objective; and high level of confidence that those applicants intended by legislation to be eligible actually receive badges.
Let me make it clear that this change was introduced not to deprive anybody of a badge but to ensure that the scheme focused better on those whom it was intended to benefit. In introducing this change, we enshrined it in legislation that the independent assessor must be professionally qualified and trained in the assessment of a person’s ability to walk and have the expertise necessary to assess on behalf of the local authority the ability to walk of the applicant in question.
Although local authorities are required to determine eligibility through an independent mobility assessment, in cases where it is not clear whether an applicant may qualify for a badge, a local authority is able to make use of factual information from the GP or from other medical professionals regarding an applicant’s condition and treatment as evidence to support the eligibility decision-making process. If the new procedures are working properly, I would indeed expect some people who may previously have received a badge to find that they are now refused. Unsuccessful applicants who have had their application refused have no right of appeal to my Department against the local authority decision not to issue a badge. However, we recommend in our guidance that local authorities establish an internal procedure to deal with appeals against a local authority’s decision not to issue a badge. Appeals may not be heard where a case is clear cut, but our experience indicates that local authorities will review cases if there is any doubt about eligibility. If a qualified mobility assessor has advised the council, we see no reason for a further appeal beyond that.
We also state that local authorities must let the applicant know in writing why their application was refused, and strongly recommend that they provide a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal. We feel that this transparency can avoid complaints being made and upheld. An unsuccessful applicant can also ask the authority to reconsider the case at a later date if they feel that their mobility problems have become more serious over time or if they think that all the relevant facts were not taken into consideration at the time of assessment. In the case of local government maladministration, there is also recourse to the ombudsman. Indeed, if any council was systematically committing procedural irregularities, it would leave itself open to judicial review. I should make it clear that I have seen no evidence of this type of practice.
As I have mentioned, local authorities are ultimately responsible for the administration of the scheme so it remains the responsibility of each local authority to determine their own assessment procedures and ensure that their procedures are in line with the legislation that governs the blue badge scheme.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government are committed to promoting equal opportunities and achieving a fairer society by meeting the needs of the elderly and people with disabilities. It is important that we ensure that the blue badge scheme remains sustainable and protects preferential parking facilities for those with the greatest need. I believe that the introduction of independent mobility assessments means that a fairer, more robust and more effective process is in place to do this.
Question put and agreed to.
Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I have some notices and explanations before we begin. Members may remove their jackets; they do not have to ask me. Everyone should ensure that all telephones and other electronic devices are now switched to silent. Amendments should be tabled three working days before the sitting in which they are to be considered—for example, on Thursday for Tuesday’s sitting, and on Monday for Thursday’s sitting. However, we do not have that many sittings, so Members had better be quick. The Chair will generally not select late amendments, so they have to be on time. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows any amendments that have not been selected and how selected amendments on the same or a similar issue have been grouped together for debate.
A Member with the lead amendment in a group is called first. I then propose the question and call other Members to speak. Members may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments I will call the Minister, if he has not already spoken. I will conclude the debate by calling the Member with the lead amendment to wind up. Before that Member sits down, they must indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or press it to a vote. Members with grouped amendments must also signal if they want a vote. The Chair assumes that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments.
Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. New clauses, whether they have already been debated or not, are decided after we deal with existing clauses. I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses after a debate on relevant amendments. This morning the Committee will adjourn at 11.25 am; that is automatic. This afternoon it is in the hands of the Whips, but between four o’clock and five o’clock is conventional. I hope that those explanations were helpful. Before beginning line-by-line consideration of the Bill, we need to dispose of the programme motion and the motion to report written evidence.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 8 December) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 December;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 December;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 December;
(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 15 December.—(Mr Gyimah.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mr Gyimah.)
Clause 1
Funding review
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) The review to be established under subsection (1)(a) shall examine and make recommendations about a mechanism and criteria for agreeing—
(a) an enhanced rate of funding per hour;
(b) more than 30 hours of free childcare per week;
(c) free childcare for more than 38 weeks in a year; or
(d) a combination of two or more of the enhancements set out in paragraphs (a) to (c);
in circumstances where the qualifying child has a disability.”
This amendment provides for a review to be carried out to establish criteria for agreeing an enhanced hourly rate of funding, free childcare beyond 30 hours a week and/or 38 weeks of the year (or a combination of two or more of these), for children with a disability.
Pat Glass
I am delighted to discuss the Bill in Committee on behalf of the Opposition. I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I support the Bill, but as I pointed out to the Minister on Second Reading, good government is about good law, and good opposition is about good scrutiny and challenge. The Bill, which we all support, will be better with good scrutiny and challenge.
The Labour party has a proud record on childcare, supporting women and enabling them to return to work. A Labour Government introduced free childcare for three and four-year-olds, and delivered the first and only childcare strategy across Government. Labour created Sure Start centres serving families and children in every community, expanded school nurseries and more than doubled childcare places. We increased maternity leave from 12 weeks to 12 months, and we increased maternity pay and paternity leave. Labour introduced the right to request flexible working and gave parents help with the cost of childcare through tax credits and vouchers. Childcare was a key part of those plans to support families and to make work pay, and we welcome any investment in it.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
In the spirit of bipartisan, cross-party agreement, will the hon. Lady agree that it was the Conservative party in 1996 that first proposed free entitlement?
Pat Glass
You know what, I do not go back that far, but I am happy to concede the point. I do understand, going back an awfully long way to the 1970s, that local authorities were unable to provide nursery education; it was the former leader of the Conservative party, Mrs Thatcher, who introduced that. I am happy to concede those points.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On that point, there was a Conservative Government for 18 years and it took them 17 years to get to the point of believing that free childcare was necessary in our society. Could they not have come up with it a wee bit earlier? They left it to a Labour Government to deliver it.
Pat Glass
I thank my hon. Friend. It is right that the Government now accept that supply-side funding through free entitlement is a more effective way of helping parents with the cost of childcare. It is a way of controlling prices and quality. However, the Government’s record in recent years, excepting 1996, is less glowing. Financial support for childcare for most families fell in the last Parliament while costs rocketed by a third—they are up more than £1,500 since 2010.
I know that it is not for the Committee to consider the pre-election promise of tax-free childcare, but I never understood that, because from what I can see it has nothing to do with taxes or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Tax-free childcare remains undelivered and severely delayed, and early years childcare places have fallen by more than 40,000 since 2009.
The two-year-olds offer, although a good policy, remains undersubscribed. The chief inspector of schools highlighted in his annual report, which was published last week, that
“113,000 children who would most benefit are not taking up their government-funded places. As a result, too many of the most disadvantaged children are not ready to start formal schooling. Children from low income backgrounds often do best in the structured, graduate-led environment that schools offer. However, the places offered by schools for two-year-olds are disproportionately being taken up by children from more advantaged households.”
Those are not my words but those of Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Government’s chief inspector of schools and head of Ofsted, which were published last week.
Sure Start children’s centres are closing up and down the country. Between April 2011 and June 2015, 250 centres closed. A quick glance at the budgets of those centres that remain open shows that many are becoming signposting centres, with budgets that cover little other than a caretaker and a bottle of Domestos. Many others—I have visited quite a few recently—are no longer childcare centres for under-fives, but for the whole range up to 19. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but that is not what they were intended to be and they are certainly not supporting childcare in the early years.
When I was a member of the Education Select Committee, we looked at childcare in some detail and found that more than a third of childcare centres no longer had any children in them. In evidence to the Select Committee on 18 June 2014—I think I chaired that session—the then Minister for childcare, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), said it was not true that the network of Sure Start centres was diminishing greatly. In the face of overwhelming evidence, the narrative appears to have changed: now it is not about buildings, but about services. However, 4Children’s excellent recent report blows that out of the water. It highlights that more than 2,000 children’s centre sites have had their budgets significantly cut in this financial year, leading to a reduction in front-line services, including days and hours of opening.
The recent story of early years support by the Government is one of reducing support for working families, childcare costs going up and the gender gap remaining stuck for the first time in 15 years. Families were promised tax-free childcare now, but it is going to be delayed for another two years. The promise of 30 hours’ free childcare for three and four year-olds has had the thresholds significantly increased, from eight hours to 16 hours of paid work, or £107 per week. The Minister will have to explain that in a little more detail, because this is scary stuff for parents. If they get this wrong, there are significant penalties involved, and the Government are going to have to be very clear about what the eligibility is. I am not clear about that, so I do not think that it is clear to parents.
Michael Tomlinson
Does the hon. Lady not think that it is only fair that the threshold has been increased from 8 to 16 hours, given that there is already a 15-hour entitlement that is going to remain? Providers in my constituency have contacted me to say that it is only fair and reasonable, given that 15 hours is being provided universally, that 16 hours should be a minimum in order to qualify for the remaining hours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
There are only 1.4 million three and four year-olds in the country—therefore there cannot be 1.4 million parents. The hon. Lady should check her figures, because they are incredibly wrong.
Pat Glass
Well, most children, although not all, have two parents. I am happy to check that, but I did say that it was an early analysis of the thresholds changing.
The biggest issues are the massive question marks that we hope the Minister will be able to resolve. On Second Reading I said that even during the passage of the Bill the Government’s manifesto promise of 30 hours’ free childcare had been whittled away. Thresholds and delays have increased. The gap remains between what the Chancellor has made available to pay for this and the real cost.
Childcare is vital to our future success. We need our brightest and most able parents to be part of the recovery of our economy and to help it grow. We need good-quality, inclusive, accessible and affordable childcare to help us close the developmental gap pre-school, which is critical to a child’s development and their outcomes throughout their life. High-quality, flexible childcare is critical not only for the economy, but for the child’s wellbeing and development. I am happy to say that, across the House, we have made great strides in childcare over the past 20 years. I would tend to suggest that the Labour Government did more, but I am happy that this Government are going to make their contribution now.
Important policy challenges remain. Our rates of maternal employment, particularly for mothers with children aged one to four years, are poor compared with those of other OECD countries. In not supporting our brightest and most able mothers back into the workforce, we risk our future economic stability. Over one third of mothers who want to work say that they are unable to do so because of high childcare costs. Two thirds of mothers would like to work more hours but are unable to do so because of unaffordable childcare bills. That is particularly true for second earners, as the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research have illustrated.
Let me give an example from my family. When my daughter-in-law had three small children, she told me that she was spending almost all her salary—she is a head teacher—on childcare. If that is true for head teachers, it will be doubly true for families on lower incomes. Many mothers still face a pay and status penalty in the labour market for having children, yet increasingly work is becoming the only option for both parents, as pressures on family budgets have increased. For families up and down the country the chances of keeping their heads above water, let alone owning their own home and providing the security that their family needs, depend on both parents working. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, single-earner households are now more likely to be in poverty. To boost our economy and give families the chance of a decent job, home and income, childcare investment is essential.
High-quality childcare is also vital in tackling disadvantage. We know that many of the most disadvantaged five-year-olds are starting school 18 months behind their peers. That gap begins to open up at 24 months and by five years old our brightest children from our poorest homes are already falling well behind less able children from more advantaged homes. This is wrong; it is a waste, ultimately, of talent, and it holds back our whole economy.
Good childcare could close that gap and give children a firm foundation for school and later life. However, it is a fact that sometimes the two aims of economic output and early education require different policy solutions. They are too often conflated, and sometimes seeking to improve one element can come at the expense of the other. Our concern in scrutinising and challenging the Bill is that getting more women and more mothers back into work does not come at the expense of children’s development. That is why supply-side support, such as extra hours, is a good way to deliver both. Tax-free childcare, although some way—
The Chair
Order. Will the hon. Lady please keep to the substance of her amendment? We are going off track.
Pat Glass
I am coming back on to it very quickly.
Tax-free childcare, although some way from being delivered, is designed to put cash in parents’ pockets, but it does not contain the levers to deliver quality or to control prices. The two-year offer aims to reduce inequalities rather than be an economic driver. However, the chief inspector of schools pointed out last week in his annual report to the Government that in this area the Government’s policy on disadvantaged two-year-olds is failing at least 113,000 of our most disadvantaged two-year-olds and therefore arguably has the potential to widen rather than narrow the attainment gap.
The extension of the 15-hour offer to 30 hours should be about delivering both objectives, but that requires both quality and funding, and the huge funding gap will, if not addressed, damage both quality and capacity in childcare. This, I think, is what their Lordships were most concerned about when they looked at this amendment, which the Government now seek to remove. As I have said, we support the Bill, we want it to work and we want it to deliver quickly, but there remain a number of challenges with the Government’s plan and it is only right that we scrutinise them.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
The hon. Lady wants this to be implemented quickly, but when she gets on to the substance of the amendment she will tell us it proposes a review that will delay implementation, will she not?
Pat Glass
I am sorry, I just do not accept that. Nobody is going to see any of this—apart from the early implementers, and there will be very small numbers of those—until 2017. The Government have plenty of time to get this right, and if they do not, we risk ending up with either less provision or poor provision. It is really important that we take our time up to 2017 to make sure that we get this right for families.
At the heart of our concerns, and those of their Lordships, is a serious funding gap. The Chancellor’s recent announcements only go some way to answering those. The other place voted to amend the Bill on three separate occasions, mainly on procedural grounds because the Bill lacked substance and clarity about funding. It has been dogged by lack of detailed information and costings. The Minister really needs to respond to those concerns and answer those questions over the next couple of days.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for coming to the substance of the debate in front of us. Their Lordships inserted the amendment before the spending review when the Chancellor made clear the eligibility criteria and the funding to go alongside it. If the hon. Lady still disagrees with the £1 billion of extra funding that has been made available for the entitlement, will she make clear, therefore, how much she thinks should go into the sector to fund this entitlement and what her calculations are based on?
Pat Glass
Now I am even more confused because I want to know where the £1 billion is that the Minister is talking about. My understanding is that the figure is £650 million, but I can come on to that in some detail because I think the Government are all over the place on costs. The Minister is going to show us how he will do the basic maths on this. I have an MSc in maths and, quite frankly, I am confused about this. I always think I am reasonably good at this sort of stuff, but I am absolutely confused.
Alex Cunningham
The IPPR says that the Government’s policy costing of £365 million in the first year is inexplicably low compared with other estimates, as well as with current funding. They warn that any
“shortfall could drive down childcare quality and leave the needs of working families unmet, with poorer outcomes for children and less choice for parents as the market shrinks”.
Surely an organisation such as that is clear about its figures.
Mr Gyimah
I will be very happy to clarify all those numbers when I come to my response. On the subject of the IPPR report, which I know has been quoted a number of times by Opposition Members, I have a lot of respect for the IPPR. In fact, some of our best officials from the Department for Education work at the IPPR. I should draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that this report was published in October 2015, which is about a month before the spending review in which we set out who is eligible. Without knowing who is eligible, it is not possible to know what the programme is going to cost. This report, fortunately, is very much of its time.
Pat Glass
The Minister needs to explain to us the costs and the eligibility. All those issues need to be clarified in his response. He will have to spend some time explaining to us why, before May 2015, he himself told us that 25 hours of free childcare would cost £1.2 billion, and yet in November 2015 we were told that 30 hours of free childcare would cost £640 million. The IPPR has identified a huge funding gap, and the Minister will have to explain how reducing the thresholds will fill that gap of almost £800 million. I very much welcome the extra money that the Chancellor announced in the comprehensive spending review, but the Minister will have to clarify where and how the funding will be allocated.
The danger is that the Government’s failure to adequately fund the free offer could have far-reaching implications for the childcare market. Analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that there are more than 44,000 fewer childcare places today than there were in 2009. In addition, six in 10 local authorities tell us that they do not have an adequate supply of childcare for local parents now. There is a downwards trend in childcare places, which causes us concern. We do not want to see this well-meaning and potentially excellent policy actually leading to a further reduction in choice for parents.
The Minister suggested that this is about quantity as much as quality for parents. However, parents are concerned about the quality of childcare, and the concern is that this could be damaged by the Government’s failure to adequately support their proposals with funding. There is a wealth of evidence from the Select Committee on Education and from Ofsted that clearly identifies the strong links between outstanding provision and the best qualified—and, therefore, usually the best-paid—staff. Poor childcare is worse than no childcare, and can be detrimental to a child’s development. I am very concerned that, unless the Minister can provide answers on funding, the result will be a diminution of quality provision. Insufficient funds and poor delivery could have the opposite effect to that which the Government want, and will lead to fewer places, poorer quality and higher costs for parents. That is not something that will definitely happen, but it is a serious risk. We want to ensure that risk is taken out of the policy, in so far as we can. The Government have ample time, as I said to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, to address these concerns before their policy is introduced in autumn 2017.
We want to interrogate some of the more glaring gaps in this Committee. Their Lordships agreed the amendment requiring the Government to carry out a review of the sustainability of the Bill—a sunrise clause, I think it is called. I understand that they did so for two reasons: because they were very worried about the very large funding gap, and because there is absolutely no detail at all in the Bill. Everything is going to be in regulations. There is no detail about how the 30 hours of free childcare will be paid for without reducing quality or increasing ratios, or about how the additional 15 hours will be delivered. Will it be early-years learning, will be it part of the early-years framework, or will it be childcare? Will it be delivered differently in different places? Is the first 15 hours to be early-years education and the second 15 hours to be pure childcare—someone of indeterminate qualifications and experience watching over children and ensuring they are kept safe?
The Chair
This debate is on amendment 10 and on whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill, which gives a wider scope to the Opposition spokesperson, but it would be helpful if Members did not go too wide.
Pat Glass
I said at the beginning of the debate that this is about getting the Bill right. We want it to work and we want to help the Government get it right, and therefore I do not think it is helpful to stick to rigid questions. Ultimately, this is about families and children’s development. We should spend the time to ensure that we collectively, in this place, get the Bill right.
The intention behind the amendment is to consider the worst-case scenario in terms of pure childcare or babysitting—however we want to put it—because I think we have learned from experience in this place that we need to legislate for worst-case scenarios. None of us want to see a situation in which the second 15 hours is pure babysitting, with children strapped in buggies or chairs in front of CBeebies, watched over by staff of indeterminate qualifications. Too many of our disadvantaged children get that at home; we do not want them to get that kind of thing in their childcare settings. We want the second 15 hours of free childcare to be about quality, in a learning and stimulating environment—in other words, good-quality early learning.
There is no detail in the Bill about the flexibilities in the system that the Minister talked about. In the absence of that detail, the sector is concerned that that will mean driving down ratios to the statutory minimum. Providers tell us they only use statutory minimums at break times and lunchtimes, as experience tells them they need higher than statutory minimums if children are to learn as they play and develop good outcomes. There is nothing in the Bill about the lack of capacity in the workforce to deliver the policy or a workforce strategy to address that, and there is very little about the lack of capacity in buildings.
The Chair
Order. Although this is a clause stand part debate, it is clause stand part to the hon. Lady’s amendment, which gives her more scope, but it has to be relevant to the detail of the amendment, not the Bill in its entirety. That is the third time that she has mentioned the Bill. She can have a general discussion at the end, when we have finished considering all the amendments. I am not sure whether she is confused about the difference between clause stand part to her amendment and clause stand part to the Bill, but she needs to keep to the substance of the amendment. She can talk about clause 1 as well, but not the Bill in its entirety.
The Chair
Whatever happened in the Lords, the hon. Lady’s comments have to relate to what is printed in the Bill today. Her comments have to be restricted to clause 1 at this stage. Obviously, when we come to discuss stand part on the Bill, she can go as wide in her remarks as she wants.
Alex Cunningham
Directly on amendment 10, there was an independent parliamentary inquiry into childcare for disabled children, which highlighted the continuing failure of the early years system to provide adequately for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that for that reason, we need the amendment that has come from the Lords? The Lords have made it clear that we need to look into the detail, and understand exactly what we are doing and the related costs so that we can provide for all children, including disabled children.
Pat Glass
That is right, but I also understand that the review mentioned in clause 1 is about reviewing the sustainability and financial support for the Bill. The Lords were concerned that the Bill was not sustainable without looking at the issues of funding, the workforce and the capacity of the industry to deliver the provisions of the Bill. I am trying to tease that out. There are serious issues with capacity in the workforce. Nurseries tell me that they cannot recruit the level 3 students that they need to deliver the 15 hours.
There are serious issues around cross-subsidy. At the moment, nurseries are delivering the free 15 hours by charging beyond the 15 hours for parents who want more than 15, so anybody who gets more than 15 hours is basically subsidising the Government’s 15 hours. If the ability to extend that is taken away because nurseries have to offer 30 hours, the only way in which they can deliver is by charging substantially more for babies, one-year-olds and two-year-olds. There is a real concern that if the provision goes through without the adequate funding, the Government will be putting us in a position whereby women returning to work after maternity leave will not be able to afford childcare because the costs for younger children will rise sharply and dramatically.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I just have a small point, which I am sure will set us up in this debate and in anything else that we may say later. I think we could all agree that childcare is not only about women returning to work. In the 21st century, it is about both parents—men and women—being part of their child’s upbringing and part of the economy of the household.
Pat Glass
It is, but one problem is that the Bill has come through as an education Bill; yet, this small Bill with a few clauses largely appears to be an economic Bill about getting people back into the workforce. I do not see children anywhere in the Bill. Children’s development should be central to it . We should not be giving one at the expense of the other.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich North for raising the issue of fathers. My son and his partner pay £41 a day for childcare, which, if my grandson is there for five days, is £205 a week. How will they be able to benefit from a scheme like this if it is not properly funded?
Pat Glass
That is at the core of our concerns. We are concerned that if the Government remove the review, issues such as the capacity of the workforce and buildings, who will get access, eligibility and so on may mean that the funding will simply not happen. Can the Minister explain in some detail—he has not been able to so far—where the funding is coming from, what it will be spent on and whether the second 15 hours will be the same as the first 15? How will he improve the capacity in the workforce at a time when nurseries are already struggling to recruit qualified staff for the first 15 hours? All those issues would be in that review. If we lose that, there is a danger that we will have no detail and that, ultimately, this very well meant and excellent policy will result in less provision, less choice for parents and less quality in the provision for children. Ultimately, that will have a detrimental effect on children’s development, particularly for our most disadvantaged children, who are getting the least out of the system as it stands.
Pat Glass
Sorry, I meant amendment 10. I think we can all agree that increasing access to 30 hours of free, good-quality, inclusive childcare will benefit all children, but the amendment would ensure that all children and not just some can benefit from the policy. The reality is that many children, and many disabled children, do not benefit from or get access to their 15 hours of current entitlement.
The Minister will know that I chaired a parliamentary inquiry in 2014 into childcare for disabled children. I am not sure whether he has read the report or the recommendations that came out of the inquiry, but he is yet to act on them. On Second Reading I said that I was not shocked by the findings of that inquiry, but deeply saddened and disappointed that so little value is placed on our disabled children and their families and that things have not improved for them as they have for the rest of us.
The thing that I am most proud of with the inquiry I chaired is that it is no longer possible for anyone—Ministers, Department for Education officials, council officials, head teachers, teachers or childcare providers—to say that there is no problem and that everything is okay, because it is clearly not okay. Department for Education officials appeared before that inquiry, and they were still trying to tell us that there was no problem and that there was sufficient legislation to ensure that every disabled child could access the 15 hours of childcare. The inquiry and the follow-up report, “Levelling the playing field”, showed that for disabled parents that is absolutely not true.
Some 40% of families with disabled children are not able to access the current free childcare offer of 15 hours a week. That percentage is 10 times more than that for families with a non-disabled child. Of the families who say that they are not taking up the 15 hours of entitlement, more than a third said that was because they did not think the childcare provider could care for their child’s safely. There is a serious issue that needs to be addressed on the qualifications and experience of childcare workers working with all children and, in particular, with disabled children, and later amendments will seek to address that.
Alex Cunningham
I know the passion that my hon. Friend has for childcare, particularly for disabled children. One in five councils apparently report that they do not have enough childcare for disabled children in their area. Is that not all the more reason why we need a comprehensive review over the next few months to ensure that we can understand the real provision that is available and take measures to fill the considerable gap?
Pat Glass
I agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There needs to be a comprehensive review, not just of the costs of childcare, but of funding, the kind of childcare that will be offered in the additional 15 hours and what is happening to those children who cannot take advantage even of their existing entitlement. That is why we would like the amendment to be made.
Of the 38% of parents who did not take up the childcare offer, 30% did not think that the childcare provider had adequately trained staff to meet the needs of their child. A quarter said that the nursery or childcare provider refused a place or excluded their child purely because of their disability or special educational needs. That is illegal under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but it has been going on for many years. Nothing will change unless we in this House do something to stop that happening. The Government have given us lots of nice warm words on that, but little action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said on Second Reading,
“warm words butter no parsnips.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1441.]
My Irish grandmother used to say that warms words do not buy the bairn a bonnet, but the meaning is the same: we need decisive action to improve the situation for the families of disabled children.
For the children who were refused a place or were excluded, nearly half—49%—said that the childcare providers had claimed that they could not meet the child’s additional needs, although no evidence was given of what reasonable adjustments had been considered. Parents were simply being turned away.
One parent I saw told me that she, living in London, had tried 50 childcare providers, some of them maintained, and they had all said that they were full; they said that they did not have a place, although they seemed to have places for children who did not have a disability. Some 47% of those who said that their child needed one-to-one care or other additional support were told that that support was not available to them, or not available at a cost that was affordable.
The parents of disabled children are often charged higher-than-average fees: 80% reported paying £5 an hour or more for childcare; 38% said that they paid £11 to £20 an hour; and 5% reported paying more than £20 an hour. That is in comparison with the national average of £3.50 to £4.50 an hour. The inquiry heard from parents who had been forced to give up work because they could not afford suitable childcare, and from parents who had had to give up their jobs and move to other parts of the country to get help with childcare from family members, because that was the only way in which they could work.
One couple I saw had an autistic child. They had a business in London, but they had to shift their entire business to Cornwall so that they could get access to childcare from relatives. That is not good for them, for our economy or, certainly, for their child. Access to good-quality childcare is important to all families, because it has a positive impact on children’s learning outcomes and enables parents to work. For families bringing up a disabled child, however, access to good-quality childcare is particularly significant, because such families are far more vulnerable to living in poverty than most.
Childcare for children with a disability is frequently a trigger for poverty, because such families incur considerable additional and ongoing expenses relating to their child’s disability and they often encounter significant barriers to entering and, possibly more importantly, sustaining employment. Disabled children are more likely to live in poverty, because it costs three times as much to raise a disabled child as it does to raise a child without a disability; the families of disabled children are 2.5 more likely to have no parent working for more than 16 hours a week in paid employment; only 16% of mothers of disabled children work, compared with 61% of all mothers; 83% of parent carers say that the lack of suitable childcare is their main barrier to work; and only 28% of local authorities say that they have sufficient childcare for disabled children, compared with 54% for all children under two, 69% for three and four-year-olds and 35% for children aged five to 11.
The inquiry I chaired made a number of important recommendations. They were not big asks. We asked the Government to take a number of steps that would begin to improve childcare for disabled children, such as undertaking a cross-departmental review of funding to identify where support needs to be improved to meet the extra costs. We did not ask them to come up with the money; we simply asked for a review to find out where the gaps are. That would have been easy for the Government to do—just to undertake a review—but it did not happen.
We asked the Government to introduce a requirement for local authorities to publish, as part of their special educational needs local offer, information for parents and providers on access to childcare inclusive of support. We simply wanted the Government to ask local authorities to publish their information on what is available and where but, again, that did not happen.
We asked the Government to write to local authorities—simply a letter—to make it clear that all eligible disabled children aged two, three and four were entitled to access their 15 hours of free childcare and to clarify the arrangements for redress. We only wanted the Government to remind local authorities that they were under a duty to ensure that disabled children could access their 15 hours and to tell parents what they could do if they were unable to get that childcare but, again, that did not happen.
As I said, those were not big asks. I do not know whether the Government did not agree with those three simple actions, or whether the suggestions simply got lost among the many other things that the Government have to do. However, the situation remains the same for families with disabled children. High-quality, flexible childcare helps children’s education and social development and enables parents to maintain paid employment, but it remains a pipe dream for many families with disabled children.
Over the past 20 years we in this House have, collectively, improved things for working mothers—I am not saying that we have made things easy, but we have improved them. I have only ever had one child, and I go back a long way, so there was no such thing as maternity leave when I was pregnant. People had to leave their jobs and then reapply for them three months later, or however long it was. If they were lucky, the job was there; if they were not, it was not, and they had to go somewhere else. At the time I had to work, because I was on my own with a little baby.
Over the years, therefore, we in this House have, between us, really made a difference and improved things for working mothers. We now have maternity leave and maternity pay, paternity leave and paternity pay, childcare, improved nursery access and children’s centres. All those things have improved the situation for working parents. However, for parents of disabled children, there has been little—perhaps even no—improvement.
That is something that we, collectively, can do something about. We can make things better for the families of disabled children. We are asking the Government not to spend money, but to look at the additional childcare costs for those families and reflect them in the funding provided. That is the kind of thing that the people who voted for us wanted us to come to the House to do; they wanted us to make a difference to the lives of those people. That is certainly why I came here.
The amendment tries to reflect the true costs of childcare for disabled children. The Government have already acknowledged the additional costs and acknowledged the principle in their tax-free childcare policy, so they need to reflect the costs for disabled children in this policy too.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend will be aware of the report “Levelling the playing field” from Contact a Family, which talks about the early years single funding formula provided to early years settings being extended to include a mandatory supplement, like schools’ notional special educational needs budget, to help early years settings provide support for disabled children. Is that not one of the ways forward that the Government should consider as part of a longer term review?
Pat Glass
That is what we are trying to do as part of the amendment. We want to acknowledge the additional childcare costs that exist for families with a disabled child and to have the issue included in the review.
The amendment asks the Government to look at the additional costs of childcare for disabled children and to consider providing additional funding and additional flexibilities so that such children can access what they are entitled to. Many families cannot access their 15 hours’ entitlement. Many of the families that came along to the inquiry told me that they would get five, or perhaps seven, hours of childcare. For them, extending free childcare to 30 hours, when they know they will still get only five or seven hours, actually makes things worse.
We are asking for no more than that the children of these families can access what they are entitled to, like any other children. As I said, the principle has already been established. Minister, we can make things better for these families, who get very little, and we can do that collectively, so let’s do it.
The Chair
Order. While it is fresh in my mind, may I ask you, Ms Drummond, to please make sure that nobody from your staff ever crosses the floor of the Committee again? If every Back Bencher told their staff to come in and walk across the Committee, it would be chaos. Go outside if you want to collect notes. Thank you.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries—we always have to say that, but it is a pleasure.
I will focus on the funding element of clause 1. I want to start by saying how much I welcome the move to 30 hours of free childcare. For me, as a young mum on a low and unstable income, the Labour Government’s introduction of 15 hours of free childcare was utterly game-changing. My son Harry was one of the very first children to receive that universal service, and I will be forever grateful for it. I am only disappointed that I will not be having any more children and getting the 30 hours. I am cursing the fact that I had my children just too soon—which is what my mum said when I told her I was pregnant.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady quoted the PSLA’s comments on the childcare review. I believe that its comments were informed by a piece of research done by Ceeda. According to that research, the cost of childcare for three and four-year-olds is £4.53 per hour. The average funding rate announced by the Government, from 2017-18, will be £4.88 per hour. Where is the shortfall?
Jess Phillips
I invite the Minister to go back to the evidence that was given to this Committee. That same evidence states that the consultation undertaken by the DFE to come to the figures that he has outlined will be completely outdated by the time of the 2017 roll-out and does not account for all sorts of other costs that nurseries may face.
Jess Phillips
Yes, but give me a chance to answer one intervention before you make another!
Jess Phillips
The shortfall has been identified by the Pre-school Learning Alliance in its research. I can only work on the evidence that has been given to the Committee. There is already a clear shortfall with the 15-hour provision, which is why nurseries tell us time and again that they use other people’s fees to subsidise their rates. The cost of childcare has increased over the past five years.
Alex Cunningham
Would my hon. Friend be surprised to find out that in the Minister’s constituency, childcare already costs £4.85 an hour? That is today, at 2015 at prices. There is a tuppenny shortfall today; what is it going to be like in future?
Jess Phillips
Also, although one welcomes some of the increases in wages that the Government have instigated, they have to be taken into account in the cost of childcare provision. If the cost is already £4.85, by 2017 something will have to give. There is undoubtedly a shortfall. I really hope that the Minister proves me wrong, and that there is no rise in childcare costs for children aged nought to three. However, the evidence suggests that something quite different will happen. All I am asking is for reviews to be put in place to ensure that the Government take any rise in childcare costs into account in their policies, and perhaps that they adjust things to make the situation fairer.
As I have said, where I live, the average wage and the average cost of childcare mean that women pay 103% of their salary towards childcare and men pay 90%. I recognise the comments made by the hon. Member for Norwich North about a society in which men are also child carers. My husband is, and has been almost exclusively since my children were aged three, the full-time carer of my children. However, the simple fact is that is very uncommon, thanks to the gender pay gap. When parents have to decide who goes back to work, they usually do so on the basis of who earns the most money. Unfortunately, that is usually not the girls.
The cost of childcare where I live is a problem in itself, but the Government’s costing of the 30 hours of free childcare has the potential to push that burden even further, to the point where it will be completely unrealistic for the lowest earner in the household to maintain employment. It will be no surprise to anyone here that the lowest earner in most households is usually a woman, and there is a real threat that the rising cost will prohibit women from returning to work for the first three years after they have had their baby.
It should not be a shock to anyone in this room that women’s time out of the labour market is the single biggest contributor to the gender pay gap. For my constituents in the west midlands, where the national trend of the narrowing of the gender pay gap has not quite reached us, last year the pay gap grew from £98.90 per week to £105.60 per week. It is getting worse, not better. The Women and Equalities Committee, of which I am a proud member, is undertaking an inquiry into the gender pay gap. Although I do not want to pre-empt any of the report’s findings, I can guarantee—
Jess Phillips
But it is entirely tied up, Ms Dorries, with the rising cost and reducing availability of childcare.
Jess Phillips
I apologise for going on to my favourite subject. I can almost guarantee that the findings of the review will show that the cost of childcare and women’s time out of the labour market are major driving factors behind the gender pay gap. There is real potential for the Government to exacerbate that with the proposals in the Bill, rather than helping matters, if they are not properly funded.
Alex Cunningham
There is another issue as far as income is concerned, because those who work in the care sector are predominantly women. If the proposals are not properly funded, one of two things will happen. Either wages will be screwed down and people will lose income, or there will be an increased ratio of children to adults in childcare settings. Both those ideas are unacceptable.
Jess Phillips
I totally agree. Without a proper funding structure, if the clause stands part of the Bill, we will need a real focus on quality. Any one of us who has ever left their children with a childcare provider wants to know that their kids are in the best care possible. For those of us who can afford it, sometimes the best care costs a bit extra.
Will the Government commit to a review of the rising cost of childcare for children aged nought to three, and of the issue of women dropping out of the labour market while their children are that age? Will they adjust the funding scheme accordingly if it is found to affect families negatively? For the same reasons, will they also review the rising cost of wrap-around care? The same private sector providers will often provide before and after-school transport as well as the 30 hours of childcare. If there is a shortfall, there will be a knock-on effect for all nursery costs.
To further assess whether the Government have their sums right, they could conduct a simple review of the number of places in the private sector and, more importantly, the maintained sector, when the 30 hours provision comes into being. My children both received 2.5 days a week of free early years education for a year, in a brilliant maintained nursery setting attached to the school that they both now attend. The nursery operated 45 places for school hours on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesday mornings, and a further 45 places for Wednesday afternoons and school hours on Thursdays and Fridays. I do not know why more nurseries do not do it like that, because it seems much better for parents. Having 2.5 hours each day seems as useful as a chocolate teapot to me.
The nursery building that my children attended simply could not manage 90 children for the full 30 hours of a school week. No matter how tiny their little bottoms are on the mats, there is no way that 90 children would be able to go there Monday to Friday. That means that the brilliant, highly sought-after maintained nursery where I live, which is helping many disadvantaged children, has a brilliant special educational needs service and offers a service to disabled children, will go from being able to offer 90 places to, most likely, being able to offer 45 places. That will reduce the availability of childcare in an area where it is really needed.
We cannot just say that we will build extra room on the side. Not only will the £500 million that has been allocated for capital funding not touch the sides for the whole country, but there just is not enough space in city schools such as the one my children attend. Last week, I visited Yardley primary school in my constituency. It is being pushed to go to five-form entry. I imagine that the idea of a five-form entry primary school is probably not that likely in the constituencies of most Conservative Members.
Chloe Smith
I welcome the point the hon. Lady is making about the need for space. I represent an urban constituency, just as she does, so I have heard the point made before. Nevertheless, does she not think that the capital funding could be well targeted to help where it is most needed?
Jess Phillips
I recognise the hon. Lady’s urban seat in Norwich. It is famous for a famous radio DJ who went on about urban regeneration there, so I know quite a lot about the pedestrianisation of Norwich high street. Moving on from Alan Partridge, the problem with capital funding is that it will not create space where it does not exist. My children’s school cannot just expand if it is given money; there is no space for it to move into.
Jess Phillips
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is £500 million that, while well targeted in certain places—
Jess Phillips
Sorry, £50 million—I overstated it. That is even less likely to have any effect. Although the maintained sector is crying out for that funding—almost every single school in my constituency has a waiting list of at least 50 to 100 pupils—it is unlikely that it is going to filter down and make any difference to the private sector and the childminding services that are much underused under the scheme.
Alex Cunningham
Even if there were the physical space, I wonder about the availability of sufficiently trained staff. There is greater demand from parents who want higher-quality staff, but there seems to be no plan to provide staff. That is all the more reason why we should review the measure over some time.
Jess Phillips
I think we have time to do that before the roll-out in 2017. I do not wish to delay it any further than 2017, and the Government have the time to make it right. On the training of staff, speaking from personal experience—my son has special educational needs; he has Asperger’s—I want to ensure that people who work with children such as my son every day have the training, qualifications and skills to make their lives and his life a little simpler, although I have not managed it yet.
Chloe Smith
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. She argues that the capital funding will not help the private sector. We all recognise that the taxpayer cannot always help the private sector. There is an argument that when a business is successful, it should work on its own merits. Does she agree that the policy proposal in the Bill is a major business opportunity, and that we should encourage the private sector to see it as an investment opportunity in our constituencies?
Jess Phillips
I would agree, if the private nursery sector—I have spoken to nursery staff in my constituency—felt anything other than concern about the funding envelope. That is the main thrust of my argument. If it is left with shortfalls, that is a big risk to take in a difficult economy. I absolutely want new nurseries to spring up and take entrepreneurial risk; we need them to meet the demand, so I would be delighted if they did that. I hope that the Minister and the Government prove me entirely wrong and that loads of brilliant nurseries spring up in spaces where they did not exist before and can afford to offer brilliant childcare that allows women to go back to work, but at the moment I do not see that in the detail of the proposals.
Pat Glass
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in creating new nurseries and new provision is the lack of a suitably qualified workforce? That highlights the problem that one part of Government policy can have an impact on another. There has been an 85% reduction in recruitment for level 3 childcare courses and a 56% shortfall in new applicants since the new requirement for GCSE maths was introduced for apprenticeships.
Jess Phillips
I agree that we need to take a wholesale look at apprenticeships, training and how to encourage people to go into this area of work. I imagine that helping to raise people’s children is one of the greatest gifts, and we need as many people as possible to go into the sector. Unfortunately, if pay rates remain where they are—care work is one of the reasons for the gender pay gap—and unless nurseries massively increase their costs and training budgets, people’s desire to work in the field will not increase.
Mr Gyimah
I would like to give the hon. Lady some encouragement on some of the questions she asked. The number of providers delivering the three and four-year-old entitlement has increased every year since 2011. In 2015, a total of 43,800 providers did so.
The hon. Lady raised a concern about the workforce. The quality of the workforce continues to rise. Between 2008 and 2013, the proportion of full day care staff with at least a level 3 qualification rose from 75% to 87%, and the proportion with a degree or higher rose from 5% to 13%. I hope she finds that encouraging. The number of places is increasing, and staff qualifications are going up.
Jess Phillips
The idea that the number of places are increasing is interesting. I am sure that some nursery providers that did not previously exist have opened their doors, but I think that some that previously did not offer the Government’s scheme are now doing so. Many nurseries in my area that have always existed suddenly have a big banner outside saying, “Free three and four-year old places here”. There is still a supply and demand issue. In his next intervention on me, will the Minister say what happened in 2013? Why did the number go up before then and then stop in 2013, or do we just not have the figures?
Mr Gyimah
I am encouraged by what the hon. Lady says about nurseries advertising the free entitlement, which she said is so underfunded, and having banners outside trying to attract parents. If it is so underfunded and nurseries are losing money by offering it, why are they so keen to advertise it?
Jess Phillips
Perhaps they did not realise and thought the subsidies were bigger. As I said, I would be delighted if the Minister proved me wrong. However, I can almost guarantee that for the next five years after the roll-out, we will see a higher-than-inflation increase in the cost of childcare for parents of children aged nought to three. I really hope I am wrong, but something will have to give. I do not run a nursery, so I do not know—I am basing my comments on the evidence that has been given to me that there will be a massive shortfall. Maybe I will start a nursery—I like to take on new tasks.
As a parent, I know about the effect of growing demand. This year I was one of the many hundreds of thousands of parents who were told that they could no longer access childcare. There may be an increasing number of places and delight about the figures, the graphs and reports that we read, but the reality is different. I was told I could no longer access the childcare I have accessed for my children for years, because demand outstripped supply. That is happening to people every day, regardless of what the figures say. Supply is not growing to meet demand. I currently have no childcare before school for my children, which has fundamentally changed my family’s working habits. It has meant a reduction in the income of my husband, who is the full-time carer of my children. No chart or table will tell me that is not happening when I know it is—it is happening to me and to many other parents I speak to on the school run.
I want to be sure about the graphs, the funding and schemes that are being outlined. All I am asking for is a review of whether the funding will work. As I have said repeatedly, I want the Minster to prove me wrong. I want a review of whether there has been any rise in the costs of wrap-around childcare for children aged nought to three and those over four, like my children, and of how many women fall out of the labour market when their children are aged nought to three. I want to understand whether the Government have got their figures right.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I apologise for making the schoolboy error earlier of not turning my phone to silent and therefore disrupting the Committee. I meant no disrespect, Ms Dorries.
I would have expected the Government to welcome the opportunity of a pause and a review because it would provide a breathing space for them to dig themselves out of a hole. We should remind ourselves of the genesis of the policy of 30 hours a week of childcare which, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, I genuinely welcome. The political genesis of the policy was that my party had offered a fully costed and prepared proposal for 25 hours a week, and the Conservatives entered the general election campaign determined to trump that with 30 hours a week, yet without doing the sums to work out where the money would come from, so I would have expected the Minister to welcome the proposal for a review and pause.
Christian Matheson
That would be handy, because I need to read something from my iPad, which has turned itself off.
Alex Cunningham
I am not sure that that was the role that I had intended to undertake.
The Government have said 30 hours, which trumped our 25 hours, but is that not to be welcomed? An extra five hours a week is a tremendous figure. We want the scheme to work, but we want it to be funded, and all the organisations are saying that there is not enough money and that the estimates are based on the wrong data. The Government need to get it right so that we can all celebrate the wonderful fact that the Tories have trumped the Labour party.
Christian Matheson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I also thank the Minister for, and congratulate him on, the extension to 30 hours, which will be welcomed by parents up and down the country, as long as it works. I do not wish to be churlish and I hope that my comments will be taken in the spirit with which I offer them.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that both main parties promised to increase the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds at the election, with the Labour party saying 25 hours and the Conservatives saying 30. However, we were the only party to commit to two things: a review of the cost of providing childcare; and an increase in the hourly rate. I did not see a reference to any review or increase in rates in the Labour party’s manifesto. We did not just make a promise; we are delivering. What is the basis for the hon. Gentleman’s claim that our pledge cannot be delivered, but Labour’s could have been?
Christian Matheson
I remind the Minister that the Labour party’s proposals—I appreciate that we are not discussing them, and I know your keenness that we stick to the Bill, Ms Dorries—were fully costed. My suspicion is that the Government’s proposals were not costed at the time, but I do not want to provoke your ire, Ms Dorries, so I will not make the same mistake as other colleagues—
Christian Matheson
There will be many beneficiaries of these proposals. I welcomed the hon. Member for Norwich North saying that fathers will benefit because we are moving, although perhaps not as swiftly as we might like, into an age in which fathers have more childcare responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made the good point that the gender pay gap will continue as long as we have a greater emphasis on maternal childcare, but I will not go into that as we are not on that topic at the moment.
One area that the review might take into account is the effect on providers. If the Committee will allow me, I will quote a constituent, and I may write to the Minister in greater depth about this particular case, because it is quite detailed. There is consternation—or concern, perhaps—that the numbers do not necessarily add up for providers. My constituent tells me that the reality of the current proposals is that
“each hour of extra funding”
for his nursery in Chester
“would mean a potential loss of £1.10, so that’s £16.50 per week per child.”
He continues:
“We have 35 registered children currently, which equates to £577.50 per week, times 14 weeks in this term,”
which means
“£8085.00 per term, or £24,000 per year.”
Those figures are losses due to the shortfall for providers. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that particular case now and I apologise for putting him on the spot without having written to him first, but the example illustrates the concern among providers that the numbers do not add up. A review that included providers would at least give us reassurance, or might identify a problem that needs addressing.
My constituent went on to write:
“The implications of this, coupled with increased rates, fuel costs and the… proposals to increase the national minimum wage, will put the pressure squarely on the providers shoulders, meaning they will either not be able to provide the level of care each parent rightfully demands, or it could even put them out of business”.
Chloe Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a problem in some parts of the country with local authorities not passing on as much of the funding as they ought to? I welcome the spreadsheets with which we have been provided to show that that is happening across the country. As I said on Second Reading, Norfolk County Council holds back 8% of the funding, whereas the figure elsewhere in the country is fractions of that, and I think that that is wrong.
Christian Matheson
I deliberately did not want to quote the whole of a long and quite complicated email from my constituent, but he makes a similar point. I have to say that my local authority of Cheshire West and Chester Council has just had £47 million taken off its annual budget by the Chancellor.
Christian Matheson
I am very close to the end of my speech but, of course, I give way to the Minister.
Mr Gyimah
I want to draw the Committee’s attention to a point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley about the cost of childcare and low funding rates. Central Government give Birmingham £5.49 and it pays £3.83 to providers. If there is a challenge around childcare in that area, it is not because the Government are under-funding childcare, but because of what the local authority is top-slicing. Of course it has to top-slice, but I would like to know why there is such a gap for Birmingham.
Christian Matheson
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but a Minister talking about funding for local authorities as a whole will be skating on thin ice, because such funding is not a good story for the Government.
The Minister may want me to write to him with more details about the case I cited, but childcare providers’ concerns need to be addressed. The review under the clause would give the Government breathing space to ensure that the numbers add up and could reassure providers who are working hard to offer a quality service to parents in my constituency and others.
Mr Gyimah
I have a lot to say, Ms Dorries, and I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship. We have had a long debate on amendment 10. I would like to do three things: provide a bit of context; deal with the amendment and the clause; and address several of the points raised by Opposition Members.
First, on the context, both the Labour and Conservative parties promised to increase free entitlement for three and four-year-olds because we recognise that that will make a difference to parents by helping with the cost of living and enabling them to work more hours. We also know that high-quality childcare makes a big difference to children’s life chances. Both parties share the same objective, and I note that Labour Members supported the Bill on Second Reading.
Both parties can also lay claim to a tradition of making big moves in the childcare sector. The hon. Member for North West Durham talked about the Labour party’s track record. I am proud to say that the Conservative-led Government in the previous Parliament continued that when the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds went up from 12.5 hours to 15 hours. We introduced a new entitlement of 15 hours of early education for disadvantaged two-year-olds. We also introduced the early years pupil premium, which is worth £50 million, so that disadvantaged three and four-year-olds do not fall behind at school. We introduced shared parental leave, which is to be extended to grandparents, and we legislated for tax-free childcare, which means that for every £100 that parents spend on childcare, £20 will come from the taxpayer. That is for parents who are buying additional hours to the existing free entitlement, or who have children younger than three. Parents can use tax-free childcare for children up to the age of 12, and up to 18 in the case of disabled children.
Jess Phillips
I just want to check—partly for my own personal finances—when that tax-free childcare will be available. The Minister says that that has been put in place, but I understand that it is currently not available.
Mr Gyimah
I said that we legislated for that in the previous Parliament. Tax-free childcare will come into effect from 2017. I know the hon. Lady is concerned about the cost of school-based, wrap-around childcare, but she can use tax-free childcare to help to offset the cost of her wrap-around childcare. In addition, parents can get subsidies through childcare tax credits for up to 75% of the cost of childcare, and that figure will be 85% when we move to universal credit. The Bill is part of a package of reforms through which the Government will spend £6 billion in this Parliament to support parents with their childcare.
Pat Glass
While we welcome the moves within universal credit to increase subsidies for childcare from 75% to 85% of the costs, does the Minister accept that there will be a lag? Universal credit will come into being six months after this childcare policy is implemented, so there will be a lag of six months between the two.
Mr Gyimah
Parents can get 75% of their costs paid for today, and that will rise to 85% when universal credit comes into force. That goes to the crux of the measure: no parent will be worse off as a result of the Bill, and no parent will get anything taken away from them as a result of the Bill. This is a new entitlement.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister says that “no parent” will be worse off, but I understand there are differences in the funding arrangements. Nationally, the new funding rate for the three and four-year-old offer is £4.88, including the early years pupil premium funding. All regions except London will see an increase in the hourly rate, but London will lose 65p of funding per child per hour for the extension of the entitlement, with some boroughs losing as much as £4.29 per place. How will that play out for the parents of three and four-year-olds in London?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady talks about the money paid to local authorities. I was making the point that no parent will be worse off in terms of the childcare that they get.
I will come to this in more detail later, but we have announced that we will consult on an early years national funding formula to ensure that we smooth out the allocations for local authorities. It is not fair that one local authority can get £9 an hour and afford to offer 20 hours’ childcare, while another local authority, such as in Birmingham, gets £5 an hour. We need to ensure that a local authority gets the funding that reflects the needs of the children in that local authority, rather than the amount being based on history, as is currently the case. I will come to that point in more detail later.
Alex Cunningham
What the Minister said was quite helpful. In Mid Dorset and North Poole, a week’s childcare costs £94, whereas in the Minister’s constituency of East Surrey, that costs nearly £180. If local authorities are not properly funded to take local circumstances into account, how on earth can they provide the cover that he wants?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman raises precisely the point I am making: we want to fund local authorities fairly to take account of local circumstances. The current funding formula is based on historical fiat and historical local spend; it does not reflect local need. In addition to increasing the hourly rate, we want to consult on a national funding formula to ensure that local authorities get funds that reflect their needs.
Alex Cunningham
In Surrey, the cost of childcare has gone up by 36% in the past five years. It will cost £9,000 for a family with one child to access childcare in Surrey. Is the Minister saying that he will ensure that the county council for the constituency he represents as a Member of Parliament will have sufficient money to fund that level of childcare in the future?
Mr Gyimah
Let me put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest—I am glad he is taking so much interest in my area, rather than his. As a result of the combination of policies that I have talked about, a parent could get up to £40,000 of subsidy towards their childcare for two children. That is how far the Government are going to subsidise parents with the cost of childcare.
We are discussing amendment 10 and clause 1. I understand the arguments made by some members of the Committee about funding for disabled children and children with SEN to support them in accessing the free entitlement, but let me be clear that I do not believe that clause 1, on the funding review, should remain in the Bill.
Before I address the key points, I want to thank hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly thank the hon. Member for North West Durham for her extensive work on improving access to childcare for disabled children. That is clearly an area of her expertise and I thank her for her contribution to the debate. I also want to put on record that, beyond our line-by-line scrutiny in Committee, I want to work with her and officials on how we can improve access to childcare for disabled children, so I invite her to the Department to discuss that.
I want to be very clear that the Government believe that parents with disabled children should have the same opportunities as other parents via increased choice of and access to high-quality childcare. The Government’s commitment to improving the system for children with SEN and disabilities was strongly demonstrated in the previous Parliament, during which we legislated through the Children and Families Act 2014 to introduce the biggest reform to the SEN and disability system for 30 years. The reforms, which introduced a nought-to-25 system, with an emphasis on early identification and the importance of integration between education, health and social care for children across the age range, were supported on both sides of the House.
Ruth Cadbury
The Minister listed three factors in the review of disabled children’s education, but he did not use the word “childcare”. The parents of disabled children want to be able to work as well as to have good care, education and social services support, so will childcare be part of the review that he has just mentioned?
Mr Gyimah
I am coming to precisely that point. The changes will not solve all issues in the system overnight, but they are at the early stages of implementation and are starting to make a real difference for families. As I pointed out in relation to funding for parents of disabled children, tax-free childcare for families with disabled children will provide support of up to £40,000 until the child turns 18. So, from nought to 18, a parent with a disabled child will get twice the allowance that a parent with a non-disabled child will get through tax-free childcare.
I recognise that the extensive work carried out by the parliamentary inquiry into childcare for disabled children, co-chaired by the hon. Member for North West Durham, found that some parents have difficulties accessing childcare. That is disappointing. I am clear that the entitlement to 15 hours’ early education is for all children. It is not acceptable for children with disabilities to be unable to access their entitlement.
Alex Cunningham
As the Minister knows, 40% of families with disabled children are not accessing care, which is 10 times more than in the wider population. I accept that there is sufficient money, but how do we ensure that there is the expertise needed in all our nurseries to provide the expert care that meets the specific needs of disabled children?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The truth is that disabled children have very different needs. There are a range of needs, which is why I would like to work with the hon. Member for North West Durham.
I will develop my argument further on how we can make sure we have the right expertise in the right setting. For some disabled children there needs to be an overlap between early education and nursing care, and in some situations there also needs to be a speech and language therapist, or a music therapist, on hand. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to childcare for disabled children. We need to work out the right way to do this, and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will make some suggestions during my speech.
Local authorities are required by law to secure free entitlement places for parents who want their children to take them up. There is a clear legal position enabling all three and four-year-olds to receive 15 hours of early education, and it is clear in the Bill that all such children are eligible to receive an additional 15 hours. Local authorities are also under a duty in the Childcare Act 2006 to ensure that there is sufficient childcare in their area. The requirement is for all children, and it is not acceptable if there are no places for children who have additional needs.
Jess Phillips
I recognise what the Minister says, but if a report does state otherwise, will he change his mind?
Mr Gyimah
No, I would definitely like to see the report. Of the £1 billion, £300 million is for a significant uplift to the rate paid for two, three and four-year-old entitlements. We have increased the rate not just for the three and four-year-old entitlement, as promised at the election, but for the two-year-old entitlement. The new average hourly rate—we have to be clear about it—is £4.88 for three and four-year-olds and £5.39 for two-year-olds, and the equivalent rate per carer, for three and four-year-olds, is £39. The uplift will apply to all children accessing the free entitlement.
We did not stop there, however. We also announced £50 million of capital funding to help providers who wish to expand and increase the number of places they are able to offer, as well as committing to a fairer funding distribution through the introduction of a national funding formula for early years. Neither of those elements, which are critical to a comprehensive and sustainable system, is mentioned in the clause.
Introducing a fairer funding formula for early years is essential. Current funding for early years varies considerably around the country, enabling some areas to offer parents additional hours of provision above the statutory 15 hours a week. The additional investment is a strong signal of the importance that the Government place on early years, and of our desire to help hard-working parents back to work and help them with the cost of living.
The rate increase is underpinned by the comprehensive review of the cost of childcare that was published on 25 November. The review was based on the best published evidence available, with additional evidence being collected through the review itself. Some 2,000 pieces of evidence from the childcare sector were reviewed, and every major childcare organisation contributed to the review. Childcare providers generously even provided their own profit and loss accounts so that we could identify and understand how their cost base worked. We promised the view at the election, and we have delivered on that promise. It is the most comprehensive bottom-up analysis of the cost of childcare provision in the country, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will agree with the rigorous, evidence-based approach we have taken to the analysis.
On how the review was conducted, it was led by the Department for Education’s chief analyst, who analysed the best published evidence and went the extra mile by collecting additional evidence throughout the review. The review examined the cost of childcare provision at provider level and considered all evidence on the current demand for and supply of childcare places for two, three and four-year-olds, for whom there is free entitlement. It also considered cost pressures that providers will need to meet in future, including the national living wage, and found that there is scope for providers to be more efficient, for example by reducing under-occupancy.
That analysis has allowed us to understand the funding needs of the sector and gain better insight into the characteristics of a diverse market and how it might respond to deliver the entitlement.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Minister for describing the review. He mentions under-occupancy. Has he had the chance to analyse how childcare providers can deal with occupancy figures and capacity, given that many parents work uneven hours, shift work and so on, and other parents are on flexible contracts? How does the Minister expect childcare providers to operate at high occupancy rates when so many parents work different hours in different weeks?
Mr Gyimah
There is significant scope for looking at under-occupancy, and we want to work with the sector. Most nursery providers say that they are very busy on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and less so on Mondays and Fridays. Some nurseries price their offer in such a way as to encourage parents to take up the quiet times, when there are still staff costs but no parents taking up the offer. There are ways to make that possible.
Ruth Cadbury
It is generous of the Minister to consider the needs of childcare providers, but how does that work given that it is the employers of those parents who determine the hours for which they need the childcare offer?
Mr Gyimah
If a childcare provider wants to say to parents, “This is how we price; it is a market,” parents can pick and choose the spots that work best for them. We are saying that there is more scope to look at under-occupancy. It may work for some providers and not for others. We will work with the sector on that.
As I said, the review had extensive input from the whole sector. I will name some of the key organisations that provided input: the National Day Nurseries Association, the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years, the Family and Childcare Trust and Contact a Family, as well as providers that attended round-tables that we held in the summer. The review does not just reflect costs in the south-east and London, because those round-tables were held around the country. I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who contributed to such a significant achievement, with the review being the first of its kind.
We are debating the impact of the provisions on children with additional needs, and the review also considered the impact on the cost of provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We held thematic discussions on childcare for children with additional needs, including special educational needs and disabilities. The review found that the nature and level of support required by those children can vary significantly, as does the prevalence of additional needs across each setting. The cost estimates reported in the review made allowances for some of those factors.
Our analysis of the responses to the call for evidence also highlighted that providing for children with additional needs, special educational needs and disabilities drives up costs for providers, particularly salaries. That is because children may need more one-to-one support, and there may be a need for greater involvement of other services—for example, health services or therapists—to support the provider in caring for the child. I saw that for myself when I visited Bath Opportunity pre-school, a specialist nursery providing childcare for children aged nought to five with a range of additional needs. The pre-school delivered excellent care for the children, but it was clear that the cost of delivering that care depended on children’s level of need. To deliver that care, the provider needs to work closely with a range of agencies, supported by the local authority to access funding from the high needs block, which is for ages nought to 25.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister heard me raise earlier the issue mentioned by Contact a Family, about the early years single funding formula. Is he saying that the higher-level funding will compensate and provide sufficient funding for people with a disabled child, who are finding the costs extremely high?
Mr Gyimah
First, I have outlined how parents could get tax-free childcare. Secondly, we confirmed in the spending review that there will be protection for high-needs funding, which will ensure that it rises in proportion to the number of children, including those under five. For parents with disabled children, there will be a number of funding sources to help them buy childcare provision based on their needs.
Alex Cunningham
Is the Minister reassuring the Committee that a person with a disabled child will not be disadvantaged financially in any way whatever, in comparison with a person with a child who does not have a disability, when they come to buy childcare?
Mr Gyimah
By having tax-free childcare and the high needs block, and also by having increased the hourly rate, we will ensure that local authorities continue to have the flexibility to target funding where it is most needed to help children with disabilities and their families, including the youngest children.
Pat Glass
I hear what the Minister is saying about the high needs block of grant funding, but will he not accept that local authorities such as mine have lost 40% of their funding? They argue that the funding that goes into the high needs block is insufficient in itself to fund education for children who have statements or education and social care plans—the statutory bit. They will therefore not be able to find money to fund the non-statutory bit, which is childcare, even if they want to, which they do.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady pre-empts my next point. When it comes to funding for children with additional needs, we know that one size does not fit all. That is why I have committed to considering early years funding for children with special educational needs and disabilities as part of our wider consultation on allocation and a fairer funding system in 2016—specifically to look at the issue that the hon. Lady points out.
However, we also know, going back to a previous point, that access is not just about funding. We have heard throughout this debate that although funding is important, it is not the only issue. I am sure that in a later debate we will talk about how the workforce support children with additional needs, but the way in which local authorities and providers work together to ensure that all children access their entitlement goes beyond funding into how services work together and how the workforce are supported. I therefore want very clearly to commit that as part of our early implementation of 30 hours from September 2016, we will seek to encourage innovative approaches to providing flexible childcare for working parents whose children are disabled or have special educational needs. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have a view on that when we sit down to discuss how we can make that happen.
I would now like to talk more widely about clause 1 and why I do not believe it should stand part of the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention. He said about 10 minutes ago that he would address the issue of staffing to ensure that there is the necessary level of expertise in nurseries so that they can offer appropriate support for children with disabilities. I do not know whether he intends to address that later in his speech, but it appears that he is moving on, so I would appreciate it if he addressed it now.
Mr Gyimah
I believe that there is an amendment specifically on the workforce. When we debate that, we can debate all the staffing issues together. I want to focus on amendment 10 and clause 1.
Clause 1 was introduced in the other place in response to concerns about a lack of detail about how the Government would fund their commitment to provide 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds. Critically, it was also about the opportunity to scrutinise how that would be done. Before the Bill was introduced, we committed to increasing the rate paid to providers that was announced by the Prime Minister in March, and to a comprehensive review of the cost of childcare.
Alex Cunningham
No one wants to delay the implementation of this fantastic policy, but the review, and the consideration of the issues that were raised in the other place, could happen in parallel without inhibiting that implementation. They would inform it considerably and perhaps make it possible to get the right numbers, which we need to understand the cost and the number of placements available. Surely the Minister accepts that something could be done in parallel, and that he does not have anything to fear from that.
Mr Gyimah
I do not see the case for a further independent review after a review has been held. The autumn statement set the Government’s budget and spending plans for the entirety of the Parliament. We have a very generous settlement: we will be spending £2.9 billion in 2018-19, having spent £2.8 billion in the last Parliament. That is a significant increase.
Finally, Members have asked questions about the detail in the Bill. The hon. Member for North West Durham is a veteran of childcare debates in this House, and I say to her that regulations are the right place for much of the detail. The full eligibility criteria, and the details about the childcare providers that local authorities are required to fund for the current entitlement, will all sit in regulations. The previous Labour Government made the same choice. We set out our intentions in a series of policy statements, and the regulations will be subject to the highest degree of parliamentary scrutiny.
Pat Glass
I accept that on previous occasions much of the detail on childcare has been in regulations. The difference is that there has previously been some detail in the Bill. The concerns raised in the other place and by the Opposition today are about the singular lack of detail in the Bill. That is why we are concerned about so much being pushed into regulations.
Mr Gyimah
As I said, the regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the proposals in clause 1 have been fully met through the completion of a robust and evidence-based review and a substantial financial settlement. It is important that we consider one of the key reasons why the clause was inserted in the other place—namely, concern that the Bill would not be scrutinised by Parliament in the light of spending decisions. I understand that concern, but we are now scrutinising the Bill line by line, with further stages of debate ahead. It may not have been the intention of the other place to delay the implementation of additional free childcare by inserting the clause, but I am clear that setting up an independent review would risk delay. I therefore believe that clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Member for North West Durham will feel reassured enough to withdraw amendment 10.
Pat Glass
I started this morning by saying that we support the Bill. We want to see it have a fair wind, but we have a number of concerns about the lack of detail in it. It is particularly lacking in detail about funding. I am somewhat reassured that we now appear to have £1 billion, but that leaves us still almost £0.6 billion short of the figure mentioned in the independent review, so there is still a major funding gap. We want to help the Government persuade their lordships that the Bill is sustainable and deliverable.
The Minister is not being fair when he refuses to accept that there is an existing cross-subsidy in the system, and that the current 15-hour offer is underfunded and is subsidised by parents who are taking more than 15 hours. We have real concerns that if the number is increased to 30 hours, it will remove the opportunity for that cross-subsidisation and push the cost down in the system, so that there will be a sharp increase in the cost of childcare for babies, one year-olds and two year-olds. It will produce an ongoing squeeze on costs elsewhere, and our real concern is that as a result, quality will suffer.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady has repeated the claim about £1.6 billion that she made on Second Reading. That figure predates the funding uplift and ignores the eligibility criteria that we have introduced and the savings we get through working tax credit and tax-free childcare. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw that comment, given that it ignores all those facts, which we have known about since the spending review.
Pat Glass
I am sorry, but from what the Minister has said today he has not convinced me that we have the funding we need to deliver this policy. I think he will have to try harder. He is refusing to accept that cross-subsidisation underpins the system. If we pull away the opportunities for that cross-subsidisation, it will either squeeze costs somewhere else or affect staffing ratios and quality.
Jess Phillips
Following the Minister’s intervention, is my hon. Friend as worried as I am about the fact that the Government are now saying they can afford the new measures because of the change in eligibility? Earlier, the argument was that eligibility had not reduced access for anyone. How has eligibility reduced the cost of the policy—is it because people cannot now get access to the offer?
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. My point is that before the spending review, as before any spending review, there was wild speculation about what Government promises made in their manifesto will cost. Until the Government have actually set out the detail of a policy, that is all speculation. Since the spending review we have made clear who is eligible and provided the money to fund it, so it is wrong for hon. Members to keep referring to speculative figures that were published before the spending review.
Pat Glass
I have looked at the IPPR document and the Government’s review of the cost of childcare, and there is hugely more detail in the IPPR document than in the review. The Minister has referred to the review several times, and I have it here. My reading is that it does not take account of cross-subsidisation.
Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and I look forward to doing so over the next few days. I was talking about the review outlined in the clause, which will be ongoing and in parallel with the policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said. There would therefore be no delay to implementation, so we are not sure why the Minister is concerned about having that review.
The review would look at the ongoing sustainability of the policy. When as a director of education I was implementing any kind of policy, I had what I used to call a Libby test: I would talk through what I wanted to do with a member of staff and she would tell me, almost immediately, everything that was wrong with it and where it would fail. That informal consultation helped me and let me know where opposition would come from. Alongside all the formal consultation, as we implemented policies incrementally I found it useful to keep going back to her to test them out, because she would tell me exactly what headteachers were saying and where the problems were. The review would be something like the Libby test. It is about the Government making sure that the policy is sustainable as we move towards implementation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The hon. Lady outlines precisely the idea underlying the early implementers, which we announced will happen in the second half of 2016 to test local demand, innovation and how parents respond to the offer. If she is saying that she wants to see that activity, I am certainly with her. If however she is suggesting that we should have further discussion about funding that was settled in explicit terms in the spending review, I am not with her.
Pat Glass
My understanding of the early implementers is that they are few: fewer than four children per authority if spread across the country. Therefore, unless the Minister can tell me otherwise, I cannot see how that is a major testing out of the policy. The review is about making sure that it is sustainable. We all want it to work; we just want it to work right.
Mr Gyimah
Five thousand children will benefit early from the policy as a result of the early implementers, but alongside that we will be testing a number of other things such as the eligibility checking system that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is working on, which will be joined with tax-free child care; policy and practice around special educational needs and disability; and innovation around flexibility. Therefore, in addition to the 5,000 children who will get in early, we will look at a whole number of other things during the early implementation stage.
Pat Glass
We are grateful for that, but, as I said, 5,000 children across the country is not a huge number on which to test out sustainability, and funding sustainability in particular.
The Minister has talked a lot about funding, but he has not convinced me that he has filled that massive funding gap. It is not just me, their lordships or the Institute for Public Policy Research who are saying that, but the sector as a whole. There seems to be an inability to accept the true cost of childcare.
The Minister talked a lot about his review of childcare costs. There were lots of things I could not find in it, but in particular I could not find any kind of building in of future costs. We know that the sector will face costs in future such as the apprenticeship levy. We all agree with the apprenticeship levy, which is a great idea, but the childcare sector has a high number of apprentices. Therefore, whether we agree with the apprenticeship levy or not, we must accept that it will be an additional cost on the sector.
The sector has talked to me a lot about the implementation of the living wage, which is not only about implementing a minimum wage for those at the bottom, as the Chancellor seems to think. There are differentials and they are very slim, so if we implement the living wage, which will now be the minimum wage for those at the bottom, on the least wages, we have to increase the wages of those who are level 3-qualified, of graduate leads and of managers—all slim differentials. The sector is telling me that that is not built into the review.
Mr Gyimah
On the subject of future costs, I want to put something on the record. We want providers to take steps to absorb some of the future cost pressures. As a result, we have front-loaded the uplift to help providers do so, and we have done that even though the cost of childcare review found that the average cost of delivering the three and four-year-old entitlement is £4.25, which is below our existing national average rate of £4.56. We want to work with providers to become more efficient—
Pat Glass
I thank the Minister. That is helpful, because there is a lot of confusion around the funding. I will come on to £4.56 average rate in a minute.
Other future costs appear not to have been taken into account in the review, such as rising business rates or top-slicing by local authorities. The hon. Member for Norwich North talked about local authorities top-slicing anywhere from about 2% to about 9%. The budget used to be ring-fenced—it was ring-fenced in 2010, but the current Government took away the ring fence and have allowed the top-slicing to go on. It would be easy to put the ring fence back.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady knows very well that the early years funding is part of the dedicated schools grant, so local authorities cannot dip into it to spend on, say, potholes. On the issue of top-slicing, we will set a firm expectation for local authorities of how much they may top-slice, alongside our review of the early years national funding formula, so that the majority of the funds goes directly to providers.
Pat Glass
Honestly, don’t get me started on the early years funding. As I understand it, it was ring-fenced and it was an early years grant, but in 2011 it was amalgamated with 14 other grants into the early intervention grant, which covered everything from special educational needs through early years funding to behaviour support. It was huge and now it has been rolled into something else, so it is difficult, even for local authorities that want to deliver the funding, to weave their way through to what is actually early years funding. I will come on to the funding review in a moment.
I have read the cost of childcare report; it contains massive assumptions and an awful lot of complacency. The assumptions include things such as switching; the report simply makes the assumption that because parents do not switch their provider often they are satisfied. Anyone who has talked to parents knows that there are costs to switching that are not taken into account. Most parents do not want to shift their child from one childcare provider to another when the child is settled and has built up relationships, even if they cannot afford that childcare any longer or even if they have found a cheaper provider. Parents will cut out all sorts of other things to ensure that they do not have to shift their children constantly from one provider to another. It is not the same as switching electricity supplier, and we know how difficult people find that.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that 85% of the two, three and four-year-olds who receive funded education are in good or outstanding early years schools, as rated by Ofsted? That provision was supplied at a rate less than the future rate.
Pat Glass
As we are talking about three and four-year-olds, I am not sure that is relevant, but I am happy to accept it.
The Minister talked about under-occupancy. He is right that there is 75% to 90% occupancy. However, occupancy is much higher on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday than it is on a Monday and Friday. I know that the Minister will say that we can extend the 30 hours, but many families choose or are able to find familial childcare for Monday and Friday, so I am not sure that will necessarily provide him with his extra hours.
We have talked about the risks. The Minister and the review do not seem to accept the cross-subsidisation that is going on between the 15 hours and the rest. Childcare providers tell me clearly that they are only able to provide the 15 hours of free childcare because they charge more for any additional hours that parents want, or they charge for meals or other things, so that they can deliver the 15 hours. There is a real danger if we extend this without the right kind of funding to support it that it will come out in other areas. The squeeze will be on in other areas, and the cost of childcare for babies, one-year-olds and two-year-olds will rise sharply.
Mr Gyimah
The childcare sector has a record amount of money going into it as a result of the spending review. The hon. Lady argues somehow, on whatever basis I do not know, that is not enough. Can she tell us what she considers is the right funding rate for three and four-year-olds?
Pat Glass
The Minister makes it sound as though I am making this up. I reached this view by talking to the sector. I spoke to all the people who contributed to the costs of childcare report as recently as last night. They told me they do not know how it came up with the results it did, given the data they input and the discussions that they had. I am not making this up; that is what the sector tells me.
Mr Gyimah
Of course, that is what happens when the Government go out and say we will increase the rate, and we will undertake a review to find out what the new rate will be. Do not be surprised if lots of people say the rate is not enough. This is based on evidence that we were supplied with. We have compared the rates here with the rates in their own reports that they published, and the new rate is more than adequate. If the hon. Lady disagrees, can she tell us what she thinks is the right rate?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if a political party puts in a manifesto an offer of 30 hours a week free childcare to parents of three and four-year-olds, that is what the offer is? Does she not agree that voters would therefore expect that that is funded and that the political party hoping to be in government, and now in government, is prepared to fund it to the level that delivers that offer?
Pat Glass
That is absolutely right. The offer made in May this year was 30 hours a week of free childcare. It is not now 30 hours a week free childcare to parents who are working more than eight hours. The thresholds have increased and the numbers of people eligible have gone down. As I said on Second Reading, any parent who voted Conservative on the basis of that offer will be feeling seriously short-changed now.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
There seems to be a bit of confusion. The whole point of the clause we are debating is that we sit back with the sector, private providers, to find out what the correct levels are. In view of that and given the confusion, does my hon. Friend agree that what is in the Bill, as it stands, would actually be a good idea for the sector?
Pat Glass
That is exactly what we are arguing. There is confusion here, and we are not happy. I have listened to the Minister, but he has not convinced me that the necessary funding is there. There may be more than there was a couple of weeks ago, but the necessary funding is not there, which is why we believe that an ongoing review is a good idea.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Some of the things that the Minister has said in the past add to the confusion. He was quoted as saying that the increase in childcare entitlement by 10 hours would cost an additional £1.6 billion. He talks about £1 billion and extra money in the spending review. Numbers seem to be coming out of hats all over the place. Does anybody really know what funding is available?
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree, though, that it has to be not only affordable for providers, but sustainable for taxpayers? We are putting £2.6 billion in, and there is only a limited amount of money.
Pat Glass
I absolutely agree, but I did not make an offer of 30 hours of free childcare in May 2015—the Government did.
I want to move on to amendment 10. I am happy to take up the Minister’s offer of working with him to look at how we can extend the take-up of childcare for disabled children. However, I am not sure how I feel about going back to the Department for Education, given that I worked there before 2010. Perhaps we can meet in a coffee shop or something, but I am very happy to work with him.
I agree with the Minister that the issues around children and access, as regards children being able to access education in schools or childcare for disabled children, are not always about money. Some are, but in my experience, an awful lot of this is about confidence. I have worked with schools on many occasions, although not with childcare providers because that was not necessarily my area of expertise, to try and get them to the point at which they can admit a child who has a disability—who has something they have not seen before, who has something really unusual.
I remember one child, a lovely little boy; I think he is probably about 16 now. He had very little movement—a little bit of head movement, but nothing much more. Those at the school were terrified. They were really worried—it was quite a long time ago, and I think it would be fairly routine now—but we worked with the school. At that time, another child at the school had a little bit of learning difficulty and a little bit of physical difficulty, but nothing huge across the piece, and every time I spoke to the headteacher, he would mention that little boy.
Once the child who had very little movement was admitted, when I saw the headteacher again I asked how Fred—I think that was the other boy’s name—was getting on. He said, “Oh, we’re not worried about that at all. Do you know what? He’s no bother.” As soon as the staff at the school had the confidence, training and support—the support was really important—and admitted children with quite significant difficulties, they were really proud of themselves and of how well they had done, and they were looking to admit the next child with another serious disability. I think much of it is about a little bit of training. Some of it is about money, but a lot is about confidence and giving those childcare providers the confidence that they are not on their own.
The Minister talked about Government reforms and I welcome their reforms on special educational needs and disability. They are a huge step in the right direction. We wish them well. The difficulty, as he would expect me to say, is that these are being implemented at a time when local authority budgets are being significantly cut. Therefore, there is sometimes a very difficult financial circle for local authorities to square.
The Minister talked about the funding already in the system to tackle the problems that disabled children have in not getting access to the 15 hours of childcare. He talked about the higher rate of funding block, but, as I pointed out in an intervention, my understanding is that local authorities are really struggling to provide the statutory provision that they need to support statements and the education, health and social care plans that fall within the statutory sector, and very few have leeway with funding to support the non-statutory bit, which is the childcare sector.
On the review of fair funding, the Minister and I entertained each other one Thursday evening on the graveyard shift a few weeks ago. I was amazed that something like 35 Government Members turned out. One of the things that was said, to which I did not respond at the time, was that the Labour Government did nothing about this. That is not true. I was working in the DFE at the time. I am probably the collective wisdom from the DFE now, because I am not sure that many people who were there are here.
I want to put a hypothetical case to the Minister. If he were to seek legal advice on this, I suspect it would tell him that there is a direct line between those authorities—largely but not all metropolitan—that have high council tax, and those that funded education above the standard spending assessments, because this is all historical. There is still what I think ought to be referred to as a golden thread between those authorities that pay high council tax and those whose schools are highly funded.
If the Minister were to seek legal advice, he would find that there is probably a remedy for those authorities that have low council tax and low funding for schools. They can have a referendum and raise council tax and pass it on to their schools. The Minister may therefore find that his legal advice would tell him that if he were simply to transfer funds across, his chances of winning a judicial review against the big beasts of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and so on would not be bonny.
Pat Glass
No, I do not think that is right and I would not defend it at all. However, I think that if the Minister is simply going to redistribute existing funding—to level it down—he may find he has legal problems. If he tries to level it up, there will be no problems at all.
The highest rate of funding block is insufficient to address statutory needs. I listened to what the Minister said about tax-free childcare. As he quite rightly said, this is about the Government topping up a bank account, into which the parent will put £800 and the Government will top up to £1,000 for each child. However, that is not realistic for most parents of children with disabilities.
As I said earlier, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation evidence highlighted that disabled children are most likely to live in poverty, that it costs three times as much to raise a disabled child as it does to raise a child without a disability, that families of disabled children are two and a half times more likely to have no parent working for more than 16 hours a week in paid employment, that only 16% of mothers of disabled children work, compared with 61% of all mothers, and that 83% of parent carers say that lack of suitable childcare is the main barrier to work. Most parents of disabled children are not going to be sitting around with a spare £800 per child. Some families will be helped, but the funding will not help across the piece.
Pat Glass
That helps, but I do not think parents of disabled children have huge amounts of money lying around that they can use for this. However, it will help and we are grateful for that.
We remain concerned at the funding gap, despite what the Minister says. We believe that his policy is underfunded and we are concerned about the risks that could result—less provision, less choice for parents, diminishing quality and sharp rises in childcare for younger children. We remain convinced that an ongoing review would help to make the policy work and deliver what we all want, but we will not press clause stand part to a vote. On amendment 10, however, I believe that the Minister is well meaning, but nothing he has said today has convinced me that anything will change for families of disabled children, so we will seek to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
We have also debated clause 1 stand part, so the question is that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye; of the contrary, no.
The Chair
Order. The motion is very straightforward: that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. If the Government wish clause 1 to stand part of the Bill, they vote aye. If they do not wish clause 1 to stand part of the Bill, they vote no. I will try again, for the benefit of the Front Benchers. The question is that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye; of the contrary, no.
The Chair
I think the Noes have it, on the basis of the Minister shouting no.
Clause 1 disagreed to.
The Chair
For the benefit of Members, what that means is that by your shout, Minister, you have voted with your colleagues to remove clause 1 from the Bill. If that was your intention, you have done it. If that was not your intention, I suggest you talk to the Whips’ Office in due course, because you will be in trouble.
Pat Glass
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, after ‘work’, insert
‘, voluntary work or full-time education course’.
This amendment would also allow those parents who undertake voluntary work or who are in full time education with the intention of retraining for the workforce to access 30 hours of free childcare.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, at end insert—
‘(ca) specify other circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as in such work where they are the parent of an eligible child who is disabled;’
This amendment probes on the definition of working parents, and specifically when the parent or parents of a disabled three to four year-old child will be considered as eligible for the additional 15 hours of free childcare.
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
‘(4A) In making regulations under subsection 4, the Secretary of State must set out in what circumstances a parent or partner who—
(a) is a zero hours worker, as defined under section 27B (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996,
(b) varies the hours they work on a weekly basis, or
(c) varies the hours they work across the year,
will be considered to meet any conditions relating to paid work.’
This is a probing amendment to clarify eligibility for those parents whose patterns of work will vary day to day and week to week. This would include parents who are on zero hours contracts, parents who work flexibly or seasonal hours, and parents who are self-employed.
Pat Glass
Amendments 8, 9 and 12 are all linked by the question of eligibility. As we have heard in the other place and here, the Government started with a manifesto promise of 30 hours’ free childcare to parents who worked more than eight hours a week, but we are now looking at something less than that. Early analysis has suggested that the Bill will remove from eligibility significant numbers of low-paid parents who had thought that they would be eligible. Through this series of amendments that we will be considering today, and perhaps on Thursday, I want to explore eligibility with the Minister. These are probing amendments so that we can be very clear about who is eligible.
Alex Cunningham
This is not just about people who good things working with charities and so on, but about people who want to go out and get work experience, because they tried to get on an interview panel for a job but were rejected because they did not have any experience. This gives them an opportunity; if they were to get childcare, they could get the experience and then get into work at a later stage.
Pat Glass
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention; he is absolutely right.
For critically ill or disabled children, access to good-quality childcare is particularly significant, because their families are far more vulnerable to living in poverty than most. Childhood illness and disability are frequently attributable to poverty, because those families incur additional ongoing expenses relating to their child’s illnesses, stays in hospital and frequent hospital and medical appointments. They also often encounter significant barriers to entering and, possibly more importantly, sustaining employment, exactly as my hon. Friend said.
The reality for many of those parents is that they live in poverty; that it will cost them more to raise their child; that they will not be able to get paid work for more than 16 hours a week; that they will not be able to work at all; and that local authorities will simply not have the kind of childcare necessary, with the training needed to meet their child’s medical or other needs. Parents in such circumstances pay more for childcare; as we have heard, in some areas they can pay up to £20 an hour, compared with the national average of between £3.50 and £4.50 an hour.
Lucy Frazer
Without commenting on the substance of what the hon. Lady is saying, clause 2(3) states:
“The conditions mentioned in subsection (2)(d) may, in particular, relate to the paid work”—
that is “may”, not must. This is a matter, I assume, to be dealt with in regulations.
Pat Glass
That is precisely why we are probing the Minister’s thinking.
That is the reality for too many families. The amendment would include in eligibility parents who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work in paid employment and therefore might fall outside the eligibility criteria for access to the additional 15 hours of childcare. In all honesty, who needs that childcare more than those parents? They give up so much to support the medical needs of their children. Sadly, for some parents the issue will be temporary, and in time they will be able to pick up their lives. For many more, however, mainly mothers, but also fathers, the proposed measure will mean being unable to enter the paid workforce throughout the life of their child.
My own extended family felt the shock of a diagnosis of leukaemia for a small relative. The immediate family were living and working in west Cumbria at the time. Both parents were working and they had two little girls. The child who was ill was admitted to the Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle, which was the centre for childhood cancers in the northern region. She was admitted for long periods of treatment, and her mum stayed with her. Her mum had to resign from her job because no timescale was given for the treatment, which ultimately lasted years. Eventually, the strain on the family caused by the father and the other child living on one side of the country and the mother and the ill child living on the other meant that the father also gave up his job and resettled the entire family in the north-east, near the specialist hospital. That is the reality for many families.
The father took the opportunity to return to education and retrain. He did voluntary work in local schools until he qualified and was able to work as a teacher and support his family. He has done that for the last 20 years. Good-quality, free childcare would have been really helpful to that family. I remember the younger child, who would have gone to anyone because she was so used to being passed around like a parcel. Good-quality childcare is important to families in similar situations today.
Amendment 8 would allow families in such difficult circumstances to access the additional 15 hours of childcare, and I suggest to the Minister that no working families would benefit more. I am not asking for a great deal—I am not asking the Government to change the eligibility details and so on. However, will the Minister consider extending eligibility to parents who are doing voluntary work and satisfy the hours requirement?
Moving on to amendment 12, I want to probe what is meant by “working parent” for the purposes of the Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister gave details of exactly what it means. It has been said that it will include unpaid work, but will it? How will it work for the self-employed and those who move between self-employment and employment? What will be the impact on parents who work but do not necessarily receive payment for that work? I want to probe specifically how the definition will apply to the parents of disabled children. We have already heard that 40% of those parents are unable to access the 15 hours to which they are currently entitled, which is 10 times more than families with non-disabled children. A lack of suitably qualified and trained staff and a lack of confidence among providers prevent them from accessing that childcare.
We have heard that childhood disability is often a trigger for poverty, because families incur additional ongoing expenses and face significant barriers that the rest of us do not. We have also heard about the additional costs that go along with that and the fact that mothers of disabled children cannot work at all.
The Minister said he wanted to work with me to improve the take-up of free childcare by families of disabled children, but he was not prepared to support an amendment to increase the hourly rate. With amendment 12, we want to explore eligibility so that it is clear what we mean by “working parent” and what impact that will have on parents of disabled children.
Does the Minister’s offer to work with me to improve the take-up of childcare include a desire to look at eligibility and additional hours? We want to ensure that more families can access their entitlement, and that more mothers, and indeed fathers, of disabled children can go out to work, so that over time we can take more and more families with disabled children out of poverty. This is a probing amendment, and we simply want to see how far the Minister is prepared to go.
On amendment 9, the Bill states:
“The Secretary of State must secure that childcare is available free of charge for qualifying children of working parents for, or for a period equivalent to, 30 hours in each of 38 weeks in any year.”
It continues:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of discharging the duty imposed by section 2(1)”
and specifies that those regulations may, for example, include
“enabling any person to check whether a child is a qualifying child of working parents…make provision about the disclosure of information held by a Minister of the Crown, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or”
any other person.
Clause 3(5) states that
“a criminal offence created by…regulations may not provide for a penalty of imprisonment on conviction on indictment”
of more than two years—so someone can get two years in jail. This is really serious stuff.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
On that point, it sounds dramatic to suggest that people might go to prison for this, but I have worked with women in refuges who have ended up in prison because their children did not go to school for a variety of reasons. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is alarming?
Pat Glass
I am shocked that women end up in prison because their children will not go to school. It is not necessarily something that a mother living in a refuge, separately, can do anything about. This is serious stuff, and it is really scary stuff for parents. If they get it wrong, they could end up in prison or with a hefty fine. It is really important that the Committee probes exactly what is meant by eligibility. I want to see how far the Minister is prepared to go on that, because I am not quite clear about who is eligible and who is not. He needs to help us with that.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be penalties for what is, essentially, fraudulent activity, but that the thresholds for those penalties and the circumstances in which they come to play should be set out very clearly in the guidance?
James Berry
Does the hon. Lady agree that there ought to be penalties when a parent takes an action that is tantamount to fraud on the state, but that the circumstances in which those penalties might arise should be specified clearly in the guidance?
Pat Glass
That is exactly what we are asking for in this probing amendment. Yes, I agree that there need to be penalties if someone is deliberately defrauding the state. I do not want to get parents into a situation in which they are affected unintentionally because the guidance or the eligibility criteria are not clear.
Jess Phillips
I wonder whether my hon. Friend, like me, has ever tried to follow the guidance on child tax credits, or whether she has ever had anyone in her constituency office who has fallen foul of some of the guidance laid out by different Government Departments offering state-subsidised childcare. Potentially, we could have put every single person in prison.
Pat Glass
I have not personally ever tried to follow the guidance, because I have no children who would qualify for childcare, although I do have grandchildren. Many people who have come to my constituency surgeries have found themselves with huge tax credits bills to pay back. They never intended to get into that situation in the first place; it was not about trying to defraud the system. These things are complex, and we want to ensure that the provision is as simple as we can make it so that parents do not get into these kinds of difficulties.
How will the eligibility of parents whose patterns of work vary from day to day and week to week be assessed and monitored? Those people include parents on zero-hours contracts, those on flexible working hours, seasonal workers and those who are self-employed, whose hours of work and income are often entirely outside their control. What all those workers have in common is the need for their working hours and incomes to be averaged over a period of time. The way we work today is not the regularised pattern of eight hours a day, five days a week with weekends off. Look at the Members of this Committee—it is not the way we work, and it is not the way that most people work these days.
Many parents have several jobs and sometimes juggle taking care of their children with a couple of part-time jobs. The reality is that many families in my constituency work in self-employment because there are not jobs around for them to do. In a sense, they are forced into self-employment. Although that takes them off the claimant count, they cannot necessarily predict what they will do from one week to the next.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend eloquently explains how complicated things are even for men who do not have children. If we add to the basic benefits system and the tax credits system the need for parents to work out their additional eligibility for free childcare, they will have to do complicated sums to work out whether they will be better off on tax-free childcare or universal credit. Every time their income changes, every time their hours change and every time their child hits another birthday, they will have to amend their application further. Is it any wonder that parents are worried about getting into trouble through no fault of their own?
Pat Glass
I welcome that intervention. We do not want people to get into the situation that we see frequently in our constituency surgeries, where parents turn up with huge bills for tax credits that they need to pay back. They did not intend to get into that situation, and it is not about fraud; it is about things being unclear.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady touches on an important issue, which is worth clarifying. The power to create an offence in the Bill relates only to information—that is, sensitive information about children or about parents’ income—being passed on without authorisation. The measure is designed to protect parents and their data, not to punish them. The financial penalties scheme is for false declaration or fraud, which is more proportionate.
Pat Glass
That is really helpful. Still, financial penalties will be imposed, and we see that happening all the time to parents who are on tax credits. It would be best to avoid that situation if we can by being as clear as possible. Given that many families have different and varied patterns of work, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain to us exactly what the eligibility criteria will be, and how far he is prepared to go on that question. For those on zero-hours contracts, those who do seasonal work and the self-employed, whose work and income are entirely variable and dependent on others, eligibility needs to be calculated over a period of time.
For many people, the self-employed included—we welcome the desire expressed by the Government to include them in eligibility for the scheme—it will not be possible for them or for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to confirm their income until 18 months after the end of a financial year. The Minister will get absolutely sick of me giving him the benefit of my experience, but when I worked in education and we had student grants— remember them?—self-employed parents were allowed to estimate their income, and their children’s grants were calculated on the basis of those estimates, with a full reconciliation 18 months later when HMRC issued confirmation of the parents’ income. I am sure that the same is true of student loans. Will similar estimations of income and hours of work be allowed in this case? Will they be calculated over a certain period? If so, what will that be?
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I do not know whether the hon. Lady knows this, but there are at least three members of the Committee who did not enjoy student grants—
Chloe Smith
There are four, but that is not the point of my intervention. The point of my intervention is to ask the hon. Member for North West Durham, in the spirit of her probing amendments—a healthy spirit—to explain to us a little more how she would have liked to tidy up the system with the introduction of the 25 hours of free childcare that her party was hoping to bring in had it won the election. Will she explain how things ought to be done?
Pat Glass
My understanding is that the 25 hours was universal, and when something is universal we do not need such untidiness. Now, however, we are talking about the Government’s 30 hours. For the benefit of us all, parents in particular, I simply want clarification of the issues. Will those income and hours be estimated over a period of time? What is that period? Will HMRC be confirming things?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady is being incredibly generous in giving way again, and I will address her points in my response. I hate to be the killjoy who reminds her, but the manifesto on which she stood for election promised 25 hours of free childcare for the working parents of three and four-year-olds. It was not a universal offer.
Pat Glass
It was universal for parents who are working. Getting back to the probing amendment, will an average of 16 hours a week over 52 weeks be possible for those on zero-hours contracts, in seasonal work and so on? What will happen if something goes wrong? What will happen if parents genuinely believe that they will work an average of 16 hours a week over 52 weeks, based on the average of the past three years, say, but something goes horribly wrong and they fail to reach the average hours or the average income?
Things do go wrong for families. Poor weather might lead to a rotten summer—it would never happen, because that is completely unknown in the UK, isn’t it? If a business depends on a good summer, people could find themselves falling foul of the income threshold. Flooding over Christmas, or even in November, might wipe out earnings in the peak season—again, not unknown in the UK. Recession might dry up people’s work and income—again, not unknown in the UK—or even an international banking crisis could force families into unemployment and poverty. It might be something else that is completely out of the control of the parents. What will happen then?
If the parents genuinely estimate their position based on the previous three years, backed up by all that historical stuff, and then something goes wrong, who will make decisions about that? What is likely to happen to parents? Will they have to pay back the cost? I was going to ask if they faced two years in prison, but we have already heard that they will not.
The Minister needs to make regulations and it would be helpful to know what is in his mind when he is thinking about them. We all welcome the Bill—so warmly that we want to get it right for parents. If the Minister can be absolutely clear about the issue of eligibility, we will be grateful.
Jess Phillips
I will speak specifically about eligibility and probe a little more how it will work. The two areas that I wish to speak about are women who live in domestic violence refuges and those who have their children in a maintained sector service much like the one my children attended.
If my children enjoyed the full week in childcare for free—it seems like manna from heaven to me—and I lost my job, their places would be removed. I would only be able to send them to the maintained sector service for 15 hours of the week, if I understand how the regulations will work. A place for only half the week would then become available to a child in that maintained setting, and another person using that childcare would need to lose their job to make that up to a whole place, so I would have to take someone down with me whose children also went to school with mine, which seems a bit dramatic. If free entitlement increases from 15 to 30 hours, the number of places in that setting is reduced. If my circumstances changed, there would be half a place free—half a place is as useful as a chocolate teapot. I am not sure how Ministers will get around that particular instance if people’s circumstances change. Will people whose employment is at risk—those who might not keep their job—only be able to get childcare in the private sector, not the maintained sector? Would I, under this system, have to put my child with one child carer for the first half of the week and a different one for the second half? I just cannot see how this will work in the world that I live in.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady please clarify something for me? Is she actually saying that if somebody like her lost their job, they should still be eligible for this benefit? It was my understanding that this policy is about helping people into work and helping those who are in work.
Jess Phillips
I am saying exactly that. Who knows how long someone might be out of employment? Their child would lose their place for the second half of the week. People need time to go and find a job. When me and my children were in that situation, I was working three voluntary jobs to gain experience so that after my second son was born, I was able to get a full-time job. So yes, I am saying that it is probably not the best thing to say to somebody who has just lost their job, “Your child’s situation will now have to completely change. You won’t be able to go and seek a job, as you’ll now be tied to childcare.”
Michelle Donelan
It is my understanding that the Bill gives a grace period to accommodate that.
Jess Phillips
And how long is that grace period? I put that question to the Minister.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for inviting me to intervene. The system will be checked by HMRC, which will check earnings on a forward-looking quarterly basis. Based on that, parents will be eligible for childcare. That will be done automatically; parents do not need to apply. If parents disagree with the decision that is made, there will be an appeals process about which I will speak in more detail in my speech. We have to remember the fundamental principle mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham—this is about work. Someone needs to earn only £115.20 a week––
The Chair
Order. Interventions must be short. The Minister will have an opportunity to wind up the debate in his speech later. Other Members have opportunities to intervene and make speeches because we are not limited to time. I would be grateful if Members would bear that in mind.
Jess Phillips
I am grateful for that clarification. From that, I read that there will be a three-month grace period, if it is quarterly. I totally understand that and it is great if someone can find a job within three months. Obviously, if they do not find a job in that time—for example, if they find one within four months—they would then have to find another place for their child separate from the 15 hours that the child would already be spending with a different child carer.
Government Members might think that I am splitting hairs, but I am speaking from real-life experience of what would have happened to me had this been in place when I was going through the process. I am not that special—I know that is shocking to hear—and this will be happening to lots of parents exactly like me. There is an issue with the maintained sector—how nursery places are allocated for the 30 hours compared with the 15 hours—that must be taken into account by any regulation. That is the first thing I would probe.
The second thing that concerns me, having worked for much of my career in a domestic violence refuge, is the effect of women leaving their jobs to live in refuge. I am sad to say that the way that our benefits system is structured and has been for many years—this is no fault of this particular Government on this occasion—means that women who live in refuge cannot really work. They cannot afford to be a working woman in refuge. It is near impossible. The vast majority of women who live in domestic violence refuges are therefore living on housing benefit, which cannot be claimed if they are in work, because the rates for refuge provision are far higher than the weekly rates for a normal social housing scheme. That said, 90% of women in refuge do not work and those who worked before they entered refuge by and large have to give up their job to live in the refuge.
Christian Matheson
I may be showing my inexperience, in which case I apologise to the Minister and hon. Members for misunderstanding the process, but when my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham moved the amendment, I listened with some dismay, because it seems that while at the general election there was a clear pledge of 30 hours’ free childcare, there is now a lack of clarity about who is eligible for the programme. Apparently we see the Government backtracking on matters: they have tried to squeeze the criteria into the promise they made at that time.
I am inexperienced in these matters, so perhaps it is normal for a party to make an announcement at a general election that is not properly costed and then it has to come up with proposals on how the criteria will fit the policy in the legislative process. If I am doing the Minister a disservice, I will gladly apologise, but I ask the Conservatives to consider the pitfalls of making promises without a fully costed programme and then having to cost them afterwards.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman is talking about our promises. The Labour party said:
“Labour has a better plan for working families.”
Its offer was to working families; it was not universal. It offered an extension not to 30 hours, but to 25 hours, and in no place did it mention special provisions for vulnerable people.
Christian Matheson
That is all well and good, but the fact is we were clear about our policies and where the money would come from. Unfortunately, our amendments reveal a lack of detail in the Government’s proposals and I hope the Minister will answer that. I am slightly dismayed that we need these probing amendments in the first place to try to get clarity when no such clarity was lacking before the general election.
My hon friends the Members for North West Durham and for Birmingham, Yardley asked questions about voluntary workers. I recall the Prime Minister talking about his vision for a big society in which voluntary work plays such an important part in the development of communities. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind, assuming that the Prime Minister still holds that vision—perhaps the big society has fallen by the wayside.
Finally, the Minister explained that HMRC will have a role in assessing eligibility in terms of the grace period. My one concern is that contacting HMRC is not a straightforward procedure, as anyone who has tried to do so over the past couple of years will know. The organisation is under strain on tax returns, for example, and asking it to take on additional duties will put extra strain on it. Will the Government provide extra resources to HMRC to allow it to maintain the quality of its service, as I am sure officers of HMRC wish to do? I fear that the proposals will place a greater burden on HMRC, which will make contacting it to talk about the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley raised even more difficult. Perhaps the Minister will address those points.
Mr Gyimah
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. A number of points that have been raised this afternoon have led me to think that Opposition Members want to turn an employment offer into a universal offer of 30 hours of childcare. To be clear, every three or four-year-old will get 15 hours of childcare. The entitlement to the second 15 hours is based on the parent’s employment. I will speak to amendments 8, 9 and 12, to clarify whether specific groups of parents from varying circumstances will be able to access the 30 hours—the extended entitlement—as per those probing amendments.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for North West Durham and for Birmingham, Yardley for the amendments, and I want to make it clear that the Government recognise that for many families, childcare is not an issue; it is the issue. That is why supporting working families with their childcare costs is at the heart of our policy. Amendment 8 concerns parents who work on a voluntary basis and full-time students. It would allow parents who are not in remunerated work, but who are contributing to society through voluntary work, to access the extended entitlement. It would also allow parents who are in full-time education and taking steps to retrain and prepare themselves for the labour market to access the extended entitlement.
Pat Glass
I want to make it clear that when we talk about full-time students in training, we are talking about students who are on a training course that will lead into an occupation. We are talking not about full-time study across the piece, but about people who are training to be nurses, doctors or teachers, or doing something that will lead directly into employment.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification, and I will come back to that in detail. As I have said, all three and four-year-olds, and 40% of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, are already entitled to 15 hours of free childcare a week. That provides substantial opportunity for their parents to take up voluntary work where they wish to do so, or indeed to study. The additional 15 hours of free childcare is intended to help parents who wish to take up paid employment to support their families.
The additional 15 hours will be available to families where each parent, or the sole parent in a lone parent family, earns an average weekly income equivalent to at least16 hours at the national minimum wage or the living wage, and less than £100,000 a year. Although the Government recognise the importance of volunteering, the purpose of the extended entitlement is to help working parents with the cost of childcare so that they can take up paid work if they want to, or work additional hours. The approach we are taking is consistent with other Government childcare schemes, including tax-free childcare and the childcare element of universal credit.
Mr Gyimah
That is a good question, and I am happy to provide clarification. The national living wage applies to people over the age of 25, so, in their case, the eligibility criterion would be set at that rate, which is £115.20 a week. Those who are under 25 will be on the national minimum wage, in which case the earnings criterion will be £107 a week. Even if someone is doing voluntary work, if they can combine their voluntary work with earning £107 or £115.20 a week, they will get the additional 15 hours of childcare.
Alex Cunningham
I hope that the Minister enjoyed his long career as an investment banker and subsequently running his own business that specialised in recruitment. He will know that experience is absolutely critical to people getting a job. Surely, if people are to achieve the work experience they need to get on to an interview list, we should value all their work. Some of these jobs, like interns here at the House of Commons, are unpaid full-time roles. Surely we should value that, let them have childcare and then move on into a career.
Alex Cunningham
I will place on the record that I have never taken an intern because I cannot pay one. If I were able to pay one, I would, and I think the same should apply to every MP within the House.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about volunteering. We recognise the importance of volunteering, but as I said, the purpose of the extended entitlement is to help working parents with the cost of childcare. The approach we are taking here is consistent with other Government policy. Of course, where a parent or parents are undertaking voluntary work alongside paid employment that meets the minimum income criteria they will be eligible, as I have said, for 30 hours of free childcare. However we are clear that parents solely undertaking voluntary work should not be able to access the extended entitlement.
The issue of parents in full-time education has also been raised. Again, they get the first 15 hours and if they are in the 40% most disadvantaged households, they will get 15 hours of free childcare for their two-year-olds. In addition, the Government already provide support to parents in recognised education courses through discretionary learner support and the loans bursary fund. Students in higher education may be eligible for support through the childcare grant, which offers parents support of up to 85% of their childcare costs up to a maximum of £155.24 a week for one child and £266.15 for two children. Where parents choose to undertake part-time work alongside their studies, and on average earn the equivalent of 16 hours at the national minimum wage or living wage per week, they will also be able to benefit from 30 hours of free childcare. However, we are clear that parents solely undertaking full-time study should not be able to access the extended entitlement.
Jess Phillips
I wonder whether those training to be nurses, who are working now for free in our NHS, will be entitled to the 30 hours of free childcare if they are in full-time nursing training.
Mr Gyimah
There is the Care to Learn Scheme, which can apply in some cases, and other programmes, such as the childcare element of tax credits, could apply to them, but specifically, the additional 15 hours here is linked to employment and income, unless you are earning no income at all, when of course, you will not be eligible to get this.
Ruth Cadbury
Is the Minister saying that parents can only use this offer if they are already working? What concerns me is that this offer will not benefit those parents who want to get into better paid work because they are studying full-time. When one is studying full-time it is quite difficult to also work while also having three and four-year-olds.
Mr Gyimah
Many of those parents will be eligible, assuming they are at the lower end of the income scale, for the childcare element of tax credits and universal credit when that is fully rolled out. There will be support through that to help them with their situation, in terms of getting back to work. There are also other programmes, such as the Care to Learn Scheme which can help them. As far as the additional 15 hours is concerned, yes, it is linked to an actual employment status. Under the voucher scheme that was introduced by the previous Government, people who were self-employed or earning the minimum wage did not qualify for that scheme. Under the scheme we are introducing here, all these people qualify for their additional 15 hours.
As I have said, supporting working families is at the heart of this policy and we have been clear throughout that people on zero-hours contracts and the self-employed will get this. The contractual position will not determine whether their children—and it is the children rather than the parents—are eligible. The legislation allows for children of parents on zero-hours contracts to be eligible in the same way as anyone else. Eligibility will be based on what parents reasonably expect to earn on average across the coming quarter, enabling parents with more irregular working patterns to benefit.
Ruth Cadbury
Will the Minister clarify over what period those calculations are done? Does he literally mean that the calculation will be done over a three-week period, or will it be averaged out over several months, particularly given what my hon. Friends said earlier about seasonal and variable working hours?
Mr Gyimah
As I said in response to an earlier question, the calculation will be done on a quarterly basis, but over time, the system will know what someone’s average earnings are. The hon. Lady also asked in an earlier question how simple it will be for parents. Parents will not have to update their details constantly; it will be done quarterly by the system. Parents will not have to work out complicated sums to access the extended entitlement, as they must do in the tax credits system. The joint application system that HMRC develops will provide a single, simple point of access for parents. The system will give parents an instant decision on their eligibility in most cases, so that will apply in the vast majority of cases.
Again, to take a practical example, a person on a zero-hours contract who, despite periods without work, reasonably expects to meet the minimum income level will be eligible. HMRC will take a proportionate approach to compliance, using details of past income and other information provided by parents to assess eligibility. We know that parents whose situations fluctuate need their childcare arrangements to support them in work. We will therefore work with local authorities and childcare providers through the early implementation phase to develop provision that can support parents with irregular working patterns.
There are already good examples from across the country of providers offering parents flexible care. For example, in Brent, they have set up an emergency and overnight register to match up parents with childminders whom they can access at short notice 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Swindon intends to offer weekend early-education sessions from January 2016, initially through an academy and a private provider, as well as through a number of registered childminders. Through early implementers, we will work on the right type of provision as well as ensure that the eligibility system works consistently with people whose earnings fluctuate.
We want to see that kind of innovation in other parts of the country, and that is what the early implementation programme will support. We also recognise that self-employed parents’ income is often not smooth or predictable. The free entitlement will be available to self-employed parents, and we intend to have special rules for them similar to those available in tax-free childcare. Self-employed parents who work throughout the year but get income only at certain times in the year will be able to average that income across the whole tax year rather than just quarterly. Also, because new businesses often struggle to get going, self-employed parents will not need to take the minimum income limit into account at all in their first year.
Amendment 12 relates to the parents of an eligible disabled child. Again, we recognise that all families are different and that some may face particular issues, for example where parents have caring responsibilities. That is why we have made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill that when one parent is employed and one parent has substantial caring responsibilities, based on specific benefits received for caring, such households will be able to access the extended entitlement.
I am pleased to confirm that it is our intention that that will include households where one parent is working and one parent is being paid carer’s allowance or the carer element of universal credit. That includes parents caring for their own three or four-year-old child where the child is in receipt of disability living allowance or is certified blind. If a single parent with a disabled child meets both the conditions regarding paid work and the minimum income threshold, they will of course be able to access the extended entitlement. If they do not work they will not be eligible for the entitlement, but they might be able to receive carer’s allowance or universal credit.
The appeals process has been touched on. If parents are not happy with HMRC’s decisions about their eligibility, they will be able to seek a mandatory review by HMRC, and if they are still not satisfied they will be able to appeal to the first-tier tribunal. They can also appeal against decisions about financial penalties—both the fact of the penalty and its amount.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Minister for those detailed responses to our concerns, and for being keen for the system to be simple and straightforward as possible for parents when their eligibility for the various schemes is being assessed. Has he had conversations with HMRC and the Treasury, and is he confident that the necessary resources and the technical support will exist in HMRC to provide a seamless, smooth and well informed process for parents who will be navigating what appears to be a complicated system?
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for her interest. Getting the technology platform right is absolutely crucial, and the cross-Government taskforce on childcare, which I co-chair, has considered it in detail. In addition, officials in the Department for Education are working closely with HMRC on the joint system, the development of which secured funding at the spending review, and we will provide the system to HMRC in due course. I thank the hon. Lady for her legitimate concern.
Pat Glass
I apologise if I missed this information. The Minister said that parents will be able to appeal to the first-tier tribunal. Will that be the employment tribunal, and will there be costs involved for parents, in the same way as there are for those appealing to that tribunal regarding unfair dismissal, for example?
Mr Gyimah
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will await inspiration from the usual channels. In the meantime, I will plough on with my speech.
In relation to the extended entitlement, we are clear that the powers we have taken are sufficient to enable us to cater for non-standard working patterns and families’ different circumstances. I can also reassure hon. Members that if a parent’s circumstances change, their child will remain eligible for the extended free entitlement for a short period—there will be no instantaneous change. We hope that within that period the parent will be able to regain employment and continue to declare that they expect to meet the eligibility criteria. If that is not the case, and the parent is clear that they no longer expect to be in paid employment after the grace period, they become ineligible.
Ruth Cadbury
The Minister begs the question: what is the definition of “short period”?
Mr Gyimah
The short period is in line with the grace period, which is three months.
As hon. Members can see, we fully support the intention behind the amendments. However, we believe that putting too much detail in the Bill about the specific circumstances in which children could qualify risks inadvertently excluding some of those we want to include. Nevertheless, Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations before they are finalised.
As part of the development of the joint childcare application system, we will publish information for parents and their partners to make clear the eligibility rules for different groups of parents, so that they can be clear about whether they can access the extended entitlement. Online and telephone advice will also be available to assist parents. In addition, we will publish statutory guidance for local authorities next year, so that they can advise parents about their eligibility for the extended entitlement and discharge their responsibilities for delivering childcare places in keeping with the scheme’s rules.
In response to the question about the first-tier tribunal, the inspiration that I have received says that it will be specifically a social security tribunal and not an employment tribunal.
Mr Gyimah
I will get inspiration on that before the end of my speech.
I hope that hon. Members are reassured that the parents who are the subject of these amendments will be supported under the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Member for North West Durham feels reassured enough not to press the amendments.
I am waiting for inspiration and for someone to intervene on me.
Pat Glass
I am immensely grateful to the Minister for that. The word on the street was that the Government wanted to better Labour’s offer of 25 hours of free childcare but never really expected to have to deliver it—they thought they would be able to deal it away in some kind of coalition. Given that, I think the Minister has done incredibly well in getting to the detail; credit where it is due.
The Minister has been able to clarify for me, in a way that I did not understand before, the issue of eligibility and the 16-hour work threshold, the issue of those under and over 25, and the issue of the national living wage and the minimum wage. That is really helpful.
I am also immensely grateful to the Minister for clarifying that parents will not end up in prison. I had an awful feeling that parents could end up with two years in prison as a result of getting the system wrong. That is clearly not the case. I also now understand the eligibility criteria on the grounds of income.
I seek clarification on one point, and I am happy for the Minister to intervene on me. I was interested in what he had to say about people who are self-employed, which we welcome, but there is a danger. I hate to throw a spanner in the works, but if someone is eligible automatically in the year in which they set up a business, are the Government mindful of people who would want to abuse the system by folding their business at the end of the year and starting a new one?
I have concerns about only a couple of things now, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley raised one of them. In the spending review, the Chancellor changed the system of training for nurses, so that they no longer come under bursaries and now have to receive grants. That will automatically wipe out a huge number of nurses across the country from eligibility for childcare, and I ask the Minister to have another look at that issue. Those people are not on great wages, they are working hard, and they will contribute to our society in the future in a way that many other students on grants perhaps will not. It is unfortunate, to say the least, if they are simply taken out of the eligibility criteria.
Also, I understand the reasons behind the grace period, but I worry a little bit about children falling out of childcare places every 13 weeks. If a parent regularly finds a job after four months, once their children have built relationships—for some families, that is the case—that could have a worrying impact on the children’s development. I do not know what the answer is—I am not pretending that I do—but it is something for the Government to consider.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady raises an important point about how the grace period works in practice, the eligibility checking and the actual childcare places on the ground. As I said, one of the principal things that we will be able to test during the early implementation phase is exactly when a local authority is informed, when the provider is informed, how long a place is kept open for and so on. We will have to iron out those details, which is why they belong in regulations rather than in the Bill.
Pat Glass
Finally, will the Minister think about what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley said about women’s refuges? Domestic violence underpins so many problems across the country. Many years ago I was a director in an authority. We had an emergency crisis team for children in primary education, and we would meet every single week with groups of headteachers to consider children who were in crisis and allocate specialists and clinical psychologists to try to help those children. In 100% of cases that I saw—at the time, I remember being really shocked—there was domestic violence. It is endemic, and we do not address it in the way that we should. For those children and their parents, there may be—
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady again makes a very good point, and I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley for raising the issue. I am willing to offer to look into what exactly someone in such a situation will get, because there is a package of childcare measures, and they might be entitled to other measures. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady and meet her to look at what they could get and how it could be dealt with.
Mr Gyimah
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, leave out from “about” to the end of line 26 and insert “—
(i) the form of a declaration and the manner in which it is to be made;
(ii) the conditions to be met by the person making a declaration;
(iii) the period for which a declaration has effect.”
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to set conditions to be met by a person making a declaration as to a child’s eligibility for the extended entitlement
Mr Gyimah
These amendments are on the role of HMRC in relation to the extended entitlement, and they include a consequential amendment that would enable the provision to come into force immediately on Royal Assent. They are technical in nature.
As the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), set out on Second Reading, parents will be able to apply for the extended entitlement as part of a simple joint online system being developed by HMRC in partnership with National Savings and Investments for tax-free childcare. That means that parents will have to provide information on their personal circumstances only once, even where they wish to apply for both schemes, which will create a simple and smooth customer journey that will save parents and providers valuable time.
Ruth Cadbury
I value the Minister’s comments, but am I right that some parents will go down the universal credit route? Can we be assured that there will be a link-up between HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions to help parents assess their eligibility, depending on which route they take?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady raises a good point. Obviously, universal credit is different benefits rolled into one. The one that we are concerned with here is the childcare element. There is a plan further down the line to make sure that is incorporated, which will make it easy for parents to move across the different childcare products as their circumstances change.
Mr Gyimah
That is very much part of the thinking.
Amendment 2 will enable regulations to be made under the clause setting out the conditions to be met by a person making a declaration as to a child’s eligibility for the extend entitlement. For example, to be consistent with tax-free childcare, the person making the declaration will need to be the person responsible for the child. It is crucial that we are able to provide clarity for parents about the declaration they will have to make, and that we can ensure that HMRC will be provided with the information it needs to make decisions about whether a child is eligible for the extended entitlement.
The conditions that the person making the declaration will need to meet will be set out alongside the form and manner of the declaration. Regulations will say more about those matters in due course and will be subject to the highest degree of parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 3 will make it clear in the Bill that HMRC will be verifying, and making a determination about, a child’s eligibility for additional free childcare. The amendment will ensure that HMRC can work in a timely fashion to extend its online system, so that it can also check eligibility for the 30 hours of free childcare. That will enable HMRC to determine whether a child is eligible for the extended entitlement.
Amendment 6 deals with commencement, which is when the various provisions of the Bill will come into force. It is consequential on the new provision that gives HMRC the power to make a determination as to a child’s eligibility. We intend that provision to come into force on Royal Assent, so that HMRC can begin to build the technical aspects of the joint eligibility checking system.
Ensuring that the operational aspects of the extended entitlement are in place in good time will enable us to test that the eligibility checking system runs smoothly for parents.
Pat Glass
These are technical amendments, and we do not have a problem with them. The only thing we ask is that the Minister confirms that HMRC has the capacity and resources to deliver. Members from all parts of the House deal regularly with HMRC, which is one of the most difficult departments. I remember when a nurse who had just retired came to see me. She had been on PAYE throughout her career, and she suddenly got a bill for £42,000 back tax. After we explored the matter, it turned out that she did not owe anything. I always count such results as major successes, but such cases are happening in all our constituencies all the time. People tell me that they spend hours and hours trying to get through to HMRC, just to ask simple questions about their tax. We need to know that HMRC has the capacity and resources to deliver on this measure.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady asks a legitimate question. Although HMRC will be checking eligibility, the measure is not specifically to do with the tax system. Funding has been provided to offer parents telephone support where needed, and there is funding available for the IT system. That funding specifically relates to checking eligibility for the 30 hours of childcare, rather than being part of HMRC’s wider tax-related activities.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendment made: 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
‘(4A) For the purposes of assisting the Secretary of State in the discharge of the duty imposed by subsection (1), the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may carry out functions in connection with the making of determinations as to whether a child is a qualifying child of working parents.’—(Mr Gyimah.)
This amendment confers on HMRC the power to make a determination as to a child’s eligibility for the extended entitlement and carry out associated functions.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gyimah
The clause will place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that childcare is available free of charge for qualifying children of working parents for a period equivalent to 30 hours for 38 weeks in any year. The Government recognise that childcare is an issue for many families. The new extended entitlement, with an additional 15 hours, is intended to support working parents with the cost of childcare, enabling them to work additional hours if they wish to do so. That will be available to families where both parents are working or the sole parent is working in a lone-parent family. Self-employed parents will also be eligible, as we heard earlier, as would parents in receipt of tax credits, universal credit, tax and childcare vouchers through their employer or tax-free childcare.
The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to set out in regulations the description of a qualifying child. We intend that a child will qualify from the school term following their third birthday, in the same way as with the existing 15-hour early education entitlement. The clause will also enable the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the criteria that must be met by parents. The regulations would set out what is or is not to be regarded as paid work and how the extended entitlement would support temporary absences from the workplace. It is important that parents on maternity, paternity or adoption leave can maintain their existing childcare arrangements while they take time away from the workplace to adjust to the new arrival.
As the Secretary of State set out on Second Reading, each parent must on average be earning a weekly minimum equivalent to 16 hours at the national minimum wage or national living wage. From April 2016, the national living wage will come into force for workers aged 25 and over, alongside the national minimum wage for workers under 25. A working parent who is 25 will therefore need to earn a weekly minimum equivalent of £115.20 in order to be eligible, whereas a working parent who is 21 will need to earn a weekly minimum equivalent of around £107 at this year’s minimum wage rates. Parents on zero-hours contracts and the self-employed will be eligible in the same way as anyone else, provided they meet the earnings criteria across the coming quarter on average.
Parents with fluctuating incomes will be able to access the extended entitlement if they reasonably expect to earn the minimum on average. That income requirement will ensure we prioritise the extra 15 hours of childcare for working families that need the most help with their childcare costs. Together with the existing universal entitlement, those parents will be entitled to double the childcare support they would normally receive.
The Secretary of State outlined on Second Reading that there will be a £100,000 income limit on the extended entitlement per year for each parent. That means any family in which either parent earns more than £100,000 or any sole parent who earns more than £100,000 will not be able to claim the extended entitlement. I can confirm that the increase in the minimum income level to 16 hours per week and the annual income cap of £100,000 will also apply to tax-free childcare. I am sure Committee members will agree that it is right to align eligibility conditions for the two schemes and focus support where it is needed most. Parents will be able to apply for both schemes at the same time, using a simple online system, as I have outlined.
The duty that the clause will place on the Secretary of State demonstrates the Government’s commitment to supporting working families. It will enable the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment and help to ensure that parents who wish to work or to work more hours are supported to do so through free childcare.
Pat Glass
We have had a detailed discussion, but there are a number of assurances I would like the Minister to give, if he can. He said that the House will have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the regulations at the highest level, but I am aware that he is looking to remove the House of Lords amendment further on in the Bill that states all regulations should be subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure. Can he confirm there will be an opportunity for the House to debate the regulations? There will be an awful lot in the regulations. It is right that they are made, but it is also right that the House gets an opportunity to debate them when the time comes and that they are not simply laid before Parliament and slipped out under the cover of darkness.
The Minister said that HMRC will have the resources and capacity to deliver the measure. He talked about the new IT system, which I hope is not linked in any way to the IT system used for universal credit; we would be very worried if that were the case.
It is a shame that the eligibility criteria have increased. The initial offer was 30 hours of free childcare to parents working more than eight hours a week. That has increased to 16 hours, with an income threshold, taking some of our poorest and most disadvantaged working parents out of the system. I understand that it is squeezed at the top, but it is a shame those parents have been taken out of the system in order for the Government to balance the books.
I am grateful that the Minister will look at the issue of children whose parents are in women’s refuges. I hope he will look again at the issue of nurses in training who will simply be taken out of the system wholesale, but I am grateful for his clarification.
Mr Gyimah
I shall respond very briefly to the hon. Lady’s points. First, the Government will be proposing an affirmative debate on all the regulations on their first use. I am sure we will discuss that in due course.
Secondly, a bespoke IT system is being built. I have personally interrogated it. It is fantastic that, given the plethora of childcare offers out there, we are beginning to bring together the eligibility and application systems to make it easy for parents.
Thirdly, on the point about balancing the books, we have refined our eligibility criteria as we have gone through the process. Given that parents get 15 hours free, it is simply illogical to say that they have to work only an extra hour to get another 15 hours free. It is a question of not only balancing the books but refining the policy.
Fourthly, I take on board the hon. Lady’s point about nurses and grants. As with women in refuge centres, I will look at that issue and write to her to set out what else they could qualify for, given the number of childcare offers that are available.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Discharging the section 2(1) duty
Pat Glass
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert—
“(ba) make provision about determining and auditing the appropriate qualifications to be held by staff providing childcare for the purposes of this Act, including in relation to staff providing childcare for qualifying children with disabilities.”
This amendment would require Government to set out the qualifications that staff would be required to have or acquire when providing childcare for disabled children for the purposes of this Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Workforce qualifications—
‘(1) For the purposes of securing childcare under section 2, the Secretary of State must, within six months of section 2 coming into force, lay a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out her proposals for developing the early years workforce.
(2) The report mentioned in subsection (2)(1) must include, in particular,—
(a) a target for the proportion of children who receive early education and/or childcare directly led by an early years graduate;
(b) a target for the proportion of staff in the early years workforce who have a relevant level 3 qualification; and
(c) the timescale within which the Government will seek to meet these targets.”
Pat Glass
This morning I spoke briefly about the shortage of qualified staff in the workforce—I think I was ruled out of order at least three times, but now is my time—and how that is a risk to the Government’s policy of expansion of free childcare. The House of Lords Affordable Childcare Committee demonstrated that the existing scheme of 15 free hours is being run at a loss in most private, voluntary and independent settings. It is cross-subsidised by the incredibly complicated system that currently exists.
I have previously discussed the future costs of childcare that were not considered in the Government’s childcare review, which begins by telling us that
“the market is healthy, and has grown in recent years.”
It goes on to tell us that
“there is currently sufficient supply available to the majority of parents”,
yet local authorities freely acknowledge that they have insufficient supply in their areas and the House of Commons Library tells us that we have 44,000 fewer childcare places today than we had in 2009.
Putting our disagreements over the funding gaps to one side for the moment, perhaps the biggest threats to expansion in the childcare sector are the issues around workforce capacity. Childcare providers report that they are already finding it incredibly difficult to recruit well-qualified and experienced staff to deliver the existing 15 hours. Parents of disabled children tell us that the cost of and access to childcare for their children is a big problem. Most providers do not have the trained staff that they need to ensure the future development and safety of children.
Part of the difficulty that providers have in recruiting suitably qualified staff—let alone those with the qualifications and skills to support disabled children’s learning—is competition with the maintained sector, which is able to offer higher rates of pay and term-time-only contracts. Given the fact that 61% of nurseries and childcare providers are in the private and voluntary sector, there is a serious danger of the majority of that provision becoming second-class, with children having less access to good-quality and experienced staff and a further gulf opening up between the children of those parents who can access 30 hours of quality childcare in the maintained sector and the rest.
This morning, I spoke briefly about the chief inspector’s report and the experience I have had and outcomes I have seen as a member of the Education Committee. There are clear links between the quality of the provision—the quality of the staff and their qualifications—and the outcomes from children. We accept that in the maintained sector, because there is a lot of access to qualified teachers, graduates and so on, and because almost all the staff will be at least level 3 qualified, it is a natural correlation that it will have better quality provision if things remain as they are and if something is not done about the lack of qualified staff in the PVI sector.
The Minister has acknowledged that the pattern of use of childcare provision is not flat across the week, while most provision runs at between 75% and 90% capacity. As we have heard, there is much less take-up on Mondays and Friday than on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. I am advised that most settings would struggle to increase their offer from 15 to 30 hours for children who are not disabled because they do not have the space, because they cannot recruit the qualified level 3 staff they need and because they do not have the provision to offer meals in the middle of the day. Many children coming for 15 hours go home at lunchtime, when another group of children come for their 15 hours. If those children stay for 30 hours a week, there will have to be provision for offering meals in the middle of the day, and many of these settings tell me that they cannot do that.
The voluntary sector is a major sector, and it is operating out of church halls. If provision is to be extended to 30 hours, we would have to take account of those who would be displaced. It is not just about meals in the middle of the day; it is about old people’s luncheon clubs, the Mothers Union and keep-fit classes that will be displaced if 30 hours of childcare is offered. The providers tell me that they cannot offer 30 hours because they can not offer meals in the middle of the day, but they also do not want to put out all the other users of the premises.
Outside of funding, the biggest concern is the lack of capacity in the workforce. I realise that this is one part of the Department for Education operating separately from another, which happened an awful lot even in my day, but the Government have required that an outcome of any level 3 training is that staff will have a GCSE in both English and maths at grade C or above. Although we all agree that it is a good thing for staff to be qualified, by clinging to their insistence on GCSE grade C for students who have already failed that qualification after two years of study at school, the Government are going against the recommendations of both the sector and the Education Committee. The Education Committee considered the matter carefully in relation to apprenticeships in general and found that a qualification of the same difficulty and quality, such as functional skills in numeracy and literacy, was a much better and more practical way of ensuring that people completing such qualifications are both literate and numerate without forcing apprentices down a route that they have already failed.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in this important debate. I am glad that we are making progress. Having started the day by saying that the Government were dumbing down quality, she is now criticising us for setting the quality bar too high on GCSE literacy and numeracy.
Pat Glass
The Minister is being cynical. Does he really think that GCSE grade C in English and maths is setting the bar too high? It is not that. It is about being practical. I will explain the implications of the Government’s decision. These students are not 16 or 14, or whatever; they are apprentices working in the childcare sector, or hoping to work in the childcare sector. They have already failed, and all the evidence I saw on the Education Committee showed that functional skills in numeracy and literacy are not easier than GCSE; they are just different and more practical for the world of work.
By refusing to listen, the Government are adding to the crisis in the workforce. There has been an 80% reduction in recruitment for level 3 childcare courses and a 56% shortfall in new applicants since the new GCSE requirement was imposed—in a sector that is desperate for qualified staff. If the GCSE requirement is stopping students going into this sector, and if it is stopping them training when we already have a shortfall of qualified staff for 15 hours, how will the Government square the circle for 30 hours?
Mr Gyimah
I hope the hon. Lady is aware that one of the things I have done that was welcomed by the sector was to make the GCSE English and maths requirement one on exit, rather than on entry. The requirement is not stopping anyone getting on to a childcare course; they just need to satisfy the requirement by the time they finish the course. I believe that was welcomed by the sector.
Pat Glass
I understand that and welcome it, but equally, we cannot get away from the facts. Whether it is at the beginning or the end of the course, it is clearly putting off students. If there has been a 56% fall in new applicants since the introduction of the GCSE requirement to replace functional skills and there was no argument, as I understand, that students were coming out who were not literate or numerate, the Government must recognise that the requirement may well be part of the problem rather than of the solution.
The situation has not been helped by the Government’s lack of a workforce strategy, although I think that we may be inching towards one; I will wait to see what the Minister says. It was not helpful that the previous Minister tried to change ratios, and then changed her mind and forged ahead with the graduate early-years qualification, which did not have qualified teacher status. Those chop-and-change policies brought her into conflict with the sector and others, including the Education Committee. We have been proved right on that. I understand that to date, the course for early-years graduates, which offers 2,000 places, has recruited about 800, and that the numbers recruited have fallen year on year since it was implemented. I know that such things are not within the Minister’s gift, but in his discussions with the Secretary of State, he needs to point out that they are not helping in a sector that is already struggling to get qualified staff.
The amendment would require the Government to set out what qualifications staff are expected to have or require when providing childcare for disabled children for the purposes of the Bill. I remind the Committee of what I have already said: more than one third of parents, 38%, who were unable to access their entitlement of 15 hours of free childcare said that it was because they did not think that the childcare provider could provide for their children safely, and 30% did not think that the provider had adequately trained staff. One quarter said that the nursery or carer had refused a place exclusively on the grounds of their child’s disability.
I have talked to the Committee about my experience that it is not simply a question of training or even money. In many cases, it is about confidence. Once providers have had some training and support, they feel more confident opening up to more significant difficulties. I welcome the Minister’s offer to work with me to explore the issue, and I ask that the qualifications for providers form part of that offer.
Alex Cunningham
I join others in taking pleasure in serving under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. My remarks will cover new clause 1, which stands in my name and seeks to address workforce qualifications across the childcare sector. Ultimately, for me, it is about the reassurance that parents need that their children are being cared for by professional people, not just to aid their children’s development but to put them in the safest possible hands. That is no reflection on the people who work in the industry, or the service as we call it today. They do a tremendous job generally, but I believe that they, like everybody else, should have continuing professional development.
We all know that there is a clear link between the level of practitioner qualification, the quality of early education and childcare and the outcomes for young children. Just as individual practitioner qualification is important, so are the leadership skills of the people running the establishment. Just as in schools we know that a top-class headteacher and management team can often make the difference between a school being considered excellent or found to be inadequate, there is substantial evidence that early education and childcare have a positive effect on children’s development, particularly for boys and children from low-income families, who are more likely to fall behind early. We need some of the best people caring for our youngest children.
At the same time, there is strong evidence that early language skills provide a solid foundation for school readiness, with strong links to learning to read, attainment in English and maths, earnings potential in adulthood and wider outcomes, including better mental health. Furthermore, high-quality early education, specifically nursery led by graduate early years teachers, has the most significant impact on the early language skills of young children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are more likely to fall behind. Figures show that, for instance, one in five children, including more than a third of the poorest, are not school ready because they fail to meet the expected level of early language development by the age of five. That equates to almost 130,000 children finishing their reception year in 2015 without achieving the expected level of language skills.
Lucy Frazer
In those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman think it appropriate for the teacher to have a GCSE grade C in English and maths?
Alex Cunningham
Sorry, I think that was a minimum qualification. I want to see continual professional development. As I have stressed time and again, the higher the qualification, the better the outcome for children.
Children growing up in poverty are, on average, 15 months behind in vocabulary development at the age of five compared with their peers, and those eligible for free school meals are 75% less likely to reach the expected standard of language and communication than their peers at the age of five.
Mr Gyimah
I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire was pointing to a contradiction in the Opposition’s position. Their Front-Bench spokesman said that insisting on GCSE maths and English rather than focusing on functional skills might be making things more difficult. The hon. Member for Stockton North seems to be arguing for even more stringent qualification criteria. The Government believe that, given that qualifications are the biggest determinant of the quality of the interaction with the child, it is right that we set them where they are.
Alex Cunningham
I do not think there is any difference between me and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham. We both believe that we should be driving up quality and we both believe that we should see qualifications driven up.
Pat Glass
There is no difference. The difference between us and Government Members is that we understand the different levels of the staff working in childcare. It is absolutely right that teachers will have a GCSE at grade C in maths and English. They need it to matriculate. They cannot get on the course without it. I was talking about level 3 staff who would be working under the direction of a graduate leader in the nursery or a teacher. That is completely different.
Alex Cunningham
Exactly. I hope that that clarification helps the Minister and others. The issue is leadership and different qualifications within the workforce in any one setting.
Despite knowledge of the failure of people in poverty and the 75% of children who are less likely to have the expected standard in language and communication at the age of five, we have seen childcare in England failing to meet the quality standards necessary to improve the outcomes for those children. Only if early education and childcare is of the highest quality and delivered by well qualified staff will there be a positive impact on children’s learning and development, which will help to narrow the gap in attainment for the most disadvantaged. My new clause would provide the Government with the power and the responsibility to ensure that children are cared for and stimulated by a highly qualified workforce.
Ofsted grades are not just a stand-alone proxy for the standard, because the inspection framework does not capture all the elements of quality that are predictive of outcomes for children. Evidence shows that, to ensure that the free offer meets its primary intended purpose of improving outcomes for children, the Government should focus on delivering high-quality, graduate-led care from the age of two to school age through a qualified and well supported early years workforce.
We had a debate earlier today about the needs of disabled children and the specific training that people need. I hope that the Minister will address that when he talks about the workforce and how we can ensure that the people in our nurseries have the necessary qualifications and experience to deal with a whole range of disabilities in the children who come their way.
Back in 2012, the coalition Government commissioned Professor Cathy Nutbrown to undertake an independent review of early years workforce qualifications. Her findings recommended that, if the Government set out a 10-year plan to move to a fully qualified early years workforce and increased the proportion of settings led by a graduate, it would have the greatest measurable impact on children’s outcomes. However, the coalition did not take a lead on that, nor does the Bill.
The quality of childcare is gradually improving, but there are still insufficient high-quality, free places for three and four-year olds, and disadvantaged two-year-olds.
James Berry
The hon. Gentleman should read my speech on childcare. He would see that we agree on a lot, and in fact some of the lines are very similar. Does he agree that we could achieve what he intends in his new clause with encouragement from the Government rather than the straitjacket of legislation?
Alex Cunningham
I am pleased that we can agree on much that was in my speech. I cannot understand what the problem is with requiring people to have qualifications. If you want to be an engineer, you are required to get an engineering degree. I think that if you are required to lead the best-quality care, perhaps you need some form of graduate qualification in childcare, or something associated with it. Of course, we face the possibility that we will have children attending poor-quality settings where they will be unable to access provision that meets their individual needs. This is why new clause 1 would require the Government to publish proposals for the development of the early years workforce to ensure that all three and four-year-olds receive access to high-quality, flexible and accessible early education and childcare provision, delivered by those well qualified, confident and experienced practitioners, and led by that early years graduate.
Mr Gyimah
I want to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to what is actually happening on the ground, as far as the quality of the workforce is concerned. The number of graduates in the workforce continues to rise. Between 2008 and 2013, the proportion of full day care staff with a degree or higher increased from 5% to 13%. The National Day Nurseries Association June 2015 survey showed that 88% of centres employ a graduate early years teacher. Since 2007, 16,159 individuals have achieved early years professional status.
Alex Cunningham
That, Mr Hanson, is tremendously good news for the childcare sector, there is no doubt about it, but it is not good enough. We are looking at a situation in which there will be a demand for increased provision, yet we have insufficient people coming through the system to fulfil those roles in the future. To my mind, it is clear that the expansion of free childcare requires that we first invest in the very people and infrastructure standing behind it. The Minister just talked at length about the fact that people are getting better in the situation, but we still have this tremendous gap, particularly if we are to provide everything that he wants us to provide.
This amendment would set the Secretary of State the achievable target of laying a report before both Houses within six months of the Act coming into effect, setting out how the Department intends to support such development of the early years workforce. I cannot understand how there can be a problem with that. All we are asking is: what are the Government’s plans? How are we going to see development happen in the future? The report should specifically include targets for increasing the number of practitioners holding level 3 qualifications and the proportion of children receiving early education and childcare led directly by an early years graduate.
The requirement for teaching qualifications has made the headlines over the past few years. Indeed, we all know that Labour committed, before the general election, to ensure that all teachers in all maintained schools should become qualified and continue to expand and strengthen their qualifications through high-quality professional development. As a former member of the Education Committee, I have considered the need for qualified and competent teachers in detail. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham shares my interest in this subject.
With a background focused on children and young people at local authority level, I have witnessed at first hand the importance of education and education policies —as a route into work, a means to attaining personal potential, a mode of better understanding the world we live in, or simply the quenching of a thirst for knowledge. Education is a powerful tool for young people of all ages and provides the foundations on which the future of our country sits, but with this power comes a concomitant responsibility, and that responsibility rests ultimately with those who motivate, inform and inspire our young people. That is why we must take steps to ensure that our education system is designed to deliver the skills and knowledge that the young people of today will need to succeed tomorrow. The crucial requirement of this is making sure that our teachers—their teachers—are fully equipped to do the job. That is the crux of the matter.
The thinking behind new clause 1 is remarkably simple. At its core, it is inspired by the aspiration for our children and young people to have the best possible start in life, and it is informed by the evidence confirming that good quality early education can have a range of benefits for children’s early development. Research indicates that the benefits of such early education extend beyond the early years and right through primary school, adding further weight to the case for mandating qualifications for early years teachers. For example, the “Effective Provision of Pre-School Education” study has shown that children who attend good-quality childcare settings are, on average, seven months ahead in literacy skills, compared with their peers who did not attend pre-school, when starting school. The development that takes place during those early years is crucial and forms the foundations on which all later learning is built. It is, therefore, essential that we equip early years education staff with the skills that they need to support children’s early development and to ensure that no child falls behind before they even reach primary school.
The ramifications for children who start to fall behind in key areas such as early language development are, too often, lifelong, and they affect not only those children’s educational attainment but their future life chances. We face the sorry reality of knowing that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are much more likely than others to fall behind. One in four children in England arrives at primary school without good early language development, and that figure rises to one in three for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, who, as I have mentioned, start school an average of 15 months behind their peers in language and vocabulary.
I am clear that the only route to resolving that unacceptable situation, and to righting the inequality of opportunity that many children and young people grow up facing, is to level the playing field from the outset. Research shows that a well-qualified, confident and experienced workforce are central to the delivery of childcare that improves outcomes for young children. Indeed, the Department for Education went so far as to recognise in its policy statement on the Bill:
“The main driver of quality in a setting is its workforce.”
If those arguments are not already compelling enough, Ofsted has identified that settings in which at least 75% of practitioners are qualified to level 3 achieve better inspection results. A further analysis of private, voluntary and independent sector settings against Ofsted ratings also found a direct link between graduate-led settings and better Ofsted ratings, which demonstrates that graduate-led settings reduced the quality gap in provision in the least and most deprived areas.
Alex Cunningham
That is a tremendous statistic, but, as the Minister says, there is always room for improvement. It is important that we maintain high quality and that we have continuing professional development for everybody so that they can keep their skills up to date and maintain the outstanding outcomes that he has alluded to.
The analysis shows a gap of 10 percentage points in the quality of childcare provision between non-graduate-led settings in the least and most deprived areas. However, when examining settings led by graduates, the research found almost no difference between the quality of provision in the least and most deprived areas. That is a crucial finding, not least because evidence shows that children who grow up in the most disadvantaged areas are least likely to attend a private, voluntary or independent sector setting with a graduate compared with their peers in better-off areas. To top it off, evaluation of the graduate leader fund adds further evidence to the extensive stock showing that settings that employ a graduate leader improve the quality of provision compared with settings that do not, with the findings confirming that employing an early years graduate is a key way of raising the quality of provision in a childcare setting. Further analysis of the graduate leader fund highlights that settings employing a graduate made significant improvements for pre-school children, not just in overall quality of provision but in other key areas such as child-staff interaction, support for children’s communication, language and literacy development, and supporting reasoning, thinking and scientific skills. The Minister’s last intervention demonstrated that that is very much the case.
It appears to be irrefutable that high-quality childcare has a range of benefits for all children, and for disadvantaged children in particular. What is more, the research also shows that there is added value beyond the school gates in supporting those children’s development, reducing the risk of behavioural issues and even supporting parents in the home. We must recognise the challenges that are likely to be faced in delivering such a commitment. Government figures suggest that 600,000 families will be eligible for the 30-hour offer. Providing sufficient places will clearly pose new challenges for the early years system, and many providers will have to be supported to extend their offer if all eligible parents are to be able to access the 30-hour offer.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. On top of this, we must factor in the need for highly qualified and experienced graduates if we are to deliver the high-quality childcare that we need so much. I bear in mind everything that the Minister said, but 20-odd per cent of providers still do not have any graduate leadership. We need to build on that. On the effectiveness of the expansion—it is an expansion—we are going to need more people in the system. The expansion of free childcare will be dependent on ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of highly qualified and experienced staff to work directly with all three and four-year-olds.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there will be an expansion. We welcome that; it is the purpose of the policy. It is also worth stating that although we are doubling the entitlement, we are not necessarily doubling the demand. A number of children in the system are already doing 15-plus hours instead of 30 hours. Therefore, the need that he has identified might not be as great as he thinks it is.
Alex Cunningham
To the best of my knowledge, we have not actually quantified what the total need is. That is one of the reasons we had the debate on clause 1, which has now been ditched by the Committee. We want to review and understand exactly what provision will be needed. I do not think that is particularly clear.
Currently, a significant proportion of practitioners do not hold a level 3 qualification—the minimum recommended by the Nutbrown review. Roughly a third of childminders, 50% of nursery staff and only 13% of staff in private, voluntary and independent settings currently have a graduate level qualification, compared with as many as 40% in maintained settings. I accept that that will take some time to address. I hope new clause 1 reflects that by allowing some flexibility in setting the targets for the proportion of staff in the early years workforce to have that relevant level 3 qualification and in setting the timescale in which the Government will seek to meet those targets. However, at the same time as including measures to enhance standards, we must do more to boost the status of early years teaching to attract the very best, brightest and most able into the profession.
I understand that some 15,962 individuals have achieved early years professional status and early years teacher status. Since the start of early years initial teacher training in September 2013, 3,206 trainees have been trained, of whom 2,358 have graduated and been awarded early years teacher status. Should we not celebrate that? Of course we should, but in 2014-15 only 860 applicants started funded places. That is quite a reduction—1,467 down on the intake of 2,327 applicants in 2013-14, and 1,140 applicants short of the 2,000 target set for 2014-15. I would like to know what the Minister will do about boosting those numbers and meeting his Department’s targets.
Mrs Drummond
Yesterday, I learned that there are 23 different ways of getting into the teaching profession. Would the hon. Gentleman agree with me that there could be lots of different routes to get into childcare? Some people might want to start at low levels and graduate while they are still working in childcare provision.
Alex Cunningham
I think that people should have the opportunities to start jobs—all sorts of roles—in different ways. I believe very much in that but the Government are making it even more difficult for applicants to come into this role. The reason that we are seeing the fall is largely connected to the debate about pay and the status of early years teachers compared with applicants in programmes granting qualified teacher status.
Childcare workers in England are some of the lowest paid workers in Europe. The average salary of a supervisor in 2011 was just over £16,000 compared with an average of £22,000 in Finland, £23,000 in France and £28,000 in Germany. In private, voluntary and independent settings, non-managerial or supervisory staff are paid, on average, £6.80 an hour in full-day care settings and £8.60 in sessional settings.
Alex Cunningham
I would welcome the new national living wage if it were the actual living wage. It is important to drive up wages across all sectors and I especially welcome it in this particular setting. The evidence suggests that if a setting is graduate led there is an impact on pay. In 2013, in graduate-led settings the average hourly pay of staff in full-day care settings was £8.70, compared with £8.20 in non-graduate-led settings. In sessional settings led by graduates, the average hourly pay was £9.80, compared with £8.20 in non-graduate-led settings. It can be little wonder that low pay is frequently cited as a key challenge to recruiting and retaining graduate-level staff. That makes me fear that more needs to be done to attract new entrants and to retain experienced practitioners.
I hope that the proposals in new clause 1 would allow the Government sufficient leeway to design measures to ensure enough well-qualified and experienced staff to deliver free early education and childcare and to make certain that that is of high quality. I see no reason why the Government should not have sufficient scope to put in place measures that would also offer to support practitioners to work towards a level 3 qualification to increase the number of settings that are graduate led. As I have mentioned, the Department has already recognised in its policy statement on the Bill that the workforce is the main driver of quality. I hope that the Minister will support new clause 1 as the means to optimise such quality and to maximise the opportunities for our children and young people—after all, that is what we are here to talk about.
Mr Gyimah
The debate on the amendment and new clause 1 is important because it concerns the quality in early years education.
As the father of a 20-month-old who is in a full-day care setting, in common with all parents I want my child to be in a safe and secure environment, looked after by people who are well qualified and know what they are doing. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Members for Stockton North, for North West Durham and for Birmingham, Yardley for raising the important issue of the qualifications of the workforce and the impact on the care and early education of the young children involved, including those with special educational needs and disabilities.
The hon. Member for North West Durham has specialist knowledge about provision for disabled children. She most expertly deployed that knowledge and her commitment to ensure that all children should have access to quality care in her role as the co-chair of the parliamentary inquiry into childcare for disabled children.
I support the purpose of the amendments. I agree that the quality of the workforce is a vital ingredient in providing good-quality early education and care to meet the needs of all children, including those with SEN. The experiences of children in childcare settings are shaped by their interactions with staff, so it is critical that staff are suitably qualified and skilled.
I hope that it will be helpful if I set out the existing requirements for staff qualifications under secondary legislation. In recognition of the fact that the qualification levels of staff affect the experiences of children in early education and childcare settings, the early years foundation stage framework sets out minimum qualification levels. Those qualification requirements make up part of the staff-to-child ratios. I have already confirmed on Second Reading and in speeches outside the House that we are not changing ratios or qualification requirements to deliver the 30-hour entitlement.
The qualification level of the early years workforce has risen in recent years. Continuing this increase has been a key aim of the Government’s workforce strategy through the introduction of early years educator qualifications at level 3, and early years initial teacher training. Research tells us that in group day-care settings, 87% of the workforce have a relevant qualification at level 3—that should be welcomed. Indeed, many of the workforce are qualified at graduate level. Since 2007, more than 16,000 individuals have achieved the specialised qualifications of early years professional status and early years teacher status.
Moreover, the inspection framework carried out by Ofsted is clearly focused on children’s outcomes and the quality of teaching and learning in the early years. Providers are showing the arrangements they have in place for staff supervision and professional development that then drive high-quality interactions with children. Ofsted’s new common inspection framework is also bringing more consistency to its inspection approach across early years providers and schools. The latest outcome statistics, at August 2015, show that 85% of providers on the early years register were rated good or outstanding for overall effectiveness.
Alex Cunningham
I hope that this is not out of order, but I have to be elsewhere on Front-Bench duties, so I want to say that I appreciated the explanations given by the Minister in his many interventions during my speech and I do not intend to press new clause 1 to a vote.
The Chair
For information, whether the hon. Gentleman is here or not, new clause 1 would not be voted until the end of the Bill.
Mr Gyimah
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling new clause 1, and I understand that he has other duties. I will carry on setting out our argument on the workforce strategy, which he can follow in Hansard, in his absence.
Despite the good indications of progress so far, we cannot be complacent. For example, members of the sector have told me that some childcare businesses are having difficulty attracting and retaining staff at level 3. I have asked the sector to provide evidence of that, and I am committed to working with them to understand the challenges and to find ways to tackle them while ensuring that a quality workforce remains.
Many comments have been made about why the Department has insisted on GCSE English and maths on exit and about whether that is having an impact on people getting their level 3 qualifications. I see maths and English, the two most important vocational subjects, as a requirement for any job. Functional skills, which the hon. Member for North West Durham specifically asked about, at level 2 do not have the same breadth of content as GCSEs and are sometimes described by awarding bodies as roughly equivalent to half a GCSE, which is why we have taken our position. As I said to the sector, if evidence can be provided that that is having an impact on recruitment, I am willing to consider it. The collaborative approach has already proved successful. Over the summer, I responded to calls from the sector to amend the entry requirements for level 3 courses to enable more trainees to undertake childcare training. I am told by childcare employers that that is helping more staff access training. As Sue Robb, head of early years at 4Children, said:
“We welcome the government’s decision that apprentices can work for their childcare qualifications at the same time as studying for their GCSEs in maths and English. This will encourage more apprentices into childcare and early years.”
I have spoken previously about this, but I want to be clear that I am committed to publishing a workforce strategy that will enable staff to reach their potential and forge a successful career in early years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South indicated in an intervention, career progression must be the central strand of any workforce strategy, which needs to consider the role of qualifications from entry level to graduate level and on-the-job training in order to attract and retain a good quality workforce. It is not only about getting people in at level 2 or level 3, but about getting the right ladders in place so that they can progress throughout their career.
Chloe Smith
Does the Minister agree that enterprise is an important skill in this blend? After all, this is a major opportunity for not only the maintained sector, but the private, voluntary and independent sectors. There is an opportunity here for young people, or perhaps people who are already qualified, to set up their own business.
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend makes an excellent, important point in two respects. First, the new funding route and the associated certainty should make it attractive for new providers to enter the market and deliver childcare for working parents. Secondly, when we look at careers and career progression, we should consider that someone might start at level 2 or level 3 but then eventually start their own nursery or childcare business in another part of the country and deliver for parents. With that in mind, we need to make sure, as we look at the workforce strategy, that the opportunities are there for people to progress, fulfil their potential and realise their aspirations.
The strategy will not only look at apprenticeship qualifications at levels 2 and 3 but consider how we can attract even more graduates into early years. As part of the strategy, I would like to consider how the workforce can access training and support that enables them to offer early education and care to all children, including those with special educational needs. There are already some important requirements in place regarding the individual needs of children.
To make qualification requirements have a real impact on the quality of care that children receive, it is important to make sure that they equip staff with the necessary skills to identify and meet individual needs. That is why the level 3 early years educator criteria, which are set by Government, require that trainees learn how to assess and meet needs.
The teacher standards also require early years teachers to have those skills. Early years teachers must demonstrate a clear understanding of the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, and be able to use and evaluate distinctive approaches to engage and support them. New apprenticeship standards being developed by a group of childcare employers will also take into consideration the knowledge and skills necessary to support children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Inspection obviously plays a crucial role by focusing on outcomes and reviewing how children in settings have made progress. It requires settings to demonstrate how they have assessed and met the needs of children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. That is a powerful incentive for providers to ensure that staff meet the needs of those children and meet all the requirements placed on them through secondary legislation.
Under the EYFS framework, all children are to be allocated a key person to assess and meet their needs. In addition, the “Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years” sets out clear expectations on educational institutions, including early years providers, for identifying and supporting children with SEND. The code sets out a graduated approach, which involves seeking specialist advice and intervention where appropriate.
To ensure that providers and local authorities are equipped to deliver the expectations of the new code of practice, we are funding a number of projects to better equip the early years workforce to support children with SEND. They include the National Day Nurseries Association, which will build on local systems for self-improvement through SEND champions and the excellent Pen Green centre. That centre supports a model of peer-to-peer training to help practitioners gain the knowledge and skills that they need to support children’s needs.
Funding provided to support partnerships between teaching schools and private, voluntary and independent sector providers has also enabled some good practice in supporting children with SEND. For example, Tor View school, a specialist learning community in east Lancashire, is leading a project that is helping PVI sector providers in disadvantaged areas of Burnley and Rossendale improve their support for children with SEND. SEND specialists have worked with staff so that they can more confidently identify SEND issues and provide support for children and their families.
In some cases, it will be necessary for staff to undertake specific training to support a disabled child in their care. In such circumstances, a childcare provider can ask their local authority for funding to support such training. As the individual needs of children may differ greatly, I do not think it is appropriate to set out qualification requirements for all staff working with disabled children. The Government support a personalised approach to meeting children’s needs, whereby providers, in partnership with their local authority, determine what support is needed and how it will be accessed for each individual child.
A number of other points have been raised, for example on having more graduates in the sector. For clarification, the EYFS framework is clear that trained graduates can lead settings and utilise a 1:13 ratio in doing so.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady asks a good question. As I have outlined, the staff to child ratios in the EYFS framework will not change between the first and second 15 hours. Nor will qualifications or space requirements. I hope that the plans I have set out and the commitments I have made to develop and publish a workforce strategy that considers career progression routes, on-the-job training, how we can attract more graduates into the sector and support for staff in meeting the individual needs of children, will reassure hon. Members that the Government share their view that a well qualified workforce is vital. In view of that, I hope that the hon. Member for North West Durham will feel reassured enough to withdraw her amendment.
Pat Glass
I welcome the Minister’s assurance. The thinking behind the amendments was that there are clear links between qualified, well trained staff and good outcomes. That is recognised, not least by Ofsted. There is a shortage of qualified support staff under the current provisions, and providers tell us that they are not in a position to recruit—they are struggling to recruit even for the existing 15 hours. We therefore have concerns about how that will be carried forward into the expansion of the system.
I welcome the Minister’s assurance that if the requirement of a GCSE in maths and English on exit is causing disruption in recruitment—
Pat Glass
There appears to be evidence of that at the moment, so I welcome his assurance that he will look at that again. I was disappointed to hear him say that some awarding bodies are saying that functional skills are equal to half a GCSE. I have not heard that. They certainly did not give that evidence to the Education Committee when we looked at the matter in some detail. Providers and awarding bodies said that functional skills are different—more pragmatic in the workplace, but not easier. That was the evidence given to the Education Committee, on which we made recommendations. We are not looking to dumb down in any way, but given that we face expansion and that we are struggling to recruit qualified level 3 support staff, the Government should examine that.
As the Minister said, well trained staff are particularly important in the case of disabled children, which is the thinking behind amendment 11—we would never allow unqualified or untrained staff to work with children with disabilities in schools. Parents are telling us that part of the problem is that they cannot access the current 15 hours’ provision, and if that is the case, we need to explore that.
I heard what the Minister said about the excellent Pen Green nursery. It would be wonderful if we could reproduce Margy, her staff and Pen Green across every one of our constituencies. I strongly urge hon. Members to have a look at it, because they will want it in their constituencies.
I understand that qualifications are not the same as appropriate qualifications, which are not the same as training. They are different things. One issue I had with the Government’s policy in the previous Parliament on unqualified staff in free schools was that, although I would have qualified to teach mathematics because I have an MSc, it was not until I did a BEd that I understood things such as child development; identifying, assessing, helping and intervening with SEN; and managing behaviour. Those are the kinds of things that come through qualifications. People learn to differentiate in the curriculum and deliver a curriculum across the range of ability. They learn the science of learning, pedagogy and, almost more importantly, credibility. If a teacher does not have credibility with the parents, their colleagues and, more importantly—particularly if they are teaching in a secondary school—the children, they will quickly be sussed out. That is about not just having qualifications, but having the appropriate qualifications and training. Given that the Minister has offered to work with me in looking at how we can help more disabled families access childcare—presumably that offer also includes looking at the qualifications and training needed to enable them to do that—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Margot James.)
Housing and Planning Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
I welcome the Committee to what must be the penultimate day of our consideration of the detail of the Bill, given that it must be reported by 5 pm on Thursday evening.
Clause 104
Approval condition where development order grants permission for building
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 190, in clause 104, page 48, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 60 (permission granted by development order), after subsection (1) insert—”.
This amendment is consequential to amendments 191 and 192.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 191, in clause 104, page 48, line 42, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 70 (Determination of applications: general considerations), in subsection (1)(a) after ‘permission’ insert ‘in whole or in part and’”.
This amendment gives local planning authorities the same power as the Secretary of State presently has on appeal to grant planning permission for part of the development proposed in an application.
Amendment 192, in clause 104, page 49, line 3, at end insert—
“(4A) In section 78 (Right to appeal against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions), in subsection (1)(a), after ‘it’ insert ‘in part or’”.
This amendment gives local planning authorities the same power as the Secretary of State presently has on appeal to grant planning permission for part of the development proposed in an application.
Stephen Hammond
I share your excitement that this is our penultimate day of scrutiny, Mr Gray, and I am pleased to see you in the Chair.
Many of us have a number of developments in our constituencies that are mostly popular and enjoy almost universal acceptance, but have controversial aspects. I can think of three sizable potential developments in my constituency where a large amount of what is being proposed is universally popular, but small elements are not so popular. I can think of one within the last year to which that applies.
The three amendments would make a relatively small technical change that is absolutely in line with what the Government are trying to do—to bring forth more housing and more development more quickly. The thrust of the amendments is to give local planning authorities exactly the same power as the Secretary of State has on appeal to grant planning permission for part of a development proposed. Such a power would be useful where planning applications can be split into several different elements, one of which is acceptable. I can think of a regeneration scheme currently going through for the southern end of my constituency, large elements of which are popular, but there are two controversial elements involving the scale and density of certain housing.
The amendments would put into statute a power for planning authorities. At present, planning authorities have the implicit ability to grant a lesser permission by using some of the conditions—a relevant case is Kent County Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment 1976. The planning practice guidance says that express powers to issue split decisions were given to the Secretary of State and the inspectors in section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 when it was amended, allowing the Secretary of State and inspectors to reverse or vary any part of the decision of any local planning authority where the approved part is severable or substantially different from the scheme applied for. Those factors need to be taken into consideration.
The three amendments have considerable support. The chairman of the board of the Planning Officers Society recently spoke in favour of such an amendment. The amendment would grant the ability on appeal to approve a scheme, the larger part or some parts of which enjoy great support, while other parts do not.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Thomas
It is always important to debate new provisions. In that spirit, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think of the proposal to redevelop the College Road site in my constituency. The bottom area, in which a new square is proposed to attract high-end restaurants and so on, is very popular, but the height of the overall development, at 20-plus storeys, is not popular. Might that development benefit from his amendment, or would it not be covered?
Stephen Hammond
From that limited explanation, I think it probably would be covered. As I said in my opening remarks, we all know developments where parts enjoy substantial support, yet some elements do not, particularly if the parts are severable from each other inside the application.
The amendments would allow a scheme to be approved in part. The purpose is to allow development to get under way more quickly. I accept that there will be circumstances where it is inappropriate or impossible to separate parts of schemes, but the amendments would allow developments and housing supply to happen more quickly, which is the thrust of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will either reassure me that his interpretation of the Government’s interpretation of the guidance is sufficient—many planning officers do not think it is—or let me know what his thoughts are and whether there may be room for discussion before the Bill proceeds further.
Mr Thomas
Very briefly, and following up the hon. Gentleman’s request for more information, I wish to talk about the planned development on the College Road site in Harrow West, which may or may not be covered by the amendment. The proposed development is in the centre of the shopping area in my constituency, so it is well known to most of my constituents. Many of them will be concerned about its height—potentially 20-plus storeys high, it might block out the iconic St Mary’s church in Harrow on the Hill. If there was some way in which residents, or the inspector on behalf of residents, could intervene to express a view on the height, the other parts of the proposed development at ground level, which will refresh and improve a part of Harrow town centre that has been blighted by lack of development for some time, would be popular. It is the height that worries residents. If the hon. Gentleman’s proposal for Wimbledon were to allow an inspector to vary something like the height of a development, I am sure his amendment would be of considerable interest to my constituents. I, too, look to the Minister with great interest to see whether his hon. Friend has managed to persuade him.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in these last sittings of the Committee, Mr Gray.
Local planning authorities have the ability to issue planning permission for part of a development by way of conditions. The use of conditions in this way is restricted in case law so that what is granted permission by the local authority does not fundamentally differ from what the applicant applied for and the scheme consulted on. Best practice is only to grant permission in part with the agreement of the applicant, because to do otherwise can have a substantial impact on the wider viability of a development. The proposed amendment would remove those restrictions and allow local authorities to grant permission for something substantially different from the scheme that was applied for.
I have not had a chance to look at the amendment in much detail or to explore the potential impact, but accepting it would have a number of unintended consequences. They could include depriving the public of the opportunity to be consulted and to comment on an application that is different from the one that was actually applied for. That has serious implications. There may also be a risk of not complying with the requirements of regulations made in 2011 under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if the development is significantly different from that applied for and consulted on.
None the less, my hon. Friend raises an interesting question about the way these permissions in part can be and are used to get developments going where they are consensual and agreed, although it may take longer to work through issues relating to other parts of the development on a larger scale. If he will bear with me, I would like to consider this further and come back to him, perhaps outside the Bill. The question has been raised and is due wider consideration and consultation with the sector. For those reasons, I hope my hon. Friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Stephen Hammond
I raised these points because I was very keen to hear my hon. Friend’s response, and I have listened carefully. He has been extraordinarily kind in giving me time to discuss some of these matters before the Committee. I heard his point about the unintended consequences and I hope that if he grants me further time, I will be able to persuade him that what I propose will not substantially alter schemes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Stephen Hammond
I beg to move amendment 193, in clause 104, page 49, line 3, at end insert—
“(4B) In section 106 (Planning obligations), after subsection (2) insert—
(2A) A local planning authority may enter into a planning obligation as a person interested in land and as the local planning authority, including an obligation by agreement in both categories.”
This amendment empowers local planning authorities to make planning obligations binding their own land, for example, if they wish to grant planning permission prior to selling land for development.
Again, the amendment is designed to allow housing development to come forward substantially more quickly. The issue it deals with is relatively minor but relatively important. One of the thrusts of the Government’s plans to bring forth more applications is to bring excess unused public land into use more quickly. Local planning authorities will often seek planning permission on their own land, either for their own schemes or to sell land with consent for development. Developers may also seek to get planning permission on the land when it is owned either in whole or in part by local planning authorities. Given that the Government intend to make public sector land available for development, I think it is highly likely that we will see more applications that fit in this category over the next few years.
At the moment, a planning obligation will bind the interests in land only of the parties to it. The problem—I accept it is relatively small—is that a local planning authority can enter into a planning obligation as the landowner, and there is concern about whether, legally, it can enter into an obligation with itself. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, there is some case law that obscures whether this can happen, but if the local authority cannot do so, there will be some issues about how quickly that land can be brought into use. The attempts to get round this, as he will know, are complex, uncertain and likely to cause delay. This relatively simple amendment will allow a local planning authority to enter into a consent with itself.
Mr Thomas
I want to support the hon. Gentleman as a fellow London MP, but I think it would help him to gain the Committee’s support if he could give us some examples of where the problem he describes has been enough to stop development going ahead. I do not want to cause him trouble or difficulty, but I want to see how serious the problem is.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I prefaced my remarks about the clause by saying that is a relatively small but nonetheless important point. It is likely to become more important as we see more and more unused public sector land released. I can think of a circumstance of a relatively small pocket of public land where a local authority was the owner, but was also acting as the authority in terms of granting planning permission to produce a scheme of, I think, 12 properties in part of my constituency. I know there are a number of planning experts on the Committee with much greater knowledge than I have who would be able to confirm the point that, although such cases may not be numerous, resolving the issue is complex and there may be problems in bringing land forward.
I am not suggesting that it is a huge problem, but a relatively small amendment to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will authorise a planning authority to act as a party with an interest in the land as well as the planning authority granting an obligation. That obligation may be made unilaterally or by agreement, so it is important that it is legally acceptable when made by agreement. I look forward to the Minister’s response. The amendment, rather than like my previous ones, would help the Government with its ambition to bring forward housing developments more quickly.
Brandon Lewis
It is vital that local authorities are able to mitigate the impact of unacceptable development and to make it acceptable for their communities in planning terms. Planning obligations play a key role, but the introduction of the community infrastructure levy has already reduced the need for such obligations in many circumstances. In recognition of the importance of planning obligations, we have made a commitment in our productivity plan in Government to introduce a dispute resolution mechanism for section 106 agreements, to speed up negotiations and enable housing starts to proceed much more quickly. We have also improved the guidance on the use of the obligations.
The amendment would allow local planning authorities to make planning obligations binding on their own land—for example, if they wished to grant planning permission before selling land for development. Planning permission can be granted subject to conditions, including Grampian or negative conditions, that require certain actions to be undertaken, and local authorities can include requirements in a contract of sale when they dispose of land. Although I will keep the situation under review, at this time I am not convinced that the amendment is required. I therefore invite my hon. Friend to withdraw it, while saying to him that perhaps outside of the Bill we can look at the matter further.
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend is, as ever, persuasive and logical in his argument. It would be appropriate therefore, on the basis of his reassurance that he intends to keep the matter under review, that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 284, in clause 104, page 49, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) When granting development orders, local planning authorities shall prescribe, in accordance with the objectively assessed needs identified in the Local Plan—
(a) Appropriate density;
(b) Suitable dwelling mix;
(c) Affordable housing required, and
(d) Community and social infrastructure requirements.”
This amendment would ensure that development is suitable in planning terms on a site specific basis, and will also assist in controlling the price of land. The upfront identification of planning conditions will speed up the time it takes for developers to start on site, and also complete development.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 285, in clause 104, page 49, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State must make regulations which—
(a) require sufficient testing of the land to be carried out before permission in principle may be granted, and
(b) ensure provision of adequate funding to carry out the testing in subsection (a).
In this subsection ‘sufficient testing’ means carrying out necessary studies and assessments to ensure that a site is suitable for the development benefiting from permissions in principle.”
Helen Hayes
These are probing amendments, designed to explore further the concept of permission in principle and the Government’s intentions in introducing it. There is considerable confusion regarding the concept and what it will mean for the English planning system and local communities. The Opposition wish to see a planning system that delivers the housing we need but does not override or overrule communities, or repeat the mistakes of the 1980s, when communities were built and developed and left without the facilities they needed to thrive and with no scope for future expansion.
I understand that there will be three types of permission in principle: sites included in brownfield registers, sites identified in local and neighbourhood plans, and straight applications made to local authorities. Already, permission in principle is starting to look confusing, since those three routes will have been subject to different levels of scoping and public consultation. It is not clear what needs to be known about a site or who needs to have commented on its suitability for permission in principle to be granted. A site that has been identified through the local planning process will have been consulted on. The consultation arrangements for brownfield registers are not yet clear, and an application made by a landowner or developer direct to a local authority might have had no consultation at all on the principle of development.
Permission in principle, as far as we can tell, will not set any parameters for development other than land use. A developer will know that housing can be built on a site, but not how much, or of what size or type, or what the design and quality standards must be. Importantly, developers will not necessarily know anything about the land on which they want to build, unless they have voluntarily undertaken investigations. I will set out why I believe that permission in principle as drafted offers nothing to local communities and little to developers, and why, as a consequence, it will fail to speed up the pace of development or to help to secure new homes.
The current development management process balances the interests of landowners and developers and local communities. Planning permission gives developers the certainty they need to unlock the finance for development, in return for having undertaken a rigorous process of analysis and design and consulted with local communities. Local communities have the opportunity to comment on and feed into the planning process and, where necessary, to make objections, in return for which parameters and safeguards should be written into the planning permission to help ensure the best possible outcomes for communities.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Many of us remember the brutalist structures built in the 1960s and planned under Tory Governments in the 1950s, and we recognise how dreadful many of those buildings are. Does my hon. Friend have any fear that proposals such as the Government’s will lead us back to those brutalist buildings?
Helen Hayes
One of the great concerns about the Government’s proposals is that at present they contain no safeguards on quality of design, which our communities all care very much about. Which of us, as elected representatives, has not been asked to represent constituents objecting to a planning application because it is too tall, or too many homes are proposed, or because it is all small flats where the local need is for family-sized homes, or there is insufficient affordable housing?
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Some of the best dwellings in the country are the old estates in central London, such as the Cadogan estate and the Belgravia estate. One thing that they have in common is that they are dense and tall. The hon. Lady said “too tall”. Who is to say what is too tall?
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am not sure he was listening to my comments. I was saying that many of us, as elected representatives, have been asked to support communities in objecting to applications involving buildings considered by the community to be too tall. The point I am making is that if the content of a permission in principle contains height parameters, it will reduce the scope for objections on those grounds, because the matter has already been resolved. Communities can be secure in the knowledge that the content on height has been agreed. That is the point that I was making.
Similar grounds for objection include concern that an application will leave the area too built-up without adequate open space, or that there will be too much pressure on schools or GP practices as a consequence of development. A minimum level of detail contained within a permission in principle, which could be stated within the local plan or within the listing on the brownfield register, or determined by the local authority where an individual applicant comes forward, will be helpful in giving a genuine level of certainty to developers and a genuine level of comfort to communities.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
As an hon. Friend said to me just now, the proposal is not for in principle permission but detailed permission. It is the Stalinist tractor figures. The hon. Lady would be more compelling and persuasive in her arguments if there were any timescale to give effect to the changes. She will know that the uncertainty over permitted development rights, the conversion of offices into houses or flats, has stymied that development to a certain extent. To include the amendment in the Bill would do exactly the same thing and slow down the production of people’s homes.
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, notwithstanding the reference to Soviet dictators, which is never a helpful contribution to political debate in this Parliament—I stand by that. He made a good point about the need for timescale and for the development management process to be rigorously managed. I agree with him on that point.
The content of permission in principle for which I argue could be contained in the entry on the brownfield register about a particular site. It could be part of the process of designating that site on the brownfield register. It could be part of the local plan process, and it could be something that the local authority designates when an applicant comes forward in person.
Without that level of detail, permission in principle is a very confused concept. It purports to be a move towards a zonal system but it misses the key point about the zonal system in countries such as the Netherlands, which is that all of the work required to give certainty through the planning process is undertaken in those countries during the plan-making stage. A zonal system that has comparatively little detail at the plan-making stage, and apparently even less detail in the planning permission stage, gives certainty to no one, will fail to minimise risk and may even succeed in increasing—
Helen Hayes
I would like to make a little more progress, if I may.
It may even succeed in increasing alarm local communities, leading to further objections and challenges at the technical details stage.
The amendment is supported by the National Housing Federation written evidence that says:
“We believe that permission in principle should be broadly comparable with outline permission. So, for it to be granted, there will need to be clarity over the number of homes to be delivered, the tenure mix, the house type, the density and other permitted uses…and the permission in principle, should be time-bound to incentivise delivery.”
Amendment 285 seeks to ensure that sufficient investigatory work is undertaken prior to permission in principle being granted to determine that the site in question is suitable for the proposed development. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the information about a site that must be known before permission in principle is granted. The content of that information should be defined by the regulations, but obvious examples include heritage and archeological considerations, ground contamination, wildlife habitats and protected species, flood risk and rights of light to neighbours. There are several others.
It seems only sensible that planning permission in principle should not be granted on whim or a hunch but on the basis of a sufficient level of information for all concerned to be confident that the land is suitable and that development can be delivered.
It is not at all clear how permission in principle will relate to technical details consent, or that other forms of consent that are currently required in sensitive locations, such as demolition consent, listed building consent or conservation area consent, will still be required.
Historic England has presented a case study that illustrates the issue well: brownfield land in an historic town centre. It may be possible to judge without too much detail that 10 housing units might be developed on the site. Permission in principle could, therefore, be given, but what may be very serious is the impact on below-ground archaeology, the massing of the building and the style of the architecture. If these issues cannot be dealt with thoroughly at the technical details stage, then nationally important archaeology and historical places, which I think all of us on the Committee would agree that we value, could be seriously at risk.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Is not the whole purpose of the technical details consent stage that exactly the matters the hon. Lady has referred to will get considered fully at that point, prior to full permission being given? If we try to force all these things to be considered at the in principle stage, it will simply place obstacles in the path of the in principle consent being given in the first place by making it much more difficult to achieve.
Helen Hayes
What I am not clear about is the relationship between in principle consent and technical details consent if something as significant as a Roman fort underneath a site or other important archaeological considerations emerges at the technical details stage that would override the suitability of the principle of development on the site. What is the relationship between the two forms of consent, and can development be refused on principle at the technical details stage? That is unclear, and many of the important stakeholders, including Historic England, the National Federation of Housing Associations, and the Town and Country Planning Association, have made representations to this Committee along those lines.
Mr Thomas
One thinks at the moment of the flooding that is taking place in many parts of the country. From time to time, there will be applications to build on a floodplain. Would my hon. Friend’s amendment potentially give a developer an indication of what might be acceptable to be built on a site that is in a floodplain, bearing in mind the potential risk to exacerbate flooding down the line?
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. What would arise from the adoption of amendment 285 is the provision in the regulations whereby development in flood risk areas, including the issue of whether or not a development is in the floodplain, should have been identified and that information set out prior to permission in principle being granted. That would give some security to communities that development is not being undertaken in an irresponsible way.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I refer my hon. Friend back for a moment to the intervention from the hon. Member for Croydon South. I think that part of the discussion that we had in the Committee last Thursday was exactly about that question of what would happen if something has permission in principle but it is then discovered that the site is an important archaeological site. Can the permission in principle be removed? I think there was clarification from the Minister, but perhaps he could return to that issue at some point today to say whether or not the permission in principle would be removed on that basis.
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In drawing to a close, I simply say that the amendments taken together seek to ensure that permission in principle is underpinned by a sufficient level of knowledge about the site and its context, so that it is genuinely meaningful both to local communities and developers. Without that, I fear that developers will find this device to be a hollow one that provides no certainty at all, and communities will simply be let down and will feel the need to object to and challenge the process at the technical details stage, or through the courts.
I hope the Minister will consider the amendments and provide reassurance about the issues I have raised.
Seema Kennedy
I will speak quickly about amendments 285 and 285, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. Referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, I think that the whole thrust of these clauses is to have permission in principle to allow people to start building quickly, and attaching too many conditions would slow the process down. I speak as somebody who has acted as a developer, developing a piece of land that had been occupied by Courtaulds for 50 years. It is highly contaminated, but the cost of decontamination has been gradually coming down during the last 30 years.
I wanted to ask the hon. Lady about paragraph (a) in amendment 284. Are there not already adequate provisions in environmental law, land law and laws of tort that cover that material? She talked about risk and knowledge. Currently, there is a good balance in the Bill between the knowledge that a developer would have and the risk they are willing to take, whereas the paragraph (b) of the amendment would put more of that risk on to the taxpayer. Again, it would slow down the process and put more of the burden on the public purse rather than on the developers.
Dr Blackman-Woods
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Gray. I rise to support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I seek further clarification from the Minister following our discussions on Thursday. Unusually, I want to thank him for putting the policy factsheet on permission in principle into the House of Commons Library yesterday. I think he intended to help us get a better understanding of what the Government seek to achieve in this part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Unfortunately, unless I missed it, there was not an operational document attached. Perhaps that is something about which we will get some clarification from the Minister. After all, we do not have many sittings left to be enlightened about the contents of the operational document. Presumably, it will come forward very quickly indeed.
I was somewhat unusually in the middle of thanking the Minister for the document. However, unfortunately, when I actually read the document, I thought, “This provides more questions than answers about how permission in principle will operate in practice,” so I have a few questions to ask the Minister this morning. There are now not three but four ways to get planning permission in this country. We know from our discussion on Thursday that the first way is through land being placed on a brownfield register. The second is clearly outlined in the factsheet, which states:
“The Bill will allow permission in principle to be granted automatically when housing is allocated in future local and neighbourhood plans or identified on brownfield registers.”
We need clarity from the Minister on that very strange wording. Does “future” mean “from now on”? In other words, does it mean that all of the current plans that have been adopted are not the plans on which permission in principle will be granted? Does it mean that it will be granted for new plans that will presumably start at some time that will be set out in regulations? Does it apply to neighbourhood plans that perhaps were approved just last week following a referendum? The factsheet very clearly says “future”, so one has to assume that it does not mean the ones that are currently in existence.
That is a really important point, because in our discussion on Thursday it was suggested that permission in principle will be attached to plans that have already been adopted. We are totally unclear, on the basis of that document, about which plans we are talking about. Are they the ones that have been adopted? Will there be a new system where all the plans have to be redone? Will they go through a process that we do not know about at the moment so that permission in principle can be given? I was really surprised to see that in the document following our discussion on Thursday when no mention was made of the confusion about what plans we might be talking about.
There is a third possibility for getting planning permission, which seems to go direct to the local authority. A paragraph in the document states:
“Recognising the specific challenges that developers of smaller sites can face, the Bill will also make provision for permission in principle to be granted for minor development on application to the local authority.”
Through what process will they make an application to the local authority, and what role will there be for local people having a say? Do the sites have to already be on the brownfield register, or is this in addition to the register? Such matters are incredibly important and will affect all our constituencies and our constituents’ ability to have a say over what development takes place in their area.
I have another question for the Minister, although how he will answer when he is not listening is beyond me. Nevertheless, the document states:
“Permission in principle will only be granted where development is considered to be locally acceptable in principle.”
How will that be known? By what process will people be consulted to give their views on a development, particularly since the paragraph above states that developers can go direct to the local authority? We do not know whether that bypasses the local community or whether it goes via the brownfield register or a local or neighbourhood plan. Those are my questions.
The final mechanism for getting planning permission is where a local authority is designated and people can choose to go directly to the Secretary of State to get planning permission. There could be four ways to get planning permission, or there could be three ways. We are not absolutely clear. Unfortunately, the document, which I know was intended to be helpful, has not given us the answers that we sought on Thursday. Perhaps the Minister will come back and clarify the issues for us this morning.
There are a couple of other matters in the excellent amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that need to be emphasised. The document that was placed in the House of Commons Library yesterday states:
“The Government has engaged widely with a range of key stakeholders with different interests—including local government, planning sector, house builders, other developers, lenders, and environmental and community groups. This engagement has been tremendously useful and has influenced our thinking. We look forward to continuing discussions as we further work up the finer details, and expect to publish a detailed consultation later this year.”
Who have the Government consulted about the proposals in the document? Yesterday, I contacted several local authorities, a few developers, and some of the main planning umbrella organisations. None of them had been consulted on the proposals. If the Government are going to put that in a document in the House of Commons Library, we need to have some information demonstrating to us who has been consulted and what they said. The summary on my piece of paper does not tell us what they said, let alone who they are. That is a major problem for us when debating the clauses. There is no doubt that it is helpful to have that document, but it would have been more helpful to have had it last week.
Yesterday, we got two consultation papers—one on the equality statement on the proposed changes through permission in principle and other elements of the Bill, and one on the operation of permission in principle—but I hope it will not have escaped members of the Committee that we discussed some of those issues on Thursday afternoon, in advance of the consultation papers being issued. I am not sure whether that is just tardiness on the Government’s behalf or whether there is more to it, but hopefully we will be able to return to the contents of the consultation documents at some later stage, because they go through a lot of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood questioned earlier about the exact nature of brownfield and how the Government will define “affordable housing”. All those sorts of things are in the consultation documents.
Personally, although the Minister might have a different view, I think it would have been helpful if those consultations had taken place in advance of legislation being produced, rather than afterwards. It is not clear whether significant elements of the Bill will be able to be changed as a result of that consultation exercise because the Bill will probably have completed its passage through Parliament before the consultation reports. That prompts the question why the consultation is happening now. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on the consultation’s exact purpose.
As my hon. Friend said, these important concerns are not only being raised by Opposition Members. A number of people have written in to comment. I have brought a sample of five or six to mention this morning, but many, many different organisations from across the planning and housing sector have written in to say, “Look, we don’t really have a problem”—this is where we all are—“with permission in principle as a principle, but approving legislation without knowing exactly how it will operate and without ironing out the issue of what happens with regard to material considerations or technical details that happen, or are discovered, further down the line is a huge problem.”
Wildlife and Countryside Link reminds us all that the clauses are “profoundly radical” and are some of the most contentious in the Bill. Wildlife and Countryside Link says that we are allowing
“the Secretary of State to create a development order, for any land allocated for development in a qualifying document… that gives permission to development in principle.”
Wildlife and Countryside Link says that the Bill allows the granting of permission in principle whether or not the qualifying document is in place, or even in existence, when a local development order is made. That is getting to the nub of the question because, if the Wildlife and Countryside Link is correct, I do not see how it fits with what the Government are saying in this document—the one they put in the House of Commons Library—about future development plans and neighbourhood plans. Or are they in fact saying that this will be some future document, and it does not matter whether it is in existence at the moment because the Secretary of State will be able to grant permission anyway?
Does the document have to be in place? Is it a future document? How is the Secretary of State going to take note of that document? Does he need to take note of it, or can he just decide himself that site A in area B shall have permission in principle because someone has made an application directly to him?
Mr Bacon
I will ignore that comment from the hon. Member for Harrow West and concentrate on my intervention. We have had enough parping from him for one day already. Does the hon. Lady think that it is just possible that the Secretary of State might choose to exercise his or her discretion? Where and when local communities are getting on with it and producing high-quality local neighbourhood plans, that can carry on, but where people—as is often the case—are taking longer than it took to fight the second world war to produce a local plan of any kind at all, the Secretary of State should have the power to act, and that is what the Bill gives him or her.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting intervention, but those two issues need to be separated. The first question to be asked, arising from what I think was the first part of his intervention, is: do we want a planning system where the Secretary of State has discretion to say that site A in area B can have a development?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will in just a moment, after dealing with the second part. The second question is: do we want a plan-led system that operates within fairly tight timeframes, and does not go on for years and years before a plan is produced? The answer is that yes, of course we all want that. We set out proposals in the Lyons review that would greatly speed up the plan-making process. We are all saying that we want our system to be plan-led. The question for the hon. Gentleman is: how does that sit with the discretion for the Secretary of State? Does the Secretary of State then have to take note of the local plan, or does he not?
The Chair
Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to that point, I am allowing a fairly wide-ranging stand part-type debate on this, and so I will not call her to order. None the less, we should remind ourselves of the amendments which we are considering at the moment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Thank you, Mr Gray.
We know that the Government’s productivity plan indicated that the proposals for permission in principle would relate specifically to brownfield land, but the Bill itself—I think the Minister confirmed this on Thursday—places no such limitations upon it. Given the three methods that can now lead to permission in principle, this could be fairly widely applied. If it is going to be so widely applied, I hope that in his summing up the Minister will say what will happen to local communities, how they will have a say, and in particular what will happen if they are really unhappy about some of the details. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was right to say that although people might have concerns or objections about building in a particular area, often these can be alleviated or ameliorated with some discussion about the type of materials to be used, or by more land being given over for environmental benefits or something of that nature. We are absolutely not clear how that happens in this case.
Peter Dowd
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of the most centralising pieces of planning legislation that this country has ever seen, dressed up as localism?
Peter Dowd
Indeed, it is almost Maoist. Does my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham agree that the reality is that local people would rather trust local decision makers than centralised diktats from Secretaries of State?
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and comes to the nub of what I want to ask the Minister. As requested by Wildlife and Countryside Link and many other organisations, he needs to confirm that the measures are not a contravention of article 6 of the Aarhus convention, which was ratified by the UK Government in 2005. I am sure the Minister knows, because he studies the convention over breakfast in the morning to ensure that all planning decisions that come to the Department do not contravene it, that the article sets out standards for public engagement, with particular regard to ensuring a strong local agenda. It is public engagement in its widest sense.
People are concerned that the Government proposals simply ditch the entire localism agenda and that they are instead adopting, as my hon. Friend just said, a highly centralist and top-down approach to how planning permission is granted.
Returning to public participation, because of the many ways in which people can get planning permission, the new system will be difficult to navigate not only for the public, who may want to have a say, but for developers, who will have to choose between three or four routes—we do not yet know how many—of getting planning permission. That seems unhelpful.
To emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said earlier, we learned from the Minister on Thursday that there are no time limits, so if a developer gets permission in principle through a mechanism about which we are not entirely clear at this point, it is possible that nothing will have happened 15 years down the line. What incentive does the system offer for a developer to build once it has permission in principle? It could simply do as developers do at the moment and hold on to pieces of land until the market improves. According to its market model, a developer may want to build 400 houses in a neighbouring borough and hold on to the piece of land until there is a downturn or something of that nature. The National Housing Federation wrote specifically about the proposal that it
“should be time-bound to incentivise delivery.”
We totally agree. Without time limits, we cannot see how the change will speed up planning and the delivery of new housing, which is what we all want. Planning is one thing, but getting houses built is what is really important. We just do not see how the measure will achieve that end without some timeframes.
I want to speak in support of paragraph (a) and also briefly on paragraph (b) proposed in amendment 285. It is incumbent on all of us, but in particular the Minister, given that it is his responsibility, to ensure that if additional burdens are placed on planning departments or a strong role is required from them to make these measures work, local authorities are given the resources to undertake that work. We know that they have had a 46% cut in funding in the last five years and that fees are not set at full cost recovery, so taxpayers make up the approximately £450 million needed to make planning departments function. A number of people have told us that this is a serious issue. It needs a serious response from the Government about how they are going to get the necessary resources into planning departments so that they can deal with planning well, respond quickly and easily to inquiries from the public and, critically, from developers, and turn round planning applications, technical details consent or anything that the new system requires of them both quickly and professionally. Without any measures in the Bill to tackle the lack of resources we cannot see how local authorities can respond in the way that the Minister expects.
Chris Philp
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will endeavour to be a model of brevity in opposing amendment 285—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is the most popular thing I have said so far.
I spent the five years prior to coming here running a business that financed residential development. I can tell the Committee that a grant of permission in principle is of great use to financing organisations in offering finance either to acquire land or to fund the professional fees associated with developing it. Even though not all the technical details will have been signed off at that stage, it will give both funders and the prospective developer a huge amount of confidence and a measure of certainty that a particular kind of development scheme can be brought forward. As such it will be extremely valuable and will undoubtedly expedite the process of development.
On the question of technical details raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, I think it is reasonable that they are dealt with later. If we insist on them being dealt with up front, there will be significant associated costs that may deter acquirers of land or developers from proceeding with a project. If the subsequent technical investigation uncovers problems such as bats, newts or Japanese knotweed, developments can be fine-tuned to address those issues in granting detailed consent.
The hon. Lady mentioned Roman forts. My father is an archaeologist and has encountered many Roman forts in his career. It is generally possible to reconfigure developments to avoid causing disruption: for example, my father was involved with a Roman fort in Dover that was going to be destroyed by a road, and they simply lifted up the road to go over the Roman remains. There are always ways of changing developments to resolve whatever problem subsequent technical investigations uncover. If the hon. Lady looks in the basement of many buildings in the City, she will see Roman remains that have been preserved.
Helen Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is making a helpful contribution. I am fully aware that in almost all circumstances it is possible to accommodate any constraints that might be found on a development site. The point is simply that there is a significant cost in doing that. If a developer is entirely unaware that the problem exists or even the potential that a problem exists, they may be biting off more than they can chew in seeking to bring forward that development.
Chris Philp
To that point I would say “Caveat emptor”—buyer beware. The developers should assess risk. If they choose to take the risk of not having done those investigations, that is their problem. Moreover, once they have got permission in principle, they will have the confidence to invest the money required to undertake those investigations.
Mr Bacon
It is not also true that, were a developer to find that he or she had bitten off more than they could chew, in the words of the hon. Lady, then with the development in place it would be easier to sell on to another person or developer who could take the project forward?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is quite right. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, who said earlier that paragraph (b) of amendment 285 is unreasonable in proposing that local authorities bear the cost of these investigations. That is quite wrong. The developer who stands to profit should bear the cost of those investigations. That is currently the case and I believe it would be the case under the Bill. For those reasons I strongly oppose amendment 285.
Mr Thomas
I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Croydon South, but I want to take the Committee back to the issue that underpins some of the Government’s intentions in this part of the Bill: the price of land. The price of land in London is probably the single biggest constraint on housing development, and in particular helping small housing developers to enter the market. I therefore find myself torn on the question of permission in principle. I recognise that for some developers it is potentially a helpful tool, but I worry that it will exacerbate the rise in land values in certain places, notably London, where by any definition land prices are rising extremely fast. Amendment 284 would help to control—a little—the cost of land for development by setting out clearly the expectations of the community in its broader senses for a particular spot of land.
I raised in interventions the example of the College Road site in Harrow town centre; it is the site of the former post office, which has lain empty and earmarked in theory for development for 10 years and more. Part of the reason for the failure to develop that site is that the purchasers bought it when land values in Harrow were at their highest, they had unrealistic expectations of the value they might extract from the site, and as a result they finally had to sell the site off. If the requirements in amendment 284 had been on the statute book 10 years ago, that developer might not have rushed quite so quickly to buy the site, or, if it had bought the site, would at least have had some sense of the community’s expectations of what might be appropriate on that site. In that sense, I think it is a helpful amendment.
I come to the example of flooding I gave in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I think in particular of a site in Keswick in the Lake district, which has been subject to particularly heavy flooding. I am sure the whole Committee sends its support to the people of Keswick, who have been so badly affected by flooding. I think of a small industrial estate in Keswick which houses a number of business and, indeed, a small museum, which might in future be a development site. However, it is close to the River Greta, which has once again flooded, despite some flood alleviation measures put in place since the last time it flooded. With amendment 284 in place, Sir James—
The Chair
Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman has heard something that I have not, it is just Mr Gray. One day, perhaps.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is this not where paragraph (b) of amendment 285 would be extremely helpful? After the previous intervention, perhaps I should clarify that that paragraph would require the Secretary of State to ensure the provision of adequate funding to carry out the testing that is needed. That testing might be for the risk of flooding.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Ministers have occasionally said that they want to help small and medium-sized house builders to increase their market share. Giving those developers much more certainty about what would and would not be acceptable on a site would surely reduce their costs over time and increase their chances of accessing sites that they can afford.
I would have thought that amendment 284 would appeal to the Government, given their enthusiasm for starter homes. Giving greater clarity to would-be developers about the proportion of starter homes required on a site as part of the suitable dwelling mix that a community might expect would surely both encourage the starter homes initiative that the Government want to push and give more certainty to developers.
Finally, I come to the question of the re-election of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. I paraphrase it in those terms because he prayed in aid with enthusiasm tall buildings in central London. I worry that his constituents might not share his love of tall buildings. I see their virtue in places such as Croydon; I am not quite so enthusiastic about the prospect of having them in central Harrow, and nor are my constituents. I have to confess that I do not know, but I suspect that the constituents of South Norfolk would not be too enthusiastic about the prospect of 20-storey blocks of flats being part of developments there or in the surrounding area.
Mr Bacon
I can resist no longer—the hon. Gentleman is such fun. I am not suggesting 20-storey blocks of flats in South Norfolk or anywhere else. I pointed out that the Cadogan estate in Chelsea has slightly higher blocks. If he visited the self-build project known as “Elf Freunde”—meaning 11 friends; it is a German footballing pun—in central Berlin that produced 11 four-storey terraced houses for €220,000 each, he would see what I am talking about.
Mr Thomas
Well, it is an important point, Mr Gray. I was not for a moment suggesting that the hon. Gentleman would be enthusiastic about a proposal for tall buildings, but there would be much less likelihood of his constituents being provoked by an application for an unnecessarily high development if the provisions in amendment 284 were on the statute book and would-be developers in South Norfolk knew that the community, South Norfolk Council and so on did not expect a development of more than, perhaps, 11 storeys, as I think he referred to in his Berlin example—
Mr Thomas
Oh, I beg his pardon: a development of four storeys, or even fewer. That would help to give some confidence to the community about potential developments. If the hon. Gentleman were to have the courage to resist the power of the Government Whips Office and back the amendment, I have no doubt that he would be smoothing the path a little to his re-election.
The hon. Gentleman provokes me to speak about self-build and custom housebuilding—
Mr Thomas
Indeed, Mr Gray, this is within the context of the amendment. Paragraph (b) of amendment 284 would give local authorities and broader communities in South Norfolk, Harrow and Dulwich and West Norwood the opportunity to send a signal that they want more self-built or custom built properties on a particular site. I hope that the hon. Member for South Norfolk would want to see a housing co-operative designated on many of the sites. Paragraph (b) offers the hope that some local authorities might want to do even more on custom and self-build. In that spirit, I support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood.
Mr Jackson
Don’t say it with such enthusiasm, Mr Gray. It will not be that bad, and I think I will be brief.
The Chair
It is simply that the hon. Gentleman was not standing up, so I was questioning whether he was seeking to catch my eye. If he wants to speak in the debate, he ought to stand up and let me know that he wants to speak.
Mr Jackson
My Whip is giving me a strange look, so I will be quick. Before I start, I should parry the hon. Member for Bootle with hideous monstrous socialist carbuncles. I offer him the Chalkhill estate in Wembley and the Stonebridge estate in Harlesden as two great results of socialist architecture.
Moving on, the amendments are intellectually incoherent. They pray in aid a commitment to localism and local autonomy, but were they ever given effect they would be very prescriptive and present serious impediments to new house building. In fact, they would kill stone dead many marginal prospects for regeneration on brownfield sites across the country, and that is a serious concern.
Peter Dowd
It is a shame the hon. Gentleman mentioned brownfield sites, because I know one or two things about them, certainly in terms of my constituency. He talks about the amendment killing marginal developments, but some of the sites are so contaminated that the developments should be killed. The contamination is dreadful. The concern I have, which is missed out of these measures and I would like the Minister to comment on, is the testing done on those sites, which can be incredibly dangerous. Those tests should be done and should be codified.
Mr Jackson
In fairness, I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as well as he does, but I have visited Bootle and seen the challenges with regeneration across Merseyside, with Scotland Road, Rock Ferry, Tranmere and other parts of Wirral. Looking at the whole country, there are marginal regeneration cases that have resulted in good-quality housing.
My second criticism of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood is that there is no context. The context is that there are structure plans and local development plans that have gone through the proper processes of public engagement and formal consultation, and those plans are subject to the strictures imposed in primary legislation, including the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A local planning authority should come to a settled view on what it wants to do with its land. The clue is in the name; the measure is a permissive capacity for the Secretary of State to intervene in extremis where a local authority has not brought forward appropriate land use plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said so eloquently, to put these strict impediments on the face of the Bill would kill stone dead attempts to build more homes and to develop marginal units.
On the points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham, I was concerned by land banking so I looked at the Local Government Association figures from 2012. When one looks below the surface at the facts, the No. 1 factor in this was the capacity and expertise of the planning departments. If a legal duty is imposed on those planning officers to spend significant amounts of public money, both in consultation and viability assessments for these units, it would reduce the capacity of those local planning authorities to give permission. We need to look at the Secretary of State’s plans in that context.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that permission in principle should be given without adequate testing of those sites being carried out? We heard from the Minister on Thursday that it does not seem to be possible to remove permission in principle if subsequently a technical detail means that the development should not go ahead.
Mr Jackson
We already have a vast array of assessments and objective criteria by which we measure developments. We have the local plans, structure plans, site location plans and viability assessments. We have vacant building credit, for instance, which is now in court as the result of a legal case. We have plenty of opportunities for engagement, even without talking about neighbourhood plans. The idea that the first base of the Secretary of State is to intervene straightaway is nonsense.
Finally, it ill behoves being lectured on localism by a party responsible for home information packs, eco-towns and the disaster of regional special strategy with Prescott’s density and parking targets, which gave rise to some of the worst-quality housing we have seen in this country since the war.
Brandon Lewis
It has been enlightening to have effectively a second clause stand part debate on clause 102. The amendments clearly relate to clause 102, so I will respond to them in that context.
I was particularly taken by my hon. Friend’s comments about the Roman forts. I would encourage his father to visit the Caister Roman fort to see how we do it in Great Yarmouth and give us some views on how to get some development around that.
I was amused by the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle about a centralist approach, which I assume were tongue-in-cheek. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough perfectly summed up what the amendments do. Having been a councillor for 11 years under a Labour Government, I know what centralism in local authority planning terms feels like.
With the best will in the world, the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood miss a key point, which is that permission in principle is driven locally—planning permission in principle will come through decisions made by local people in their local communities. That is a fundamental fact. I know the hon. Lady was not here when we touched on that at the end of last week.
Amendment 285 would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations that sufficient testing of a site must take place before permission in principle is granted. The regulations also set out that adequate funding is provided to carry that out. I will come back to that in detail in a moment.
I have two fundamental concerns about amendment 285. First, prescribing the particulars to be addressed when granting permission in principle builds unhelpful rigidity into the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made the point very well. We have been clear that we consider the particulars to be granted permission in principle should be use, location and amount of development. The approach taken in the Bill is a prudent, balanced one that allows for the particulars to be set out in secondary legislation. It gives us the flexibility to ensure that permission in principle works as intended.
My second concern is the detailed nature of the issues that amendment 284 requires to be fully addressed at the permission in principle stage. We have been clear from the very beginning that, in order for the measures to deliver real change in unlocking sites and avoiding unnecessary costs, permission in principle should give up-front certainty on the core matters underpinning the basic suitability of a site, namely its use, location and amount of development, and allow matters of detail to be agreed subsequently, as we have outlined before.
Amendment 284 proposes that matters of detail, such as density, affordable housing provision, community and social infrastructure requirements, be settled at the permission in principle stage. Let me be clear that those are matters that should be addressed before development is allowed to proceed, and the local planning authority may well consider them when deciding whether to grant permission in principle. However, if we were to require those to be covered by permission in principle, far more detailed information and analysis would be required, which would entirely negate the value of the Government’s measures and effectively duplicate the existing outline planning application process. Matters such as affordable housing contribution and community infrastructure provision will be agreed and negotiated at the technical detail stage, in line with local and national policy.
On amendment 285, clause 102 will enable permission in principle to be granted when a site is allocated in qualifying documents. The Secretary of State will prescribe a qualifying document only if it has been through a suitably robust process, including public consultation and a site assessment. We intend to set out in secondary legislation that the qualifying documents will be local plans, neighbourhood plans and the brownfield register. Before allocating a site in a local plan, as I am sure Members will appreciate, local authorities already go through a detailed site investigation and assessment process as part of their strategic housing land availability assessment.
In the neighbourhood planning context, the neighbourhood planning qualifying body should carry out an appraisal of options and an assessment of individual sites if it intends to allocate sites for development. Any such appraisals carried out by qualifying bodies are subject to scrutiny by both the local planning authority and an independent examiner. Neighbourhood plans also go through a full referendum of the local community. That is absolute local power in the hands of local people—true localism.
Therefore, extremely robust testing already exists in plan-making processes, and the whole purpose of the permission in principle model is to draw on that and make the best use of all the local effort, detailed work and resource at the plan-making stage, so that we get back to what we should be aiming for, which is a plan-led system. As the Government’s measures propose to utilise existing plan-making processes, we do not anticipate additional burdens on local authorities.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Can the Minister deal with the point about the nature of qualifying documents? People will have been involved in a process to put local plans in place, and in a consultation system, but they will not have understood that that will lead to permission in principle, because it was not there when they were involved in the previous process. Will the measures apply to plans developed from now on, or plans already in existence?
Brandon Lewis
Local people go through the process in the full knowledge that they are looking to allocate land. One frustration expressed by areas—while travelling around the country, I have spoken to people in a lot of areas that have done both local and neighbourhood plans—is that they go through all that work and must then effectively do it all again for every individual planning application, which defeats the object of the work that they have done in the first place. Our proposals will back up the work that they have done.
I finish on this point. On the brownfield register, I can reassure the hon. Lady that we intend to require local planning authorities to assess the sites that they propose to put on local registers against criteria to be specified in regulations. That will ensure that the sites are suitable for housing. We will shortly consult on our proposed criteria. We expect them to assess whether sites are available and capable of being redeveloped for housing, and whether development is viable. Local planning authorities already take such matters into account when assessing potential sites in their strategic land availability assessments. Local authority decisions will have regard to the national planning policy framework and to local plans. Our intention is that local authorities will draw on existing strategic housing land availability assessment processes as much as possible to identify and test the suitability of sites for inclusion on the brownfield register.
We also have a rigorous new burdens assessment process in our Department to ensure that local planning authorities receive the relevant resources to meet their statutory obligations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendments.
Helen Hayes
I thank the Minister for that explanation. It is good to hear proposals regarding some of the detail that might be included in the requirements for the brownfield register and the assessment process.
I remain unclear about the status of the proposed third route to gaining permission in principle—direct application to the local authority. I am unclear whether it might be possible to apply to a local authority for permission in principle for a site that is not on the brownfield register or in one of the other qualifying documents. If that is the case, what requirements for assessment and consultation will there be?
I want briefly to address Government Members’ comments about paragraph (b) in amendment 285. That proposal does not necessarily imply that costs should be borne by the taxpayer; it simply says that the Secretary of State should make provision for regulations that ensure there is adequate funding. Funding for local authority development management functions is an important issue, and we will return to it in the debates on some of the new clauses.
Points were made about environmental and other regulations, and I want the processes and guidance around permission in principle clarified. The hon. Member for South Ribble referred to her own experience, and I am sure that, as a developer, she was experienced and responsible in the projects she undertook. However, I have come across many developers in my constituency who have taken on sites, even under the current system, without knowing some of the constraints in terms of what lay under the ground or, sometimes, the demolition of the buildings on the site. Constraints exist anyway, and it is important that they are acknowledged up front in permission in principle. Unless they are, permission in principle becomes the emperor’s new clothes of the planning system—a piece of paper that purports to give someone permission, but which, when we delve down into the layers of detail and the constraints, offers only short-term certainty, leading to a whole lot of expense and heartache in the long term.
These were probing amendments, and I would like to return to this issue on Report, when we may have seen further detail from the Government. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
New clause 19—Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use—
“After section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—
‘58A Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use
(1) efore planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the body considering granting planning permission must consider the impact of noise and other factors from buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year in the vicinity which would affect the amenity and enjoyment of the residents of the dwellinghouses.
(2) Where planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the permission must include conditions imposed on the persons granted planning permission in respect of the building changing use to—
(a) eliminate noise between the hours of 10pm and 6am from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given; and
(b) counteract any other impact seriously impairing the amenity and enjoyment of the residents and prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given.’”
This new Clause would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment. Such measures shall be the responsibility of the agent of the change of the permission.
New clause 20—Permitted development: change of use to residential use—
“Where the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 or 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, makes a General Permitted Development in respect of change of use to residential use as dwellinghouses, the change must first be subject to prior approval in respect of the impact of the amenity and enjoyment of the prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before.”
This new Clause would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment when buildings are converted to residential by virtue of a General Permitted Development order. Such measures shall be the responsibility of the agent of the change of the permission.
I should make it plain to the Committee that I have allowed a fairly extensive, Second Reading-type debate on the content of the clause, so anyone who wishes to make any remarks should focus those on the two new clauses.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I rise to discuss one of my passions: permitted development and what we do to try to overturn the changes the Government have made to permitted development rights. The new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), myself and other hon. Members are extremely interesting and important. They seek to draw to the Minister’s attention a problem that has arisen from the granting of permitted development, with the conversion of office accommodation into residential accommodation.
To try to crystallise where we want to get to with the new clauses, let me explain what often happens under the change of use procedure, as property moves from office to residential. The new residential block, which might be in a commercial or retail area, could have a music venue next to it. That venue could have been there for many years, not causing a problem to anyone, but then it finds a residential block next to it and many people who are unhappy about the noise.
The Chair
Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Lady, who has had ample time to expand on her point, but I think that she has probably made the point in general. Article 4 directions do not actually come within the finer points of the new clauses that we are considering. I suspect that she may be coming towards the end of her remarks.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am indeed, Mr Gray—absolutely. The point I was making about article 4 decisions is that they had been suggested as a way of addressing the issue, but in practice councils are saying that article 4 decisions are not a suitable mechanism to help them do that, because it is often too difficult to get an article 4 decision and to get it in the areas affected. Mr Gray, you are absolutely right.
I think that this is an important issue for the Committee to consider. There is an increasing volume of permitted development that is seeking to convert office property to residential property, so the issue is likely to grow and the problem will be exacerbated in future if the Government do not take some action.
I hope that we will hear from the Minister about how he might seek to work with the Mayor—
Dr Blackman-Woods
—and with other local authority officers about how to address these issues.
Mr Thomas
I rise to support these new clauses. To me, they seem to make eminent sense. They are not an over-the-top provision and they are not creating a particularly onerous regulatory burden. However, they are seeking to re-establish a balance between, on the one side, the need and the appetite for new housing that all Committee members report and, on the other side, the need to maintain centres of cultural activity.
My hon. Friend has just set out some of the rationale for these amendments. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to what motivates my support for the new clauses. I am motivated in part by the experience of one of the grassroots venues that has closed in my constituency. The Rayners pub used to host jazz and ska nights on a regular basis, and when it closed there was a long campaign to stop it being earmarked for development. The campaign was led by an excellent local resident, Bill Ashton, who was then the conductor for the National Youth Jazz Orchestra. He was rightly concerned to protect a local music venue, and he argued that very few such venues in outer London hosted jazz and ska nights. My worry is that, without the amendments, the environmental health concerns that my hon. Friend alluded to will continue to increase the pressure on licensing authorities to take away licences for music venues.
The Trinity pub in my constituency is still very much going on. It has two floors and the upper floor often hosts small bands, or bands that have not yet made it. There are many offices within the vicinity of that pub. It is an excellent pub—Labour-supporting, which is an additional benefit that the Trinity brings—and I would not want to see it forced to stop allowing performances by local and other bands as a result of the pressure that may or may not come from those who move into homes where there were once offices.
Mr Thomas
Again, I gently encourage the hon. Gentleman not to go for a long liquid lunch, but to be back promptly to be able to hear the Minister when he declaims on this subject. I am glad he is an enthusiast for the National Youth Jazz Orchestra, but it is not only jazz that might be affected in future; a host of other genres might also be affected. I hope the hon. Member for South Norfolk is not in a parochial phase, but that he might be willing to recognise that the idea of a European city of culture bid from outer London—something for which I have campaigned for some time—might benefit from the provisions in the amendment. The pressure on music venues to close might not be there and there would be opportunities for more parts of our great capital city to benefit from the European city of culture and provide an additional range of cultural activity for people in the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham rightly dwelt on the Mayor of London’s music venue taskforce. I am not a huge fan of the current Mayor of London, but I give him credit when it is due on occasion. His taskforce has shone a spotlight on the closure of grassroots venues—a 35% decline, as my hon. Friend said, in the past eight years in London. That is deeply worrying and ought to be a wake-up call for us all, not only in this Committee but across London, to see what else we can do to make sure there is not pressure to lose such venues.
My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the fact that London has borne the brunt of the closure of music venues, but it is not only in London where music venues have closed; Birmingham and Manchester have seen small music venues closing, as have Edinburgh and Glasgow—of course, Scotland is outwith the scope of the Bill—and Bristol, Plymouth, Newport and Swindon have all seen important local music venues closing. We must do more to stop such local venues closing in future.
As my hon. Friend has alluded to, it is clear that there is insufficient guidance for our planning authorities to stop the closure of music venues.
Housing and Planning Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that we are considering the following:
New clause 19—Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use—
“After section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—
‘58A Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use
(1) Before planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the body considering granting planning permission must consider the impact of noise and other factors from buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year in the vicinity which would affect the amenity and enjoyment of the residents of the dwellinghouses.
(2) Where planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the permission must include conditions imposed on the persons granted planning permission in respect of the building changing use to—
(a) eliminate noise between the hours of 10pm and 6am from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given; and
(b) counteract any other impact seriously impairing the amenity and enjoyment of the residents and prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given.’”
This new Clause would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment. Such measures shall be the responsibility of the agent of the change of the permission.
New clause 20—Permitted development: change of use to residential use—
“Where the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 or 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, makes a General Permitted Development in respect of change of use to residential use as dwellinghouses, the change must first be subject to prior approval in respect of the impact of the amenity and enjoyment of the prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before.”
This new Clause would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment when buildings are converted to residential by virtue of a General Permitted Development order. Such measures shall be the responsibility of the agent of the change of the permission.
When we broke for lunch we were discussing clause 104 stand part, albeit with an injunction to focus on new clauses 19 and 20, having had a reasonably full debate on the clause previously. Mr Thomas was on his feet.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to resume where I left off, Mr Gray. I hope that Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for South Norfolk, have had a good lunch and continue to look forward with enthusiasm to the Minister’s response to the new clauses, not least out of concern for and interest in jazz at small venues, but also out of more general interest in the concerns of small music venues that may be at risk.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Mr Gray, for the record I feel I should point out that I have had no lunch at all. The time I had allocated for lunch was taken up with that vote we have just had and I just managed to eat a banana on the way up here.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Gentleman has, I am sure, secured the sympathy of the whole Committee. Anyone reading the extracts from Hansard of this section of the debate will be instantly sympathetic.
As well as paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for the way she introduced this debate, I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dagher), who has championed the new clauses and worked with a number of organisations within the music industry concerned about the impact of planning legislation on music venues. It is in part through his work, as well as the work of the industry itself, that the idea of trying to write into legislation the principle of an agent for change concept being established in planning law has come to fruition. The industry points to a number of examples where this principle is already written into law. I am told it has been particularly successful in Melbourne in Victoria, Australia, and I think it is well worth looking at in the British context, not least given the sharp decline in music venues in London.
On Thursday evening we will all go back and Government Members will celebrate the fact that the legislation has got through its Committee stage and that they have successfully resisted any temptation to engage with the Bill in a critical way. They might want to go out on the town to celebrate, and look for a music venue. Perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough will want to go out to see an ABBA tribute band—he has the look of someone who likes that type of music—
The Chair
Order. Before lunch we had a reasonably expansive debate on this subject. I remind the Committee that we are discussing two new clauses which discuss the way in which offices may or may not be converted into dwellinghouses and the effect that may have on the music industry. That is not an opportunity for an extensive discussion about the music industry and the various kinds of music we might enjoy. We have to focus entirely on the two new clauses, leaving aside wider discussion of the music industry.
Mr Thomas
I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Gray, for your guidance, which further confirms my view that a knighthood should be pressing for you.
My point is simply that there are many forms of music outwith those that attract large crowds that are performed in small music venues; those venues are under threat and we should do more to protect them. New clauses 19 and 20 wold give us the opportunity to make some progress in offering that kind of protection. The Minister for Housing and Planning is perhaps a fan of Duran Duran, again not necessarily a band that would perform—
The Chair
Order. In the event that the two new clauses became part of the Bill, it would then of course become possible to encourage all kinds of music and all kinds of other things that might create noise. This is not an opportunity for those kinds of discussion. We must focus our attentions entirely on the text of new clauses 19 and 20.
Mr Thomas
Again, Mr Gray, I welcome that guidance.
The particular benefit of new clause 19 is to place on anyone who wants to convert offices to other buildings in an area with a music venue nearby the duty to make clear the potential impact of the noise from that music venue. It is in that spirit that new clauses 19 and 20 are tabled—to bring the agent for change principle into UK law. They are entirely sensible provisions, and with that I urge the Committee to support new clauses 19 and 20.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I will be brief. I want simply to point out that one of the key problems with the Government’s extension of the permitted development rights is that they allow change to happen without consideration of local economic impacts.
We know that the cumulative loss of employment space as a consequence of permitted developments rights is a significant concern across London. We also know that there are no safeguards on the quality or the suitability of development. That is illustrated by the potential loss of music venues, which play an important cultural and community role in the locations in which they are situated. This is yet another example of the ways in which the Government are seeking to achieve short-term progress at the expense of longer-term outcomes and the quality and character of our neighbourhoods. I therefore very much support the new clauses.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
The aim of new clauses 19 and 20 is effectively twofold: first, to ensure that, where planning permission is granted for change of use to a residential use, the new residents’ amenity is protected; and secondly, to require that the cost of any mitigation measures needed to protect residents’ amenity, particularly against noise generated, is borne by the developer. I believe that the new clauses are unnecessary. They will impose inflexible requirements on local authorities and others where there are already appropriate protections to address these issues. One of my hon. Friends made that point this morning in our extensive debate.
In fact, the national planning policy framework itself incorporates the agent of change principle. It makes clear that businesses that want to develop should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of nearby changes to land use. Our thriving city centres are successful because they contain a vibrant and diverse mix of uses. It is therefore inevitable that modern city centre living will be co-located alongside other commercial and, as we heard, leisure uses. That is what makes our cities such dynamic places to live, work and, indeed, play.
In the case of planning permission granted by local planning authorities, they must decide the applications in accordance with the local plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Consideration of amenity impacts such as noise and disturbance is already a well established part of decision making, and the NPPF is a material consideration. National planning policy already establishes the principle that local authorities should approve applications for change of use from commercial to residential where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area—one thing that I hope we all agree on is the need for extra housing.
The framework also includes strong protections against pollution. It makes it clear that the planning system should prevent new and existing development from being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of pollution, including noise. The effects, including cumulative effects of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. In addition, planning decisions should aim to avoid noise which gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.
The framework goes further by making it clear that existing businesses that want to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land use since they were established. The planning guidance supporting the framework is clear that the potential effect of the location of a new residential development close to an existing business that gives rise to noise should be carefully considered. The guidance underlines planning’s contribution to avoiding future complaints and risks to local businesses from resulting enforcement action. To avoid such situations, local councils are encouraged to consider appropriate mitigation, including designing the new development to reduce the impact of noise in the local environment and optimising the sound insulation provided by the building envelope.
I am keen to look further at this matter. I have been working with my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, who is arranging for me to sit down and meet some of the music organisations that were mentioned this morning. If a business is working and a nearby building converts to residential housing, that is a good thing; we want more housing. It would be entirely wrong of the people who moved into the residential housing to complain about the business that existed before the residential housing was there. When I was the Minister with responsibility for pubs, I came across examples of residents who complained about a pub that had been there for 150 years two weeks after moving in next door. We need to ensure that those businesses are protected.
In December 2014, we made amendments to the planning guidance to underline planning’s contribution to protecting music venues, but I am interested in looking further at that issue. As I said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy has arranged for me to meet with those organisations shortly.
Mr Thomas
The Minister has virtually answered my question. I was going to ask whether he would meet with a delegation, and he has said that he will. Will he commit telling us before Report stage whether he is minded to do anything else in planning law to help the music industry, which is worried about the future of some venues?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is right that I will meet with those organisations. My hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, who has responsibility for the creative arts, has arranged for me to sit down and meet with them. If we were to do anything in the Bill, I would make Members aware of that before Report stage. The new clauses are not needed because the planning powers are already there; we just have to make sure they are properly used, but I will talk to the industry about that before we go forward.
With that caveat, the approach set out in the Bill provides flexibility and enables local planning authorities to protect new residents’ amenity, particularly from the impact of noise, while ensuring that we protect established businesses from disruption to their operations. Local authorities, when they look at such situations and organisations, look at what is said in this House. The debate we have had today will very much inform their decisions.
On new clause 20, permitted development rights for change of use play an important role in the planning system. They provide flexibility, reduce bureaucracy and allow the best use to be made of existing buildings. In 2014-15, they provided 8,000 much needed new homes, particularly in our capital city. In introducing permitted development rights, the Secretary of State can make provision for local authorities to approve measures relating to the impact on local amenity, including from noise, where development is permitted for a change of use.
The hon. Member for City of Durham touched on the article 4 situation. I gently say to her that she should challenge local authorities that say it is difficult to use, because there is no evidence to back that up claim. The article 4 process is straightforward and simple. Local authorities should look at other authorities that have used it so they can use it appropriately and correctly. More broadly, if there are genuine concerns about the impact of permitted development rights on new residents’ amenity, including noise impacts, local councils have the ability to bring forward an article 4 direction. Article 4, in and of itself, does not prevent development; it requires the planning application to be considered before a building can be converted. It is an immensely powerful tool for local authorities to use. They just need to ensure they are using it appropriately and in a focused way.
The licensing process also provides an adjudication mechanism between local residents and licensed premises by which practical measures can be introduced to control and mitigate noise. Statutory guidance advises that licensing authorities should be aware of the need to avoid inappropriate or disproportionate measures that could deter events that are valuable to the community. We can all think of events in our own constituencies, such as live music, that bring the community together and are a valuable source of community spirit. I do not consider the new clauses necessary and I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw them.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Probably nothing crystallises better the different approaches of the Opposition and the Government than permitted development. We are arguing for a proper system of planning approval that looks at all the issues likely to arise from a particular development, and for mitigation if planning is approved, or for planning to simply not be approved. The previous planning Minister said he was introducing a degree of chaos into the system. We have ended up with a permitted development system, a prior approval system and an article 4 direction, but none of those elements adds up to a planning system that can control the sort of problems we are talking about.
We at least agree across the Committee on our analysis of the problem: these developments are leading to complaints from residents about noise. I heard what the Minister said about meeting the groups involved. Clearly, this is a problem; if it was not, the Mayor would not have set up a taskforce and the music industry would not be saying it is a real problem. I hear what the Minister says about meeting representatives of the industry and others to see if something can be done to improve the current unsatisfactory situation for residents and the music industry. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
The Chair
The new clauses will be considered later on in our proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 104 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105
Planning applications that may be made directly to Secretary of State
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 286, in clause 105, page 49, line 4, at end insert—
“(1) In section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for ‘Secretary of State’ substitute “in respect of land in Greater London by the Mayor of London and in respect of land in England outside of Greater London by the Secretary of State” except in subsection (1)(a).
(1A) In section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (when application may be made directly to in respect of land in Greater London the Mayor of London and in respect of land in England outside of Greater London to the Secretary of State), in subsection (1), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—
“(a) the local planning authority concerned is designated by the Secretary of State for applications of a description specified in the designation;
(b) the application falls within that description.””
This amendment would provide for applications in respect of land in Greater London to be made directly to the Mayor of London and to the Secretary of State for land elsewhere in England.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Gray. My pleasure is increased by the fact that, from listening to your strictures in this Committee, I know that you, like me, are a fan of the Radio 4 show “Just a Minute”—[Interruption.] My Whip has just asked how long my speech is going to be. Unlike the hon. Member for Harrow West, who is leaving, and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who discussed Whips Offices and courage, I always remember the old adage, “Bravery and courage are a thin line, and stupidity is following close behind.”
I move amendment 286 in the spirit in which I moved amendment 240 on Thursday afternoon. I was grateful for the attention and comments of a number of Committee members on that amendment, and therefore I shall detain the Committee only briefly.
Although the Mayor has mainly strategic powers with regard to London, he has decision-making powers on developments of strategic importance and can therefore take over an application and act as a local planning authority. Although, quite rightly, he has only used that power sparingly, it exists. Recognising both the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Localism Act 2011, I hope the Minister will agree that the Bill should recognise that while applications outside London can be made directly to the Secretary of State, applications of strategic importance inside London can be made to the Mayor. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some comfort and agree that this is a tidying-up amendment.
Brandon Lewis
That is a challenge for me, Mr Gray. I will keep an eye on the clock to see if we can improve on the two and a half hours we have spent on one clause thus far today.
Brandon Lewis
I will endeavour to take the hon. Lady’s comments on board.
If the amendment were accepted, applications for major and potentially for very minor developments—right down to applications for one house—in underperforming London boroughs could be submitted directly to the Mayor. For a typical London borough, if applicants chose to apply directly to the Mayor, that could run to literally hundreds of applications per year. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and others would agree that that would not fit in with the important role of the Mayor as a strategic decision maker.
It is right that the Mayor of London has that important role in strategic decisions affecting the capital. He already has the power to decide to call in applications of potential strategic importance—for example, when more than 150 dwellings are proposed. We are taking steps in the Bill for the Mayor to set his own thresholds in high-growth areas, through the London plan. The clause will allow us to extend our successful designation process to assess performance in applications for non-major developments. The amendment has the potential to significantly change the Mayor’s role and go beyond providing that vital strategic direction in decision making across the capital. It would also have implications for the performance regime in and of itself. Planning applicants might expect the Mayor to be part of the safeguards, rather than the decision maker on how quickly their applications should be determined. I will continue to look at this issue and to engage with my hon. Friend, but at this stage I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Stephen Hammond
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister had to say. The thrust of the amendment was to ensure that applications of strategic importance—clearly not minimal or de minimis applications—could be made directly to the Mayor. I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance that he is prepared to continue to consider the issue, because it is important that the potential strategic importance of applications is considered. Given his words of comfort, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Development consent for projects that involve housing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The clause will enable some housing developments to be determined under the national infrastructure planning regime, if they are part of a larger mixed development that includes infrastructure. On the face of it, we have no objection to that in principle, but we are concerned about how the process for granting approval is going to work in practice. It brings me back to the discussions we were having this morning about whether there are going to be three or four ways in which applications for housing can be determined. We have come to an additional way, so perhaps we are now on the fifth way for applicants to get planning permission for new housing.
A number of organisations, including the National Infrastructure Planning Association, have written to the Committee to say that there is a need for greater clarity in the Government’s guidance. It is very welcome that we received the briefing note for the guidance relating to clause 107 before we came on to debate it. I do not know who is responsible for that, but they should be commended, because it is clearly much better that we get the documents that are relevant to a clause before we debate it, rather than afterwards, which has typically been the case with the Bill so far.
The briefing note states that the clause will
“minimise regulation and provide maximum flexibility”
and that
“more detailed issues relating to the inclusion of housing will be covered in guidance.”
It goes on to tell us about some of those issues, which include
“the types of infrastructure that housing could be included with; the two circumstances in which housing… might be built…; the location of housing in relation to the infrastructure; the assessment of housing proposals; and how the housing element of any nationally significant infrastructure project will be treated at each stage of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process and the considerations that will need to be taken into account by developers.”
I was reassured when I read that. I thought, “Good. We’re not exactly clear what the process will be and we’re not entirely sure what sorts of infrastructure projects it will relate to, but all we have to do is be patient and wait for the guidance, which will tell us all those things.” Unfortunately, the draft guidance does not do that job.
Taking the point about the infrastructure to which housing can be attached, the guidance just says:
“The Government does not propose to place limits on the categories of infrastructure project that may include housing.”
We are technically none the wiser and just have to assume that it could be any sort of infrastructure in almost any circumstances. Paragraph 20 outlines some of the restrictions that will be placed on the building of housing in certain areas and provides four examples, but it is unclear whether they are examples or the totality. The restrictions include
“sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest;”
That is a good thing. Also included are:
“land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority);”—
again, we very much welcome that—
“designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.”
Is that a definitive list or are they examples? The guidance is not clear whether they are the sorts of things that local authorities should take into account or whether they are the only things. Given the potentially extensive application of the clause, it is important that we get that information.
I will not detain the Committee any further on the guidance except to say to the Minister that I have been through it and cannot see where it sets out in detail how housing applications will be considered at each stage of the national infrastructure process. Will they have a particular designation, or will they just be considered as part of the overall scheme? Some clarification from the Minister would be extremely helpful.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray. I will be relatively brief, but I speak to raise concerns about clause 107 with a particular example from my constituency in mind. The Mayor of London and Transport for London are consulting on a nationally significant infrastructure project, the Silvertown tunnel, which is a road tunnel linking the Greenwich peninsula to Silvertown Way north of the river. It is a locally contentious proposal for a variety of reasons, but primarily due to its impact on the local road network and already dire air quality.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, I see nothing wrong with the principle of allowing housing to be built and this mechanism to be used if it is functionally linked to the infrastructure project under consideration. However, I have particular concerns about new subsection (4B)(b) which states:
“‘Related housing development’ means development which… is on the same site as, or is next to or close”.
I hope that the Minister can reassure me on this. I am concerned that in an infrastructure project such as that road tunnel, where I can see no housing that is functionally linked, this clause could allow for housing to be built in a different part of the borough, bypassing local accountability and any community influence, simply because there is a nationally significant infrastructure project in the vicinity and we have no idea what that means. I press the Minister to reassure me about what
“or is next to or close to”
might mean and whether any guidance will be forthcoming, or, if not, whether he will consider clarifying that part of the Bill. It is important that the housing that might be delivered through this mechanism is functionally, or more directly, linked to the infrastructure we are discussing than it might otherwise be.
Brandon Lewis
The clause has the effect of allowing the Secretary of State to grant development consent for housing that is related to a nationally significant infrastructure project. We think it is important that we change things for national infrastructure projects so that there is an ability to have related housing linked in. I will answer the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich more directly in a moment. I appreciate that he has asked probing questions, and I am glad that he and the hon. Member for City of Durham made those points because, despite all that Opposition Members say about wanting more housing, at every stage of the Bill, they seem to making arguments against anything that will deliver more housing.
The Planning Act 2008 does not permit any consent for housing. That means that, when a developer wants to include housing as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project, they must make a separate application for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That is inefficient, because obtaining separate consent under a separate regime adds time and cost to developers.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made a point about community influence. It might be worth his looking at how the national infrastructure planning framework actually works, because, in that, local communities have a say in any proposals for their area. The applicants are required to engage with and consult local communities from the outset. Local authorities have a role in assessing the adequacy of that consultation. I go further, in that clause 107 amends section 115 of the Planning Act 2008, to add “related housing development” to the types of development for which the Secretary of State can grant development consent. Related housing development is defined in the amended section 115. I am happy to be clear on the Floor of the Committee that it is about related housing development.
The notes to which the hon. Lady the Member for the City of Durham referred use the word “includes”, so they are not exhaustive, but just a few examples. If enacted, the clause will allow development consent to be granted for housing where it is on the same site or close to a nationally significant infrastructure project or is otherwise associated with it. I refer hon. Members back to my quote from a few moments ago.
We propose to set out in more detail matters, such as the maximum amount of housing that may be consented, the location of housing and how applications that include housing will be assessed, in guidance. The clause itself requires the Secretary of State to take account of any matters set out in guidance when deciding an application for development consent. This reform will improve the nationally significant infrastructure planning process, by creating the opportunity for developers—bearing in mind that, on average, there are only 15 applications a year—to benefit from a more efficient process for these kinds of applications for housing that is relevant, appropriate or related to an national infrastructure project.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I rise to emphasise to the Committee the point I made at the beginning of our discussion on the clause. To be clear, we are not objecting to the principle of having housing attached to large-scale infrastructure projects. We simply wanted to question the Minister on some of the details of the guidance. In scrutinising the Bill, it is important that we ask questions about whether the scheme will work in practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 107 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 108
Designation of urban development areas: procedure
Brandon Lewis
I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 108, page 51, line 16, after “subsection (1)” insert
“in relation to land in England”.
This amendment would state that the consultation requirement inserted into section 134 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by clause 108(2) would only apply in relation to an order creating an urban development area in England.
Brandon Lewis
Amendments 183 and 184 make it clear that the duty to consult when designating land as an urban development area or establishing an urban development corporation will apply in England only, as planning policy in this respect is devolved. These are minor, technical amendments.
Amendment 183 agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 109
Establishment of urban development corporations: procedure
Amendment made: 184, in clause 109, page 52, line 2, after “section” insert
“in relation to an urban development area in England”.—(Brandon Lewis.)
This amendment would state that the consultation requirement inserted into section 135 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by clause 109(2) would only apply in relation to an order establishing a corporation for an urban development area in England.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 236, in clause 109, page 52, line 24, at end insert—
“(4) Section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 [objects and general powers] is amended as follows.
(5) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) Corporations under this Act must contribute the long-term sustainable development and place making of the new community.
(2B) Under this Act sustainable development and place making means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs and in achieving sustainable development and place making, development corporations should—
(a) positively identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;
(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;
(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;
(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;
(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(f) positively promote high quality and inclusive design;
(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and
(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.’
(6) Section 4 of the New Towns Act 1981 [The objects and general powers of Development Corporations] is amended as follows.
(7) For subsection (1) substitute—
‘(1) The objects of a development corporation established for the purpose of a new town or Garden City shall be to secure the physical laying out of infrastructure and the long-term sustainable development and place making of the new community.
(1A) Under this Act sustainable development and place making means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs and in achieving sustainable development, development corporations should—
(a) positively identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;
(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;
(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;
(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;
(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(f) positively promote high quality and inclusive design;
(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and
(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.’”
This amendment would insert place-making objectives for both UDC’s in Local Government Act 1980 and for New Town Development Corporations in the New Towns Act 1981 and sets out a high quality purpose for making the development of scale growth.
The clause relates to the procedure for establishing urban development corporations. The purpose of amendment 236 is to try to ensure that if new developments are established under this regime, they conform, at least to a degree, to garden city principles. I am sure that I do not need to remind Committee members about this. I am sure that they all follow matters to do with setting up new towns and garden cities with as much fascination as I do. The Government put through a new garden city under an urban development corporation last year.
Opposition Members’ concern about the procedure relates to the fact that although urban development corporations can deliver new housing and even some associated infrastructure, in their current form they most certainly do not deliver garden cities, because they are not underpinned by garden city principles. The purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that they are—that they contribute in that way. In particular, the amendment, as opposed to some of the measures that we discussed earlier in our proceedings, focuses on sustainable development and ensuring that the new housing developments are sustainable for the future. They would have built into them, for example, provision to ensure that they contributed to
“the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community”.
They would
“protect and enhance the natural and historic environment”.
They would also—I am quite concerned that this is missing from the Bill at present—have to
“contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008”.
They would have to
“promote high quality and inclusive design”.
They would have to ensure that decision making was
“open, transparent, participative and accountable”
and that assets were managed for the
“long-term interest of the community.”
The amendment is also designed to ensure that local people are very much involved in the setting up of a new town or garden city and with the infrastructure and the area’s long-term development.
This approach has been helpfully outlined for the whole Committee by the Town and Country Planning Association. In fact, the manifesto that it recently launched in Parliament directly addresses this clause and the amendment to it. Basically, it argues that planning in this country needs to be much more people centred and to get back to some of its roots. It points out that Planning4People is a coalition of organisations and individuals who share a common belief in the value of place making to achieve a just and sustainable future. Together, they are determined to ensure that planning shapes the kind of places that this nation deserves. Planning must change so that it is genuinely focused on people’s needs. Our objective is to bring about the rebirth of the creative, social town planning, which did so much to lay the foundations of a civilised Britain—
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
For the record, can the hon. Lady dissociate herself from the comments of the witness from the Town and Country Planning Association? The TCPA compared the Government’s very sensible legislation to racially motivated zoning, which was struck down by the US Supreme Court. That was effectively nonsense on stilts.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The point I remember the TCPA representative making—which is an issue that perhaps the Minister will want to deal with today—was that the Government appeared to be trying to put together the American zonal system of planning with our local plan-making system and that those two things do not sit very well together, and perhaps we should have one system or the other. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have missed something else, because I was focusing on the difficulties that would be caused by having the two systems together.
Mr Jackson
I do not want to try your patience, Mr Gray, but the hon. Lady is praying in aid the evidence of the TCPA. I raised the point that that evidence was very contentious. It made a number of assertions about the Bill from which I invited the hon. Lady to distance herself.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Perhaps I should clarify for the hon. Gentleman that the evidence to which I am referring at the moment was put together by a whole range of different organisations, which go under the umbrella of Planning4People. This group said that they are trying to get back to an idea of town planning that did so much to lay the foundation of a civilised Britain, using democratic planning to put people at the heart of the process. This is relevant to the amendment because this group of planners are guided by a very powerful definition of sustainable development, which emphasises social justice as a key outcome. They also say that they want a real concentration on building places that are sustainable for future generations, not only to live in but to live decent lives in. They go on, very helpfully, to outline for us what some of those places would look like.
This means that there would be a concern to reduce inequalities of income and of access to education and health, and to promote places where individuals and communities can achieve lasting levels of happiness and wellbeing. I thought that Conservative Members could get behind this particular idea underpinning planning and, indeed, that they would relish getting behind a planning system that seeks to put the achievement of happiness and wellbeing at its heart. I am sure that we would all like our planning system to deliver that.
Planning4People is asking for a new legal duty in planning legislation that would ensure that planning is based on outcomes. It stresses in particular how sustainable development will be achieved, with the requirement to reduce social inequality, give councils back powers over permitted development and so on. That is what this amendment would do. I draw that particular publication to the attention of hon. Members, because I think that it sets out very clearly for us a context in which perhaps I can persuade the Minister that, in introducing urban development corporations, he will ensure that they are underpinned by some of the garden city principles that we want to see.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned wellbeing, which made me recall a speech by the Prime Minister—I pay huge attention to his speeches—in which he talked about wellbeing. He said:
“I am excited about this, because it’s one of those things you talk about in opposition, and say that this is something we ought to try and measure, get right, and understand”.
Does she agree that the Prime Minister is spot on in trying to ensure that wellbeing is at the front of Government policy?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Well, is not that interesting? We obviously have a convert to the cause in the Prime Minister, who will clearly join us in our efforts to get the pursuit of happiness built into the planning system. Let us hope he will send a quick text to the Minister so that we can get agreement on the amendment, because an excellent outcome to our deliberations would be to ensure that we got a planning system with some vision for the future built around sustainability principles, with wellbeing at its centre.
The amendment specifically asks the Minister to ensure that: urban development corporations have land value capture attached to them; there is community ownership of land and long-term stewardship of assets; there are mixed tenure homes affordable for ordinary people; there is a strong local jobs offer in the garden city; and there is high-quality, imaginative design and generous green space, linked to a wider natural environment, including a mix of public and private networks of well managed, high-quality gardens, tree-lined streets and open spaces.
The Opposition think it is extremely good that Ebbsfleet is being put forward as a garden city. The Labour party thought about that and put down the foundations for it about a decade ago. It is great to see that coming to fruition, but calling something a garden city does not make it a garden city. If it is going to be a garden city, it has to have high-quality gardens, tree-lined streets and open spaces, as well as
“opportunities for residents to grow their own food, including generous allotments”,
a strong cultural offer, and
“recreational and shopping facilities in walkable neighbourhoods”.
I do not think that we have touched on this so far in our deliberations, but if we are to produce and build truly sustainable communities, we have to think about how we encourage people to walk or cycle, or how we connect them through good, publicly accessible transport systems.
We need built into the legislation the principles of what will make up a garden city such as Ebbsfleet or any future developments that will come under UDCs. Otherwise, I am not sure—the Minister might know another way—how it will deliver a garden city as opposed to a UDC that will simply deliver new homes. Those new homes are very welcome—we are not against them—but we are concerned about the fact that there is nothing to ensure that a garden city emerges in any way at all.
The Minister seems to think I do not get out enough, so I just want to reassure him that I do sometimes go to see new developments and I did go to see Ebbsfleet. The developers are very keen to have good infrastructure underpinning that development. However, the urban development corporation that underpins Ebbsfleet does not require them to do any of this. That does not seem satisfactory. It is called a garden city, yet there is nothing that makes it a garden city.
If I have missed something in what the Minister is bringing forward for these new development corporations, I apologise and he can correct me, but as I read what is in clauses 109 and 110, I cannot see anything that aims to put into the Bill that these urban development corporations must address issues of sustainability. We want, for example, to see really good-quality houses built, but we also want to see zero-carbon homes. That is what was meant—I quote the Government expressly—when they said their aim for Ebbsfleet and garden cities generally was to provide
“high quality, attractive and sustainably constructed housing”.
How can the Minister be sure that that will be achieved without having something in the Bill about how these development corporations must address issues of sustainability?
Opposition Members feel strongly about this issue. We have argued long and hard for a new generation of garden cities. Many organisations, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, have written to the Minister and to the Committee urging them to take on board what is in the amendment and to put more in the Bill so that we can ensure that we have the sort of development we want to see—an attractive environment with workable housing and social facilities, an amazing, visionary new place to live, an amazing regeneration of an area that we can all be proud of.
Matthew Pennycook
I support the amendment. We all welcome development and new homes, but I strongly agree that garden cities and corporations, when they are bringing development forward, need to put sustainability and place making at the heart of their plans. That has a particular resonance with something that I am very passionate about, which is climate change and energy efficiency.
New subsection (2B)(e) would ensure that, in building new homes, UDCs would have to ensure that those homes and that development
“contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008”.
We know that homes are central to the UK meeting its climate change targets and that meeting our EU obligations of 15% renewables by 2020 looks ever more precarious; a leaked letter from the Secretary of State only a few weeks back showed that. Homes have a crucial role to play.
The context at the moment for delivering sustainable homes is not great. The Government have scrapped the zero-carbon homes policy that was starting to bear fruit in many areas. The London Mayor has taken a different view and sought to put some of the provisions of that policy back in place through the London plan, and I welcome that. The context for bringing forward environmentally sustainable, high-quality homes has become more precarious and the amendment would go some way, in relation to UDCs, to making sure that sustainable homes are at the heart of what is built. That is important.
It goes back to the debate we had earlier. The hon. Members for Peterborough and for South Norfolk, and others, bemoaned the socialist architecture of the 1950s—I would call it brutalist, though they may not draw such a distinction—when homes and places for people to live were built that have not fared well over the decades. We have an obligation because the cost of retrofitting homes that fall below environmentally sustainable standards far outweighs that of the measures we need to put in place. We want to build homes that last for generations and are fit for people to live in. For that reason I support the amendment.
Helen Hayes
I, too, want to speak briefly in support of the amendment. However the planning system is defined, it embodies a set of values and prioritises a series of outcomes. Garden cities of the past were so successful as communities, function so well and are such popular places to live in precisely because of the high aspirations and strong values on which they were founded and the extensive efforts to secure high-quality design and the long-term sustainability of the resourcing of those communities, in all sorts of different ways. That happened because their founders were thinking about long-term success and the values of the communities that they were developing and because they were established on strong principles.
In contrast, some of the early urban development corporations did not embody those same aspirations. The development that took place was, in many cases, far less attractive as a consequence and far less well served with open spaces and amenities. It was often unsustainable or lacking in things such as local school places and good public transport connections. Some of those lessons from the early urban development corporations have informed the way in which development has taken place in the last 10 years or so. We have seen an emphasis on bringing forward community infrastructure early in the development process, so that communities are not left stranded and ill-provided for.
So far, I have seen nothing in the Bill that will ensure that new development under the Bill will be built to a high quality or high standard of sustainability. That is of significant concern. That is what the amendment is seeking to ensure both for urban development corporations and garden cities, which can and should play a significant role in building the homes we need. We must ensure that those homes are built to the highest standards for the long term, that they become part of the heritage of this country and of communities we can be proud of for the long term. We will do that only if we get right the values and the aspirations on which they are founded. That is why I am pleased to support the amendment.
Peter Dowd
I, too, support the amendment. It is partly because of my experience of being raised in an urban area where, post-war, many houses, and communities, were knocked down. Those communities were not fantastic all the time, but at their heart they had a community spirit. There was a genuine attempt in the post-war environment to expand and continue with that spirit, which was often difficult to do. Part of that was to ensure that when people left the slums—there should be no beating about the bush, because that is what they were; it was slum clearance—they went to an environment where houses were designed as best they could be and for the best reasons. However, there is a danger in the current proposals that there is a push, a push and a push for growth. Although there is nothing wrong with that, the quality of the housing that arises from that push can get lost in the race. This is an attempt to lay out a protocol for building.
In Merseyside, the village of Port Sunlight, which many people may have been to, was built by Lord Lever. It is a perfect example of a garden city that, to this day, looks virtually no different from the way it did 100 years ago. It is a fantastic place. Many other places in Liverpool have smaller versions of that, such as Norris Green, which won awards in the 1920s and 1930s for the design of its buildings. There is nothing to stop us supporting this proposal and to reify—to put into clear, unambiguous terms—what we expect from some of the garden city developments.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Once again, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We often forget that we are talking about planning places that we hope will exist for generations to come. We want to be proud of the quality of the new developments and it behoves all of us, including the Minister, to ensure that garden city principles underpin the new developments.
Peter Dowd
I fully recognise those aims. Not far from where I live, the Criddle’s Estate was developed by a well-known socialist in our neck of the woods. It remains a beacon to the way developments can occur, if you get things right. The houses are solid, well sought after and an integral part of the community. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to make sure that, when we build garden cities, or developments that are not garden cities, we set out the principle clearly for everyone to see.
The amendment is perfectly reasonable. It sets out a framework for future development and I hope the Minister, even if he does not agree with it completely, understands and accepts the principle on which it is based.
Brandon Lewis
I wholeheartedly agree that, where statutory delivery vehicles such as urban development corporations or new town development corporations are created, high-quality, sustainable place making should be absolutely at the heart of what they do. As we are having a clause stand part debate, let me pick up on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who made a very good point about the inflammatory nature of some of the remarks of the TCPA. They were not only inflammatory, but ill-advised, and they discredited that organisation. I do not intend to give it the credibility of commenting on the remarks any further.
The hon. Member for City of Durham and I worked together in the previous Parliament, cross party, to get the urban development corporations set up. I thanked her colleagues at the time—the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds)—for their work in taking that forward and for showing how we can work together. We all want Ebbsfleet to develop appropriately. The establishment of the Ebbsfleet development corporation highlighted that the process itself needed updating, especially in the light of the more familiar practice of consultation. At the time, I said to our friends in the other place that we would come forward with this legislation as soon as we could to rectify the situation. That is where we are coming from.
In a more general sense in response to some of the comments we have heard this afternoon, while agreeing with the ethos of wanting high-quality development and communities to be delivered, we can see the difference between where the Opposition and the Government stand. For example, because of the way in which the proposal is drafted, it could slow down development in and of itself, as well as not providing good-quality outcomes. That is because it so focused on a process of having to tick the boxes for A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H in order to qualify. We will find developers ticking those boxes rather than looking at what the right outcome is and working with the local community. I have some understanding of and sympathy with Opposition Members, who are very determined to ensure that they are planning well for people. The difference between us is that I believe that planning should be done by local people for local people and that it should not be done to them. We have to be very clear that we trust local people. I will comment on that in a moment.
Brandon Lewis
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the national planning policy framework. It is only 50 pages long, and I am sure that it will entertain him this evening. I suggest that he looks at how local plans work, how neighbourhood plans work, and at consultation more generally. Even the corporations will come from local areas. On garden cities, towns and settlements and new settlements more generally, I am very keen, as are the Government, to work with various developers, but they will come from the area. There will not be the top-down, failed approach of the past.
Sustainable development in itself is hardwired into the planning system. It is absolutely central to the national planning policy framework, and rightly so. The framework provides a clear view of what sustainable development means in practice. It is explicit that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to achieving sustainable development, and that three pillars are key: the environment, society and the economy. They are mutually dependent and cannot and should not be pursued in isolation. We do not need a separate, statutory, tick-box requirement around sustainable development that applies only in a case where an urban development corporation or new town development corporation has been created. It would be quite unhelpful and distorting to have a separate definition of sustainable development outlined that applies only to them.
Nor do I think that we should limit local flexibility. Where local areas decide that an urban development corporation or new town development corporation is the best way to deliver regeneration or, indeed, a new town or settlement, rather than ticking their way through that long list of objectives, they should have the freedom to create strong, sustainable communities in a way that best reflects their local circumstances. It is they who best know their local needs, not us sitting here in Whitehall.
Great place making in and of itself is secured not through detailed central prescription, but through good, strong, clear and transparent local leadership. That applies whether or not the development is led by an urban development corporation, such as in Ebbsfleet. A master plan has been worked through for Ebbsfleet that makes it very clear that the ambition is to see the development of garden city principles. I saw that just yesterday when I went to announce the new Didcot garden town development, which is looking for innovation as well as good-quality development.
We see that where settlements are being developed in areas right around our country, from Northamptonshire right the way through to the south-west and Hampshire. Indeed, we only have to look at the well known example of north-west Bicester, where 6,000-odd high-quality homes are being developed to zero-carbon standards. That is being done without central prescription, highlighting that local areas can be trusted to do the right thing and get the right quality for their local community. The local authority itself or the local development corporation when it is set up can deliver that, and should be empowered to do so without those strictures being put on them by central Government. I hope that that provides the hon. Lady with sufficient confidence to withdraw her amendment.
Helen Hayes
Will the Minister clarify whether the homes in Bicester that are being delivered to the zero-carbon homes standard were consented to and the process of their delivery begun prior to the abolition of the zero-carbon homes standard?
Brandon Lewis
There has not been a zero-carbon homes standard, and we have decided not to go forward with it. They are continuing it in Bicester anyway, and are in fact going to some quite interesting lengths. I say to the hon. Lady that, when I last visited Bicester, I was shown a really ambitious programme to develop a really sustainable community. In one area, the homes that are being built are provided with electric chargers for the cars, and the developer working with the local authority has negotiated with local car dealers to lend the new home buyers an electric car for a couple of weeks to show them how practical they are and how well they work in order to encourage electric cars. That is locally decided, not working to a tick-box from central Government. That is why it is right that local areas are empowered to do those things. More importantly, we should trust local people to do what is right for them. Time and again when we trust local people, they prove that they get it right. I am happy to continue supporting that, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister’s response is entirely what I expected, unfortunately. The amendment seeks to provide a set of principles that can be attached to urban development corporations. Those principles are not prescriptive. Indeed, if an urban development corporation is not contributing to an area’s sustainable economic development, is not contributing to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of a community, is not protecting and enhancing the natural and historical environment, is not contributing to mitigation and adaptation to climate change, is not promoting high-quality and inclusive design, is not ensuring that decision making is open, transparent, participative and accountable, and is not ensuring that assets are managed in a community’s long-term interest, what exactly is it doing? Those are all things that we would expect to see from any new development. I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response and, on that basis, I will press amendment 236 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I beg to move amendment 246, in clause 11, page 52, line 32, after “survey” insert “or value”.
This amendment ensures that the right of entry in clause 111 may be exercised to value land as well as to survey it.
Mr Jones
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Before I get into the detail of the amendments, it may be helpful if I provide a little background on the measure to which they relate: the right to enter and survey land. Any acquiring authority may need to enter land to survey it before deciding whether to proceed with a compulsory purchase order. For example, an acquiring authority may need to find out whether there are any underground structures or contamination that may hamper a proposed scheme. Currently, most, but not all, acquiring authorities have that power of entry, but there is no logical reason for that difference in powers.
Mr Thomas
I am minded to support the Government amendments, particularly as it is the hon. Gentleman moving them rather than the Minister for Housing and Planning, but will he set out why he thinks they are needed? Compulsory purchase powers have existed for a long time, and I am not aware of a huge problem in terms of access in order to survey land. Why is it a problem now?
Mr Jones
I do not know what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has done to upset the hon. Gentleman. The reason we are introducing the provisions is to put all authorities on a level playing field when undertaking or exercising the right to compulsory purchase. At the moment, the rights that we are discussing can be exercised by local authorities, the Homes and Communities Agency and urban development corporations, but there are organisations, such as NHS trusts and Natural England, and certain Ministers within the Government, who do not have the same powers, so we have sought to extend them to ensure that the situation is consistent.
Peter Dowd
At the moment, to the best of my knowledge, those authorities tend to be, as the Minister has identified, effectively public authorities, such as Ministers, the NHS and so on. Can we have clarity as to whether the powers will extend that authority status to private authorities?
Mr Jones
There are circumstances in which that could be the case, but it would generally be where a local authority or another public body exercises its compulsory purchase powers before using a private organisation, for example, as a delivery vehicle for the proposed scheme. A town centre scheme is probably a good example. On that basis, I believe that I have answered the Opposition’s questions so far, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 246 agreed to.
Amendments made: 247, in clause 111, page 52, line 32, leave out “compulsorily”.
This amendment ensures that the right of entry in clause 111 may be exercised prior to acquiring land by agreement as well as compulsorily.
Amendment 248, in clause 111, page 52, line 35, after “survey” insert “or value”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 281, in clause 111, page 52, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) may do so when an existing planning permission has expired”.
This amendment would ensure that compulsory purchase order powers exist where planning permission has expired.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 282, in clause 111, page 52, line 37, at end insert—
“(d) may do so when development has failed to commence”.
This amendment would ensure that compulsory purchase order powers exist where development has failed to commence.
Amendment 283, in clause 111, page 52, line 37, at end insert—
“(e) may do so where an empty dwelling exists”.
This amendment would ensure there are strong compulsory purchase powers to tackle empty homes.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Before I speak to amendment 281, I think it is worth putting on the record that, once again, we are very pleased that the Government have looked in detail at the recommendations of the Lyons review and have brought forward more of the measures that were recommended in that excellent document, although we think there could be a bit of tweaking to improve matters further—that is the premise of amendments 281, 282 and 283. These are designed to ensure that the process of compulsory purchase orders is expedited and prioritises the ability for land to be used in order to build more homes, which both sides of the Committee have agreed we very much want.
In its evidence to the Committee, Milton Keynes Council called for the proposed reforms to go further and to include a default position that all decisions on confirmation of a compulsory purchase order are delegated to the acquiring authority; a more fundamental consolidation and streamlining of the legislative provisions for compulsory purchase; and stronger compulsory purchase powers where planning permissions have expired and development has not commenced. Hon. Members who have looked at the Lyons review in detail will know that we spent a great deal of time looking at what happens when planning approval has expired, when there does not seem to be any building on the site or when building on the site has stalled for no obvious reason, and when the council does not appear to be able to do very much to move that development on. Milton Keynes and other councils have argued for stronger powers where planning permissions have expired and, in particular, where development has not commenced and does not look as if it will commence in the near future.
They have also asked for stronger compulsory purchase powers to tackle empty homes. What I have done—I hope it is in order, Mr Gray—is to put the three amendments together and I will speak on that basis. We also want stronger powers for councils to direct the use of publicly owned land. As I said, Milton Keynes Council is not alone in calling for the legislation to be strengthened. The Local Government Association has also been a leading voice in calling for the process to be streamlined. It has given a lot of evidence to the Committee suggesting that and I draw the attention of Members to its briefings on the subject. They give a lot of background detail about why the LGA wants the sorts of measures outlined in the three amendments to be adopted by the Government so as to speed up the process of compulsory purchase orders.
Amendments 281 and 282 would ensure that compulsory purchase orders are made faster and fairer by inserting specific instances that could provide that ease. The Government said in the October consultation that they want to streamline the process and make it more transparent. We believe that the amendments provide for that. They would strengthen compulsory purchase powers where planning permission has expired. That would be used as a measure of last resort, and with appropriate safeguards, to allow councils to tackle sites that have had planning permission for a long time but that have not been built out.
The entire notion of compulsory purchase orders is to make sure that land that is not being used can be put to use to benefit the community. Where planning permission is granted and subsequently expires without development having begun, why is there not the ability to take stronger action to ensure that development takes place on the site? It might be worth the Minister considering the suggestion in the Lyons review that land with planning permission that has not been built out within five years should be put up for auction if a new application for planning permission does not seem to be forthcoming. How does the local authority get access to that land in order to ensure that development takes place? That is an extremely important issue in trying to get more land into the system and in trying to ensure that the land that is already in the system, and that has been identified and given planning permission for housing, is brought forward.
If we want to overcome the housing crisis through a more efficient and effective planning process, one way for that to happen is to ensure that, in the circumstances I have outlined, compulsory purchase orders can not only be made but be made fairly easily. We have part 7 of the Bill because there is agreement on both sides of the Committee that the process needs to be streamlined. The view of councils and local authorities, which are often at the hard end of needing to get land developed, is that the proposals need to go a bit further.
Similarly, amendment 283 would ensure that compulsory purchase orders are able to support local authorities to bring empty homes back into use—the amendment would enable local authorities to refurbish such properties and bring them back into a habitable state. To put that in context, Government tables show that, in October 2014, there were 610,000 vacant homes in England alone, which is a very high number. A small number of those homes, only 25,000 or so, were owned by the local authority. If we compare the number of homes that local authorities can do something about at the moment—around 20,000 or 25,000—with the massive 610,000 vacant properties that are out there, it clearly shows that something needs to happen to bring those homes into use, and to bring them into use more quickly.
In its response to the consultation on improving the compulsory purchase process, the LGA pointed out that there is a lot to be gained from supporting councils to bring empty homes back into use:
“Local authorities could…recoup their investment through rental income over the set time period, and even acquire nomination rights, returning the properties back to their owners at the end of the lease.”
Moreover, there is something to be gained within the wider community by supporting councils to address empty homes. Long-term empty homes tend to have a negative impact on surrounding homes and areas. Although addressing empty homes will not provide a solution to the need for new homes, it is part of the solution. Both sides of the Committee agree that we need a multi-tenure approach and that we have to get more homes into the system through a range of measures. It is therefore incumbent on all of us that we do not forget how empty homes could provide part of the solution. We recognise that empty homes are only part of the solution, but they are an important part of making the best use of the stock that already exists.
It is also important to allow, and perhaps enable, councils to show that they are actively engaged in finding practical solutions to housing problems in their area. I am sure we have all had local people say to us, “With so many families on the housing waiting list and so many homeless families, why aren’t those houses that are lying empty brought back into use?” Of course, the reality, as we know, is that it is often very difficult for local authorities to find out who owns a property or what state the ownership is in. They have to go down a very lengthy and costly compulsory purchase order route that is often challenged at later stages in the legal process.
Peter Dowd
I think that what I am about to say is a little counter-intuitive, but I suspect that it is based on the principle of more haste, less speed, in relation to this matter. May I say for the record that I am a Shostakovich man and not a Duran Duran man?
This clause raises more questions than it answers, and that is more about what is in it than what is not in it. Many organisations are perplexed at the lost opportunity in relation to CPOs. I think that many rural communities will be concerned, and I will come on to that point later.
One organisation that has concerns is the Country Land and Business Association. It wrote a document in 2012—it may have been updated, but I do not think it has been—called “Fair Play”. The association, which comprises 34,000 members, owns and manages half the rural land in England and Wales; there are 250 different types of businesses involved with it and they have concerns about CPOs and the process in general. They are right, because they tend to be on the receiving end of CPOs, whether from the utilities, local authorities or public bodies in the form of schools or hospitals and so on. Of course, they also have concerns about private development on their land, and compulsory purchase arising from that.
Developments in and legislation on compulsory purchase have been incredibly piecemeal over the past century and that is the context in which this debate is set. That has happened not just under Conservative Governments or Labour Governments, but under every Government. Whether the major change in development is progressive or not—I will not get into that argument—and whether it is centralising or localising, it is important for the Minister to consider some of those issues.
The CLA talked about a
“significant impact on people, their lives and their aspirations”
and I want to touch on rural areas. HS2 is a particular concern for them. It is an example where CPOs are seen as a blunt, aggressive and overbearing instrument of “state oppression”.
In light of what is a significant—groundbreaking, if the Committee will excuse the pun on house building—change to the law, there are issues of duty of care, which are addressed to some extent in the amendments. If the provisions are the way forward for planning and a longer- term economic plan, whether that plan is A, B or C, and are setting the scene for planning for growth, they must also take into account the economic impact on those who are directly and indirectly affected by CPOs.
The issues that arise include asking, what about a statutory code of practice on CPOs? What about an independent person to oversee the process? That is the counter-intuitive bit. It seems that that would take longer than the current arrangement, but many organisations take the view that such a process, with the elements of independence and a code of practice, would speed the process up. That is something that should be considered carefully because we all accept that we must get on with house building.
Blight is another issue. A classic example that has affected many Members is HS2. Statutory blight kicks in only once a scheme has been confirmed and safeguarded in the planning process. Something needs to be done about that. If the Government are taking a central role in major infrastructure projects, they should ensure that central protection is in place for small businesses, farmers, rural enterprises and the like. It is crucial that if the dead hand of Whitehall is to be involved in the process—vicariously, I accept, via the Minister to someone else—there should be protections.
I wanted to touch on a historical issue, the so-called Crichel Down affair, which I suspect many Conservative Members are well aware of. I do not raise it to cause any concern to the Minister: Sir Thomas Dugdale had to resign over the matter, which involved the sale of agricultural land to the military, and then back for agricultural use, and caused trauma to the people involved. I raise it because the Crichel Down guidelines arising from it must be considered carefully. They are, effectively, voluntary, and we need to tighten them up and possibly put them on a statutory basis, instead of extending a century’s piecemeal creep of CPOs. The Minister might want to consider that, otherwise it is a lost opportunity to protect, psychologically and financially, people who are affected by significantly different proposals in the planning process. It is important that that point is picked up.
Another issue we must pick up on is the reconsideration of lost payments. Forcing a sale—some call it legal sequestration; call it what you will—demands a transparent process that exudes fairness. A possible payment over and over the value of land may be important where uncompensated losses are concerned. The key is that that arguably saves time, with all the haggling that goes on in relation to land values, so it is something that could be considered. Other issues to consider include a tight advance payment process, timing notices, the amount of land required, interest on payments, and the water industry serving notice to enter land without prior negotiation, which rubs people up the wrong way.
The Government have an opportunity to give careful consideration to the issues related to CPO, and to be slightly bolder in taking the matter forward. That would be to the benefit of everyone, and it would be in the long-tried British tradition of being fair and reasonable in the process. In that regard, we need protections that assure landowners—small or large—that the Government only use land that they need, rather than land that they want.
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham helpfully clarify the important need for action in relation to CPOs, where the empty home blights not just the homeowner but the whole area. When we compensate, we should expect those who own the property to co-operate with the compulsory purchase as soon as is practically possible.
Finally, the Country Land and Business Association gives some heart-rending examples of people affected by CPOs that are not carried out right, fairly and reasonably:
“A Welsh sheep farmer, who had a substantial proportion of his holding acquired, had to rent additional land on which to graze his stock. His agent submitted and agreed the farmer’s claim with the district valuer and vigorously chased the acquirer for payment. Four years of non-payment followed with spurious excuses such as ‘the girl who writes the cheques is on holiday’. The acquirer also claimed to have lost the paperwork submitted by the claimant. The saga ended tragically when the bank foreclosed on him and he took his own life.”
The responsibility of the Committee is to ensure that fairness and reasonabless—the British way—prevails, especially when people’s property is being taken away. We also need to do that as expeditiously as possible, and we have the opportunity to do so. I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to my points.
The Chair
Order. Before I call the next speaker, it is perhaps worth pointing out that I have been fairly relaxed about allowing people to cover the whole subject of compulsory purchase and I therefore suggest that we do not have stand part debate later.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to you, Mr Gray, for allowing me to catch your eye.
In April 2015 a series of Conservative MPs came to the constituency of Harrow West to support unsuccessfully their candidate. As they were leaving, some of them may well have paused for a cup of coffee at Harrow-on-the-Hill station—there is a very nice coffee shop there. Just around the corner, however, stands the former post office site, lying empty, as it has done for some 10 years. Why do I raise that? It is partly to begin to make clear the reason for my support for amendments 282 and 283. Both my hon. Friends have explained the need to accelerate situations in which a planning application or development has stalled and local authorities or developers might want access to information about the value of a site, what is on it and how it might be developed in future.
In the context of the former Harrow post office site, there is an additional complication. It is located next to the Metropolitan railway line. Indeed, it is very close to Harrow-on-the-Hill station, which suffers from the lack of a lift, making access extremely difficult. There has long been talk of a new access point through the former Harrow post office site to the Harrow-on-the-Hill station platforms. With the benefit of amendment 282, it might be easier for local planning officers, developers and even Transport for London surveyors to access the former post office site to examine what potential it might have for new access and a new position for the main parts of Harrow-on-the-Hill station.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Has he not just given a brilliant example of what we are discussing? Having better compulsory purchase powers would enable local authorities to unlock a necessary development for his constituents of the sort that we have all been talking about.
Mr Thomas
That is generous of my hon. Friend. It is a particular concern of my constituents, given the huge cuts to Transport for London grant, which might mean that access programmes that exist for other stations are cut, putting even further away the prospect of better access at Harrow-on-the-Hill station. If there were a way to secure some planning gain from the development at the Harrow post office site that might be invested in better access and it might be another route to achieving the objective that my constituents have had for a long time now, under both Mayors of London, which is to make Harrow-on-the-Hill a fully accessible station. I hope that the Minister will be particularly attracted to amendment 282. In that spirit, I support my hon. Friend’s amendment.
Mr Jones
In replying to the hon. Member for City of Durham and Opposition Members, it may be helpful if I start by clarifying the purpose of clause 111. It does not confer any compulsory purchase powers on acquiring authorities; it merely allows acquiring authorities to enter land for survey or valuation purposes in connection with a proposal to acquire land. The intention behind the hon. Lady’s amendments therefore could not be delivered through the clause. In any case, the amendments are unnecessary. Local authorities already have the powers to acquire land by compulsion in the circumstances that the hon. Lady mentioned, provided there is a compelling case in the public interest and they have a deliverable scheme.
Also, to set the record straight, there are not currently 600,000 long-term empty properties. If the hon. Lady checks back and looks at the figures, 600,000 was the number of long-term empty properties under the last Labour Government. Under the guidance of my party in coalition and now in Government on our own, we have the lowest level of long-term vacant properties on record: 206,000. There is still significantly more to do, but we have put significant provisions in place to reduce the number of vacant properties, and the figures show that those provisions are working.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The figures—I did not actually say that they related to long-term vacant properties; I simply said they were empty—came from the Minister’s own Department in October 2014. The figures given by the Department state that there are 610,123 vacant homes. I am clear that that is the figure I was given.
Mr Jones
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I think she is putting up a false argument, because homes that are vacant in the short term are often let. That is obvious on the basis that the number of long-term vacant homes is a significantly lower number than the number of short-term vacant properties.
On the LGA, I can reassure the hon. Lady that Ministers meet it to discuss such matters regularly. On empty dwellings, local authorities can apply for empty dwelling management orders under the powers of the Housing Act 2004. That would be a far better vehicle than the amendment that she has tabled. In relation to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bootle about the process and clarity, in October we published updated guidance on the compulsory purchase process in a new format that has new user-friendly language to try and help people understand a very complex area of law.
Given the assurances that I have given to the hon. Lady, and on the basis that the intention of her amendment would not be achieved through the amendment, perhaps she will consider withdrawing it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I know that under clause 111 as drafted it would not be possible for acquiring authorities to have access to compulsory purchase orders, but that was why we tabled the amendment. If the amendment were agreed to, the clause would allow that, and that would speed up the process of dealing with empty properties. I just say to the Minister that if the system and the Bill were okay, and if local authorities were to be enabled to do all that they want to bring forward development in their area, with sufficient land available for that, and to tackle the scourge of empty properties, they would not have asked us all to think about amending the Bill. Will he have another look at the issue? Local authorities are saying, “We cannot do what we want to do for our areas through the Bill as it stands.” I ask, in as nice a way as possible, that he thinks about the matter again, and especially what can be done to bring empty properties back into use as quickly as possible. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112
Warrant authorising use of force to enter and survey land
Amendments made: 249, in clause 112, page 53, line 18, after “surveying” insert “or valuing”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 250, in clause 112, page 53, line 20, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr Gray. I rise in the context of one or two cases in which Hansard reports of proceedings have been used to help a judge to understand the motives behind measures, thus allowing them to make a judgment on a case before them. I also wish to ask the Minister a number of questions about this clause. When he introduced clauses 111 to 117, he described how several parts of government do not have the same opportunities as others to access, enter and survey land. If I remember his response to my intervention correctly, he referenced NHS trusts in particular, as well as one or two Departments. I wonder whether the situation is the same specifically with regard to clause 112, because it seems a little odd to include in the Bill a clause that authorises the use of force to enter and survey land. Will he set out examples of when NHS trusts or Departments have wanted or felt that they needed to use force, but had to back off because there is no provision in law to allow that, meaning that they either had not to go down the compulsory purchase order route, or had to find some other way of getting the information that they needed?
It would also be helpful if the Minister gave some examples of what is meant by “to use force”. Are we talking about guns or wire cutters? It would be helpful if he could give examples of local authorities that have said to him, “We need the ability to use force to enter and survey land because otherwise we won’t be able to go ahead with a whole series of compulsory purchase orders that have been set out.”
I worry that subsection (2) involves, once again, the word “reasonably” being written into law. That word that has all sorts of connotations for different people. The clause might create a lot of case law, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to set out his definition of “reasonably necessary” and therefore to limit the possibility of misunderstandings in court when a warrant is being challenged by a potential developer. I ask my questions in the spirit of gentle inquiry and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Mr Jones
We would expect most acquiring authorities exercising their compulsory purchase rights to reach agreement with owners and occupiers about entry to their land. Warrants are only for those cases when entry is refused or is likely to be refused. It is impossible to predict how many warrants will be sought, as that will depend on the number of compulsory purchase proposals that come forward, the number of affected owners and occupiers, and their reaction to each particular proposal. Just to give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, however, clause 112 makes it absolutely clear that while the warrant authorises the use of force, a justice of the peace, when deciding whether to issue a warrant, must be satisfied that the use of force is reasonable in the particular case, and the force that may be authorised is limited to what is reasonably necessary. In addition, all evidence in proceedings must be given under oath and the warrant must specify the number of times that entry will be allowed.
Mr Thomas
The Minister has helpfully detailed the context in which a warrant might be issued and specified that he expects that the vast majority of efforts to enter and survey land will not require a warrant in the first place. However, to come back to the nub of my earlier comments, why is the power necessary? Have the Minister’s civil servants had to field a series of requests from local authorities or developers for these powers?
Mr Jones
I have set out that the warrants will be used only when the landowner has an adverse reaction to a request to enter and survey or value land. It is clear that many acquiring authorities and landowners will come to arrangements themselves, but the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned of his own railway station is a prime example of when a scheme was being put forward but the landowner completely refused to allow the acquiring authority the right to come on to the land to survey and value it. I expect that he would want some sort of mechanism whereby that acquiring authority would be able to enter the land.
Mr Thomas
Does the Minister have fracking in mind? He shakes his head and looks pained—I recognise that that is a sensitive subject for Conservative Members—but does he envisage a warrant requiring the use of force being needed if protesters had barricaded themselves in, or if the person who owned the land did not want someone who had been given fracking consent to survey what may or may not be underneath the ground?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman has come up with many conspiracy theories during our scrutiny of the Bill and I suspect that this may well be another one. I have set out the reasoning behind clause 112 in detail and hope that hon. Members will agree to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114
Enhanced authorisation procedures etc. for certain surveys
Amendments made: 251, in clause 114, page 54, line 11, after “surveys” insert “or values”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 252, in clause 114, page 54, line 15, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 253, in clause 114, page 54, line 17, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 254, in clause 114, page 54, line 32, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 255, in clause 114, page 54, line 33, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 256, in clause 114, page 54, line 40, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 114, page 54, line 40, at end insert—
“(5) See section 169(4) of the Water Industry Act 1991 and section 171(4) of the Water Resources Act 1991 for additional procedures in relation to the exercise of the power in section 111 on behalf of a water undertaker, the Environment Agency or the Natural Resources Body for Wales.”
See Member’s explanatory statement for NC18.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 18—Amendments to do with section 111 to 117.
Government new schedule 3—Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments.
Mr Jones
Amendment 257, new clause 18 and new schedule 3 clarify how the new right of entry will interact with a number of existing powers of entry. As I have explained, the intention is that all acquiring authorities should, when possible, use the new general power of entry, so when the new general power covers all the purposes of an existing power of entry, that existing power will be repealed in its entirety. If the scope of the existing power is wider than that of the new general power, we will amend the existing power so that it no longer applies to the specific purposes for which the general power can be used.
Amendment 257 signposts additional procedures that relevant acquiring authorities must follow when exercising the right of entry under clause 111. Those additional procedures, as set out in the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991, require water undertakers, the Environment Agency and the Natural Resources Wales to seek the Secretary of State’s written authorisation before exercising the right to enter in certain circumstances. The amendment simply replicates an important safeguard in the existing power of entry.
New clause 18 introduces new schedule 3, which sets out the changes to each of the existing powers of entry. I will highlight one particular point. The existing powers of entry repealed by paragraphs 8, 9, 19, 20 and 27 of new schedule 3 allow entry in connection with any claim for compensation in respect of an acquisition. The new general power of entry in clause 111 does not cover that purpose. However, as such claims arise after a compulsory purchase order has been confirmed, paragraph 6 of new schedule 3 clarifies that acquiring authorities will be able to rely on the power of entry under section 11(3) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for that purpose.
Amendment 257 agreed to.
The Chair
Before we move on, I would like to comment on a small matter of protocol. On several occasions today, members of staff have come into the Strangers Gallery and handed documents and other things to members of the Committee. That is not in order—you may not do that. If you want to get something from members of staff, go outside into the corridor and do it there, if that is agreeable.
Clause 114, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115 and 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
Right to enter and survey Crown land
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Thomas
In the spirit of my contribution on clause 112, I want to ask some questions about clause 117. Why do we require a clause on the right to enter and survey Crown land? I struggle to understand why a warrant authorising the use of force might be necessary to enter and survey Crown land, so I would welcome the Minister’s setting out an example of why that might be necessary.
I also struggle to understand why somebody who is, presumably, employed by the Queen might be at risk of committing an offence under clause 116 in relation to entering and surveying Crown land. Why on earth do we need to include Crown land under the Bill? One assumes that, as a general rule, Her Majesty and those who exercise control of her lands would work with Government Departments and developers to allow them to enter and survey land. Even if those employed by Her Majesty did not co-operate, I struggle to understand why we would want to take action against staff employed to look after Crown land, or why the Minister thinks that a warrant authorising the use of force is necessary. Will the Minister set out in particular whether this measure covers Crown Estate land? Has he had any consultations with the Crown Estate itself about how clauses 111 to 116 apply to Crown Estate land under the terms of clause 117?
Mr Jones
I will respond quickly to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. Clause 117 explains that the new power of entry will be available in relation to Crown land—any land in which there is a Crown or a duchy interest, for example—but the permission of the appropriate Crown authority must be obtained first. That ensures that there is appropriate protection for Crown land. The measure is based on existing precedent. For instance, the power of entry set out in sections 53 and 54 of the Planning Act 2008 involves a similar provision in respect of Crown land.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
Confirmation by inspector
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 258, in clause 119, page 57, line 1, leave out from beginning to “is” in line 2 and insert—
“Where an inspector decides whether or not to confirm the whole or part of a compulsory purchase order, the inspector’s decision”.
This amendment would mean that an inspector’s decision whether or not to confirm the whole or part of a compulsory purchase order would be treated as a decision of the confirming authority. The current wording would mean that only a decision to confirm a compulsory purchase order would be treated as the authority’s decision.
Before I explain the amendment, it might be helpful if I provide a little background about the provision to which it relates—clause 119, on confirmation by an inspector. The purpose of the clause is to allow each Secretary of State with powers to confirm a compulsory purchase order to appoint an inspector to make the decision directly in suitable cases. That would speed up the decision-making process by removing the two-stage handling of the confirmation of an order, which is where an inspector makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who makes the decision.
An inspector may be appointed to act in relation to a specific order or a description of compulsory purchase orders. The Government intend to publish a policy on which orders are suitable for confirmation by an inspector after further engagement with stakeholders. The provision is, however, likely to be useful in cases that do not raise issues of more than local importance. In such cases, the Secretary of State often fully agrees with the inspector’s reasoning and decides the order in accordance with the inspector’s recommendation. Removing this double handling could shorten the process by up to 12 weeks.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 280, in clause 119, page 57, line 24, at end insert—
“(d) submitted to the acquiring authority”.
This amendment would include local authorities in the compulsory purchase order decision.
I would appreciate a bit of direction from the Chair, Mr Gray.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Thank you, Mr Gray. I wish to speak about amendment 280 and to make some wider comments about clause stand part, and I seek guidance as to whether I should do them both together.
The Chair
It might be simplest if the hon. Lady spoke about amendment 280 and made comments on clause stand part; we could then avoid having a separate debate later. Please range wider than the amendment would indicate.
Dr Blackman-Woods
That is very helpful. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Gray.
Amendment 280 aims further to include the local authority in planning decisions and asks for local authorities to be engaged with the compulsory purchase order decisions. It would add a useful element to the Bill for two main reasons.
First, it would ensure that local authorities have a strong and active role in the CPO decision. As we have highlighted throughout the Committee process, and it has been backed up time and again by those giving evidence, local authorities often have a much better knowledge of and insight into the needs and realities of a local area than central Government or, in this particular instance, a planning inspector.
That is obviously also true when it comes to planning decisions and putting local people at the heart of the planning process. It is important that local councillors in particular are involved in compulsory purchase. They are often in a very good position to bring about a collaborative approach, rather than one that is simply top-down, and can play a pivotal role in explaining to a local community and to the owners of the land why compulsory purchase is a sensible decision. We feel that this role for local authorities and their councillors in mediating some of the disputes that can arise from CPO decisions has been overlooked, or perhaps it has not been exploited enough by Government and those seeking to bring about compulsory purchase. It could also be an important element in speeding the process up, because that mediation that can be brought about locally could help to highlight some of the difficulties that exist.
Again, this amendment has come forward very strongly from the LGA, which says that it wants to be actively engaged in the process; it thinks that it could have a positive impact on decisions. The LGA has said that the consultation that the Government carried out before introducing the Bill proposed enabling powers to allow the Secretary of State to delegate decisions for confirmation to an inspector in certain instances, which is exactly what we are discussing in relation to clause 119.
Although that is a step in the right direction and should speed up decision making to a degree, we think that the Government should be even more ambitious. That is why we think that the requirement for permission from the Secretary of State to proceed with a compulsory purchase order should be removed, or at least that consideration should be given to removing it in certain circumstances, particularly where safeguards are in place and it is clearly set out in legislation that local authorities could be given that decision. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister when he responds to these points why he thinks that we should not do more to strengthen the role that local authorities could play in bringing about CPOs swiftly and ensuring that all parties are on board with the decision.
I have a few wider comments, which I will keep extremely brief. Again, the LGA, on the back of this clause and other related clauses, has said that it thinks that there could be a
“more fundamental consolidation and streamlining of the legislative provisions for compulsory purchase”.
In particular, it points out:
“A number of different Acts and statutory instruments introduced over more than 150 years pertaining to compulsory purchase have resulted in antiquated legal terminology, inconsistences and uncertainties, all of which add to the costs of the CPO process and the scope for dispute.”
That is an extremely interesting point. Although the clause contains some of the streamlining that we all want to speed up the CPO process and make it easier to understand and more transparent, we are probably seeing the need for consolidating legislation that would make it easier for everyone.
The LGA makes another important point:
“Land valuation should be considered by the tribunal up front, in cases where a compulsory purchase order is in contest, not at the end of the process, creating greater certainty”
for all parties. I would be grateful, when the Minister is responding to both the amendment and clause stand part, if he said more about what we can do to help local authorities. I point out to him that we have an incredibly complicated 10-stage process in place at the moment. Anything that we can do to streamline it would be helpful. It is clear from the many representations made to the Committee that giving local authorities a greater role would help streamline the process hugely. More than that, it would show that the Government have faith in local authorities to do the best for their area. We understand fully the need for safeguards in certain circumstances, but we would like the Government to extend localism to having some faith that local authorities know what is best for their communities, and allowing them a direct role in the compulsory purchase process.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her explanation of amendment 280 relating to clause 119(3), which substitutes for section 2(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 a new section 2(2) requiring a compulsory purchase order to be made by the acquiring authority and submitted to the confirming authority—the Secretary of State—for confirmation in accordance with part 2 of the 1981 Act. Amendment 280 would require the order to be submitted to the acquiring authority also. The amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate because the compulsory purchase order will have been made by the acquiring authority and submitted to the confirming authority. There is therefore no need or purpose for the order to be submitted back to the acquiring authority.
Section 2(2) of the 1981 Act is about the submission phase, not the decision phase. Part 2 of the 1981 Act concerns the decision phase. The compulsory purchase decision phase must comply with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which means that the decision on an order needs to be made by an independent and impartial tribunal. The current process, whereby the confirming authority makes its decision, after the affected parties have had the opportunity to make objections and have them heard by an inspector, ensures a fair and impartial process that is article 6 compliant. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will consider her proposal unnecessary and inappropriate. I invite her to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The LGA and the councils clearly feel strongly about the issue because they are asking for changes to be made. I hear what the Minister says about ensuring a degree of independent adjudication, and it would help if he could indicate whether he will keep talking to the LGA about how its concerns might be better addressed in the current system. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 119, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 120
Time limits for notice to treat or general vesting declaration
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 259, in clause 120, page 57, line 36, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.
This amendment, together with amendments 260, 261, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276 and 277, amends references to a general vesting declaration so that they are consistent with the terminology of section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (although “make” and “execute” mean the same thing).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 260, 261 and 272 to 277.
Mr Jones
This series of amendments, starting in clause 120, all do the same thing. They change the terminology from “made” to “executed” in reference to a general vesting declaration. Although such a declaration is “made” when it has been “executed”, and hence the words mean the same, section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 uses “executed” and we think, therefore, that it will help all parties involved in compulsory purchase if we are consistent throughout.
Amendment 259 agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Notice of general vesting declaration procedure
Amendments made: 273, in schedule 7, page 91, line 26, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Amendment 272, in schedule 7, page 91, line 12, leave out “made” and insert “executed”. —(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 122 to 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 128 to 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 131
Power to make and timing of advance payment
Amendments made: 260, in clause 131, page 63, line 4, leave out “made a” and insert “executed a general”.
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Amendment 261, in clause 131, page 63, line 21, leave out “make a” and insert “execute a general”. —(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Clause 131, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 132 and 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 134
Objection to division of land
Dr Blackman-Woods
The clause relates to objections relating to the division of land, and I have a question for the Minister. If an objection to the taking of only part of the land is served by a landowner, the project for which powers of compulsory purchase have been granted is likely to come to a halt until the landowner’s desire to have the entirety of the interest acquired has been resolved either by agreement or by the Lands Chamber. This can create a situation in which the landowner can hold the intended project to ransom on account of the likely delay to the project, given the delay in resolving the issue in the Lands Chamber, which can often amount to a year or a number of years if the issue is particularly complex. Does the Minister think the measures in the clause will help in that situation? Will they help to provide a remedy that speeds up resolution of problems that emerge when there is a division of land or land is split in some way? If the Minister thinks that it does, will he explain to the Committee how?
Mr Jones
It will probably help if I explain clause 134, which introduces schedules 9 and 10, which contain a dispute resolution procedure where material detriment has been alleged. This may arise when only a part of a claimant’s land is required by the acquiring authority. Schedule 9 applies when a notice to treat has been served and schedule 10 applies following the execution of a general vesting declaration. It may help the Committee if I briefly outline the concept of material detriment.
Some projects, such as roads, may require only part of someone’s land, and that will be the land included in the compulsory purchase order. The taking of land and the nature of the project will have differing effects depending on the nature of the remaining land. Material detriment arises where the claimant’s retained land would be less useful or less valuable to a significant degree. If the claimant thinks that taking part of the land will cause material detriment to a house, building or factory, including part of a garden or park belonging to the house, he or she can serve a counter-notice, which can then be referred to the upper tribunal for determination.
The procedure for claiming material detriment differs depending on whether an acquiring authority serves a notice to treat or executes a general vesting declaration. The intention in the Bill is to harmonise the two procedures as far as possible. That goes some way to simplifying the process by giving both parties a greater understanding of the process, and giving a better steer to the courts in relation to making sure that the procedure is harmonised for when both systems are used.
Paragraph 3 of schedule 9 inserts new schedule 2A into the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. This sets out the procedure for serving a counter-notice requiring the purchase of land, not the notice to treat, and its subsequent determination. Among the procedural details are three important points. First, the acquiring authority is permitted to enter the land that it wants and to get on with its scheme where the counter-notice has been referred to the tribunal. That is set out in paragraph 11 of new schedule 2A, referred to in paragraph 5(b). Secondly, if the acquiring authority does that, there is no going back, as it will be compelled to take the remainder of the land if the tribunal finds in favour of the claimant. That is the effect of paragraph 21(1)(c) of the new schedule 2A, which allows the acquiring authority to withdraw its notice to treat only if it has not yet entered on and taken possession of the land. Thirdly, if the tribunal requires all or some more of the remaining land to be taken, the claimant will be compensated for any losses caused by the temporary severance of the land where the authority has already entered part of it. For example, if part of a claimant’s business premises is taken, he or she may incur trading losses over and above those that would have occurred had the land been taken in the first instance. That is provided for in paragraph 26(5) of new schedule 2A.
Among the consequential amendments in part 2 of schedule 9 is a new feature of the material detriment regime. Paragraph 9 inserts a new section 2A into the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 that allows acquiring authorities to disapply the material detriment provisions for land that is 9 metres or more below the surface. That provision will prevent spurious claims for material detriment from owners of land above tunnels where the works will have no discernible effect on the land. Provisions of that nature are common in hybrid Acts, such as the Crossrail Act 2008.
Schedule 10 provides a similar counter-notice procedure where material detriment is claimed following the execution of a general vesting declaration under the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981. I commend clause 134 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 134 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9
Objection to division of land following notice to treat
Amendments made: 274, in schedule 9, page 94, line 5, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Amendment 275, in schedule 9, page 95, line 36, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10
Objection to division of land following vesting declaration
Amendments made: 276, in schedule 10, page 103, line 9, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Amendment 277, in schedule 10, page 103, line 22, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 135 and 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 137
Power to override easements and other rights
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 262, in clause 137, page 66, line 39, after “authority” insert “, or
(ii) been appropriated by a local authority for planning purposes as defined by section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990”.
This amendment, together with amendment 264, would mean that the power to override easements and other rights in clause 137 applied to land which a local authority already held prior to the coming into force of clause 137 but only appropriated for planning purposes after the coming into force of that clause.
Mr Jones
This group of amendments contains mainly transitional provisions and drafting improvements. With your permission, Mr Gray, before I explain what they all do I will set out the purpose of clauses 137 to 139 to put them into context.
Regeneration and redevelopment projects will, almost by definition, take place on previously developed land. To ensure that there are no impediments to the proposed regeneration, it may be necessary to deal with restrictive covenants and easements that affect the land acquired. The Law Commission has found that there are easements over at least 65% of registered freehold titles. Those third-party interests are typically rights to allow the underground services—for example, water, gas, electricity and telecommunications—of one property to pass beneath the land of neighbouring properties. There are also rights of light, rights of way and covenants restricting development to certain uses or density.
The statutory power to override such easements and covenants for both the construction and use of development is currently restricted to local planning authorities and regeneration agencies such as the Homes and Communities Agency and urban development corporations. New town development corporations and housing action trusts also have that power, but there are none in existence at present. One important aspect of the power is that it devolves to subsequent purchasers of the land without the local authority or agency having to do the development itself. It is therefore an important feature of town centre redevelopment schemes where local planning authorities acquire land and sell it on to their developer partner.
Not all development schemes are undertaken on land held for planning purposes or acquired by regeneration agencies. The Government have therefore decided to extend the power to override the easements and other rights to all bodies with compulsory purchase powers. Clause 137 contains that power, which will be available in respect of land acquired by or vested in a specified authority, as defined by subsection (7), when the provision comes into force.
It may help the Committee if I describe the amendments in sub-groups. Amendments 262 and 264 are transitional provisions to enable local planning authorities to do in the future what they can do now. At the moment, land not held for planning purposes may be appropriated for planning purposes to benefit from the power to override easements in section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Clause 137(2)(b) does not provide for appropriation of land, so without the amendments, land already held for other purposes could never benefit from clause 137, even though land newly acquired for the same purpose after commencement could do so. That is clearly not a desired outcome, so amendments 262 and 264 take us to the right place.
Amendments 263, 266 and 269 are the main transitional provisions. Amendments 263 and 266 extend the provisions to other qualifying land, which is defined in amendment 269 as land that is or has been owned by those bodies that already have the power to override easements and other rights. The effect is that those bodies will be able to exercise the new power in clause 137 on that land instead of their existing powers, which will be removed by schedule 11 to the Bill.
Amendment 265 is a substantive amendment. Clause 137(4)(c) states that the power to override easements and so on applies to the use of land where the authority could have purchased the land compulsorily to construct or erect any building for that use. That is too limiting, as some uses do not require a building to be constructed, such as a carpark or landscaping. Amendment 265 therefore extends that provision so that it refers to the carrying out of any works for the use in question.
Amendments 267 and 271 are consequential to the motion to split clause 137 into two clauses. Clause 137 will be unwieldy once the definitions in subsection (7) have been extended by the definition of “other qualifying land” in amendment 269. The motion will therefore split clause 137, with its substantive provisions in subsections (1) to (6) and the new clause containing the definitions in subsections (7) and (8).
Amendments 268 and 270 regularise the definition of local authority in the provisions. Amendments 262, 264 and 269 introduce references to a local authority’s planning purposes. The list of authorities that are local authorities for those purposes is not the same as the general definition of “local authority” in subsection (7). In the future, we only need a general definition in the context of a specified authority, also defined in subsection (7). Amendment 268 therefore removes the now superfluous general definition of “local authority” and amendment 270 places the definition within that of a specified authority.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for carefully taking us through the amendments and for answering one of my questions already, but there are a couple of others which I will deal with quickly.
It does make a lot of sense to split the clause in the way the Government suggest. The clause gives acquiring authorities a power to override rights in land following compulsory purchase, similar to provisions in section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which allows planning authorities to override easements and other rights in land following compulsory purchase or in seeking to develop its own land to another purpose. If the land is subject to rights benefiting other persons, such as a right of way or a restrictive covenant, the right can be overridden and development carried out even if the right would be breached. Provision is made for the payment of compensation, but the quantum of compensation is limited to the diminution in value to the interest in land that benefited from the right. There is no provision for recovery of other losses, such as loss of business income, arising as a consequence of the overriding.
I was going to ask the Minister whether the amendment would specifically look at land already held by local authorities that is intended to be appropriated and developed in future, but he answered that question directly. However, are the provisions for compensation sufficient to compensate for losses, particularly for lost profits, and are they compatible with article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Diminution of value is how the system works under current compulsory purchase powers. The provisions are designed to extend the existing powers to other bodies with compulsory purchase powers, not to amend them. I hope that that answers her question.
Amendment 262 agreed to.
Amendments made: 263, in clause 137, page 66, line 41, at end insert—
‘( ) Subsection (1) also applies to building or maintenance work where—
(a) there is planning consent for the building or maintenance work,
(b) the work is carried out on other qualifying land, and
(c) specified authority could acquire the land compulsorily for the purposes of the building or maintenance work.’
Schedule 11 removes a number of existing powers to override easements. This amendment, together with amendments 266, 267, 268, 269 and 271, would mean that the new power in clause 137 could be exercised instead of the powers removed by Schedule 11.
Amendment 264, in clause 137, page 67, line 6, after ‘authority’ insert
‘, or
(ii) been appropriated by a local authority for planning purposes as defined by section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990’.
See member’s explanatory statement for amendment 262.
Amendment 265, in clause 137, page 67, line 8, after ‘building’ insert
‘, or carrying out any works,’.
Clause 137(4)(c) limits the power in clause 137(3) to use land despite existing easements or restrictions so that it may be exercised only when a specified authority could acquire land compulsorily for the purpose of erecting or constructing any building for the use in question. This amendment would adjust the restriction in clause 137(4)(c) so that it is not limited to erecting or constructing a building but includes carrying out any works.
Amendment 266, in clause 137, page 67, line 8, at end insert—
‘( ) Subsection (3) also applies to the use of land in a case where—
(a) there is planning consent for that use of the land,
(b) the land is other qualifying land, and
(c) specified authority could acquire the land compulsorily for the purposes of erecting or constructing any building, or carrying out any works, for that use.’
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 263.
Amendment 267, in clause 137, page 67, line 15, leave out ‘In this section’ and insert
‘In sections 137 and 138’.
The changes that would be introduced by amendments 263, 266, 269 and 271 would add considerably to the length of clause 137. This amendment, together with the motion after amendment 270, would prevent clause 137 becoming too long by removing the interpretation subsection from that clause and putting it into its own clause.
Amendment 268, in clause 137, page 67, leave out lines 18 and 19.
Amendments 262, 264 and 269 would introduce references to a local authority’s planning purposes as defined by section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The list of authorities that are local authorities for those purposes is different from the list that are local authorities for the purposes of the definition of “specified authority” in clause 137. This amendment and amendment 270 therefore remove the general definition of “local authority” and define the term “local authority” only in relation to the term “specified authority”.
Amendment 269, in clause 137, page 67, line 19, at end insert—
‘“other qualifying land” means land in England and Wales that has at any time before the day on which this section comes into force been—
(a) acquired by the National Assembly for Wales or the Welsh Ministers under section 21A of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975;
(b) vested in or acquired by an urban development corporation or a local highway authority for the purposes of Part 16 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980;
(c) acquired by a development corporation or a local highway authority for the purposes of the New Towns Act 1981;
(d) vested in or acquired by a housing action trust for the purposes of Part 3 of the Housing Act 1988;
(e) acquired or appropriated by a local authority for planning purposes as defined by section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
(f) vested in or acquired by the Homes and Communities Agency, apart from land the freehold interest in which was disposed of by the Agency before 12 April 2015;
(g) vested in or acquired by the Greater London Authority for the purposes of housing or regeneration, apart from land the freehold interest in which was disposed of before 12 April 2015—
(h) vested in or acquired by a Mayoral development corporation (established under section 198(2) of the Localism Act 2011), apart from land the freehold interest in which was disposed of by the corporation before 12 April 2015.’
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 263.
Amendment 270, in clause 137, page 67, line 38, after ‘authority’ insert
‘as defined by section 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981’.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 268.
Ordered,
That Clause No. 137 be divided into two clauses, the first (Power to override easements and other rights) consisting of subsections (1) to (6) and the second (Interpretation of sections 137 and 138) to consist of subsections (7) and (8).—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Clauses 137A and 137B, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 138
Compensation for overridden easements etc
Amendment made: 271, in clause 138, page 68, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 263.
Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11
Amendments to do with sections 137 and 138
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 278, in schedule 11, page 107, line 5, at end insert—
‘Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 (c. 70)
A1 (1) Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit paragraph 6 and the italic heading before it.
(3) In paragraph 9 omit sub-paragraph (a).’
This amendment would repeal paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. The provision to be repealed is a power to override easements in certain circumstances. The power would in future be exercisable under clause 137, as amended by amendment 269.
Amendment 278 adds paragraph 6 of schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 to the list of repeal provisions in schedule 11 to the Bill, meaning that the power to override easements and other rights currently exercised under the Act will in future be exercised under clause 137, as now amended.
Amendment 278 agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 140 to 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 144
Commencement
Brandon Lewis
Mr Gray, the Government are not moving amendment 279 at this stage. We want to consider the matter further and come back on Report.
The Chair
The amendment is not moved.
Clause 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julian Smith.)
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 4 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
Backbench Business
(8 years, 4 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
Cystic Fibrosis
(8 years, 4 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
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to medicines for people with cystic fibrosis and other rare diseases.
As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank Carly Jeavons from Dudley for contacting me to suggest that we hold this debate and for what she has taught me about cystic fibrosis; Ed Owen, the chief executive of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, and all his staff for their help and advice in organising this debate; and all the right hon. and hon. Members who are here to take part and to speak up for their constituents with cystic fibrosis and other long-term conditions.
Three years ago, Carly Jeavons was at a crossroads. She did not know whether to leave work and face financial turmoil or to continue working while risking her physical wellbeing and mental health. She struggled to breathe and had a lung function of around 44%. Every day she was taking around 90 tablets and undertaking around two hours of physiotherapy, and she spent two weeks in hospital every three months. In September 2014, Carly was offered the opportunity to participate in a clinical trial for a new type of treatment. Initially on a blind clinical trial, she was unsure what treatment she was taking, but later found out that it was a new treatment called Orkambi. The treatment has enabled her to spend more time with her family, and she has been able to go on holiday. She now attends a cystic fibrosis clinic every eight to 12 weeks, rather than every four.
Personalised medicines can have a transformational impact, not only for people with cystic fibrosis, but for a range of other illnesses. Without a more effective process for appraising such medicines, however, patients are unable to access new and innovative treatments. That is why I called for this debate. Cystic fibrosis is a life-shortening inherited disease that affects more than 10,000 people in the UK. It causes the lungs and digestive system to become clogged with mucus, making it hard to breathe and digest food. The damage to the lungs caused by cystic fibrosis means that many people come to rely on a lung transplant to stay alive. There is no cure, but many treatments are available to manage it, including physiotherapy, exercise, medicine and nutrition. Tragically, the median survival age is just 28.
Cystic fibrosis care has long been limited to managing symptoms and decline, but now, after 25 years of research, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust says that there is a pipeline of precision medicines that target particular cystic fibrosis mutations and seek to correct the basic underlying genetic defect. This new type of personalised medicine, which targets the defective gene, is a testament to modern science, and provides an opportunity to tackle this life-shortening inherited disease. As a contributor to the human genome project, British science has played a leading role in creating this new era of genomic medicines, and the UK is a global centre for clinical trials such as the one that my constituent Carly participated in. That work continues through the NHS’s 100,000 Genomes Project.
The first precision medicine for cystic fibrosis, Kalydeco, targets a mutation that only a little more than 4% of people with cystic fibrosis in the UK have. On that medicine, patients have shown increased lung function and slower progression of lung disease, and the number of hospital admissions has fallen by more than half. There are predictions that some people on the drug could expect a near-normal life expectancy. Orkambi is the next precision medicine for cystic fibrosis. It is being developed by Vertex, based here in London. It targets a mutation that around 50% of people with cystic fibrosis have, and, like Kalydeco, it has the potential to offer significant health benefits. Orkambi is now licensed for use in the EU and will soon begin its separate appraisals for clinical and cost-effectiveness across the NHS, covering England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Work in this area is also important for people affected by muscular dystrophy and related conditions, with a number of drugs in late-stage clinical trials and one, Translarna, which is used to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy, undergoing appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Muscular dystrophy is a progressive condition, often rapidly so, meaning that delays at the regulatory, approvals and funding stages can make all the difference to whether someone can access a treatment. Genomics England is currently delivering the 100,000 Genomes Project, the aim of which is to create a new genomic medicine service for the NHS. The project is focused on rare diseases and cancer. The developments in cystic fibrosis treatment and the impact of the new medicines have already demonstrated the human benefit from work in this area, but the current single technology appraisal system may not enable access to personalised medicines.
The existing NICE appraisal system makes decisions on the efficacy of a drug based on 24 weeks of clinical trials data. It fails to take into account the long-term benefits to sufferers’ quality and length of life. The focus on measuring the benefits of a treatment in terms of quality-adjusted life years does not work for genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, because it massively underestimates the impact that the drugs have on quality of life over the long term. It also fails to take account of the wider societal benefits of these medicines, such as the way they can help sufferers or their carers to get into work. In short, the existing system cannot provide an accurate assessment of new treatments, such as Orkambi, which offer long-term, preventive stabilisation of cystic fibrosis. It may say no too soon to treatments that require time for their value to be realised.
This debate is not about spending more money on drugs. In fact, it is the opposite: it is about making sure that we are helping people with conditions such as cystic fibrosis in the most cost-effective way, which could actually reduce hospital admissions and enable them to work more easily. According to the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, new genomic treatments could be available to 90% of people with cystic fibrosis within five years, but under the way in which NICE currently appraises medicines, none of those drugs is likely to be approved for use in the NHS. The system simply is not set up to assess personalised medicines where the patient target audience is, by definition, increasingly small. The situation affects many other rare diseases beyond cystic fibrosis, but without reform, research into precision medicines of this kind could dry up and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to beat cystic fibrosis and other rare diseases could be missed.
The Government recognise that change is needed. The creation of the Office for Life Sciences and the accelerated access review are among various initiatives to investigate reform. We need a system that gives new treatments the chance to prove their full effectiveness with long-term, real-world data. We have started to see that in other disease areas, with the development of the first managed-access agreement between a manufacturer and NHS England, which will allow unapproved treatments to undergo long-term testing before requiring full approval. That new model has the potential to be applied across the entire system.
I welcome the establishment of the accelerated access review to find ways of speeding up access to innovative new drugs and treatments. The interim report on the review emphasised the importance of flexibility and anticipating potentially transformative technologies, both those on the horizon and those already available. Such innovative transformative medicines should be seen as part of the solution. We need the NHS to give clinicians and patients time to assess how new precision medicines might slow the decline of diseases, and we need a system that gives medicines the chance to prove their true effectiveness with long-term, real-world data.
Cystic fibrosis is a test bed for reform because the Cystic Fibrosis Trust hosts the UK cystic fibrosis registry, an anonymised database that lists the 10,583 people in the UK with cystic fibrosis. The registry already provides real-world data to health commissioners and pharmaceutical companies so that they can monitor the efficacy of treatments. That makes cystic fibrosis a unique testing ground to pilot a new appraisal system for innovative medicines that could be applied to treatments for a wide range of conditions beyond cystic fibrosis. Orkambi could be the first treatment piloted. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to beat cystic fibrosis. Like Carly Jeavons, the 4,000 people in the UK eligible for Orkambi do not have time to wait for the system to catch up.
Last night, hundreds of people with cystic fibrosis, along with their families and carers, took part in an online digital discussion on social media that enabled them to share their experience and opinions directly with Members of Parliament ahead of this debate. Simon, who took part in that debate, said that it is
“hard to state the significance on quality of life”
that new drugs had given him. He said that he
“now had a stable job”
and is
“in the middle of getting a mortgage”.
Lorraine, who cares for two children with cystic fibrosis, told us that these new treatments mean that she can go back to work and worry less about outliving her children. Michael said they will enable him to focus on his career without fear that he will have to give it up as he gets more unwell. Kelly pointed out that having healthier people who need less hospitalisation could save the NHS in the long run. Last night’s discussion and this debate are supported by Parliamentary Outreach, which aims to enable people with cystic fibrosis to come together and express their views.
Cystic fibrosis is a uniquely cruel condition. The people who suffer from it are unable to come together because they are vulnerable to the different bacteria that grow in their lungs. Although those bugs are usually harmless to people who do not have cystic fibrosis, they can settle in the lungs of those who do and harm them. Our discussion last night and this debate are important because they enable people with cystic fibrosis, who do not normally get the chance to speak up, to be heard. They show that if we embrace new technology and think of new ways of opening up democracy beyond the walls of Westminster, people such as Carly, Lorraine, Michael and Kelly can be heard.
The system needs to change. We need NICE reform and an appraisal system fit for a future that includes personalised medicines, which cannot be approved too soon. In the current system, decisions about a drug’s efficacy are based on 24 weeks of clinical trials data, but for new medicines such data are not available. The system needs to account for the development of data over time, and for cystic fibrosis it needs to account for the fact that the value of the new medicines will be realised over time.
Cystic fibrosis is a test bed for reform. The Government must agree to explore ways of collaborating with the trust. I know that the Minister is meeting the Cystic Fibrosis Trust later today to discuss some of these issues. There has been major investment in the life sciences in the UK, but we cannot continue to invest in developing innovative new medicines if patients cannot access such treatments.
I have several questions for the Minister. Can he update the House on the timings for developing proposals for a new system for appraising new medicines? Will he consider meeting the CFT to discuss working with it to develop a system for managed access to medicines that includes a CF registry? Can he comment on the safeguards that will be in place to ensure equality of access to medicines under any new scheme? Will he consider amending the appraisal process for the new drugs to give more weight to the societal benefits for sufferers and their carers? What is the Government’s latest thinking on following Scotland and Northern Ireland by introducing a ring-fenced fund for rare disease drugs in England? Will he write to the chief executive of the National Institute for Health Research to ask how his organisation plans to work with specialist muscle centres to address concerns about the lack of clinical trial capacity for Duchenne muscular dystrophy? Finally, how can NICE and NHS England be given greater powers to negotiate the best price with pharmaceutical companies to ensure that new treatments are not held up or rejected on the grounds of cost?
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I warmly welcome the Minister, who, I am afraid, is very familiar with what I am speaking about today; I hope he gives me an A for effort and persistence. Given that we have spent so much time discussing access to Translarna, perhaps in his winding-up speech he will have some good news for me and my constituent.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). I am absolutely delighted that he secured this debate on access to medicines for people with cystic fibrosis and other rare diseases. Like me, he knows how important this issue is for families up and down England. I have been looking at the issues surrounding Duchenne muscular dystrophy for what seems like many years—in truth, it has been for just over a year. Only 90 boys affected by the disease in England are eligible for this drug, and the number is slightly larger across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a devastating condition that leads to full-time wheelchair use between the ages of eight and 11. It is a progressive, muscle-wasting disease that eventually affects the muscles involved in the respiratory and cardiac functions. Sadly, few with the condition live to see their 30th birthday. I have been working with Muscular Dystrophy UK, which fights causes to do with muscle-wasting conditions. I pay tribute to that organisation for all the support and help it gives. It not only informs Members of Parliament, but helps people affected by those diseases. My constituent, young Archie Hill, is an inspiration to everybody in this area. He has been campaigning for many years, and he and his family are indefatigable in their efforts to get the right medicine at the right time to these boys.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on securing this timely debate. As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) will recall, some months ago we all went to Downing Street to petition to get something done about muscular dystrophy. I am sure she would agree that one of the big problems is that even if the new treatments are okay, there is always a long run-in, in which negotiations take place between the Government and the pharmaceutical companies.
Mrs Gillan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the other colleagues in the House who took part in that petition. That truly cross-party effort aimed to draw attention to the drugs that are not readily and fully available to our constituents. I was grateful that it was a cross-party delegation, because such things are much stronger when they take place in an atmosphere of good co-operation across the board rather than a political atmosphere. We saw parliamentarians at their best, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for attending that lobby at No. 10 Downing Street, which was inspired partly by Muscular Dystrophy UK and partly by the families it supports.
The issue for me is the drug that the hon. Member for Dudley North referred to. Translarna is its trademark name; it is called ataluren. It is produced by a company called PTC Therapeutics, which calls it its “lead product candidate” for these disorders. I know that the Minister is familiar with PTC Therapeutics, and I hope that in his winding-up speech he will refer to any contact he has had with the company. One of the issues surrounding the efficacy and licensing of the drug is the cost, so I hope the Minister will update us on that situation.
PTC Therapeutics states that the drug is a
“novel, orally administered small-molecule compound for the treatment of patients with genetic disorders due to a nonsense mutation. Ataluren is in clinical development for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy caused by a nonsense mutation…and cystic fibrosis caused by a nonsense mutation…Ataluren was granted conditional marketing authorization in the European Union under the trade name Translarna”.
I believe that it is already available in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It is the first treatment approved for the underlying cause of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which is a complicated condition.
Nonsense mutations are implicated in a variety of genetic disorders. They create a premature stop signal in the translation of the genetic code contained in the mRNA. That prevents the production of full-length, functional proteins. The company says that
“ataluren interacts with the ribosome, which is the component of the cell that decodes the mRNA molecule and manufactures proteins, to enable the ribosome to read through premature nonsense stop signals on mRNA and allow the cell to produce a full-length, functional protein. As a result…ataluren has the potential to be an important therapy for muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and other genetic disorders for which a nonsense mutation is the cause of the disease.”
The importance of access to Translarna cannot be overstated. Boys such as my constituent Archie Hill have been waiting since August 2014 for a decision on whether Translarna will be approved in England. As I said, it is the first licensed drug to tackle an underlying genetic cause of Duchenne’s. It would help to keep Archie and these other boys walking for longer and potentially delay the onset of the devastating symptoms affecting the heart and lungs that I referred to earlier.
NICE’s appraisal of the drug is ongoing, but the families have not yet been made aware of when guidance will be issued, leaving them facing an anxious wait over the Christmas period. Over the time I have known Archie and his family, I have seen his mobility decrease; it is depressing to see such an active, energetic, lively, intelligent young man, who has his life before him, being denied a drug that could well keep him active for longer and improve his quality of life.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. She is right to say that we must improve access to new medicines, which can transform the lives of people such as her constituent Archie. Does she agree that new medicines may also reduce hospital admissions, which would have a huge impact on the NHS?
Mrs Gillan
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. There is no doubt that increasing the length of time that these young people can be kept active and mobile will inevitably reduce the amount of time that they spend requiring treatment in other health settings.
I also want to describe the emotional journey. Seeing anybody suffering with a muscle-wasting condition is terribly draining, because they fade before one’s eyes. That is why the drug is so important, particularly for young people suffering from Duchenne’s. I turn now to my constituent’s mother, Louisa Hill, for a quotation. She said:
“Decision makers need to understand the impact on children of even a small change. It gives them more time to run and play football with their friends. It’s really buying precious time. Archie will have to deal with very difficult mental and physical challenges as his condition progresses. Translarna is buying time for Archie just to be a kid.”
If you are not touched by that statement from a mother, I do not know what you would be touched by.
Translarna is not the only potential therapy that could benefit Archie. For example, others, such as utrophin upregulation, which involves injecting a protein called utrophin into the muscles to compensate for the loss of dystrophin in boys and young men with Duchenne’s, are in a later stage of clinical trial. It is vital that the process of moving such drugs from the laboratory to the clinic is expedited, including ensuring that appraisal processes are as swift as possible; that secure funding is available to help meet the costs of new drugs; and that NHS England and NICE have effective mechanisms to negotiate an appropriate price with drug companies.
On 14 October, I had the temerity to question the Prime Minister on Translarna at PMQs. He referred to the cancer drugs fund and its role in reducing the costs of drugs for rare types of cancer. A similar model would help for rare disease drugs for conditions such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The Prime Minister said:
“The cancer drugs fund has helped to reduce the costs that the companies charge. We need to see that in other areas, too.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 313.]
The Government’s accelerated access review provides an important route through which such issues could be addressed. I hope that the Minister will have his feet held to the fire by the Prime Minister’s answer.
Research into treatments for Duchenne’s is at a promising stage, with a range of potential therapies in late stage clinical trials. As I said, Translarna is already licensed in Europe, but the UK muscle centres where trials are conducted are reporting that given the growth in clinical trials they lack the resources, such as staffing levels and equipment, to keep pace. As a result, centres report that they are turning away new trials—not because of bad science, but because of a lack of capacity. [Interruption.] I see the Minister shaking his head. He knows that the situation is serious and I hope he will comment on it.
That lack of capacity risks causing a bottleneck in drug development and gives boys such as Archie Hill less chance to enrol on a trial that could allow them access to a new therapy. A clinical trial capacity audit, conducted by Muscular Dystrophy UK as part of the “Newcastle Plan” of joint working with UK Duchenne charities to address clinical trial capacity, corroborated the reports and also found that:
“Work on clinical trials is not counting towards specialist training at many centres for medical doctors, physiotherapists and nurses”
which is affecting trainee participation. In addition, it was found that a
“lack of acknowledgment of research in clinical job planning means that already overstretched clinical staff are having to carry out research activities in their own time. This is consequently severely limiting centres’ abilities to take part in research.”
It also found that the process of setting up a clinical trial can be excessively bureaucratic. Perhaps the Minister, with his experience in this area, will be able to comment on that.
I am disappointed that Archie Hill and the other boys suffering from Duchenne’s do not have access to Translarna. The process has seemed to take an incredible length of time, and I hope that the Minister will be able to do something about it. Like the hon. Member for Dudley North, I have a series of questions that I want to put to the Minister, which may help him when he sums up.
First, will the Minister commit to meet representatives of Muscular Dystrophy UK? I would be grateful for that, and it would be helpful for him to discuss the accelerated access review, particularly in the context of the emerging treatments for Duchenne’s. Secondly, I do not suppose that he can say this, but when can families such as Archie’s expect to be notified of NICE’s guidance on access to Translarna on the NHS? It is the obvious question and one that I hope he can answer.
Thirdly, will the Minister ask the chief executive of the National Institute for Health Research’s clinical research network how his organisation plans to work with specialist muscle centres to address concerns over the lack of clinical trial capacity, particularly for Duchenne’s? The hon. Member for Dudley North referred to the latest thinking in Scotland and Northern Ireland, such as introducing a ring-fenced fund for rare diseases. I hope that that might be a recommendation of the accelerated access review.
I do hope that the Minister will be able to give us some optimism. Boys such as Archie Hill are an inspiration to us all. For one so young, he is very mature in his attitude towards not only his Duchenne muscular dystrophy, but other children suffering from rare diseases. He has great capacity for humanity and for tireless campaigning. This will be the second Christmas since I met him that he will be waiting for an outcome on Translarna. Will the Minister talk to PTC Therapeutics, to NICE and to anyone else to whom he can reach out, to ensure that this year the Christmas present for Archie Hill and other boys in England is to have access to ataluren or Translarna?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) for proposing today’s debate on cystic fibrosis and on the future of the drug therapy. I thank the cystic fibrosis team at York hospital. I have met with them and discussed at length their innovative service, which is at the cutting edge of provision for those with cystic fibrosis and takes on board the need for clinical excellence and the sterile conditions that we have heard about—they work the service around the patient, not the patients around the service. I also thank the people at the Cystic Fibrosis Trust for their time.
I emphasise the points made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan). Her tireless campaigning was triggered by the inspiration of Archie Hill from her constituency and presses for the need to make progress on the right therapeutic responses for those with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. We would all like to see progress with Translarna.
I want to take a wider view of the therapeutic measures for those who experience cystic fibrosis. I am a physiotherapist by training and have worked for 20 years in the NHS with respiratory and neurological conditions, so I have a real understanding of the people who experience cystic fibrosis. There has been massive change in the management of that condition in my time in practice, in particular in physical therapy. Treatment is now more dynamic in support of individuals—physical treatment, rather than a more static treatment, especially when dealing with mucus clearance and building up lung capacity. That is all about the treatment and management of symptoms, however, similar to the drug regime that accompanies the physical therapy.
We have seen progress, therefore, but today we are debating a step change in our approach to cystic fibrosis. We are trying to provide hope to the 10,000 people who happen to have cystic fibrosis. Looking at a new generation of drugs might provide that hope. Orkambi is a drug that targets abnormal proteins, which will deal with the symptoms. When we look at drug therapy for cystic fibrosis, we should be looking not only at the immediate impact, which so many drugs do, but at the long-term effect. Every instance of a chest infection brings about damage to the lungs, as people have to expectorate continually, and that has long-term implications that can be fatal for some.
It is vital that we look at early intervention, which is what Orkambi is all about—about bringing a step change in the treatment process for those with cystic fibrosis. By targeting the proteins we have the opportunity to ensure that the cells in the lungs are healthy, which will produce longevity among patients. It is hoped that the new drug will bring improvement to about 50% of people with cystic fibrosis, which in itself will be a seismic change in the outcomes for them. It will have a profound impact.
I encourage the Government not to be nervous about cost, because costs for someone with cystic fibrosis are already high and cannot be underestimated. I will focus on existing costs, such as the cost of frequent visits to hospital, including the frequent use of intravenous drugs. A large proportion of people are on IV drugs for approximately one month a year, which is costly. People also have to be in sterile conditions, because the risk of further infection is incredibly high. Ongoing therapeutic intervention with drugs or physiotherapy has significant bearing on costs. There are also costs to do with managing a high-calorie but healthy diet.
Another expense is the drugs. Cystic fibrosis is not on the list of diseases for which people get free medication. Will the Minister look at that? When the list was drawn up, people with cystic fibrosis were not living into adulthood, so we should re-examine it. There are the costs of having lung transplants, if people require one, and any drugs that prevent future lung transplants have to be a positive, despite the risks, because people will be brought long-term hope.
There is the cost to an individual of education, which for many will have a disturbed pattern—in and out of school—and the impact on long-term employment opportunities. Even if in work, many people find it difficult to hold down a job, because the nature of the disease often takes them out of the workplace and they have to organise and balance their day with fitting in physio and the demands of drug therapy and diet.
Finally, there is the cost of care. Rarely is only one person involved in care for any of the diseases that we are talking about—a network of care is put around an individual with such a disease. Moving to a precision, early-intervention drug, therefore, is a way to bring in resource management, which can be positive not only for the individual, but for the NHS as a whole.
The result of what is being called for today would be positive economically and for people’s lives. In my short contribution, I want to ask the Minister to address the timeline for progress. There is obviously discussion in Europe, such as on the European regulations for Orkambi, and we want to see the timeline tightened up, so that people can have real hope in the new year that they will get access to the drug, because each time someone has a chest infection it has an impact on their long-term future. Time is not something that so many have, so my plea is for progress on securing access to the drug for those with cystic fibrosis.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. It is also nice to see the Minister in his place again—whatever the debate might be, there are few for which the Minister and I are not in the same room at the same time.
I thank the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) for bringing this important issue to Westminster Hall. It affects my constituents and I am here to speak on their behalf—this is the place for us to do that as elected representatives. As he mentioned in his introduction, in Northern Ireland we have had some good news, with money set aside for rare diseases. Any approach to such diseases needs to be innovative and to take into account all those who contribute, be they academics, researchers or hard-working charities who provide support for those suffering from cystic fibrosis and their families.
I also commend the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) who have spoken. They are doughty campaigners on behalf of those who have Duchenne and on many other issues. It is good to see them in their places and making valuable contributions.
We are surely duty-bound to support and fund those who fight for the sufferers and those developing new treatments. The debate is very much about how we develop new treatments and move forward.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on bringing the debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that pharmaceutical companies need to be sent a message that their work in research is not about large profits; it is about curing rare diseases? We saw that difficulty whenever we approached pharmaceutical companies on meningitis B: some companies held out for large profits at the expense of people who were suffering.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for focusing on the pharmaceutical companies. They can do a great deal and there is also a role for Government and the NICE guidelines, which direct the direction in which pharmaceutical companies will proceed. The companies are driven not always by profit or margins; criteria also indicate to them what to do.
We should be ever mindful that people are suffering through no fault of their own, so we need to help them move forward. It is good to see facts and figures that show that, on average, a child born in the 21st century with cystic fibrosis will live for more than 50 years. There have been tremendous advances. The innovation and hard work done by charities and researchers is too often forgotten, but it has brought about real results, with new precision medicines treating not just the symptoms, but the underlying cause of the condition. We must go further in that direction. To be fair, cystic fibrosis is one condition that we are probably treating rather than solving at the moment, but we need to see a future where everyone with cystic fibrosis can live a life unlimited, which the facts show is more achievable today than ever before.
Unfortunately, precision medicines are expensive and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) said, it is difficult to predict the cost-effectiveness of new treatments. However, we need to get those treatments and try them out to move forwards. I understand that the Government are considering how we can speed up access to innovative treatments, which I think comes under the NICE guidelines. Will the Minister respond to that in his speech? There are proposals to approve new drugs provisionally while using real-world data to assess their benefits. I welcome that and look forward to seeing more of it.
May I put on record my thanks to the Northern Ireland Rare Disease Partnership under the chairmanship of Christine Collins, who happens to be one of my constituents? We have worked together over the years on this matter. Indeed, in the previous Parliament we spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), in a private meeting. She was supportive and allowed us to make positive progress. As everyone knows, health in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter. The Minister there, my colleague, Simon Hamilton, has set aside about £3 million for the partnership, which shows there are positive approaches in Northern Ireland and a positive way forward. Perhaps that could be emulated across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It is estimated that one in 2,500 babies in the UK will be born with cystic fibrosis and there are more than 9,000 living with the condition. The facts are stark. It most commonly affects white people of northern European descent—it is much less common in other ethnic groups. Those are the facts, which in my constituency means that we are looking at virtually the whole populace. Other constituencies will have similar demographics, so it is concerning to hear that, but it is encouraging that research has advanced so much that we can pinpoint such factors so that we know where problems could arise.
Babies are screened for cystic fibrosis at birth using a heel-prick test as part of the NHS’s newborn screening programme. The NHS and Ministers responsible are taking correct steps to diagnose such conditions at an early stage. Treatment for cystic fibrosis is not curative, but it seeks to manage symptoms. Medications including steroids, antibiotics, insulin and bronchodilator inhalers are often used. Nutritional advice and physiotherapy for airway clearance are commonly part of management.
Cystic fibrosis patients may also be suitable for lung transplants. NICE provides a number of guidelines on specific treatments for cystic fibrosis, which it is currently updating. They are due to be published in 2017. On organ transplants, I believe that we should all be considered to be donors unless we say otherwise. The Welsh Assembly has taken steps to bring in that in Wales and such legislation is pending in other regions of the United Kingdom as well, but whenever we see stories about those who are managing but no more and for whom a lung transplant would be the beginning of a new life, perhaps we should emphasise the organ transplant system and find a method to make progress on that.
The hon. Member for York Central rightly referred to families. We focus on those who have cystic fibrosis, but let us also focus on those who support their loved ones at times of hardship and difficult health symptoms. I will also plead the case for Prader-Willi syndrome. I have a number of constituents who have it, but that is not unique by any means to my consistency; it is seen across Northern Ireland. We do not hear much about this, which is another muscular wasting disease and also an eating disease—it is an obsessive disease.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham talked about Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I have constituents who suffer from that and I have attended events just across the way with people from across the UK with it. It comes in different levels and types, but, as she said, there have been advances in medication. The Minister may refer to those in his reply, but we also need to focus on how we can help those families.
Recent developments show that innovation is working in advancing treatment of cystic fibrosis. I commend the Department for its work. I will also mention the hard work done by universities in partnership with private business and enterprise to come up with innovative ideas for new drugs. We can never underestimate the importance of what they do. Just as others speak highly of their universities, I do so of Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University which are bringing forward innovative ideas for advances in medicine and other things. We could work well together with them on this.
I spoke earlier of the hidden or forgotten sector: the voluntary charities, of which there are many. Where would we be without them and their dedicated researchers? Such people often dedicate their lives to helping humanity overcome disease. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust is just one example. It is the largest charity funder of cystic fibrosis research in the UK. Last year it invested more than £3 million in groundbreaking research and it plans to invest a further £3.5 million by the end of this financial year. By adding our support and funding where possible, we can add to the great work being done and make a real life-changing difference for those with cystic fibrosis and their families.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I applaud the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) for bringing this timely debate. If any fact highlights the importance of this, it is that the median survival age is just 28. That really highlights the issue. If that does not focus minds on the need to do something, nothing will. He also touched on quality of life. We must remember that it is not just about statistics and medical reports. It is about the life of not just the sufferer, but the families involved. I am grateful to be able to take part in the debate.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned issues relating to NICE, its assessments and medicines. I am obviously a Scottish Member, and things are slightly different in Scotland, so I was grateful that Members mentioned the differences. One thing we have is the Scottish Medicines Consortium, which assesses medicines a bit quicker, putting them through the peer-approved clinical system. That is a good practice, which the Minister should perhaps look at. Having said that, we are also still waiting for the assessment of Orkambi, and we hope to have it around April, so there is still a delay in getting things through for everyone.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) made some good points. I was interested to hear about muscular dystrophy, which is not an issue I know much about, although the situations people face are obviously very similar. She highlighted the impact on families and the importance for children and young people. When we hear people’s life expectancy, that really highlights just how devastating this issue is.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made interesting points about therapeutic measures. Her key message was about providing hope, and I share her view on that. I hope that this Government and all the Governments in the devolved Assemblies take on board the message that we should not be nervous about costs. That message needs to go out from here very strongly.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the different and positive practices in Northern Ireland, which, again, I find interesting. I am sure there are things we can learn from each other’s areas. One positive in Scotland is that the Scottish Government have the UK-leading new medicines fund, which, in May, more than doubled the support it provides, from £40 million to £90 million. That will affect all rare diseases, including cystic fibrosis. There are therefore things we can do, and there is good practice we can demonstrate and lead the way on.
Another thing we did in Scotland was to abolish prescription charges. Before we did that, two thirds of all paid-for prescriptions were for long-term conditions. That was another financial impact on the families we are talking about, who already have enough difficulties.
With those comments, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view. I hope we have sent a strong message to not only the Government here, but the Governments in our devolved Assemblies.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be back, having spent four and a half weeks in cold, wet Oldham, running the Labour party by-election campaign. I pay tribute to my fellow shadow Ministers for standing in for me in numerous Westminster Hall debates. It is good to be back, and it is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) for making sure that this important debate could take place. He is right that we need to make sure that access to pharmaceuticals is one of the most important policy areas. With the results of the accelerated access review coming out in the new year, the effectiveness of NICE is very much on the agenda.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who spoke powerfully about not only Archie, but Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which is a terrible disease, and she is right that we need to do much more to make sure drugs are available to treat it. I hope the case she made for Translarna will not fall on deaf ears with Ministers, because such drugs can make a big difference to the quality of life of children such as Archie. The right hon. Lady has put that case very powerfully in her question to the Prime Minister, and in her contribution today.
In June 2009, the previous Labour Government adopted the European Council recommendation on action in the field of rare diseases, which recommended that member states should establish and implement plans and strategies for rare diseases. Following on from work set out before the 2010 election, the coalition Government published the UK strategy in November 2013. NHS England published its statement of intent with regard to the UK strategy in February last year.
Since then, we have had the five-year forward view, which reaffirms NHS England’s commitment to achieving better outcomes for people with rare diseases, and when the Minister concludes the debate, I am sure he will give us more detail about how he sees the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley North and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who leads for the SNP on these matters, and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. Rare diseases are a crucial part of the five-year forward view, and given that the UK leads in life sciences, there is no reason why we cannot start to push the boundaries on what is achievable in respect of the drugs available for rare diseases.
The problem is that, although each of the publications I mentioned set out some laudable intentions, the actions arising from those publications have been baby steps in comparison with what we actually need. Changes resulting from the Health and Social Care Act 2012 have left patients and professionals to navigate a labyrinth when accessing medicines that, in many cases, have already been approved or have received licences. That really should not be happening.
Before the last election, the Opposition said unambiguously that we would reform NICE from top to bottom to remove the requirement to enforce competition rules and to ensure that access to medicine was decided on the basis of a medical justification, balanced with consideration of how much money we had available. I think we all now agree that NICE needs some reform. The current appraisal system makes decisions based on 24 weeks of clinical trials data, but that understates the efficacy of drugs that provide long-term stabilisation of a condition.
Other Members have spoken of the frustration cystic fibrosis patients have felt at not being able to access new treatments because those will not be approved given the way NICE appraises them. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, the NICE system is not set up to assess precision medicines, and the issue extends well beyond cystic fibrosis to other rare diseases. Members have spoken powerfully about cystic fibrosis, and what we have heard about could be an excellent platform for testing new ways of doing things, and that could, indeed, also be the case with muscular dystrophy. The appraisal system for innovative medicines needs to be overhauled and to be adapted to include personalised medicines. Until the system is prepared to look at the value of new medicines over time, instead of looking for more rapid effects, it will not be suitable for its purpose.
I have some specific questions for the Minister. I am concerned that the highly specialised technologies evaluation programme could limit access to medicines for people with rare diseases. There are widely held concerns that the process, which was introduced after the 2012 Act to appraise medicines for rare diseases, is opaque and that the topic selection process is out of date. Does the Minister have plans to work with NICE to update the selection criteria for the pathway? Am I right that the process does not take into account conditions defined by genetics, biomarkers or differences in clinical presentation? Will he look again at that? Will he, as other hon. Members have asked, meet representatives of Muscular Dystrophy UK and the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to discuss those matters?
I accept that there has been huge investment in life sciences in the UK, but the current system, which encourages investment in technology and does not facilitate patient access to it, is unsustainable and wrong. Without such reform as we have discussed, funding for research on the relevant medicines could dry up and we could lose crucial shots at tackling a lot of rare diseases once and for all. The accelerated access review is a timely opportunity to take a careful look at how people get access to the kinds of medicines that might change their lives. It would be a tragedy if we threw that opportunity away.
I do not doubt for a moment that the Minister is fully behind every Member taking part in the debate in wanting to expedite the availability of the drugs in question, and I am keen to hear more about how the Government plan to do that. I commend Members for speaking so powerfully in a consensual cross-party manner in today’s debate and at other times when we work in Parliament to promote such causes. I hope that the Minister will answer all the questions that have been asked, and offer a glimmer of hope for those people who seek access to such drugs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and other hon. Members from across the House who have spoken. This timely debate has been incredibly powerful—not that there has been much disagreement in it. It has been an opportunity to raise important issues that I am dealing with, and I am grateful to colleagues for acknowledging that.
The debate is particularly timely because I am convenor of a major summit today on accelerated access for faster cures. There is a precision medicine summit in London and the Association of Medical Research Charities has just held its annual conference, at which I exhorted members to come to my table with ideas about how to accelerate novel treatments and give the charities more of a voice. A powerful and helpful debate is going on.
I pay tribute to the work of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, which is among a number of charities that lead the debate on innovative treatments and medicines. Its leader Ed Owen in particular plays an important role in that; but so do Carly, Lorraine, Michael, Kelly and the other people who have been mentioned. Many of the charities do extraordinary work to articulate the experience of patients who suffer from disease and bring it to the policy table in a powerful way. It is a change in policy making that I am keen to accelerate.
The debate goes to the heart of the challenge and opportunity that precision medicines represent for our system and the landscape of assessment, testing, approvals and reimbursement, as well as the growing role of charities and the patient voice. Those things are passions of mine and I want to discuss why, in the next few months and the years ahead, there will be dramatic progress.
The Government and I wholeheartedly support the cystic fibrosis campaign’s central aim of ensuring that as many people with CF as possible will have access to personalised medicines by 2020. That sets an inspiring and clear goal and I relish the attempt to deliver it. I want to make some remarks about the condition, about what NHS England and the NHS in Scotland and Northern Ireland are doing about treatment today, about the rare diseases and precision medicine landscape, and about the reforms that I am pushing to try to deal with the issues that have been raised.
I have had a career in biomedical research, so it is an extraordinary privilege to have been given my role by the Prime Minister, who has personal experience of the tragic consequences of genetic disorders affecting children. I am delighted to share with the House the fact that my passion to lead in this field, and unleash the power of the NHS and our research expertise in a new landscape for accelerated access, is exceeded only by the Prime Minister’s.
As hon. Members know, cystic fibrosis is the most common life-limiting inherited condition in the UK. It affects about 10,500 people in England—and more, of course, in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—more than half of whom are adults. Cystic fibrosis is one of the UK’s commonest life-threatening inherited diseases. It is caused by a single defective gene. As a result, the internal organs and especially the lungs and digestive system become clogged. That results in chronic infections, inflammation in the lungs and difficulty digesting food.
The number of adults living with CF is gradually increasing over time, because of improvements in diagnosis from newborn screening and new treatments. The condition affects everyone differently—that is an important point—but for many it involves a rigorous daily treatment regime including physiotherapy, oral, nebulised and occasionally intravenous antibiotics, and taking enzyme tablets with food. For those who are very ill with cystic fibrosis and who have very poor lung function, daily life can be a struggle as basic tasks can leave them breathless. Some patients use a wheelchair to get around, and use oxygen to help them breathe.
For patients and their families, managing the condition is extremely challenging. That is made worse by the absence of an effective treatment or cure—or, as several colleagues have explained today, by the tantalising presence of a possible treatment or cure that cannot yet be administered to them or their suffering loved ones. I pay tribute to patients who grapple with the disease day in, day out, and who have done so for years, for their patience as we try to bring new solutions to the table. Current treatments generally target the complications rather than the cause of the condition. Treatments can be broadly classified as nutritional support, relief of airway obstruction, treatment of airway infection and, ultimately, lung transplantation.
What are the Government doing? I want first to talk about what the NHS is doing in England and in Scotland and the other devolved areas, and then to say something about what we are doing more strategically to tackle the new landscape.
Since April 2013 NHS England has been responsible for securing high-quality outcomes for patients with cystic fibrosis as part of its remit to deliver specialised services. Its service specifications for cystic fibrosis—one for adults and one for children—set out what providers must have in place to offer high-quality care and support equity of access to services for patients with cystic fibrosis, wherever they live. The NHS England cystic fibrosis clinical reference group has developed a number of clinical policies for the treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis and it reviews outcomes with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and with patients and charities.
As we have heard, Scotland, leading within the United Kingdom—and it is not the first time—has launched a dedicated fund worth £40 million this year to give patients greater access to new medicines, as the Scottish Health Secretary, Alex Neil, has announced today. The £40 million new medicines fund expands and replaces the rare conditions medicines fund established in March 2013, giving health boards access to greater resources. In 2013-14 the rare conditions medicines fund supported the cost of 45 different medicines, benefiting more than 200 patients, including ivacaftor for cystic fibrosis as well as other treatments for related rare diseases.
NHS England is investing significant resources into the provision of new medications that work directly on the genes causing cystic fibrosis. Since 2013, it has routinely commissioned ivacaftor or Kalydeco for the treatment of cystic fibrosis in those with a certain gene mutation affecting only 5% of the CF population. Earlier in 2015, that indication was extended to an additional eight mutations for patients aged six years and above. NHS England is considering a policy proposition for extending the use of ivacaftor for the same gene mutations to children aged two to five years. It will consider the evidence base and be included with other therapies requiring investment as part of NHS England’s prioritisation process for specialised services for 2016-17.
Several colleagues raised the matter of Orkambi. Some drugs for cystic fibrosis will be considered by NICE through its technology appraisal process, including Orkambi, which, as many will know, is lumacaftor in combination with ivacaftor. NICE is currently developing technology appraisal guidance on the use of Orkambi for the treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis. It currently expects to issue final guidance in July 2016. NHS England will commission drugs where there is a positive NICE technology appraisal, and I will say something about the changes that we envisage in the landscape in that respect.
NHS England operates a horizon-scanning process to identify new treatments and the cystic fibrosis clinical reference group advises on the development of services for patients and keeps relevant published literature under review. Where NICE is not considering a therapy, NHS England can consider the evidence base and may propose commissioning treatments through its policy development process. I shall say something shortly about changes that we are considering in the way NHS specialist commissioning might embrace the new freedoms in the accelerated access review to accelerate the commissioning of rare disease treatments.
In fact, ivacaftor is something of a mild success story. NHS England commissioned it earlier than might otherwise have been expected, having agreed, in discussion with the company that makes it, a flexible pricing model. We want to see more of that sort of innovation.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) for giving me some time to answer the various questions asked, which I will try to do in some detail. First, I want to set the scene in terms of why this debate is happening and why this landscape is under such pressure. The truth is that breakthroughs in genomics and informatics—our ability to understand patients’ genetic predisposition to different diseases and to respond to different drugs, as well as the availability of large-scale data sets, including individualised patient treatment histories and anonymised cohort studies—are transforming the traditional pathway for drug R and D, which normally takes years. It now takes roughly 15 years and $2 billion to bring the average drug to patients.
Genomics and informatics, particularly for some of the rare genetic diseases, allow us to take time, cost and risk out of the development pathway in a profound way. That is driving opportunity and challenge in our system; the Prime Minister created this post and put me in it to ensure we respond to that challenge with ambition.
Julian Sturdy
My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right to say that the medical landscape is changing hugely at the moment, but does he feel that the wider implications of new medicines are being fully explored by NHS England and NICE? We have heard about the huge consequences of cystic fibrosis for not only the sufferer but their wider family and the NHS. Does he feel that those wider consequences are being fully explored?
George Freeman
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Over the past few decades, the NHS across the UK has played an inspiring role in leading a lot of the breakthroughs in new treatments, but we have become latterly a slower adopter of the very treatments we often helped to discover. That is partly because the pressure of an ageing society and the rising cost for the health system today of just treating existing conditions are extremely challenging. In some areas, that has made innovations appear a cost to the system, when in fact good innovations may come with a cost spike on day one but generally lead to downstream savings in years 2, 3 and 4.
My hon. Friend puts his finger on a profound challenge at the heart of this landscape: in order really to assess the impact of innovative treatments, we need a much better handle on the existing costs, many of which are hidden, that come with a diagnosis. For that reason, I am spearheading work in the Department of Health to drive through a system of per-patient costing, so that we can begin to get a much clearer handle on what a CF diagnosis means on day one for both the patient and the health economy. That will allow NICE and NHS England to develop much more intelligent systems for assessing whether an innovation really represents good value.
Genomics and informatics are changing the landscape; for that reason the Prime Minister has created my post and we have launched a series of initiatives. On genomics, we have launched a groundbreaking £300 million initiative to sequence the genomes from 100,000 NHS patients of cancer and rare diseases. We have also launched 11 genomic medicine centres across the NHS, so that genomics is fundamentally embedded in our health system. On informatics, we have released huge amounts of cohort data to drive research, and we just announced in the comprehensive spending review a major £3.5 billion programme to invest in NHS digital infrastructure to support that.
We have launched precision medicine and cell therapy catapult centres with the Medical Research Council and industry partners to lead in both understanding causal mechanisms of rare diseases and developing and accelerating new treatments. We continue to fund the excellent National Institute for Health Research, for which it is my privilege to be responsible, to the tune of £1 billion a year, and we committed this year in the CSR to fund it throughout this Parliament, at a cost of £5 billion. We have funded the £700 million Francis Crick Institute, and roughly £2 billion of the drugs budget is allocated to new medicines and new treatments in this Parliament.
There is a major commitment, in terms of science and funding, to trying to tackle this issue, but crucially we need policy reforms to ensure that breakthroughs in science can be harnessed for much quicker benefits for patients. That is what the accelerated access review and a number of other initiatives, such as the test bed programme and the vanguards I am running with NHS England, are about—trying to ensure we can change the pathways for getting innovation into our health system for much quicker patient benefit.
I want to say something about the accelerated access review and the specialist commissioning reforms that NHS England is putting in place. I know all Members here take an interest in this subject, so I hope they will be aware that I have launched the independent AAR to ask and answer one big question: what can we better do to harness the extraordinary infrastructure here in the UK in terms of our deep science research base, our NHS-NIHR research base and our NHS daily treatment platform?
The NHS is the fifth biggest organisation in the world, making millions of diagnoses and carrying out millions of treatments every day. Its original founding mission was to be a research organisation, but unless we better capture the data on those interventions, we are still practising, in many cases, blind medicine; we are not harnessing that intelligence enough to inform treatment.
I have asked that the AAR tackles three big questions. First, what can we do to allow the innovators—the developers of new drugs and innovations—quicker access to patients, to reach the all-important moment of proving an innovation works in patients? Secondly, what can we do to harness our leadership in genomics and informatics in order to create a more intelligent system for NICE and NHS England, with more flexibilities, so that they can assess, adopt, approve and reimburse innovations using real-time data about real patients? That will allow us to develop a more flexible set of pathways and adaptive tools with which to embrace this revolution.
When a drug comes to us with a genomic biomarker and we know that it will work for a certain sub-cohort of patients, that profoundly changes the risk dynamic of a traditional pharmaceutical clinical trials programme and should allow us to accelerate adoption for particular patient groups.
Rachael Maskell
Within those considerations, will the Minister also look at international evidence, so that we are looking at not only our own clinical trials but those on a global scale? Clearly, developments are global rather than just national.
George Freeman
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I have been to Washington three times and to Berlin, Paris and Brussels to highlight that while the UK is leading in this field, we need a transatlantic—European and American—agreement on how we move things forward. That is why I am convening and chairing a summit this afternoon with the Washington-based FasterCures campaign, which is a cross-party group on the Hill pushing for innovations in this space. I have been talking to the Commission about the European framework. I want the UK to be the best entry point into the European market, but I also want the European regulatory framework to be consistent and coherent; that is an important point.
The second question I have asked the AAR to look at is: what freedoms, flexibilities and new pathways can we envisage giving NICE and NHS England, particularly in the field of specialist commissioning? For CF, the decision to purchase ivacaftor is a national one, made by an NHS England specialist commissioning unit. I would like that unit to work much more closely with the Department of Health pricing team, so that where we can offer a company faster access to a key patient cohort, data and genomic information, we are able to do a much better deal with the company.
At the moment, we are operating the Translarna and Vimizim programme in the existing landscape. I share colleagues’ frustration, but it is important we go through due process. I do not think anyone wants a world in which Ministers decide what drugs come through on the basis of political pressure, tempting though it may be. I have done everything I can this year to expedite the existing process.
Following the positive news on Vimizim, I am hopeful about Translarna—a similar drug. NICE has been consulting on the process, and I believe the company has been engaging with NICE on pricing. I am hopeful that there will be a decision in the next few months to parallel the one on Vimizim, but that decision is not in my gift: it is up to NICE, which is rightly working on the basis of the very best clinical evidence.
George Freeman
I had better crack on; I will come to the questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) asked later, if I may.
Hon. Members have raised a number of questions and I want to deal with them all. The hon. Member for Dudley North asked about timings for the accelerated access review. We have had an interim report. I have asked for final recommendations in the spring—in March or April—and also that the review considers whether the process should go on. I want recommendations that we can implement quickly, but equally these discussions are complex and we may well need to go on to look at other bits of the landscape. I would be delighted to meet the Cystic Fibrosis Trust—in fact, that is already arranged; we are meeting this afternoon at the summit that I have organised.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about safeguards, which is a very important point. Although all of us share a recognition of the need to accelerate access, nothing in what is happening must in any way undermine patient trust and confidence in safety and protections. That is an important balance to strike. Nothing in what we are doing in any way looks at changing the legal basis in terms of negligence, consent or the clinical trials framework. The issue is about ensuring that our systems have the flexibilities to embrace the very latest science, and particularly, in this case, genomic biomarkers.
The hon. Gentleman asked about amending the NICE appraisal process to weight wider societal costs. At this point, the review is not specifically looking at the internal mechanics of NICE’s current high-technology appraisal process, but we are looking at giving it, with its new flexibilities and freedoms, a suite of different types of innovation that might come through. We are particularly looking at where that can be ring-fenced and targeted at particular patient groups.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a ring-fenced fund. As I said, we are looking at the allocation that we have had from the Treasury, which is about £4 billion extra on drugs in this Parliament, £2 billion of which is more or less the existing demand driven by demographic change. There is about a £2 billion allocation in there for new medicines. The difficulty is that the drugs that we might consider now to be most worthy of ring-fencing and accelerating may not be the ones that in five years’ time, on the basis of the clinical evidence, we look back on and say, “Why did we not accelerate that?”
We want to make sure, through the AAR, that we are putting in place a system that gives us the flexibilities to pull through those drugs that have the most transformational effect. But let me be clear: we are looking at wanting to build in, over the next few years, a wider understanding of the real costs to our health economies—local and national—of different forms of disease. That is why the Secretary of State and I are leading on per-patient costing so that, in due course, we can develop a more intelligent system to reflect that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the NIHR and specialist muscle centres. This debate covers a number of different disease areas, and it is a tribute to the NIHR’s research network that more and more charities are now wanting to build centres of excellence. In the forthcoming NIHR five-year funding cycle, looking at the biomedical research centres and the biomedical research units, I am keen to make sure we consider where we can bring funding in from charities to complement that core research network.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the accelerated access review and the powers that we are looking at for NICE and NHS England. I do not want to pre-empt the findings of that independent review, but I have asked that the review looks precisely at how we can make it easier for NICE and NHS England to work more closely together. Specialist commissioning would be an obvious place to start to share those data and look at how we can get a better deal for everybody—for patients, the system and the economy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about Translarna and Vimizim and how quickly we may be able to get good news for Archie. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend; she has been a very doughty campaigner on this matter during the last year. I share her frustration that in the existing system, due process has to be gone through and that, although we have expedited this as much as we can, it has taken a long time. I pay tribute, as she has, to Archie. He, like so many of these patients, is an inspiring example of the very best of this sector and of this country. They are people who have the most reason to complain, but tend to be the least likely to and the most inspiring, given their generosity about the system and their demand that we take their suffering and use it to make sure that others do not have to suffer.
I have touched on the timetable. I am very hopeful that we should get a decision from NICE on the basis of the secondary consultation early in the new year.
Mrs Gillan
I thank the Minister for the way in which he is still pursuing this matter on behalf of my constituent and the other boys. However, does he share my frustration? I know we have to go through due process, but why does due process have to take so long? Every day matters to these children and to their quality of life. I cannot impress enough on the Minister, NICE and anybody else watching this debate, that due process must be executed in a more timely fashion. This is nothing short of torture for these boys and these families. I know that the Minister has tried very hard, but I just hope that the people at NICE will be listening to this. I appeal to them directly through him to make a positive decision on this before Christmas; it would be the best Christmas present that these boys and their families could have.
George Freeman
My right hon. Friend makes her point as powerfully as ever. I shall not add to it; it has been put on the record very clearly.
My right hon. Friend asked about contact with the company. It is not for Ministers to get actively involved—much as, at times, I would like to—in negotiating these deals, but I have made contact with the company, both on Vimizim and Translarna, to urge it to be as flexible as it can in discussions. I can only say that I am hopeful that it will have been able to reach a point where NICE feels able to make a recommendation.
Part of the reason why due process is important is that when NICE makes a recommendation, NHS England is bound in law to provide the drug in perpetuity, so it is a major cost undertaking. In some cases, these drugs cost £200,000 or £300,000 a year, so it is a commitment of several hundred million pounds from NHS England. Other patients would say, “We must make sure that when you make a decision like that, it is done properly.” However, I share my right hon. Friend’s frustration that a lot of these breakthroughs scientifically mean that we ought to be able to speed things up.
My right hon. Friend asked whether the Prime Minister is holding my feet to the fire. She need not worry; I am as passionate about this as ever and very impatient to make sure that the AAR is landed with some good recommendations.
My right hon. Friend made an excellent point about NIHR staffing. I am working with the chief medical officer and the NIHR on that at the moment. A number of our clinical research facilities could, with a few more staff, turn over more and do more trials work. There is an opportunity for us to get more people internationally to enrol in NIHR training—in clinical trials and translational research training—which would give us more capacity and allow us to move things along faster.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised an important point about cost. I have touched on the work that we are doing on per-patient costing to try and make sure that we develop a system that more intelligently captures the real cost of disease.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, the Opposition spokesman, for his comments. I congratulate him on the by-election victory. He asked about NICE reform, which I have touched on, through the AAR. We do not want to interfere with or undermine NICE’s independence and their “gold standard” reputation, but we want to create a place in which the accelerated access review gives them the freedoms that they are, indeed, helping to shape.
In conclusion, this debate has highlighted not only the challenges from the rising costs of new drug discovery—£200,000 to £400,000 a year for patients in the rare disease space—and the pressure on the one-size-fits-all model of assessment, but the opportunities for us to unleash our leadership in genomics and informatics to create a new landscape. That is why this week, the Association of Medical Research Charities conference and my summit this afternoon, and the accelerated access review work is creating momentum for a new landscape for accelerated pathways for patient-led innovation.
I think we will look back in two or three years at this as a crucial turning point at which the system that was set up to assess a very one-size-fits-all, 20th-century model was rapidly adapted, creating new opportunities for patient-led innovations and charities such as the CF Trust to bring through innovations that benefit their patients more quickly.
Ian Austin
If I may, Sir Edward. I thank you for chairing this debate. I thank the Minister and the Opposition spokesman for what they have said. It was really interesting to listen to the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) bringing to bear the deep expertise that they have gained from their careers before coming into Parliament. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) spoke really movingly, and incredibly passionately and powerfully, about Archie Hill.
Most of all, I want to thank the people at the CF Trust and my constituent, Carly Jeavons, for raising this issue with me. I think this debate shows exactly how Parliament and politics should be working—with our constituents raising issues with us, us coming here to speak up on their behalf, and the Minister responding to their concerns—so I am very grateful indeed for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to medicines for people with cystic fibrosis and other rare diseases.
Shakespeare Theatre (Knowsley)
(8 years, 4 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
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the proposal for a Shakespeare theatre in Knowsley.
Let me begin with a few acknowledgments of those who helped me to prepare what I am about to say: Professor Kathy Dacre, a Shakespearian scholar who is heavily involved in this project; Dr Stephen Lloyd, the archivist at Knowsley Hall, who made some helpful suggestions; Mr Mike Harden, chief executive of Knowsley Council; and, last but by no means least, Professor Elspeth Graham of Liverpool John Moores University.
Prescot, my home town in Knowsley—which I also share with my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer)—has a unique place in theatre history. It is a market town and one of the oldest settlements in Merseyside. In the later Elizabethan period, Prescot was a lively town providing lodgings, hospitality and entertainment for visitors, including gambling and cockfighting. In 1592, it supported 19 alehouses and by 1622 it had an astonishing 43 such premises—far more than were needed for the town’s modest population of a few hundred. That reflects the fact that it was an entertainment centre to which people would travel for the market or the theatre, which I am about to describe. It also explains why there were very few people in each of the alehouses.
Prescot was the site of the Playhouse, the only free-standing, purpose-built theatre outside London in the Elizabethan period. It was built in the 1590s by Richard Harrington, who was closely connected to the Stanley family, the Earls of Derby, who were one of the most influential families in England. Ferdinando, Lord Strange, fifth Earl of Derby, and his brother William, the sixth Earl, were directly involved in the theatre, maintaining a talented group of professional players. Several important companies performed in Knowsley, and it was home to the Earl of Derby’s Men and Lord Strange’s Men, the troupes of actors which later formed the core of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, who performed Shakespeare at the Globe in London.
The original Playhouse in Prescot was a relatively small theatre that held public performances and rehearsals prior to more prestigious performances at Knowsley hall and the further estates of the Stanleys, such as Lathom house near Ormskirk, as well as those belonging to leading families in Lancashire. William Shakespeare attracted audiences from all social backgrounds and his actors had played at the Globe, where performances were effectively public rehearsals for more intimate and prestigious evening performances at the court.
There is evidence that some of Shakespeare’s earliest plays, which contain tributes to the Stanleys, were first staged at Prescot or Knowsley hall. If so, William Shakespeare would almost certainly have supervised the performances and may even have acted in them. They included “Richard III” and “Titus Andronicus” by Strange’s Men, and “The Taming of the Shrew” and “Love’s Labour’s Lost”, which were written to flatter his patron. Later, he would write “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, which was first performed at the wedding of the sixth Earl of Derby to Elizabeth de Vere in front of Queen Elizabeth. Last summer, there was a professional and accomplished performance of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” in Prescot, partly in the parish church of St Mary’s and partly in the churchyard. It was given by a local company of performers and I had the privilege of attending.
In “Love’s Labour’s Lost”, which is set in a deer park, King Ferdinand’s ambition to make his court
“the wonder of the world”
is likely to have been based on the real plans of Ferdinando Stanley. It was said that, had he lived longer, he would have been the leading English contender for the throne. Shakespeare almost certainly wrote his early plays while under the powerful patronage of these powerful Lancastrian families. Evidence from archival records is supported by references in the plays.
Let me turn to the proposal for a Shakespeare theatre of the north. The aim is to create a unique, internationally renowned educational facility to encompass a commemorative theatre, to provide a key link between national, regional and local cultural and educational policy, and to contribute to the economic regeneration of an area that has deep connections with one of the nation’s greatest cultural icons. The Shakespeare North trust plans to commemorate the significance of Prescot’s history by creating a playhouse built to designs drawn in 1629 by Inigo Jones for the Cockpit theatre. Inigo Jones was one of the greatest English architects and theatre designers of his day and designed the perfect stage on which to present the plays of his time, the most celebrated of which were Shakespeare’s.
The project has the capacity to create a Shakespearian triangle with Stratford and London. As such, the Playhouse in Prescot will be unique as the only replica of this indoor Jacobean court theatre in the world, and the site of the only actor training programme in Shakespearean performance in the UK. It will be a leading public theatre with a student programme at its core and a purpose to realise one of the UK’s premier cultural assets. It will be home to Shakespeare’s language, lyrics and performance potential.
At this point, it is worth summarising what we are trying to do with some words from, appropriately, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”:
“The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.”
I contend that that name is the new Playhouse in Prescot.
An overall programme of education and community engagement would be integrated with the work of the Playhouse so that all aspects cohere around the philosophy and aims of Shakespeare North. That will allow individuals to participate at many levels linked to college work either through discrete courses, workshops and activities, or in a developmental series of activities through the stages of people’s lives. In particular, the activities involving early years and school-aged children are designed to provide a strong platform for the years of compulsory education and beyond.
There are a number of strands to the project’s work and themes, including the seven ages of man. In particular, there will be postgraduate education in the form of a master’s degree programme in Shakespearean performance and practice; an exploration of language and lyrics linked with formal education providers; informal education and community engagement; priority for groups in collaboration with existing local government and voluntary sector initiatives for special focused-needs groups in which applied drama work will offer a range of relevant and productive frameworks; a music and memory programme of work for elderly members; a plan to increase the skills base and employment prospects of local residents through a range of skills training and volunteering opportunities; a base for the Shakespeare schools festival performances in the north-west; and finally, the Knowsley international Shakespeare festival, which we propose in conjunction with the project.
The trust’s fundraising strategy to secure the cost of the scheme, which is likely to be in the region of £19 million—this is not special pleading—is likely to be the basis of a lottery bid. However, if the Chancellor happens to find a spare £19 million in his budget, we would be grateful to receive it towards the capital costs. The business plan indicates that the development would achieve sustainability in a relatively short period and would not need to rely on regular revenue funding.
Shakespeare North has been established to work in partnership and improve the attainment of education and skills needed for long-term local and regional resilience and to help to create a place where people aspire to live, visit, work and do business. I am not asking the Minister for anything in particular, but I would be grateful for some indication of the Government’s general support for the programme, without any specific, tangible support at this stage, although, as I said, that would always be gratefully received.
I conclude with a request to the Minister by way of some words from “Hamlet”:
“Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue. But if you mouth it as many of our players do, I had as lief the town crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus. But use all gently.”
We look forward to the Minister’s gentle response.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Sir Edward, to give you your appropriate title, may I say what a great honour it is to appear under your chairmanship? I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for calling this important debate. To respond to his eloquence, I should of course say:
“To be, or not to be: that is the question”.
But we very much hope that it will be—that this important project does get off the ground.
It is a great pleasure to speak about the proposed Elizabethan theatre and the community hub in Prescot in Knowsley that will result from it. It has been inspired, of course, by our most famous Englishman, William Shakespeare. The Shakespeare North project in Knowsley has been proposed by the Shakespeare North trust, and it has been long in gestation. To quote from “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”,
“The course of true love never did run smooth”.
The project cannot simply be wished into existence overnight, but it is an exciting project and I hope to stay close to it now and in the future, because a lot of hard work has gone into it and it deserves to succeed. It would be fantastic if the proposals to recreate the Elizabethan theatre, about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so eloquently, came to fruition. That would bring with it the chance for local residents and visitors to see Shakespeare’s plays performed in Knowsley 400 years on from when they were originally performed there by Lord Strange’s Men.
The project has widespread support, not only from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer), who both represent Prescot, but from local cultural figures such as Phil Redmond, who is the chairman of National Museums Liverpool as well as a renowned writer, the actor Alison Steadman, Tom Baker, Willy Russell and Alan Bleasdale. The proposed theatre and hub would be an excellent opportunity for the young people of Knowsley and would play a part in inspiring the next generation of theatre makers and performers, who could see Shakespeare’s work on their very doorstep.
Mr Howarth
It is indeed a very distinguished list of patrons that the Minister has read out. He might add to that Sue Johnston, who went to school in Prescot and was brought up in the area and is of course a distinguished actress herself.
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Also included in the list of patrons are Dame Helen Mirren, Sir Patrick Stewart, Vanessa Redgrave and of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, Sue Johnston. At the launch of the appeal, Knowsley Council supported a bid to the Big Lottery Fund, and the project made it on to a shortlist of nine, out of 400 bids, but unfortunately it did not receive the grant.
At a public presentation involving 200 local residents at Prescot parish church early in December, the trustees described the fifth and sixth Earls of Derby as the Simon Cowell and Cameron Mackintosh of their day. Prescot is a very old, distinguished, former industrial town. To have Shakespeare performed in that town was unique; it was the only such place outside London. The fifth earl, Ferdinando Stanley, sponsored his own theatre company, Lord Strange’s Men, who performed William Shakespeare’s plays at Knowsley Hall and at the original theatre. Many of the playwright’s characters are named for the Stanley family. In 1593, Prescot became home to the first and most important freestanding theatre outside London. Although no pictures of the Prescot playhouse remain, it is believed to have been a cockpit theatre much like those designed by the famed Tudor architect Inigo Jones. It stood at the end of Eccleston Street, a quaint shopping street in the market town, where the flat iron building stands now. The chief importance of the venue was in bringing drama to ordinary working-class people, making theatre accessible to everyone—something of which the earls could have been extremely proud.
I will leave it there, as my throat is cracking, but I urge the Minister to empty his pockets and purses, and whatever he can find should go towards this project. There are many local philanthropists, including Lord Derby, I understand, who will help to make it happen, and a little from the Government would go a long way.
Mr Vaizey
I hear what the hon. Lady says and I commend her for making those remarks, given the sore throat that she clearly has. I will obviously put the names that she read out as supporters of the project alongside those of Sir Paul McCartney, Cherie Blair, David Alton, Clive Owen, Trudie Styler and many others. Of course there is also the chairmanship of the Shakespeare North board. Peter Scott is the chair, but Professor Kathy Dacre has been mentioned, and many others have given so much of their time to make this project happen. As the hon. Lady remarked, at one point the project was shortlisted for a lottery bid, but it was unsuccessful. We can put a girdle about the earth in 40 minutes, but projects such as this take some time.
What is really exciting about the project is that it speaks to my own personal passion, which is to put culture and heritage at the heart of our communities. The project combines both. It includes a heritage element. It recreates the historic link that Knowsley and Prescot have with our greatest playwright. It provides a heritage centre by recreating the Elizabethan theatre and bringing alive the plays of Shakespeare. However, it is also an extremely contemporary cultural project, which reaches out to the widest community possible—to actors themselves in terms of training, to young people and to everyone as a community resource. That is one of the other reasons why I am so supportive of the project—because education and community engagement are central to the proposals. There is a proposal for an international university college, with a strong link to Liverpool John Moores University. That is a theme that I want to bring out more. The role that universities now play in culture and heritage is too often unacknowledged, but I hope to bring it to the fore over the next few months.
Of course the project will depend to a certain extent on philanthropic support. Many people who have ties with Knowsley, not least some of the people whom we have mentioned in the debate, will provide support, and I reiterate my thanks to them.
The hope is to create a Shakespearean triangle between Knowsley in the north-west, Stratford-on-Avon in the midlands and of course Shakespeare’s Globe in London. It is an ambitious target, but it could be an incredibly important asset for the heritage and tourism industry in this country, as well as increasing employment and aspiration in the constituencies of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady. As I have already pointed out, Shakespeare is possibly England’s most famous son and his stature across the globe is unrivalled. As an example of what Shakespeare North can achieve, Shakespeare’s Globe in London still receives some 350,000 visitors every year; Stratford-on-Avon had 150,000 overseas visitors in 2014, which represents an increase; and some 400,000 people visit Shakespeare’s birthplace every year. Those visitors to places such as Stratford-on-Avon generate millions of pounds for the local area, and it is hoped that if the project is successful, Knowsley’s links to Shakespeare will be of similar benefit to the local area.
I have hinted at the fact that I am passionate about themes such as place making, education and putting culture and heritage at the heart of a place. Next year, we will publish a White Paper on arts and culture, in which we may reference the project in Knowsley, because we want to talk about place making and education. Having a new performing Elizabethan theatre and arts hub would certainly put Knowsley even more firmly on the map. I was delighted to hear that the local council is strongly behind the project, as are the people of Knowsley, who understand the opportunity that it will bring to create new jobs and growth in the area.
The proposal aims to make the project in Knowsley part of the northern powerhouse, which is, as I am sure all hon. Members are aware, a major priority for the Government. That was demonstrated in this year’s spending review, which included investment in the Factory in Manchester and the Great Exhibition of the North. If the theatre in Knowsley gets off the ground, it will be close to areas that are replete with rich cultural heritage. Liverpool is a former European capital of culture and the home of National Museums Liverpool, as well as Tate Liverpool and the Everyman theatre. I was delighted to go to Liverpool the other day to host a round table for our White Paper and to see the continued commitment and enthusiasm in Merseyside for the arts. The devolution deal is part of our work to hand back power and responsibility to the region, and it is important that Liverpool’s arts and culture form part of that deal.
It is important to have this debate now, because next year, which marks 400 years since his death, will be a year in which we celebrate Shakespeare’s life. We will commemorate his works in a variety of ways. One of those will be “Shakespeare Lives”, a major programme of events and activities to celebrate Shakespeare’s life, which has the ambition of reaching 500 million people all over the world. The programme will be an invitation to the world to join in the festivities by participating in a unique online collaboration, and experiencing the work of Shakespeare directly on stage, through film, in exhibitions and in schools. The programme will run throughout 2016, exploring Shakespeare as a living writer who still speaks for people and nations, and it will feature activities across English, education and the arts to explore the story of how a playwright from England came to be enjoyed all over the globe. The British Council is working on the project, alongside the Foreign Office, UK Trade & Investment and, of course, my Department.
Here in the UK, Shakespeare 400 is a consortium of leading cultural, creative and educational organisations co-ordinated by King’s College London that will work together to mark the 400th anniversary through a connected series of public performances, programmes, exhibitions and creative activities inside and outside the capital to celebrate Shakespeare’s legacy. The BBC will also play a major role. Its contribution will include a live broadcast from Stratford with the Royal Shakespeare Company, hosted by David Tennant, and new adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays. In addition, the BBC’s Shakespeare archive resource will provide schools, colleges and universities across the UK with access to hundreds of hours of BBC television and radio broadcasts of Shakespeare’s plays, as well as his sonnets and documentaries about him.
The RSC will mark the anniversary with a far-reaching national and international programme of productions, including “A Midsummer Night’s Dream: A Play for the Nation” which will be co-produced with 14 amateur companies across the UK. It is important to recognise the amazing work that the RSC does with children and through its live screenings. The Birmingham Royal Ballet will create a new full-length ballet of “The Tempest” under its director David Bintley, and the London Philharmonic Orchestra will also celebrate Shakespeare’s legacy.
There could not be a better time to raise the prospect of a new northern hub for Shakespeare in Knowsley and Prescot. All the organisations that I have mentioned have the support of Arts Council England, and I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the generous settlement we secured from the Chancellor a few weeks ago. He made it clear that the arts are one of the best investments the Government can make, and that we will continue to support arts and culture across the country. I am delighted that Knowsley Council feels the same as we do. Incidentally, we will also ensure continued free access to our national galleries and museums.
I understand the continuing concerns about local authority funding, but I point out that other sources of income, such as business rates and income tax, can put local government in a strong position to support local arts and culture. That is why Knowsley Council’s strong support for the project is very welcome, and I hope that its passion for the project will be communicated to other councils across the region.
It only remains for me to thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley for calling the debate and the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston for speaking so eloquently. The Government are very supportive of the project, and we will continue to work with the right hon. Gentleman in any way we can to bring it to fruition.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Alas, poor Howarth, he cannot sum up, under the rules. I have asked whether he can, but—just say a quick word; go on.
Mr Howarth
I will just make two quick points. First, although the Minister’s comments about local government funding and the recent comprehensive spending review are welcome, Knowsley will find it difficult to take advantage of those opportunities, simply because the tax base is not there to allow it to do so.
Secondly, the Minister quite rightly indicated the tourist potential of the Liverpool city region and his ambitions, which I share, for our city region. I simply point out that Prescot is proud of the fact that it predates Liverpool. Although we very much associate with Liverpool and, equally, with St Helens, we feel that there is something unique and special about Prescot.
I am grateful for the general support that the Minister has offered, and I hope that we can collaborate with the Shakespeare North trust and others over the coming months to try to bring this ambitious, but exciting, opportunity into reality.
Mr Vaizey
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I take note of the points that he makes. Local co-operation is important, but a little local rivalry is also welcome. I hope that Prescot will continue to press its case for being the most venerable town in the area. I reiterate that next year offers a unique opportunity to raise the profile of the project, given the huge focus that will come to bear on William Shakespeare’s life.
Question put and agreed to.
Marriage Registration Certificates
(8 years, 4 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
Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Good afternoon. Before we begin, it might be helpful if Members know that we can continue until 4 o’clock, but we are expecting a Division in the House at 3.45 pm.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered marriage registration certificates.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. The latest intelligence that I heard is that we might have a vote at 2.45 pm, but of course we are on a running three-line Whip, so we will just have to see.
I am happy to have secured a Westminster Hall debate on this important subject. Since 1837—the beginning of Queen Victoria’s reign—marriage certificates in England and Wales have included the names of the spouses’ fathers, but not their mothers. I know that I am not alone in finding this state of affairs unacceptable in our modern society. Indeed, the Prime Minister said as much in August 2014.
The issue has attracted calls for reform from many Members: the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has tabled two early-day motions on the subject, each of which attracted 100 signatures; a petition on change.org was signed by more than 70,000 members of the public; and the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) has introduced a private Member’s Bill in an attempt to secure the inclusion of mothers’ names on marriage certificates. I believe that the Second Reading of that Bill is scheduled for 22 January, and it underlines the point that this is clearly an issue that concerns Members from across the House and requires urgent attention and reform.
The Church of England recently held an internal consultation exercise of archdeacons and legal officials to gauge the views of the clergy about changing the way we do marriage registration. It received an overwhelmingly positive response. It cannot be that difficult to change the format of marriage certificates so that the mothers’ details can be captured, can it?
I understand that the problem lies with the practicalities of the current system of marriage registration, which has not changed since 1837. Marriages are registered in register books, which are held in churches and other religious premises as well as in register offices. There are around 84,000 open register books in more than 30,000 churches and religious buildings. Marriage certificates are simply an exact copy of the marriage register entry, so under the current registration system changing the content of the marriage certificate would mean first changing the content of the register books. In order to do that, all 84,000 books currently in circulation would need to be replaced, at a cost of around £3 million.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
I am well aware that that is one of the sticking points, but as the right hon. Lady will be aware, there is a space next to where the details are recorded, which could be used to record the mother’s details without the need to replace all the books.
Mrs Spelman
I quite understand the hon. Lady’s point, but as she will see in the course of my speech, there is an opportunity to step forward, right into the 21st century, in the way that we register marriages, which will secure the mother’s name on the register. If she will bear with me, I think she will see that some other benefits could flow from a practically different way of registering marriages.
If we ended up having to replace the books, few would disagree that it would not be a good use of that sum of money. There is another, more efficient way that marriages could be registered, which is to adopt a system very similar to that which already exists in England and Wales for the registration of civil partnerships and which is already in use for the registration of marriages and civil partnerships in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Under the alternative system, known as the schedule system, marriages are registered in a single electronic register instead of in marriage register books. Changes to the form of the register entry can be made easily without the need to replace all the register books. Instead of signing a register book at the ceremony, the newlyweds sign a document that is then returned to the register office to be entered in the existing electronic register so that a marriage certificate can be issued.
Having all marriages registered online would create a central database without the need for any further administrative processes, but changing the way we register marriages requires a change to primary legislation. Depending how this debate goes, it is my intention to introduce a marriage registration Bill, which may look remarkably like the one that the hon. Member for Neath proposes to introduce. I would be very happy to make copies of that as soon as possible. There is a great desire across the House to find the best possible vehicle to make the change.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing the important subject to the House. On Friday, we debated the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, and some Members here were present. That Act has not been changed since 1886, which is quite recent compared with the legislation that the right hon. Lady mentioned. I understand that the Home Office Minister, James Brokenshire, said in October that there would be a timetable in due course. Does the right hon. Lady have any insider information as to whether there has been any progress on that?
Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Just before the right hon. Lady continues, may I remind Members not to use the names of other Members of the House?
Mrs Spelman
Nor can I, off the top of my head. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) might have been present at Prime Minister’s questions—I think it was the week before last—when her hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who is here today, secured a promise from the Prime Minister that if we cannot succeed in getting marriage registration certificates changed through private Members’ legislation, the Government will do so through Government legislation. Maybe like the Riot (Damages) Act, which the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton described—clearly I missed the action on Friday—this subject is an example of something that is really good to come from the Floor of the House of Commons. It is something that we feel strongly about and it is an example of a good opportunity for private Members’ legislation.
My draft Bill would contain powers to amend the Marriage Act 1949 by regulation, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to make provision concerning the registration of marriages in England and Wales. The Bill would not make mention of marriage certificates or the inclusion of mothers’ names for an important reason: the Bill would be an enabling measure. If enacted, the actual content of the marriage register, and therefore marriage certificates, which are a copy of the entry, would need to be prescribed in regulations made by the Registrar General with the approval of the Secretary of State.
Simply updating the marriage entry to include the mother’s name in addition to the father’s would not go far enough in today’s fast-changing society. Already, some families do not have a legally recognised mother and father, but instead have a mother and a second female parent, or, as in surrogacy cases, two legally recognised parents. In fact, there have always been cases that the current form of the register failed to accommodate properly, including where a child had been brought up by a guardian and might not know his or her father. As family composition continues to change, the marriage register must be capable of adapting.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I just want to clarify something. I completely get the point about the need for electronic progress. An electronic certificate is an interesting idea and perhaps one that would allow us to take a more modern approach, reflecting current social mores. However, would it mean that when people got married and signed the register in the side antechamber, the mother’s name would still not appear in that book?
Mrs Spelman
No, I can reassure my hon. Friend on that. The mothers’ names will appear. I can tell hon. Members that, personally, there is no stronger motivation for me than to ensure that the mothers’ names can appear on the marriage certificate. Unfortunately, my mother is long gone, but when it comes to the marriages—hopefully—of my children in due course, I shall take particular satisfaction if allowed, as a mother, to appear on the certificate. I expect that every other mum in the room feels exactly the same.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is making an interesting point. That, in fact, happened to me. My father died when I was a teenager and I could not put my mother’s name on the marriage certificate. I had to have a deceased parent on it, which is slightly strange. It seems that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) is already on the table and we could be debating it, so could the points made by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) not be included as amendments when it is in Committee?
Mrs Spelman
That is certainly one way of doing it. I will need to look closely at the Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Neath. I would be more than happy for us to work together. It would be good if all of us who have sought to bring about the change support it on the Floor of the House. That is our endeavour, and it is what we should seek to achieve.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I recognise and commend the right hon. Lady’s desire for the proposal to be made on the Floor of the House, but she must accept that in purely practical terms it would be far better if the Government gave a clear lead.
Mrs Spelman
I am not convinced. This subject lends itself to private Members’ legislation, as do a number of private Members’ Bills that come through the House, otherwise why would we bother with the private Members’ ballot? This is a really good subject for a private Member’s Bill, and legislating with the Whip on is a fall-back position. As the Prime Minister has said, if private Members cannot secure the measure in this Session, the Government will do so in the next Session.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I do not want to burst the right hon. Lady’s bubble, because she has far more experience of this place than I do, but I have served on the Procedure Committee for six years. The Committee has conducted a thorough inquiry into private Members’ Bills and, unfortunately, my bubble was burst when I discovered that not one private Member’s Bill that was not a hand-out Bill has become law since, I think, 1962.
Mrs Spelman
That is not quite true. In my 18 years here, private Members’ Bills have become law, but I agree that good private Members’ legislation is too often blocked for one reason or another. We should look to Mr Speaker, who always says that he is a champion of the Back Benchers, and ask the hard question, “Which Back Benchers?”
One purpose of today’s debate is to draw out the concerns and other things that might be barriers to legislating to make this change—I suspect that everyone in this room is broadly aligned on achieving the change. We may not have the people who might be disposed to block the measure, for whatever reason, but I have made sure that all Members of the House are aware that we are holding this debate today. Members have an opportunity to raise their objections so that we can tease them out and smooth the way for this measure to become law.
Valerie Vaz
The right hon. Lady is being very patient in giving way. Again, I put it to her that an actual Bill is being drafted by specialists in the House. That Bill covers all the points and has cross-party support, and it would be a wasted opportunity not to have this debate in Committee.
Mrs Spelman
I secured this debate so that I could run through my concerns in advance of thinking about what form a draft Bill should take to address those concerns. It may be that, after our debate in Westminster Hall today, we look at one made earlier and take the view that, actually, it is the best vehicle. This debate is a precursor to supporting private Members’ legislation and, in my capacity as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, I am trying to raise concerns brought out in the Church of England consultation, which is another dimension to the debate. If the hon. Lady and other Members bear with me, I will highlight some of the points raised in the consultation.
Having waited two centuries to change the register entry, it is important that we do not introduce inflexible measures that would require further primary legislative change in the relatively near future. We should not be over-specific in a Bill, but should make the changes through regulations—I made that point earlier. Will the Minister confirm that, in prescribing the marriage entry in future, consideration will be given to accommodating all family situations?
It might help if I outline some of the more detailed existing steps involved in registering a marriage and the changes I would make through regulations if I were to introduce a private Member’s Bill. The regulations, which would amend the Marriage Act 1949, would of course be made under the affirmative procedure, so they would be debated on the Floor of both Houses.
Couples wishing to marry in England and Wales may follow either civil or ecclesiastical preliminaries, which is a jargonistic word for things such as the reading of banns. Some consultees in the Church of England expressed concern that ecclesiastical preliminaries might be abolished, but in my view they should definitely not be abolished. I do not think there is any proposal that the reading of banns should be abolished. Ecclesiastical preliminaries are available to those wishing to marry in the Church of England or the Church in Wales, which would not change. Couples would still be able to have their banns called or to obtain a common or special licence in exactly the same way as they can now. Clergy would continue to certify a marriage by their signature—clergy sought particular assurance from me on that point.
The only change to marriages following the ecclesiastical preliminaries is that, before the ceremony, the member of the clergy who is to solemnise the marriage would be responsible for ensuring that a document, called a “marriage document,” is completed and contains all the details required to be entered in the marriage register. The marriage document would still be signed. After the marriage had been solemnised, the newlyweds and their two witnesses would sign the marriage document, just as they currently sign the register. Indeed, the couple may be photographed at the signing of the marriage document in what is, after all, the classic wedding photo.
The couple would be responsible for ensuring that the signed document was returned to the register office within three days to be registered, and a marriage certificate could then be issued. The couple would not have to return the document to the register office personally, as they will hopefully be on their honeymoon; they could post the document or ask someone else to return it. In Scotland, it is traditionally the duty of the best man to return the signed document on the couple’s behalf—we might say that there is no such thing as a free speech.
Civil preliminaries to marriage are available to everyone, including couples wishing to marry in the Church of England or the Church in Wales and those intending to marry in a civil ceremony according to other religious rites. At present, each party to a proposed marriage gives notice of marriage to the superintendent registrar in the district in which they have resided for at least the past seven days. After a waiting period of 28 days, and provided that there is no impediment to the marriage, the superintendent registrar to whom notice was given will issue each party with a certificate for marriage that must be taken to the marriage and authorises the marriage to proceed. The waiting period of 28 days can be extended to 70 days for certain couples subject to immigration control.
Under the proposed new system, instead of two certificates for marriage, a couple would be issued with a single document called a “marriage schedule,” which would act as the authority for the marriage to proceed and would contain all the information required to be registered. As for marriages following ecclesiastical preliminaries, the schedule would be signed by the couple after the ceremony and returned to the register office to be registered. The proposed changes would not affect the point at which a couple are married, which happens once a couple have said the appropriate marriage declarations in their marriage ceremony. As now, the validity of a marriage does not depend on the marriage being registered, although it would be a legal requirement to register it.
I am sure that any couple would want to register their marriage and obtain a certificate, and the experience in Scotland has been exactly that. The changes would mean that churches and other religious buildings registered for marriage would not hold open marriage register books and would not need to issue marriage certificates. However, the clergy of the Church of England would still be required to maintain records of marriages solemnised in church, and other religious groups may wish to maintain their own records, too. Indeed, during the consultation in the Church of England, the clergy particularly emphasised the pastoral importance of keeping a record of marriages so that relatives can visit and see the record for themselves. There is great interest in genealogy and family history, as we know from many television programmes. Marriage provides an important opportunity for the clergy to speak with family members about personal things, and keeping a record of it is important to family life.
As well as facilitating change to the register entry, the proposed changes would have other significant benefits. First, they would greatly increase the security of marriage registers—that addresses the books issue somewhat—as, at present, register books and blank certificate stocks are held in some 30,000 religious premises in England and Wales, where, sadly, they may be stolen, with obvious security implications. Under the proposed scheme, certificates would only be issued from register offices, and the register itself would be securely held electronically.
Secondly, the administrative burdens of registering marriages would be greatly reduced. Under the current regime, all those responsible for registering marriages, including members of the clergy and persons authorised on behalf of religious groups, are required to submit copies of all the marriages they register to the superintendent registrar of the district for onward transmission to the Registrar General. That is so the Registrar General can maintain a central index and register of all marriages that have taken place in England and Wales. It is an early 19th-century process and is cumbersome in the modern age. Under the proposed new system, there would simply be no need for the returns to be made.
Finally, the proposed system is expected to generate significant cost savings not only for central Government but for local authorities, which have responsibility for registrars and superintendent registrars, and for religious groups. Overall, the system is expected to generate savings of approximately £30 million over 10 years, although, as I said, that is not the principal reason for making the change.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that replacing the existing marriage register books to add the mother’s name would be an efficient way to resolve the present inequality, righting a wrong that has been allowed to continue for too long. The introduction of the new registration processes would create a modern, cost-efficient, secure and adaptable system while remedying an historic inequality. I hope that hon. Members will welcome the proposals.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) has secured this debate. As has been pointed out, I presented a private Member’s Bill on 4 November to change the marriage certificate in England and Wales, and notwithstanding the now-abandoned rule against anticipation, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important matter.
I presented the Bill on 4 November, so I assume that all those here will have had ample time to read it. It is not a long Bill, and its beauty is in its simplicity; it makes necessary changes without overcomplicating the situation. The Bill would amend the Marriage Act 1949 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to make provision for the recording of the name and occupation of the mother of each party to a marriage or civil partnership for registration purposes, and to require such information to be displayed on marriage certificates and civil partnership certificates and for connected purposes in England and Wales. It would cement those requirements in primary legislation, which is important.
Valerie Vaz
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the Bill that she introduced. Does she agree that it is a matter for the Government to discuss the details of the Bill, just as elements of my 10-minute rule Bill have been accepted into primary legislation? Points made by the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), could also be incorporated, either in discussions with the Government or certainly after Second Reading.
Christina Rees
I agree totally. It can be discussed and agreed in due course, because there is widespread support in this debate for the measures. The sooner we get on with it, the better. The reason why we want to put the change into primary legislation is that, as a regulation—as it is in respect of civil partnerships—it could be changed at any time. We need to cement the regulation relating to civil partnerships as well.
As the right hon. Member for Meriden said, the Bill is the result of a long campaign. A petition in January 2014 on change.org in January 2014 collected more than 70,000 signatures. A campaign on Twitter followed with the hashtag #MothersOnMarriageCerts, which had heavy coverage from the BBC, the Telegraph’s Wonder Women journalists and the New Statesman, which is a varied segment of the press to be supporting such a change. In August 2014, campaigners pressed the Prime Minister on the issue, and he agreed that it was high time the system was updated.
Christina Rees
He said that he would ask the Home Office how it could be addressed.
Dr Huq
I apologise for my keenness to intervene. My hon. Friend mentioned the Prime Minister. I think that he said at the time that marriage certificates do not reflect modern Britain. Given that he declared recently at Prime Minister’s questions that he is now a feminist, is that not an example of how he seems to say one thing and do another? There has been zero progress on this important subject since August 2014.
Christina Rees
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) says. In January this year, the Minister for Immigration, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), said in response to press inquiries that he was
“continuing to develop the options that will allow mothers’ names to be recorded on marriage certificates as soon as practicable.”
But still nothing has been done and this outdated practice continues.
In 2012 alone, 262,240 marriages took place in England and Wales, a 5.3% increase from the number of marriages in 2011. Unfortunately, we cannot calculate how many marriages have taken place since August 2014, because the Office for National Statistics stopped counting in 2012. However, it is safe to extrapolate that hundreds of thousands of marriages have taken place while the Government have failed to act. That is hundreds of thousands of instances in which women have been accorded second-class status. In a developed country in the 21st century, that beggars belief.
Mrs Spelman
Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the announcement of the private Member’s Bill prompted, among other things, the Church of England consultation of the clergy, which only concluded just before the 4 November deadline? The consultation was among some of the practitioners most directly involved, and it is relevant to the discussion of what form some of the changes should take. It probably feels as though it has taken a very long time, but it is not when compared with the two centuries that we have allowed to elapse without putting the mother on the certificate. Getting it right is important. Often, when private legislation is introduced, it prompts action, which is what has happened here.
Christina Rees
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for acknowledging that the Bill prompted action and a consultation. Her offer to work together is encouraging. She mentioned that the practice has been changed in Scotland and Northern Ireland and for civil partnerships, so I cannot see why it cannot be done in England and Wales. Why delay further?
My daughter Angharad may one day get married—who knows? I had better wave to her—and if she does, I sincerely hope that my name will feature on her marriage certificate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), we are delighted to hear, will soon give birth to a daughter. She has raised this important issue during Prime Minister’s questions and has rightly called for women not to be written out of history.
My final appeal is for support for the Bill that I have presented, which will have Second Reading on 22 January. Its beauty is in its simplicity. We can make any changes that might need to be made to embrace further family set-ups. We might not know how families will be composed in future, but I am sure that that can be taken care of in Committee. We need to move forward without delay.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady, and to speak in this debate, which we are all grateful to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), for securing. I should probably declare an interest, given that two members of my staff intend to get married—not to each other—in the next year, so I was under a certain amount of pressure to attend this debate. We talk of nothing but wedding dresses in the office.
It is almost 19 years since I married my husband on a cold and frosty December day. Since then, the idea of marriage has evolved considerably, but it remains important to many of us. It is noticeable that the mothers in this debate—I hesitate to call it “the audience”—go particularly shiny-eyed when we talk about our daughters getting married. As the mother of a 14-year-old and a 12-year-old, I am already thinking of those happy days that I hope will happen one day—but not too soon.
We should recognise that families today look very different to how they looked even 20 years ago, when I thought about getting married, and extremely different to how they looked two centuries ago, so I will focus on how we adapt to that change.
Dr Huq
I did not declare my interest as a mother before; I do so now.
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point that the constitution of families has changed dramatically. Is she aware that, according to Gingerbread, there are now 2 million single parent households, which is 25% of all families with children, and 90% of those single parents are women? Given those figures, this erasing of women from history, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has called it, seems even more anomalous.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Lady makes a point that I will come on to shortly.
First, however, I will again quote the Prime Minister, from his speech to the Relationships Alliance summit, which I referred to earlier. He said:
“We all know that a strong family begins with a strong relationship between two loving people who make a deep and lasting commitment to each other…in Britain we recognise and value the commitment that people make to each other. And that’s just as vital whether the commitment is between a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and another woman.”
As we have heard from other Members this afternoon, it was in that same speech that the Prime Minister announced plans to address the “inequality in marriage”, to enable mothers’ names to be included on marriage certificates as well as fathers’ names.
I have discussed this issue at length with one of my constituents, who has been in a relationship for a considerable time; in fact, we are all eagerly awaiting her engagement as well. She pointed out that she is estranged from her father, who subjected her and her siblings to sexual abuse over a number of years, and has not seen him since she was 10. As a result, she would not want his name to be included on her own marriage certificate.
I looked into this matter and I understand from guidance from the General Register Office and from my own diocese in Oxford that
“If either party does not wish to put their father’s details in the Register or they do not know who their father is, you should not put ‘unknown’ or leave the column blank. You should put a horizontal line through both columns to show that no information was given.”
Although that would reflect in some ways my constituent’s wishes, it would also mean that there would be no mention of her mother, who understandably had to act as both mother and father to her during the very difficult circumstances of her upbringing. I feel strongly that a marriage certificate should recognise such a scenario.
Christina Rees
There is a rare exception by which a mother’s details can be included; it is if she has been authorised by a court as the sole adopter. Then a couple can make a special request to have her details put on the register and in the certificate. The other way that it can be done is via a loophole, whereby the mothers’ names can be included if the mothers are witnesses, but that is the only other way I can see round this problem.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Sadly, this matter involving my constituent never came before a court, so it is not possible to resolve it in that way. It is now important that we move forward to reflect the fact that families do not look how we once thought they always would.
Julian Knight
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech and I was greatly interested in her significant point about survivors of abuse and their involvement in this situation. In that regard, is it not, frankly, just a bit of a farce that we have to look for loopholes in order to recognise women on a marriage certificate? Would she like to reflect on that?
Victoria Prentis
I could not agree more. Personally, however, I am not sure whether including the mother’s name on a certificate goes far enough. In the speech that I referred to earlier, the Prime Minister also set out his plans to make adoption by same-sex couples more straightforward. That is important because increasingly we are seeing same-sex couples with children who will eventually want to get married themselves. In such circumstances, they will not have a “father’s name” and a “mother’s name” to note on the certificate, but might have two fathers or two mothers.
I wonder whether this is the moment to go one step further and provide two fields on certificates for “Parent 1” and “Parent 2”, or whatever terminology we see fit to use, after consultation. It seems to me that that would cover most scenarios. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what consideration has been given to such a suggestion.
Of course, any change is a step in the right direction. It must be possible, given that the mother’s name, surname and occupation are already included on a civil partnership schedule, to include those details in wedding certificates. I simply add that, given it has taken us this long to get this far, I hope that we will not have to wait a similar length of time before we recognise different forms of parental relationship.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Brady.
The arguments for changing marriage certificates have already been well articulated by several Members today and I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), for securing such an important debate. She joins other Members who have gone before us in trying to make changes, in this place and in their own way, for gender equality.
For many of us, the reason for wanting to rectify the situation is deeply personal. I was fortunate enough to be brought up in a home with two loving parents, who had different impacts on me in different ways. Although my politics has been formed by my life in England, a lot of my cultural background and history has been shaped by my mother’s experience of being a political asylum seeker who came to this country in the 1970s and settled in the constituency that I now represent here in Westminster.
Strangely enough, I actually got married here in Parliament, with my mother next to me, and yet I could not put her name on my marriage certificate. That was a great shame: in the most democratic institution in the world, I still could not put my mother’s name on the marriage certificate.
Putting the gender issue aside, families such as mine—families with complex histories or histories that we want to be reflected on what is the most important day of our lives, other than being elected of course—want to put the mother’s name on the marriage certificate. We want to account, in official documents, for the way we travelled to this country.
Wayne David
This issue has a long history, but there can be absolutely no doubt about where public opinion is on it. I simply cite the example from back in 2002, when the then Labour Government issued a White Paper and there was a consultation. One of the things that came across clearly back then was the overwhelming support among ordinary members of the public for the change that we are discussing. Does my hon. Friend agree that what was true then is even truer now?
Tulip Siddiq
I absolutely agree.
I have also found that men and women who are interested in family history often find it very difficult to trace it through a family line and official documentation. It is about time that situation changed.
However, my main reason for raising this issue in Prime Minister’s questions is the sheer number of my constituents from Hampstead and Kilburn who have written to me about it. In particular, I will highlight the case of a single mother who wrote to me recently. She was brought up by her mother and has had no contact whatever with her father. She told me that she was devastated to learn that the outdated practice that we are discussing is still a requirement of marriage. She said:
“When I get married, I will be expected to put my absent father’s name and profession on my marriage certificate whilst my mother who brought me up will not be included.”
It puts a dampener on this important day in someone’s life—when they are getting married—if they cannot acknowledge the person who raised them.
We must remember that our discussions today reflect the deeply held anxieties of the people we represent in our various constituencies.
Dr Huq
I want to draw my hon. Friend’s attention to The Daily Telegraph, which is not normally sympathetic to the Opposition—it has been known as the “Torygraph”. Its Wonder Women section backs a campaign on this issue, and a report in the paper in October included a quote that sounds very similar to the one my hon. Friend read out. Someone who is interviewed in the report says:
“I cannot believe it that in a developed country such a primitive reality would stare me in my face in the UK. I am deeply distressed”.
Tulip Siddiq
Well, if the Torygraph says it, we must agree with it. I agree with my hon. Friend, who puts a lot of hours into managing her life and her son—he is 11 years old and a delight.
I should point out that my constituent’s case is not a stand-out case. As my hon. Friend pointed out earlier, there are now 3 million lone-parent families in the UK—an increase of 500,000 over the past decade. According to the Office for National Statistics, there are now 2.5 million lone-mother families, compared with 437,000 lone-father families. The number of families with single mothers is therefore significantly higher than the number of families with single fathers. Although circumstances will differ from family to family, we need to bear those figures in mind while we fight to rectify the injustice we are talking about.
When I spoke to colleagues about marriage certificates and other issues, several of them—particularly one from London—talked about the large amount of correspondence they receive about certificates in general. Although the issue I want to raise is slightly different from the subject of the debate, I want the Minister to be aware of it.
It is virtually impossible to put fathers on birth certificates if they die before the birth of their child. Such cases are for another day, but I would like the issue to be reviewed. In one case, a father died a month before his child was born, and the mother is having to go to court to put his name on the certificate. She is having to deal not only with her grief following her bereavement, but with the fact that her child’s birth certificate will not mention her partner’s name. Will the Minister meet me and my London colleague to discuss the issue and see whether the Government will launch a comprehensive review into the various injustices that seem to occur with official documentation as a whole?
We operate in a political culture where policies do see U-turns. Earlier today, I was pleased that our Justice Secretary said that the criminal courts charges will be reversed. We also have the example of tax credits. If those polices can go through U-turns, almost on a whim, is it not possible to implement a policy that has been talked about endlessly? Early-day motions have been tabled, and questions have been asked at Prime Minister’s questions and at other times on the Floor of the House. We do not want the public to think that gender equality is not among our top issues. We must make sure that this change in policy gets through.
This is not the first injustice the Government have been slow to correct. However, there is something rather surreal about the Prime Minister demanding a change, and that change still not happening.
Mrs Spelman
Of course we can make this party political, but is it worth it? We have waited two centuries for this change, during which time the Labour party has been in power and had ample opportunity to make a change, and my party has finally also got into power, after a long wait. Could we not just drop this party political approach? That is what annoys people about politics. I am just saying, “Come on. We can do this as private Members. Let’s do this. Let’s do it differently.”
Tulip Siddiq
I do not want to make things party political, but I do want to put pressure on the Government to change this policy. If putting pressure on them is the way to do that, that is what we need to do. The debate is not just about correcting a bureaucratic policy; it is another step in the fight against the gender discrimination that still blights Britain today. If it is possible to put pressure on the Prime Minister and the Minister sitting in front of me, I would like to take the opportunity to do that.
This is not party political. In the country we live in, there is still a deeply entrenched gender pay gap. There is still violence against women, and that is a major cause of death every year. Women are still disproportionately hit by cuts to local government budgets. That is the reality of the situation—it is not party politics.
Valerie Vaz
I suppose I should declare an interest as well, as the mother of a 21-year-old daughter. However, to pick up the point about party politics, I should add that the civil service is independent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, there was a White Paper somewhere in the bowels of the civil service, and change was about to be made to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. However, the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) is now on the table, and it has cross-party support. Therefore, this debate did not have to happen—the machinery, the process and the legislation are already there.
Tulip Siddiq
I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said at the beginning, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Meriden for calling the debate, because this is an important issue. I am pleased that men and women from different parties are here today, which reflects how passionately we feel about this issue.
Finally, I have a few points. This issue may seem simple when compared with other issues.
Mrs Spelman
To be clear, there is nothing in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) about the practicalities—certainly from the clergy’s point of view—and the electronic registration process. I was just trying to put the practitioners’ view, and that is why I am not suggesting that we simply take the hon. Lady’s Bill off the shelf. There is also the wrinkle that the Bill is very specific, with its reference to the mother. If we do things by regulation, as I suggested, we can deal with all the subsequent changes in family composition. I was genuinely trying to put those points across in holding the debate.
Tulip Siddiq
I will not speak about the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), but I am happy to let her intervene if she wants to.
Christina Rees
The point is that regulation can be changed at any time; if these things are put in primary legislation, they cannot be. As I said, I welcome discussion, and we can change my Bill in Committee. The Bill will have its Second Reading on 22 January, and it addresses the main points. I think we should move forward with that.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend.
I will just make a few final points. It is worth noting that countries such as Thailand, Bangladesh, Spain and France have already changed their laws so that mothers can be included on marriage certificates. Mothers’ names are already included on certificates in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which brings home the injustice for all of us. I want to make sure that changing the policy on this issue forms part of the patchwork of equality I hope all of us will champion in Parliament.
If my daughter gets married—she has the choice of whether to get married—she can have just her father on her marriage certificate if she wants, or she can have her mother on it if she wants. However, I want the option to be there, because if she cannot have her mother on her marriage certificate, she will have to write to her MP—which is me.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
It is a great pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. Let me congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) again on bringing forward this subject for debate and on the expertise she has shown as the Second Church Estates Commissioner.
My right hon. Friend is my neighbour, but there is another lady in my life I would like to pay tribute to: my mother. My mother brought me up as a lone parent—my father left when I was very young. She often worked two or three jobs to keep a roof over our heads and to ensure that I was clean and ready for school. Despite all the hours she worked, she always made sacrifices in that regard. My politics were formed very much by my mother’s hard work and self-reliance. She is a great example in my life.
When I was married last year—rather late in the day—I had the great pleasure of my mother being there as a witness. She had a fantastic hat, whose dimensions were such that I imagine it could be seen from space. It was a great sadness to me that her name could not appear on the marriage certificate. I was completely unaware of that. I was involved in politics, but in local campaigning and not in the minutiae of legalistic matters that I am involved in today. Until I arrived at the wedding I was completely unaware of the situation, and although obviously I did not make a fuss or a big deal out of it, I just thought it was a ridiculous anomaly that the person who had played the greatest role in my life should not, on my special day, have her name appended to the record of the event.
Christina Rees
I had a similar experience when I got married many years ago. My father died when I was a young teenager and my mother brought me up. The father of my husband-to-be had also died many years before. The two mothers came to the ceremony but their names could not be on the certificate. That was when I realised it was a great injustice. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about someone being confronted with that on the happiest day of their life.
Julian Knight
That shows the importance of the Bill that the hon. Lady has introduced. We bring a lot of our own experiences to this place, and from that negative thing she has made something very positive. I welcome the private Member’s Bill, and perhaps the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, in her capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner and with her tremendous expertise, can come together to discuss and make progress with the matter. My right hon. Friend, with the Church, speaks with compassion about this matter.
We have been here before, with the 2002 White Paper. I believe that the idea was to make the change without primary legislation, and that it was decided that it could not happen by what I believe would have been a statutory instrument—I am still getting used to the terms. It was very unfortunate that that never came about. It would have been good to pass legislation then, although it would still have been happening many years later than it should have. Regardless of who is in power and of whether there is any party political aspect to the matter, I ask hon. Members to put those things behind us and focus on the issue now.
I welcome the review. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has been discussing the matter and I look forward to hearing the response to the debate from the Minister who is present today. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) made a significant point about survivors of abuse, and I have a constituent who is in a similar position. She is in a serious relationship and looking towards marriage, but in her background is an abusive father and there are issues about what that person’s place is in her life. We need to be sensible of that issue—and the idea that we can get rid of it with two broad strokes of the pen across the paper is ridiculous.
We must work together across the parties, with expertise. Let us have the change that would, frankly, get us into the 20th century and, with civil partnerships and the recognition of same-sex relationships and marriage, move things forward into the 21st century.
Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)
We have about 35 minutes, which should be plenty of time, I hope, for three Front-Bench winding-up speeches and a moment or two for the right hon. Member for Meriden to respond.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
It was Scotland’s national bard, Robert Burns, who wrote:
“While Europe’s eye is fix’d on mighty things,
The fate of Empires and the fall of Kings”—
there is more of it, and I could give Members all of it if they want, but I will not. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I will just get to the good bit—or the interesting bit; it is all good:
“Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention,
The Rights of Woman merit some attention.”
I am delighted to offer my wholehearted support to those looking for gender equality on marriage certificates. I commend those in the House and outside it who have campaigned on the issue for many years now, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) on leading the debate.
I did not feel that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) was being particularly party political. There is a general acceptance in the Chamber that the situation we are debating has existed for 178 years, in which time there have been Governments of different hues. Everyone has played a part in that, and we are all now playing a part in doing something about it.
In Scotland, as has been mentioned, there is space for both parents to sign the wedding certificate. That has been the case since registrations began in 1855. In fact, the certificates also list the occupations of both parents and allow for the possibility of same-sex parents. All of that is sensible and is a reminder that Scotland, with a distinct Church and legal system in the years after the treaty of Union, also had distinctive features with regard to marriage. It was customary in earlier times, as is becoming increasingly fashionable in the 21st century across the UK, for Scots brides to retain their original surname—I hate the term “maiden name”—instead of taking their husband’s. I am not claiming that in Scotland we are always ahead of the times—most of the time we are; I simply make the point that we would do well to remember that customs and their attendant paperwork are not set in stone. The current certificates are simply a poor reflection on our Victorian forebears.
Why, then, am I, a Scottish Member, speaking today? Clearly there is nothing to stop my constituents getting married and registering that marriage in England, and many of them do. More importantly, the issue is about equality of status for men and women, and that is of course a universal issue. It is clear to all right-thinking people that the recording of paternal names but not maternal ones on marriage certificates is an anachronism that has survived far too long. At best it speaks of the patently sexist Victorian view of the man as the head of the household, and at worst it treats women as little more than property to be transferred from one household to another. Then again, if someone who states publicly that the best place for a woman is on her back can be shortlisted for BBC sports personality of the year, perhaps we have not moved on quite as much as we should like to think since Victorian times.
I confess that when I saw the debate coming up I wondered whether it really merited a full 90 minutes—simply because it is about something that should go without saying—but I was wrong and I think it does deserve the time. The issue may seem relatively minor to some people, but it says something about attitudes to women. The fact that this practice is still going on is insulting and hurtful. It is another example of women being written out of history. We are invisible. We exist, but we are not important enough to be remembered or acknowledged. Historians and genealogists support what the right hon. Member for Meriden is calling for today. They tell us that it has historically been harder to track down female bloodlines because of this anachronism.
It is bad enough that women who achieve great things on a large scale are not as well acknowledged or remembered as men who do the same—or not, as the case may be. I was delighted to read yesterday that at long last the funding has been secured to erect a statue in memory of a hero of mine, Mary Seacole, the self-taught Jamaican-born nurse of Scots Creole descent who set up the British Hotel, where she nursed thousands of wounded soldiers in the Crimean war. That has been a long time coming and it is bad enough that it took so long, but there are thousands of women—some would call them ordinary women—whose achievements have affected fewer people but who have been the lifeline for their families or their communities. Those are the women who sacrifice everything to support their husbands’ careers, and the mothers who put aside all selfish thoughts to concentrate on building a secure life for their children. We have heard many Members referring to those things today.
Jenny Chapman
On behalf of ordinary, average, not brilliant, fantastic mothers everywhere, I want to say that sometimes our children love us too and might want us on their marriage certificates, along with their fathers.
Anne McLaughlin
That is exactly the point I was coming on to. The idea that mothers who bring up the doctors, plumbers, teachers and joiners of the future, and the community campaigners who give hope to their neighbours by refusing to stop caring about their neighbourhoods, are treated like they never existed when it comes to their children marrying is not acceptable. Women are not less important than men; they are equally important. An anachronism it might be, but it is time to sort it out, and we have agreement across the House.
As has been mentioned, in August last year the Prime Minister said:
“it’s high time the system was updated”,
and in January of this year the Immigration Minister said:
“We are continuing to develop the options that will allow mothers’ names to be recorded on marriage certificates as soon as practicable.”
We have heard some explanation today as to why it is taking so long, but I still gently ask: how difficult can it be?
We are all aware of the emotional and financial investment that people put into their wedding days. Weddings are full of symbolism, and are a public statement of commitment, but what does the symbolism of such blatant inequality say about our society? I remember my dad talking about giving me away—incessantly talking about giving me away. My disinterest in marriage was frustrating to him, but it allowed him to regularly tell people how he would be happy to give me away to whoever wanted to take me. I laughed, obviously—I had no choice—and I always knew that, for his sake, should I ever give in and get married, I would allow him to give me away. In the back of my mind, though, I always felt uncomfortable with the suggestion that I was his—or anyone’s—property.
Mrs Spelman
My sister reminded me on Sunday that as early as the 1960s Church of England ministers saw the light and began to allow a mother to give her daughter’s hand in marriage if the father was not there. There are human ways, therefore, of addressing the patriarchal tendency to see the act as a man’s privilege.
Anne McLaughlin
Interestingly enough, my father passed away a number of years ago and it fell to my mother to remind me that my sister had allowed her to give her away. I suppose my point is that no one is anyone else’s property, but there should be equality if someone is someone else’s property and they have to be given away. I do not feel comfortable with it at all, but it is simply a tradition and one that many are happy to go along with. Not allowing the mother’s name and occupation to appear on the marriage certificates of her children is a different matter, and I cannot understand why it has to be so complicated.
I again congratulate the right hon. Member for Meriden on securing the debate and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I hope that he will do what I believe the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn suggested, and just get on with it.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Brady.
I, too, start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) on securing this important debate, and I take heart at her repeated emphasis of the fact that she wants to work collaboratively. I agree with her. The debate has shown that there is cross-party agreement and support, but we need to consider how to make the legislation reflect the intention. I urge the right hon. Lady to work collaboratively with my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) because we have the prime opportunity of the Second Reading of her Bill coming up on 22 January.
It was interesting that the right hon. Member for Meriden elaborated on the practitioner’s view and on some of the practical problems. I appreciate that she was looking to move the debate forward from the gender point, but as that is where we are at the moment I will stick with it as the theme.
The current system of marriage registration asks for the names and occupations of the fathers of the bride and groom, but not those of the mothers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) stated, it has been Labour policy to end that unacceptable inequality since 2002. The then Labour Government released a White Paper proposing wide-ranging reforms to marriage registration, including the adding of mothers’ names to certificates. That is still our position today, and I want to set out why it is so important that the reform is finally implemented.
Inequality in marriage certificate details is a 19th-century anachronism, as our marriage registration is still based on the 1836 marriage registry system. That is a slightly different date to the one that the right hon. Member for Meriden gave, but I take heed. It goes without saying that marriage today is very different from what it was then—whether it was 1836 or 1837. I think we can all agree that society has changed for the better: women are no longer forced to hand over their property to their husbands; divorce is no longer the exclusive preserve of men; and women are no longer forced to surrender their right to consent, or not consent, to sex with their partners. In short, the past 200 years has seen great emancipation for married women and some of the grossest gender inequalities within marriage have been eliminated.
Ultimately, the current system of marriage certification is a symbol of another unseemly aspect of the 19th-century idea of marriage. Marriage then was considered to be a transactional, and indeed a financial, relationship between the father of the bride and the father of the groom. That is why, historically, the fathers’ names appear on the certificate. That is as outdated as the dowry. Thankfully, we no longer see marriage in transactional terms, although, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) said, the language of fathers giving their daughters away is still around. Marriage in the 21st century is a choice that both partners freely make to spend their lives together, with both partners equal in the relationship, and it is important that our marriage certificates reflect what we now think marriage is about, rather than the misogynistic morality of the 19th century.
I ask the Minister to consider a specific issue that highlights some of the problems we have. Unfortunately, the current marriage certification system can encourage the use of the divisive and judgmental language of Victorian morality. On the Government’s Passport Office website, in the section explaining the details of various legal documents, there is an annotated picture of a standard marriage certificate. The box about the father states:
“These details are vital for checking you have the right certificate. No name would suggest illegitimacy.”
It is not appropriate for a Government publication to describe a family without a father as illegitimate, and I hope that the Minister will look at that.
A person’s wedding day is one of the most important days of their life, and sharing the moment with their entire family is one of the things that makes it so special. A lot of brides and grooms are surprised, and disappointed, when they find out that the marriage certificate they sign, at what can be a really special moment in a wedding, does not include their mothers’ details. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) and my hon. Friend the Member for Neath who beautifully and powerfully spoke about how the blocking of the most important person in their life—their mum—on their big day affected them. I also pay tribute to the mums, for all they have done—and to their hats. We have to work together to get rid of the inequality.
The situation is particularly hard for brides and grooms who have primarily been brought up by single mums. Their guardians and most important loved ones are arbitrarily excluded from an important moment of the wedding, and the signing of the certificate can act as a reminder of absent fathers—some Members have spoken of the kind of father people do not want to remember on their big day—and that just cannot be right.
When I was researching my speech, I came across a moving testimony that made exactly that point. A young woman who signed a petition to Parliament on the issue wrote on the petition website:
“I have just got engaged, and having been brought up by a single mum I am devastated to learn that this outdated practice is still a requirement of marriage. When I get married, I will be expected to put my absent father’s name and profession on my marriage certificate whilst my mother who brought me up will not be included.”
The current system is letting down that young woman badly. As has been said, the issue affects millions of people, as one in four children are now brought up by single parents.
Changing marriage certificates should not be a difficult reform to achieve. As the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) pointed out, the mother’s name, surname and occupation are already included on civil partnership certification, and on marriage certificates in Northern Ireland and Scotland. The reform to marriage certification in England and Wales is long overdue.
In August 2014 the Prime Minister promised to address the matter about the certificates:
“At the moment, they require details of the couples’ fathers, but not their mothers. This clearly doesn’t reflect modern Britain - and it’s high time the system was updated.”
I could not agree more with what the Prime Minister said then—18 months ago—but it is now more a year later, and we are still waiting. The Immigration Minister—I googled him; he is the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—stated in January that the Government are
“continuing to develop the options that will allow mothers’ names to be recorded on marriage certificates as soon as practicable.”
I hope the Minister puts me in the right place on this, but it appears that no progress has been made over the course of the year, which is disappointing to say the least.
In the absence of Government action, it has fallen on Back Benchers to take the initiative. Early-day motion 446 was tabled in September this year by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and it expressed many of the sentiments that we have heard today. Members from all major parties have signed the motion. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath, who currently has a private Member’s Bill before Parliament that would deal with the issue legislatively. Members from across the House have supported that Bill. Second Reading is scheduled for 22 January 2016, and I hope the Bill will move forward to Committee. It will certainly have the full support of Opposition Front Benchers.
As important as Back-Bench initiatives are, we all know they need Government support and backing if they are to bring about the necessary change in the law. My hon. Friend’s Bill will need proper parliamentary time to make progress, and I urge the Minister to facilitate that. He has indicated that implementing changes to marriage registration is also likely to require a new IT system, as we rely on a paper-based model. If the Government seriously back reform, the Home Office needs to show that it is willing to provide those resources, or at least to consider whether changes can be made to the paper-based system without having to implement a new IT system. Also, the Government have access to experts in legal drafting, who should support Back Benchers with any technical issues that need to be cleared up.
If the Government do not offer serious support, it will be just another issue on which they are willing to talk about supporting equality, but are not willing to take the necessary action to bring it about. Unfortunately, thus far all we have seen is delay and warm words from the Home Office. All the people who feel excluded by the current marriage registration process deserve better than that, and I hope the Minister will give them reassurance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees (Richard Harrington)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I may be competing with the Division bell shortly, but I leave such matters to your judgment. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) on securing this debate, but I will get to the point. Many Members have raised good points, and everyone is right: the Prime Minister made a commitment in his speech to the Relationships Alliance summit. It is obvious to anyone that it is high time that the system was reformed, and reformed quickly. I do not think there is any dispute about that. The system was established the year that Queen Victoria came to power. It was also the year that Rowland Hill decided that we might be able to fold up paper and put letters inside and post them. It is now 2015 and it is absurd that the system has not changed.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) made a point about there being no private Members’ Bills, apart from Government ones, that had become law in her time. Respectfully, there are good exceptions to that. One of the main ones came from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), who is in his place behind me. His Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 was enacted in the last Parliament. Putting that to one side, there is a good precedent in this field with the Marriage Act 1994, which started as a private Member’s Bill. It allowed homes and hotels to be used for marriages.
Jenny Chapman
I am delighted to hear what the Minister is saying. It is news to me. Does he mean that we can assume that the Government will give a fair wind to any of the private Members’ Bills before the House on this topic? Will they give them Committee time and not use any of the techniques well known to the Minister to prevent the Bills from becoming Acts?
Richard Harrington
As the hon. Lady will know, I cannot speak for every private Member’s Bill. The 1994 Act was brought forward by Gyles Brandreth, then a very well known MP. I had better make progress.
There is no question but that the Government want to see the issue remedied. The question is whether the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) can be, as many have suggested in this Chamber and elsewhere, the piece of legislation that is needed. I point out that many Members here seem to have children of marriageable age who are currently unmarried: I have two boys aged 24 and 21. I am pleased to say that the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) is a good personal friend of mine, and I think we should discuss the matter outwith the Chamber.
Getting back to the important point, can the private Member’s Bill be adapted? I would very much like to say yes. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult and then to make regulations setting out the marriage register entry, including the mother’s and father’s name, but it does not reform the whole registration process. It would simply require the replacement of tens of thousands of books at a cost of £3 million. The Bill does not take account of different family circumstances, where there may not be a mother and father. Members have mentioned many particular cases relating to that. It also does not give flexibility for the future. After we have amended the law, the matter may not be again for another 100 or 200 years, so we have to get things right.
Christina Rees
Will the Minister work with me to make the private Member’s Bill cover the things he mentions better? Can we work together to move it forward on 22 January?
Richard Harrington
I cannot pledge to work with the hon. Lady on the Bill, because I am not convinced that it is the right way to deal with the matter, although many of the points and sentiments in it are right. What we need—I assure her that this will be progressed quickly—is a vehicle that will transform the whole system of marriage registration for the digital age, so that all the points and everything that is changing in society can be taken into consideration. I assure her that that is not in any way meant to be disrespectful to what she is trying to do. I am not against any of the sentiments or saying that anything within the Bill is wrong, but we need a comprehensive solution. I assure her that this is not Government waffle. We have to deal with the matter once and for all, quickly and properly. I would like to be able to say that her Bill is the vehicle for that, but I do not believe that it could be. A combination of the hon. Lady, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and some of our discussions could get to a vehicle that could deal with things quickly—I have every reason to believe that.
I would like to say that it makes sense to have a simple amendment of the current marriage register. Like so many of the things that we get involved in—I find this when speaking to constituents—we think that the matter is simple and that we know the solution, but this matter is much more complex than that. We do not want to have to change the system again and again. We want a comprehensive solution with a framework for the modern digital economy, where—we hope everything will be transformed in this way—people will get a certificate quickly with all the relevant details and where there will be no need for replacement certificate stock to be sent to thousands of different churches and other institutions.
Also, the solution should minimise the public protection risk of marriage registers being held in some 30,000 different religious buildings. Every year criminal gangs steal registers and certificate stock for all sorts of different purposes, and it is time that the system was modernised once and for all. It would cost up to £3 million simply to replace the materials. A simple solution of just filling in the empty box was suggested, but that would lead to all sorts of mistakes and inaccuracies. While the suggestion is perfectly well-intentioned, I do not think it is very practical.
As the shadow Minister mentioned, we have to make the necessary IT changes with the correct resources. It is not a question of trying to save money with the new system, although once it was set up, it would probably save a lot of money and be much more efficient over the decades. Costs would be incurred. It is not just about making the system more cost-effective, although it will be over the longer term.
I want to mention some of the contributions made by various Members. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) made a point that, although not specific to the debate, surprised me. She asked me to look into the subject of illegitimacy on the Passport Office website. I will do that and I will respond as quickly as I can. I was astounded to hear what she said.
There have been so many good contributions, although I disagree with what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) said about the Prime Minister’s feminism, because he is very much a feminist. However, the point that she made about the deceased father on the birth certificate is valid and I will write to her on that subject when I have had a chance to look into it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) talked about a constituent and what form the marriage certificate should take, but it is not a simple matter. At the moment, our officials at the Home Office are working with key stakeholders to ensure that the needs of all different types of families are met. It is not simply a case of making a one-off change to include the mother. The matter affects different types of families, and the change needs to be done properly.
I smiled when the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) mentioned Seacole, the Scottish lady, and explained her background. A big chunk of the Home Office is named after Mary Seacole. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has visited, but she is welcome to come and look at the plaque. Of course, she is right. We are not talking about the contributions of women to society, because that is taken as read and is obvious. The concept of property in Victorian times would be laughable if it were not so serious, because it blighted women’s development for centuries. If we explain that to our kids, they simply cannot understand such concepts. I have shown children and visitors from my constituency the pictures in the Committee rooms of men—all men—in Parliament, but they cannot imagine such a situation. I can only say that what the hon. Lady said is absolutely right.
The serious point to make is that the Government are not simply playing with the issue in order to kick it into the long grass and say, “Well, it is one of those things.” It is very serious. It is absolutely absurd that the law has not been changed before. It is absurd, whether under a Conservative, coalition or Labour Government, that it has taken from the 1830s to today to even look at the matter. I know that people like the tradition of the marriage certificate. I have one, as have many people in this room, but we should keep the best bits of tradition and amend accordingly.
I ask for the brief patience of hon. Members. The issues are sometimes personal to us and our constituents, as highlighted in the debate, but I ask for brief patience because the Government are determined to get this right.
Mrs Spelman
I believe we have an imminent vote, so I will be quick. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) asked a poignant question: did the debate merit 90 minutes? Given that we are right up against the clock, I think the answer is a resounding yes. At the very least, most women and girls have absolutely no idea that they are discriminated against until it is too late. It is a handful who write to us, plus we have the poignant cases that we as Members of Parliament come across and the very telling personal stories of colleagues present for whom the moment has gone. Our mothers have not been able to put their names on our marriage certificates. That grieves us, but in their memory and for ever we want to change that. That is the message that comes out of this debate.
The only difference between the approach that I propose and the approach in the Bill produced by the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees)—I do not underestimate the amount of work that goes into producing a private Member’s Bill, having tried to do so myself three times—is that she is focused on the narrow point about putting the mother on the certificate. Sometimes that is the right approach to change legislation, because it has more chance of succeeding, but my approach has the practitioners’ thoughts standing behind it: are there other things we could do at the same time to ensure that in perpetuity we have a change that does not discriminate against anybody in society in terms of their rightful place on a marriage certificate in the future?
As the Second Church Estates Commissioner, it behoves me to point out that whatever change we make to the law must work for people of all faiths and none in our society. That is incredibly important. It has to be properly thought through. That is why I maintain we should try very hard to make sure we keep this cross-party approach and, in that spirit, I am more than happy to continue working with the hon. Member for Neath and her colleagues on this issue. Together we can put right such inequality, but we are impatient. The Minister begs a little patience of us; very little is what we are prepared to give him. The change needs to be made as soon as possible in the memory of all those we hold dear and those who in future will join our families. This matter needs to be put right. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered marriage registration certificates.
Electronic Communications Code
(8 years, 4 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
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered mobile phone coverage and the Electronic Communications Code.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Davies.
Before I start on the main content of my speech, I shall quote some of my constituents; apparently, that is a part of the kinder politics we now find ourselves in—as if no one had ever quoted a constituent before. I called for this debate because of the ongoing issues with mobile phone coverage in my constituency. Andrew from Rawcliffe said:
“I live in Rawcliffe and can use my phone only from upstairs, hanging out of the bathroom window.”
Gary from Goole said:
“As an employee of the Carphone Warehouse in Goole I’m on the front of finding many customers who struggle to get a decent signal in areas where I would expect to receive a strong signal.”
Mike from the Isle of Axholme said:
“O2 coverage in Epworth has been terrible lately, with no signal for hours on end.”
Sue, also from the Isle of Axholme, said:
“I would just like reception in Fockerby and Garthorpe without a walk in the garden!”
Another of my constituents, Jim from Wrawby, pointed out that in the absence of the roll-out of superfast broadband in his area—it has been generally very good in north Lincolnshire—he has to rely on mobile wireless broadband.
Significant issues remain. At the back end of last year, I secured a debate on this subject following a survey I conducted among 6,500 of my constituents, many of whom responded. Seventy per cent of respondents reported significant issues with access to mobile phone services. That is an ongoing problem throughout east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire.
I do not want to be wholly negative, because some positive things have happened. We have seen big improvements in mobile phone coverage in parts of my constituency, but there is no doubt that there is a lot more to be done. I have met the providers on numerous occasions and they have all promised me that they are going to make improvements, but progress seems to be very slow indeed.
Consistent mobile phone coverage is essential in the modern world. For small businesses to succeed and for families and friends to stay connected, they must be able to rely on the mobile phone coverage to which they subscribe. The issue is very much one of people getting what they are paying for.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, and I agree entirely on that last point. It appears that individual companies do not give sufficient information about what people will receive in their area. For example, people in Wrexham are not given specific enough information about the quality of service they will receive.
Andrew Percy
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although in fairness the mobile coverage checker that has recently been introduced should help people to zone in on where they are and check their coverage. Nevertheless, a lot of constituents in my patch tell me that according to the coverage maps their coverage should be good, but they are literally having to hang out of the bathroom window with a finger in one ear trying to get a signal. That is not acceptable.
The issue is not only about the signal at home. People travel and move around, as we would all expect them to. My constituents are sick and tired of losing their signal. Instead of going to the party conference—in my view, no one should ever attend a party conference—I went to Canada. Over the November recess, I drove from Regina in Saskatchewan to Calvary in Alberta, crossing the badlands of southern Alberta, and there is nothing in between. I lost my 4G signal for all of five or 10 minutes of a six and a half to seven-hour journey. I cannot get on to the M18-M62 interchange in Goole without losing my signal, or use the east coast main line every week without the signal dropping in and out. It is unbelievable that in a country as vast as Canada I was able to get 4G access the whole length of that journey; I have little chance of that at home.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It is great to hear about his trip to Canada, but in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire we unfortunately do not have those vast expanses between places—we have vast mountains instead. That means we have terrible problems with our mobile phone signals. I have a couple of ideas that I would like to put to the Minister in my next intervention, if I may.
Andrew Percy
I think that was an intervention to ask permission for another intervention, which I am sure the Minister will be happy to accept. In our area we have the opposite: most of my constituency is a fair few feet below sea level. We are as flat as a pancake—a bit lumpy in some places, but generally quite flat—yet the signal is ridiculous. The Isle of Axholme is a prime example. It is largely as flat as a pancake, but the signal in places such as Fockerby and Epworth is absolutely terrible.
In the year or so since I last secured a debate on this subject, there has been some progress, which I want to acknowledge. The £5 billion investment deal that the Government signed with the mobile operators has made some improvements. It will guarantee voice and text coverage from each operator across 90% of the geographic area of the UK by 2017, although we still need more action on notspots, of which there are two in my constituency. Full coverage from all four mobile operators should increase from about 69% to 85% by 2017.
There have, therefore, been some improvements, but although 99% of premises can receive a 2G signal, Ofcom has found that the proportion of the entire UK landmass that is able to receive a signal from all four operators has remained at 55% since last year. Nevertheless, I welcome the Government’s announcement in the comprehensive spending review of £550 million to make the 700 MHz spectrum available over the next five years.
The most recent update on coverage was in Ofcom’s “Connected Nations 2015” report, which found that almost 46% of the country now has 4G coverage from all major operators. It would be unfair of me to say that some of the improvements have not affected my constituency, because they have, but we still have significant issues with progress on this matter. I welcome some of the other moves. Voice over wi-fi is a really important way of helping people at home, although in many parts of the country the roll-out of superfast broadband has been disappointing. I exempt from that the north Lincolnshire part of my constituency, where the roll-out has been incredible, but the roll-out in the East Riding of Yorkshire part can best be described as hopeless—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) will agree. It is all right having voice over wi-fi, but people often do not have access to that at home.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
In many respects, would it not almost be better in some areas to have no coverage or complete coverage, rather than good coverage in one area and bad coverage in another? It is creating a social and economic divide that seems to be getting wider rather than narrower. The Prime Minister’s welcome comments about universal broadband really ought to have been about universal minimum standards throughout the whole of the UK and for mobile phones as well.
Andrew Percy
My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. I completely agree: the arguments that apply to access to superfast broadband also apply to mobile phone coverage. The two are now indistinguishable. People do the same things on their mobile networks as they do over broadband. They use both for the same thing, whether that is work or keeping in contact with friends and family. Of course, many people now do not have a landline; they simply rely on their mobile.
With your permission, Mr Davies, I want to leave a couple of minutes for my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness to comment. I have some questions about the electronic communications code, on which the Government consulted earlier in the year. The networks have expressed concerns that the code has not been meaningfully updated since it was introduced in 1984, and the Law Commission called it “complex and confusing”. According to the mobile providers, reforming the code is the single most important step that the Government can take to reduce the costs of network extension and improve mobile coverage. Before this debate, the operators told me that they can build a new site and put in new kit in about three months, but, because of the complexities of the code, it takes a year to 18 months to complete that work.
I hope that there will be a response to the consultation, but I have a couple of questions for the Minister now. On fair site payments, we need to end the practice of landowners being able to demand ransom rents because the lack of alternative sites locally means a lack of competition. That is a particular problem for rural roll-out.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Is it not correct that rents on rural phone masts are much lower than those on urban phone masts?
Andrew Percy
I suspect that the situation changes from site to site. The problem with many of the rural masts is getting access at particular times of the year, perhaps because the harvest is on. With landowners in rural areas, it can be more complicated and difficult to get access. The average punter expects an outage in the network to be fixed within four hours. At the moment, it takes about 48 hours, and sometimes a lot longer, for the companies to negotiate access.
We want the fair site payment, and we want the sharing and upgrading of sites to be reflected in the new code. Under the current code, mobile operators have to renegotiate rental terms when they wish to make a change, such as to deploy new technology or reduce the number of masts. That is patently ridiculous.
We need quicker access to sites. It is nonsense that it takes 48 hours to gain access. There is a problem with the EE signal in Burton-upon-Stather at the moment, and the landowner has held up access for weeks. It is partly due to the harvest, so there may be legitimate reasons, but it is clearly not good enough that the companies are unable to access the sites when there is an outage. In fairness to the operators, it means that they cannot deliver the service they wish to deliver.
We want better dispute resolution in the new code. There is a disconnect between the main networks and the independent mast operators on the issue of whether they should be covered by the code. I do not plan to get involved in that dispute; it is one for the Minister. [Interruption.] He is nodding away—I can see that he already has the solution.
This is an important issue for my constituents. There have been improvements, but we want the roll-out and the improvements that the networks have promised to happen much more quickly. With your permission, Mr Davies, I will hand over to my colleague.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to follow my doughty colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who secured this important debate. He has been relentless, as he often is—not just conversationally, but in championing issues on behalf of his constituents. What may be a fault in one area of life is very much a benefit in another. It is fantastic that he has taken up this issue with such energy.
Over the summer recess, I wrote to the chief executives of all the major mobile operators to press them on what they are doing to ensure that mobile coverage for my constituents improves. The Government’s agreement on the provision of 90% coverage is fantastic, but the feeling is always that if the percentage is less than 100% it is my constituents and those in rural areas who will miss out. In subsequent replies and meetings, I was pleased to hear about the significant progress and the investment that is going in to meet the 2017 target. We want it to go ahead as quickly as possible, as my hon. Friend said, so that people who are trying to live their normal life, call their girlfriend, do a business deal, run a small business or fulfil the normal obligations of life are able to do so as easily in rural areas as elsewhere in the country. At the moment, they cannot, which is what this debate is all about; it has got a very human dimension to it.
My hon. Friend made the key points, but what can be done to ensure we get this done as quickly and cheaply as possible? Every imposition on those companies will feed through into our constituents’ bills. We want to deliver a fantastic and effective mobile phone system as cheaply as possible and without imposing unnecessary burdens and regulations on those businesses, which is why the electronic communications code needs to be reformed. The Minister, who was nodding earlier—not because he was being put to sleep by my hon. Friend, but because he agreed with him—must make sure that happens.
I represent a rural constituency, so many of my constituents own land. Like my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), some are farmers who want to ensure that they get a fair return for any disruptions. There are reasons why the Government might create frameworks that impinge on the exploitation of land by its owners for the maximum return—such is the importance of this utility to our constituents. There are also regulatory issues that are driven not by the landowners but by the rules.
Will the Minister comment on raising the permitted development height for mobile phone masts? Having taller masts is a cost-effective way for operators to increase their coverage without installing and maintaining new masts. There might be a visual impact, and my constituents would be sensitive to that. Vodafone told me that, because of our planning restrictions, its 3G masts in the UK are about 10 metres shorter than its masts in the rest of the EU. It is asking for the permitted development height to be increased from 15 metres to 25 metres so it does not have to go through expensive and protracted planning procedures to get what it needs. Increasing the mast height would have the big effect of increasing the coverage area of each mast by 90%, so although the masts would be taller we would have fewer of them. There is a balance to be struck, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts about how best to strike it.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Oh, go on!
Chris Davies
Although I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the size of masts, big is not always beautiful—that is the philosophy of my life, and the Minister’s, too, I am sure. Small cell boxes can be used in small, rural areas. I would like the Minister to pay attention to the fact that, whether someone is installing a large mast or a small cell box, they still face the same planning restrictions. Perhaps that could be looked at.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the code, mobile operators have to pay about £8,366 per year to rent a site, whereas a pylon costs £283. As well as dramatically high rents, additional payments are levied by landowners in return for access to make repairs, whether or not it impinges on them. Disputes over those charges leave some consumers experiencing network outages for an overly long time. I will not labour that point, but I am interested to hear from the Minister how to strike that balance.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole said, mobile telephony is a basic utility. We have had frameworks in the past to ensure we keep the cost of delivering that basic utility as low as possible to encourage operators to deliver the service as widely and effectively as possible. That is true for other utilities, and it should be true for mobile telephony. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who will doubtless give a brilliant response to all those points.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I hope that I live up to the billing given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for securing this important debate, and I welcome the contributions of my many hon. Friends on this important issue. His speech came through loud and clear. It was not dropped at any stage, it was not interrupted and the message reached me without any form of interference, electronic or otherwise.
Earlier this morning, I was reflecting with a colleague about the fact that I seem to spend my life bumping into people who tell me about their holiday experience. They appear to get 1,000 gigabits per second on their mobile phone or computer, wherever they go on holiday. My hon. Friend did not disappoint with his Canadian experience. Far be it for me to compare Canada with the UK, but we are comparing a road trip across a vast expanse of land in a country the size of America that has a population of 30 million—it is one of the least densely populated countries in the world—where land costs are low and planning is easy, with an extremely busy motorway junction in the north of England in one of the most successful economies in the world. I would say that one is perhaps comparing apples with oranges. I also sympathise with my hon. Friend’s experience on a train, but I remind him that a train is a Faraday cage and that it is difficult to get a signal. We are working with the train operating companies—which is not unlike herding cats—to get a solution for mobile on trains, because it is an important part of the mix.
I say to my hon. Friend—and, indeed, to all my hon. Friends who appear regularly in broadband debates—that I have been working on the issue for quite a long time, and I intend to work on it for many more years to come, to deliver for them the kind of connectivity that they would expect. In return, I hope that when they rise to their feet in future debates, they acknowledge some of the progress that we have made. In Brigg and Goole, for example, some 25,500 premises that would not have been able to have a broadband connection can now connect to superfast broadband should they so wish, thanks to this Government’s highly successful broadband roll-out scheme.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Will the Minister give way on constituency progress?
James Cartlidge
We had three masts in South Suffolk under the mobile infrastructure project and the experience was mixed. I am not directly blaming the Minister, and the problem was with local communities in many respects. I am interested in what will be done to encourage investment, given that the publicly subsidised project had mixed results. Does my hon. Friend see changes to the electronic communications code as one way of bringing more investment into rural areas through the private sector?
Mr Vaizey
I will take that as a positive point, because it helps me to make some of the arguments that I want to make. I remind hon. Members that mobile operators are private companies making private investment. Indeed, they contributed some £2 billion to the Treasury’s coffers in the last 4G auction, and we now have the fastest roll-out and take-up of 4G in the world. They are to be applauded for their achievements. It is also true, however, that the Government can help.
A recent report by the International Telecommunication Union saw the UK rise from 10th place in 2010 to fourth place in 2015 in terms of connectivity, much of which was driven by mobile coverage. I should also point out that one thing we never take into account when considering mobile coverage is how cheap mobile contracts are in this country compared with many other places. We also do not take into account that the modern smartphone is actually not that great at receiving telephone calls, due to its short antenna, which contributes to the difficulties that people have with calls.
The key thing that the Government can do is to work with mobile operators to increase coverage. We are here celebrating the first anniversary of a landmark agreement on mobile operators’ licence obligations brokered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), then Culture Secretary, now Business Secretary. One operator has a licence obligation to achieve 98% indoor coverage by the end of 2017, but that is 98% of premises, which does not equate to 98% of the landmass. We therefore changed the licence conditions so that, by the end of 2017, all four operators will achieve 90% coverage of the landmass.
That will make a massive difference to coverage, particularly in constituencies with a rural expanse, where people drive between villages in a relatively rural area, such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole. This is an important, landmark agreement. About 6% of the East Riding of Yorkshire and 1.2% of Lincolnshire have been affected by notspots. As a result of the agreement, we will eliminate notspots altogether. Just 0.2% of north Lincolnshire and less than 1% of the East Riding of Yorkshire will have partial notspots, which is when just one mobile operator provides coverage. Therefore, 99% of East Yorkshire and almost 100% of north Lincolnshire should have coverage from all four operators. That will make an important difference.
Nigel Huddleston
I think this could be positive. I agree with the Minister that massive progress has been made on notspot coverage, but will he confirm how those notspots are being recorded and reported? There is some confusion about accuracy. The Government are making progress, but can he confirm how the reporting is done?
Mr Vaizey
We work with Ofcom to record what we regard as a notspot or partial notspot. We have an agreed signal strength with the operators, and we have had a robust debate about whether it should be -83 dBm or -98 dBm, but Ofcom provides the imprimatur, as it were, of what we regard as a notspot or a partial notspot.
That brings me neatly on to the mobile infrastructure project, with which we have had some difficulties. Not enough Ministers acknowledge when projects have problems and difficulties, but I freely acknowledge such difficulties because the MIP was pioneering and we can learn from some of its failures. One thing we discovered when we announced the project was how difficult it is to measure a notspot, because the efficacy of radio waves can differ depending on climatic conditions or how many people happen to be using their mobile phone at the time. It has been a huge learning experience.
The other learning experience has been working with planning authorities. I am pleased to say that we have erected some 15 masts and hope that, by the programme’s end next March, we may have got as far as 75, but I freely acknowledge that we have not got as far as we wanted. I have also been slightly astonished that organisations such as the National Trust have point blank refused to have masts on their land and planning authorities have turned down applications for masts despite local communities wanting them. Some members of local communities have even put concrete blocks in front of the generators provided for mobile masts. We have had some astonishing examples, where one part of the local community has actively tried to stop a mobile mast when the rest of the community wants it. My message to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole is that we can work together with landowners to provide them with better coverage as long as they are prepared to support mobile masts and not see them as cash cow or simply oppose them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness talked about changing the size of masts. I have been passed a note from my officials that says:
“Details on permitted development. However, you cannot announce them.”
So we are negotiating within Whitehall. We know exactly what we want to do, but we have to have Whitehall clearance and we have to pass secondary legislation. We want to increase the height of masts, to increase the height at which cells can go and to increase the time in which operators are allowed to take emergency measures to repair masts, because my hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the size and length of masts is important. I have a huge mast on the top of the ridge literally half a mile from my home. It is unsightly and ungainly. Would I prefer it not to be there? Of course I would. Does it provide great mobile coverage around the area? Yes, it does. I think that is a compromise worth making.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole quite rightly focused on the important reform of the electronic communications code. It has been like wading through treacle. It is extremely complicated. It has been in place for over 30 years, regulating the relationship between mobile masts and landowners and that between mobile operators and the wholesale operators, such as Arqiva and Wireless Infrastructure Group, which provide something like a third of masts. We want to revise the code and to change it to support the roll-out of broadband while protecting the rights of landowners. We will be bringing forward proposals next year to achieve those reforms.
I say in every debate, whether it is about mobile or fixed broadband, that we are conducting an engineering project. I sometimes compare it to Crossrail. When I am jammed on the tube with my nose against a stranger’s armpit, I do wish that Crossrail would open earlier so that the tube was emptier, but because I can physically see that tunnel, I know that it will not open until 2018. However, I am looking forward to using the new Tottenham Court Road station on Thursday, on my way to say farewell to Neil MacGregor, the brilliant head of the British Museum, who is retiring. This is an engineering project, and we will complete the roll-out of phases 1 and 2 of broadband over the next two years, achieving 95% superfast broadband coverage for the entire United Kingdom, which is an astonishing achievement.
We will also see the fulfilment of our agreement with the operators for 98% indoor premises coverage and 90% geographic coverage, and we will do that by supporting them with the electronic communications code. I also want to revisit the MIP, because we have made such astonishing progress in the past 12 months that we could have a phase 2 in which we take all the learnings from our mixed initial programme and take them forward to make meaningful progress. The electronic communications code, the licence changes, a potential further MIP and taller masts should all make the difference that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole is looking for.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Lead Shot Ammunition
(8 years, 4 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
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered lead shot ammunition.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in my first Westminster Hall debate.
An important petition is posted on the Parliament website and thousands of people from across the country have signed it, including eight in my constituency. The language is fiery and impassioned and the argument is clear: it points to an issue that concerns the House and has done for 100 years. I refer to the petition to keep all lead ammunition. About 20,000 people have signed the call to keep using lead in their guns:
“Lead ammunition has been used for hunting and shooting since the first guns were manufactured over three centuries ago. Never has there been a recorded death through lead ingestion.”
I take the matter seriously. I have constituents who hunt and shoot, as do other Members—in particular those who represent rural areas—and I recognise that sport shooting is a tradition and part of people’s way of life. Done sustainably, it can make a real contribution to the local economy and to the countryside. It is right to consider the future of the sport.
There is also another, quieter petition on the Parliament website in support of banning the use of lead ammunition in favour of non-toxic alternatives. Fewer people have signed it—about 3,000 to date—but that is the petition I commend to the Minister and to the House.
The case for using non-toxic ammunition is clear. Non-toxic alternatives to lead are effective, affordable and safer for wildlife and people. We have known the dangers of lead poisoning for thousands of years. The phrase “crazy as a painter” was coined centuries ago to express the awful effects that lead-packed paint had on people’s minds.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I have already given you my apologies, Mr Davies, but I might have to leave early. Does my hon. Friend agree that given that the known negative health effects of lead are well established and that, to minimise risk, lead has been removed from paint and petrol, it seems a tad ironic that lead remains in the shot used for killing birds that might be for human consumption?
Gerald Jones
I wholeheartedly agree. I hope to set out in the course of my contribution why that is such an important point.
Some people have even explained the fall of the Roman empire as having been caused by the Romans’ use of lead in pipes and cosmetics. More recently, the World Health Organisation, the Food Standards Agency and the Oxford Lead Symposium have all highlighted the toxicity of lead. Its negative human health impacts are scientifically established, even at the lowest levels of exposure, and lead poisoning is also a big problem for wildlife.
Much of the lead shot misses its target and builds up on the ground. It is then eaten by birds, which gobble up grit to grind up their food. The lead shot is dissolved in the digestive system and absorbed into the birds’ bloodstream. Scientists at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust have estimated that 50,000 to 100,000 wildfowl die of lead poisoning every year in the UK, along with many more game birds and birds of prey. Members might ask, “Where are all these dead birds?” but lead is known as the “invisible killer” because the poisoning is slow and distributed.
Carolyn Harris
I am sure my hon. Friend was as shocked as I was to discover that the existing regulations have a poor rate of compliance. In 2013 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commissioned a study that showed that 70% of ducks sampled had been killed with lead shot. The study was repeated in 2014 and showed that compliance had not improved, with an increased number of 77% of ducks sampled being shot illegally with lead.
Gerald Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which illustrates how the existing arrangements are unsatisfactory and in some cases ineffective, which is why they need to be updated.
Birds die gradually from lead poisoning, but die they do. The WWT found that one in four migratory swans seen at post mortem had died of lead poisoning. Other leading conservation organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wildlife Trusts have also highlighted lead poisoning as a major issue for UK wildlife. Yet we continue to spray about 5,000 tonnes of lead out over the countryside each year.
Why have more people signed the petition to keep lead? I could argue that it is a classic case of small interest groups rallying around to defend their privileges. I could blame the shooters for looking after their own interests to the detriment of wildlife and the general public. People are rarely vocal about long-term environmental consequences, or about widespread public benefits. By contrast, it is easy to portray the proposal to ban lead as an attack on country life, prompting a rush to oppose any change—but this is no attack on the countryside. The irony is that it is surely rural communities who would benefit most from a change in the law to phase out the use of lead ammunition.
Some people will point out that most of the lead that the public consume comes from vegetables. That is true, but people who eat game meat are far more exposed. It is not only the shooters themselves; we must also consider their families and the increasing number of people who eat game. Many game birds sold for human consumption have lead concentrations far exceeding European Union maximum levels for meat from cows, sheep, pigs and poultry. No maximum levels have been set for game.
Simply removing lead shot from the meat does not solve the problem, because particles of lead too small to be seen often break off or dissolve and are left in the meat.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I am struggling to understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that the existing regulations are not sufficient to deal with the problem. Would he back more detailed environmental studies to work out what the real effect on the community is?
Gerald Jones
During the remainder of my contribution I hope to address the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Simply removing lead shot, as I said, does not solve the problem, because traces of lead can be left in the meat. In the UK, as many as 12,500 children under eight eat game once a week in the shooting community alone. In children, less than one meal of wild-shot game a week could result in blood lead levels associated with a decrease in IQ.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman said, the shooting of birds with lead shot has been going on for many centuries. Where is the public health crisis to which he alludes? It would be news to many colleagues, because we have not had people coming to our surgeries or writing to us with any experience of a problem with eating lead-shot birds, whether personally or in their families.
Gerald Jones
It is not a case of the vast majority of members of the public speaking out on an issue such as this, but the studies are out there. I have outlined some in my contribution and will outline more.
The Food Standards Agency has also highlighted the risks to pregnant women. Of course, no one has died of lead poisoning from eating game, but nor would any serious scientist dispute that lead is a poisonous metal. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set up a new Great British Food unit and game is increasingly being sold as a healthy, local option. What better way to improve that brand than to ensure that the meat we eat is safe and lead-free?
Progressive countryside organisations such as the Sustainable Food Trust are backing the call to phase out lead as part of a modern countryside economy. Non-toxic alternatives are better for the image of the shoot, the economy of the countryside and the health of the shooters themselves.
Mr Charles Walker
In advance of the debate I talked to a number of clay pigeon shooting grounds in and around my constituency, and their problem with steel shot is that it ricochets. If lead shot is banned, all those shooting grounds will be put out of business—not just in and around my constituency, but across all Members’ constituencies. Has the hon. Gentleman thought about how that could be tackled?
Gerald Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but there are alternatives that could be looked at. We are asking for this matter to be properly looked at and investigated, with a timescale to phase out lead.
As I said, there are good alternatives to lead on the market such as tungsten, bismuth and steel, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Many shooters in the UK will say that alternatives to lead are not as effective and argue that wounded birds are a welfare issue. Of course, that takes absolutely no account of the welfare of thousands of birds that suffer from lead poisoning. What is more, such evidence is entirely anecdotal.
Ballistics studies and blind trials have shown that alternatives such as steel are just as effective as lead. In terms of prices, steel is now competitive with lead and although other alternatives such as tungsten are more costly, they still represent a fraction of the overall cost of shooting. Some guns will need retrofitting, which is a process that can cost £50, and a few may not be compatible with lead at all, but surely those costs are small compared with the benefits of cleaning up the industry.
In Denmark, a ban on lead shot was introduced 20 years ago and the hunting and shooting sector has not been affected. What should be done here in the UK? The time for voluntary initiatives is surely over. The use of lead shot over and near wetlands is already restricted by law. Shooting groups have repeatedly encouraged members to respect the law, yet 45% of shooters admit that they have not complied with it and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) mentioned, three quarters of ducks sampled in 2013 had been killed with lead shot. What is more, we know that the problem is not restricted to wetlands. Many vulnerable species feed on lead all across the countryside. Quite simply, the law as it stands is insufficient and ineffective, so the Government must take sensible steps.
The UK is party to the convention on the conservation of migratory species, which last year agreed guidelines calling for the replacement of lead with non-toxic alternatives in countries where migratory species are at risk from poisoning. Back in 2010, DEFRA set up the Lead Ammunition Group to identify risks and solutions. Its chair, John Swift, submitted the group’s work and his report to DEFRA on 3 June 2015. Its results were definitive:
“regulations restricting the use of lead shot in wetlands and for shooting wildfowl are apparently not achieving their aim and are insufficient for dealing with the wider risks.”
The science and the politics are clear and the time for reflection is over. Thirty years ago, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution advised the Government that they should legislate to ban any further use of lead shot where it is irretrievably dispersed in the environment.
The question of lead ammunition is not a debate that could or should be decided by petition. It is a question for the House, DEFRA and the Department of Health. Back in 1983, Willie Hamilton MP summed it up in a debate on lead in petrol:
“Whatever the technical arguments may be and however much it is said that lead can be produced in the body by other means, that is no reason for saying that we should leave everything alone and not tackle the problem. We must tackle this problem and it can be solved and eliminated”.—[Official Report, 21 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 632.]
The same is true today. We can quibble over exact numbers and fuss about the precise costs of steel shot, but the basic message is clear.
We have banned lead from pipes, petrol and paint, but it still ends up on our plates. We have tried to protect wildlife by restricting the use of lead over wetlands, but the rules are too partial and too easily ignored. The Government have evidence from the Lead Ammunition Group and power in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, so I hope that, in the public interest, the Minister will show that the Government have the sense to act on the science and commit to phase out lead shot ammunition.
Several hon. Members rose—
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. For those who are new to one-hour Westminster Hall debates, it might be helpful to say that the format is that the Scottish National party spokesman and the Labour spokesman get five minutes each and the Minister gets 10 minutes at the end. I will therefore be going to the Front Benchers no later than 5.10 pm. Four Members are seeking to catch my eye, which gives them about six minutes each. I will not set a formal time limit, but I hope that people will be mindful of each other’s opportunities and will look to speak for about six minutes each.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and also to the fact that I am probably the only Member who has been shot by a lead cartridge? It was about 35 years ago and I still carry 20 lead pellets in my left knee as testimony to that—colleagues will judge whether that has affected my physical state or indeed my mental state.
This is not a new discussion. When I was chairman of the shoot summit nearly 10 years ago we discussed it and came to the view 10:1 that the evidence was lacking—to some extent it is still lacking—that the risk of lead was either significant or unmanageable, or that the alternatives, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), posed less of a risk. That was in the context of both food consumption and environmental concerns. That fell into the hands of the Lead Ammunition Group, which was set up by DEFRA.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
If toxicity is not a problem, why does the Food Standards Agency advise frequent eaters of lead-shot game to reduce their consumption for health reasons?
Simon Hart
I am grateful for that intervention. I have not yet said, and I am not sure that I will say, that there is no toxicity issue at all. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman will hear me and other colleagues out, he may get the answer he requires.
The Lead Ammunition Group was set up to come to a unanimous view on steps forward for the Secretary of State. However, it has failed to do that. Nearly half of its members resigned, which meant that its final report was submitted without input from those valuable sources. The report, which was based on evidence that was and remains disputed, reached conclusions outside the terms of reference set by the Secretary of State in the first place. Therefore, when coming to conclusions about what all of this means, I hope that the Minister will recognise that, for whatever reason, the Lead Ammunition Group has failed in its objectives.
Food concerns were mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). The advice given so far does not need any alteration. That is key, because if we look at it in the context of other food scares and consumption habits, there is no evidence to suggest that the danger posed by lead is any greater than that of any other food substance that we might arguably eat to excess. That is the point: we can point to any number of foodstuffs and say, “If you ate this foodstuff to excess, you might come across a health problem.” The advice given is quite contextualised, which has not been the case in the debate.
The contribution I want to make to the debate is to give a word of caution about the Lead Ammunition Group’s findings. They are not definitive; they are disputed and the evidence it relied on is hotly debated. Finally, if the problem was as great as one or two Members suggest, it would have emerged as a health scare long before now. We therefore need to treat what we are hearing with caution, assuming that it is evidence. It is nothing new.
Mr Charles Walker
I am listening closely to my hon. Friend. Will he address my concern that steel shot ricochets, which will cause the closure of many shooting grounds, and that tungsten, bismuth and Hevi-shot cost five to seven times as much as lead? That would be a significant part of most people’s shooting budget.
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have to consider all these things in the round. It is no doubt very easy to find reasons to argue in favour of a general phase-out of lead, but unless we have applied the same rigorous test to the alternatives—whether it is about the cost, humaneness or toxicity—there is no reason to believe we will go from a bad place to a better one, so I take his points entirely on board.
I hope the Minister will be robust in making a careful examination of this so-called report, because it does not meet the terms of reference that his own Department set.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak about this issue, and I thank the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) for securing the debate. Unfortunately, I do not hold the same opinion as him; I want to make that clear at the outset. I want to raise important issues that I feel need to be put on the record.
There are potential risks of lead shot ammunition—I admit that, and the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) referred to them—but it is always possible to manage, control and reduce them to negligible levels through the enforcement of existing regulations and careful monitoring. I have shot wildfowl and wild birds and eaten them regularly since the age of 18—that is not yesterday—and it has not done me any harm that I am aware of. The bird I like most is probably the wood pigeon, and I look forward to wood pigeon meat on any occasion.
Restrictions on the use of lead shot are already in place across the UK, and I will comment on restrictions in the four regions. Some environmental groups are campaigning for further restrictions or a total ban on lead ammunition. They argue that lead shot poses such a serious and unmanageable risk to the environment and human health that new legislation is required. Scaremongering about lead has become a useful way to attack game and sport shooting for people who are fundamentally opposed to shooting in general. With great respect to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, some people are simply using this issue to attack shooting, so we need rationalism in the debate.
Shooting is hugely important to the rural economy and of great benefit in terms of wildlife management and conservation. Unscientific restrictions could have serious implications for the gun trade, the rural economy and the natural environment. Without lead, many shooting activities could be substantially curtailed. The vast majority of the evidence presented to decision makers in support of further restrictions on lead ammunition has failed to pass rigorous academic scrutiny. The Countryside Alliance believes that those attempts are unjust and unfair, and highlight the way in which science can be used and manipulated to suit a political agenda. I declare an interest: I have been a member of the Countryside Alliance for a great many years.
In truth, the true impact of lead ammunition has yet to be scientifically proven, and any current findings are not as significant as some opponents claim. I accept that lead is toxic, and we should take all opportunities to continue monitoring its potential impacts on the environment and human health. If it is proven that lead ammunition poses a significant and unmanageable risk, we should consider mitigation measures, further regulations and phase-outs in that order before any ban is taken forward. At present, however, there is insufficient evidence to justify changes to the existing regulations, and any attempts to do so are in no way based upon science or evidence we have at this time.
The majority of the evidence used to justify increased restrictions or a complete ban on lead shot ammunition is outdated and heavily reliant on research undertaken in other countries. No studies have been carried out in the UK on blood lead levels and the impact of lead shot ammunition, so that is something the Department might wish to do before proposing any legislation on this issue.
In England, there are already some controls. The use of lead shot has been prohibited for all wildfowl, with further restrictions below the high-water mark of ordinary spring tides and over sites of special scientific interest. In Scotland, there are similar controls on the use of lead in wetland for shooting activity, with wetlands being based on the Ramsar definition. In Wales, there are some restrictions on the use of lead shot for wildfowl, with further restrictions below the high-water mark of ordinary spring tides and specific SSSIs. The constituency that I represent—Strangford—is renowned for its wildfowl shooting across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, we have the same prohibition of the use of lead shot in any area of wetland for any shooting activity. For the purpose of the regulations, wetlands are based on the Ramsar definition, as in Scotland.
It is clear we already have appropriate legislation to mitigate the negative impacts of lead shot use, so why are we seeking to add more laws and red tape? We cannot ignore the value of shooting activities. Some 600,000 people in the UK shoot live quarry, clay pigeons or targets every year, and shooting is worth £2 billion to the UK economy. Conservation goes hand in hand with shooting, and those who shoot spend some 3.9 million work days on conservation—the equivalent of 16,000 full-time jobs.
The impact of a ban would be enormous for shooting, conservation, the rural economy and the natural environment. A ban on lead shot ammunition would have a seriously negative impact on the shooting industry, because most of the guns made by historic British gun makers, and many guns made abroad, are unsuitable for use with economically comparable alternatives to lead.
Denmark led the way in banning toxic materials a way back. It also banned steel shot in forest areas and tungsten in 2014 because of the carcinogenic properties of some of the binding properties used. Norway banned lead ammunition in 2005 but changed its mind after nine years and repealed the ban, because it felt a ban was wrong. We must look at what is happening elsewhere.
Lead shot is preferred as ammunition because of its excellent ballistic performance. It would be unwise to pursue a lead shot ban at this time. The evidence is not conclusive, and the scientific information is not there. There is some dispute among shooting organisations and those who are involved in this field. We need this, as shooters. Securing a humane and clean kill is surely the aim of every shooter of live quarry. I am totally against a lead shot ammunition ban.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I begin by reminding Members that I am the chairman of the all-party group on shooting and conservation, which enjoys wide membership from both sides of the House. Secondly, I draw attention to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I participate in shooting sports.
Shooting and conservation are highly important to the UK economy, contributing £2 billion to GDP and supporting the equivalent of 74,000 full-time jobs. Members of the shooting community spend £250 million a year on conservation. Most importantly, they actively manage 2 million hectares for conservation as a result of shooting.
Lead shot ammunition has long been used due to its superior ballistic qualities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, and I am disappointed by calls to ban it. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust’s calls for such a ban seem to derive from the Oxford Lead Symposium’s report and the Lead Ammunition Group’s submission to DEFRA, which I understand is still being considered by the Government. I will not say too much about that group—the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) already referred to it—but it had two arguments against lead shot ammunition: in game meat, it damages human health, and it poisons birds exposed to it in the environment. I would like to deal briefly with both arguments.
With regard to the assertion that lead shot damages human health, there has been significant scaremongering without a full review of the facts. Lead is found in all food types at a variety of levels. The threat from game meat specifically is extremely small. The European Food Safety Authority has stated that lead from game meat represents 0.1% of average total dietary lead exposure—significantly less than other groups such as beer and substitutes, which expose the average European consumer to 62% more lead than game meat. When game meat is consumed in high quantities, the threat of lead poisoning naturally increases. However, only 0.1% of the British adult population consumes game meat at higher levels than the Food Standards Agency’s guidance. The FSA’s guidance on lead is the same as for other food groups such as oily fish and tuna. Indeed, further evidence shows that removing damaged tissue from lead shot game meat can reduce its overall lead content by 95%. That is the current advice in Sweden.
The group’s second argument is that lead shot ammunition damages the environment. There are claims that between 50,000 and 100,000 birds die of lead poisoning each year, although there is no evidence of any population-level impact on species. It is accepted, however, that lead has potential environmental risks—for example, due to the way certain water birds feed, some species are susceptible to ingesting lead if it is left within their feeding area. However, there are international agreements and UK legislation to protect areas where those migratory and water birds exist. I agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that our compliance levels with that legislation are not good enough and that we should all condemn those who shoot duck with lead shot in prohibited areas.
The report used by campaigners against lead shot ammunition—the one that comes up with the 50,000 to 100,000 figure for birds—was produced by the Oxford Lead Symposium. However, it uses data from research that was carried out between 1960 and 1983, before the current restrictions on lead shot were introduced, so it is clearly not a rigorous piece of academic work.
In conclusion, I see no reason to support a ban on lead shot ammunition. There is no clear alternative, as those that do exist are either more dangerous to human and environmental health or significantly more expensive. The claims that lead shot is damaging to human and environmental health are exaggerated and based on inaccurate data, and do not take into account the restrictions that already exist on shooting with lead shot in protected areas.
Finally, the impact would be significant on the current contribution that the shooting community makes to the UK economy and conservation management, which I outlined at the beginning of my speech and which is very significant in rural areas. I hope that Members across the House realise that a move to ban lead shot would be counter-productive and would not produce the significant human or environmental health benefits that the hon. Gentleman claims.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
When most people think about shooting, the picture that they have in their heads is often all too clear: they imagine old-fashioned men in old-fashioned outfits, with old-fashioned accents. However, I stand in this Chamber today as the representative of a rural community for whom shooting is not a quirk of history, or something from another century; for my constituents, it is an industry that creates real businesses, real jobs, and real investment in our landscape. It is an integral part of our community.
Today, we are here specifically to consider lead shot ammunition. I would like to make three simple observations. First, to echo the comments of previous speakers, there is limited evidence of the need for further environment regulation of lead shot. Secondly, as it relates to humans, game meat is a tiny source of our exposure to lead. Lastly, in considering regulations on this industry, we should appreciate the vital contribution that shooting makes both to our economy and our countryside.
Nobody denies that there are environmental risks associated with lead ammunition.
That is why there are already restrictions on the use of lead shot in all parts of the UK, to address international obligations and proven environmental concerns. Many of the figures that we heard earlier relate to the supposed risks to water bird species, but those data were collected before the legislation was passed in 1999. That legislation made it an offence in England to shoot lead shot over wetlands or for the purpose of hunting wildfowl. Not only that, but almost all wildfowl species are migratory, so it is very hard for the studies to know exactly where the lead collected has been picked up.
Internationally, it is worth noting that earlier this year, Norway’s Parliament overwhelmingly repealed a ban on lead shot. Meanwhile, after considering the matter, Austria has stated that it will no longer be pursuing a ban on lead ammunition. My firm belief is that we need to collect evidence on the regulatory action that we have taken before we rush into yet more legislation.
I turn to the human exposure to lead. It is clear that game meat is a tiny source of our lead consumption. Lead is no doubt a toxic element, but, as we have heard, it can be found in all types of food at a variety of levels. The comprehensive study conducted by the European Food Standards Agency concluded that lead from game represents just 0.1% of the average dietary exposure to lead. In fact, as we have heard, the average consumer is exposed to 60% more lead from their consumption of beer. It may interest colleagues to learn that products contributing more lead to our diets than game meat include potatoes, coffee, and even everyday eggs. Simply put, all studies carried out to date show that eating game meat in moderate quantities has no effect on blood lead levels.
Lastly, shooting is vital to the economic and environmental well-being of our countryside. Shooting and conservation go hand in hand. We are often told about the importance of rainforests—well, heather moorland is even rarer than rainforest and, as a result of conserving and nurturing that moorland for grouse shooting, 75% of the world’s heather moorland is found right here in the UK. On walks around my north Yorkshire constituency, I have witnessed at first hand the unique biodiversity that the moorlands hold. From seeing beautiful curlews to scampering voles, I am sure you would agree, Mr Davies, that our moorlands are not only a Yorkshire treasure, but a national treasure. No less than the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said that “management for grouse shooting” has
“created and shaped the moors as we know them today.”
As well as helping to preserve our nation’s landscape, shooting is also a key driver of our rural economy. As we have heard, it supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and contributes over £2 billion annually to the economy. In my area, however, it is still more relevant. Everyone knows the difficult time that farmers are going through at the moment. Prices are low, so when we talk about the economic benefits of shooting, it is important to consider who we are talking about. In my constituency, it is very often the farmers’ families who go beating at weekends to top up their incomes so that they can make ends meet during what is a very difficult time. For them right now, the shooting industry is an economic lifeline.
No one in this country is more passionate about preserving rural Britain than the people who live there. It is rural communities who, day in, day out, balance the welfare of our animals, the beauty of our landscape and the security of our food supply. It is clear to me that any changes to the use of lead shot ammunition would damage that balance.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to be acting as picker-up for this debate.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) certainly has not just walked up to the issue; he has done a lot of research. In his speech, he made the case that we should see more non-toxic ammo and said that there are indeed traces of lead in food. He talked about the risks to pregnant women, saying that alternatives are available. In his view, time is up for lead shot and he put the ball firmly in DEFRA and the Department of Health’s court.
The hon. Gentleman also flushed out a number of interventions, which went side by side, in terms of for and against. We heard that lead is banned in petrol, so why should it not also be removed from shot? However, we also heard that more detailed environmental studies are required and about the rebound problems from using alternatives such as steel shot. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) talked about the danger from lead and meat being no greater than any other foodstuff eaten to excess. He said that this would have emerged as a food crisis, had there been any serious issue. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about this being scaremongering from those opposed to shooting in general and he discussed the implications for the rural environment. If it was proved that there was a problem, he believed that there should first be mitigation and then some further regulation, and that it should then be phased out.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the different regulations in the nations of the UK. This issue is of course devolved, and the regulations are separate in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. In Scotland, the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (Scotland) (No.2) Regulations 2004—that is quite a handful to say—prohibit the use of lead shot in wetlands. The regulations are taken very seriously and seek to meet the highest standards to protect wildlife. However, it is fair to say that the Scottish Government will consider all the evidence and the conclusions of DEFRA’s Lead Ammunition Group on that matter. What is undisputed is that, as we have heard from around the Chamber today, lead is clearly a poison and more research must be carried out to get to a definitive position on the health risks.
The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) talked about the importance to the economy, and he was backed up by the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who talked about the fact that this industry is worth £2 billion to the UK. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds said that lead shot research had been exaggerated by the Oxford Lead Symposium. It is important to reflect on the fact that, according to the Oxford University research in 2015, around 100,000 birds are killed by lead poisoning and discarded lead ammunition. According to the report, consuming game with traces of lead ammunition affects human health too. Lord Krebs, emeritus professor of zoology of the University of Oxford and a former chair of the UK Food Standards Agency, said there was an overwhelming body of evidence that lead in hunting is a risk to both humans and wildlife.
Finally, the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) mentioned the effect of wildfowl migrating, which would cause difficulty with research. He said that the average person consumes up to 60% more lead from drinking beer and that eating game has no more effect than any other foodstuff. We have had an interesting debate on some of the challenges facing the Minister in taking this forward. We have to ensure that we have detailed research on the effects. I hope he will work closely with DEFRA to make sure that that research satisfies those who are for and those who are against the position on lead shot.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) on securing the debate on this important matter. It not only relates to the health of wildlife and the environment, but has ongoing ramifications for humans if it is not dealt with. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—it is one of my favourite parts of my homeland and I very much enjoy spending time there—for his comprehensive summary of the debate so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was, of course, right to mention our long-standing recognition of lead’s toxicity and to highlight the plethora of bodies that have issued warnings on this matter. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s assessment of that advice in due course. Unlike other trace metals, lead plays no physiological function in the human body. Instead, it acts as a neurotoxin. Even at low levels of exposure, the damage that lead triggers can be significant: impairment of the developing brain and nervous system, increased incidence of hypertension and stroke, and weakening of the immune system. Worryingly, some of these impacts appear to be irreversible.
We have heard some emotive points this afternoon from all parts of the House. Indeed, I was fascinated to hear my hon. Friend give the etymology of “crazy as a painter”—the origin was lost on me before now—and anecdotal explanations for the fall of the Roman empire. The risks from lead poisoning must be taken seriously and the importance of a strong evidence base in assessing them cannot be overstated. The evidence is clear that there is no safe level of exposure, which is why the World Health Organisation has been clear that all forms of lead are toxic, and food safety agencies across Europe have highlighted the risk to health of eating game shot with lead ammunition.
Under food regulations, there are limits on the amount of lead in lamb, pork, beef and other products, but they do not apply to game. Is it not time to bring it into line? Lead is without doubt one of the best-studied contaminants in the world and there is overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating its toxicity to multiple physiological systems in humans and other vertebrate animals.
Mr Charles Walker
The hon. Gentleman said that there is no safe level of tolerance for lead, but we have heard this afternoon that lead is present in many foods that we all consume, and in alcohol and beer, so clearly there must be some level of tolerance or we would all be dropping down in the streets.
Alex Cunningham
Just because there is a level of tolerance does not mean that it is not dangerous. Somebody may smoke over a lifetime and then suffer deterioration or a specific condition, and that can apply in this case too.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified inorganic lead as being “probably carcinogenic to humans”, while no safe blood lead level in children has been identified below which negative health effects cannot be detected. In March 2013, a group of 31 eminent scientists signed a consensus statement on the health risks from lead-based ammunition in the environment. Based on “overwhelming evidence” and “convincing data”, and alongside the availability and suitability of non-lead alternatives, they recommended the eventual elimination of lead-based ammunition and its replacement with non-toxic alternatives.
Just last month, the Oxford Lead Symposium published research further confirming what we already broadly knew about lead and the risks to humans, wildlife and the natural environment. The Lead Ammunition Group, which the Government set up, submitted its draft report this summer and I would welcome confirmation from the Minister of the date this evidence was received along with a timeframe for the release of its findings and recommendations.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Can the hon. Gentleman point to any evidence of any premature deaths caused by lead poisoning? Indeed, on the contrary; I have known many people who have eaten game regularly and lived to a ripe old age.
Alex Cunningham
The hon. Gentleman makes a great point: I cannot provide that particular piece of evidence, but what I am told by health organisations and others is that ingestion of lead over a period can be quite dangerous. As others have said, as a responsible society that recognises the inherent dangers, we have already taken action and regulated to cut lead from petrol, paint and water pipes, so most exposure to lead in the general population now comes from diet. However, despite the evidence and our previous moves to regulate other sources of exposure, we have not yet completely banned the use of lead by shooters. Instead, we have stopped short, although in response to the UK’s obligations under the African-Eurasian migratory waterbird agreement to phase out the use of lead shot for hunting in wetlands, it has been illegal to hunt certain wildfowl over certain wetlands since 1999. The long and short of such patchy regulation is that lead continues to find its way into the food chain and on to our dinner plates. Compliance with regulations is sporadic at best, and most consumers are simply unaware of the contamination risk to themselves and wildlife.
My hon. Friends have alluded to studies showing that 76% of game bought from supermarkets, game dealers or game shoots have lead shot fragments present. Indeed, a DEFRA-commissioned study found that 70% of ducks sampled were illegally shot with lead. If that were not enough, almost half of respondents to a British Association for Shooting and Conservation survey admitted that they did not always comply with the law. To top it off, a repeat study in 2013-14 showed that compliance had not improved, revealing that 77% of sampled ducks had been shot illegally with lead. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no primary prosecutions and only one secondary prosecution for non-compliance with the regulations. That is a law that is not working in this land, so we need a change.
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman is quoting evidence, but the crucial point is that if he wishes the Government to introduce new restrictions, he must surely come up with evidence indicating that people who consume game in this country have contracted some illness or died prematurely as a result—not in another country; we are talking about UK consumption habits. Unless he can come up with that evidence, he is doing nothing more than making mischief.
Alex Cunningham
I am certainly not mischief making. I support the countryside and everything else. As I said to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I cannot point to anyone who has died as a direct result of lead consumption; the point is that various organisations are saying that lead is a danger in diet. We need debates such as this. It might be that we just say, “Okay, we need to further explore the issues,” but it appears from the organisations that I have been speaking to that we need to act now.
I encourage the Minister to outline his assessment of the compliance problem over wetlands. Given the demonstrable disregard for current restrictions, I would welcome his acknowledgment that a complete phase-out is a proportionate means to secure legal compliance. Why have the ban if we are not going to do anything about it, and if there were no danger to wildlife and, ultimately, people?
I draw attention to resolution 11.15 of the convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, which was adopted last year and calls for lead ammunition to be phased out by 2017 in countries where there is significant risk of poisoning to migratory birds. Let us not forget that, on top of that, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution concluded a little over 30 years ago that
“the Government should legislate to ban any further use of lead shot and fishing weights in circumstances where they are irretrievably dispersed in the environment”.
We have already heard this afternoon that lead-based ammunition continues to be one of the greatest sources of lead in our environment. As much as 6,000 tonnes of shot is discharged every year and at least 2,000 tonnes of shot used for game and pest shooting is irretrievable. I would therefore be pleased to hear whether the Minister agrees with me that, in the light of the evidence on the numbers of wildfowl killed each year, there is a significant risk of poisoning to migratory birds from lead ammunition in the UK. While other nations, including Denmark and the Netherlands, are actively dealing with the matter, the UK seems content to look backwards and turn a blind eye to those who flout the current regulations.
To avoid the real risks that exist, we need positive actions to close the existing regulatory gaps, rather than passivity. It is high time that we stopped ducking the problem and took a common-sense approach to regulating lead ammunition. With softer restrictions on the use of lead ammunition having been widely flouted, the time has come to embrace the growing body of evidence and for all lead shot and bullets to be replaced with non-toxic alternatives. Like so many other hon. Members taking part in the debate—
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that the time has also come for him to conclude his remarks?
Alex Cunningham
I am on my last paragraph, Mr Davies. Like so many other hon. Members taking part in the debate, I urge the Minister to join me in supporting the call for the UK to meet our international commitments and phase out lead ammunition by 2017.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) on securing the debate. He showed the passion that he feels on this issue in his opening remarks. As we all know, lead is a noxious substance with potentially fatal impacts. This is therefore an issue that it is right for the House to address.
I pass on the apologies of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who has responsibility for this issue. Hon. Members will have noticed that he has been otherwise engaged in Cumbria in the past couple of days in his role as floods Minister. I am therefore responding to the debate on his behalf.
Government practice is to obtain and use the best possible evidence when taking decisions. That is why, almost six years ago, our predecessors chose to set up the Lead Ammunition Group, commonly known as the LAG—and I think one thing we can all agree on is that there was a time lag in that group’s concluding its work. The LAG began work in 2010. Although a creation of Government, it was deliberately set up as an entirely independent group, formed of experts who would approach the evidence from their various perspectives and provide clear advice on whether and what risks might be posed by lead ammunition and how they could be managed. The potential risks that it was asked to assess related both to wildlife, which is a DEFRA responsibility, and to human health, which is the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. I hope that hon. Members will find it helpful if I set out the subsequent history.
First, the LAG was established in 2010 for an initial 12-month period, after which progress was to be reviewed. However, its final report was not presented to Ministers until June this year. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), asked when it was presented. That was on 3 June. Secondly, by the time the LAG reported, only five of its 10 members remained in place. The remainder had resigned, with four of those submitting a different set of recommendations.
We are therefore in a position in which we have no expert consensus about the impact of lead ammunition on wildlife or on human health. Nevertheless, we must start from where we are, so it is important that we look at the report that the LAG produced and the material that it contains. Even if that report has the support of only half its members, it is nevertheless a substantial document that represents several years’ worth of work. We must therefore consider it carefully, which is exactly what the Under-Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been doing since DEFRA received the report in June.
Subsequently, as a number of hon. Members pointed out, there has been the minority report from those who resigned and the report arising from the Oxford Lead Symposium, which was organised by opponents of lead ammunition. I realise that hon. Members and others outside the House are anxious to have our response to the LAG report, but it is important that we take the time to get this right and weigh up all the other comments, views and evidence that have been submitted to us. The time that it has taken to review that evidence reflects the fact that it is a serious debate and that my ministerial colleagues are looking at the issue closely.
Let me remind the House of the action that Government have already taken. Lead shot has been prohibited for wildfowling since 1999 by the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999. Those regulations introduced a double restriction. First, lead shot cannot be used, on any game, in certain areas—namely, over the foreshore or over a list of named sites of special scientific interest. Secondly, lead shot cannot be used anywhere for shooting certain species—namely, ducks, geese, coot and moorhen. In passing, I will mention that the general supply of lead weights for angling was ended in 1986.
The 1999 restrictions reflected the resolution made that year through the African-Eurasian waterbird agreement, to which the UK is a party. It was agreed that members would work to phase out the use of lead ammunition over wetlands, reflecting the clear evidence that waterbirds can and do scoop up spent lead when feeding and suffer health consequences from doing so. We delivered on the resolution through our regulations of the same year.
There is of course nothing to stop those who shoot from choosing, of their own volition, to use alternative forms of ammunition. Although no other material has exactly the same combination of malleability and density as lead, a number of alternatives have been available, and used in the field, for some time. Those include steel and tungsten for shotgun cartridges and, for bullets for rifles, copper and copper alloys. Use of an alternative is compulsory for wildfowling, but the alternatives can also be used more widely. I understand that some shooters have made the switch, although others have not.
Alex Cunningham
I am intervening simply on the point about lack of compliance in relation to shooting wildfowl over wetlands and the use of lead shot in the killing of ducks. Will the Minister respond on the huge level of non-compliance?
George Eustice
I was going to come on to that. The hon. Gentleman highlighted a DEFRA study that did show—he is correct—that the level of non-compliance was up to 70% in certain areas. I will simply say this: it is the law. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out, we can all condemn those who are using lead shot where they should not be, against the law, and it is a matter for the police to enforce those existing regulations. Where the law is being broken, it must be enforced, and we are keen to work with stakeholders and others to ensure that we raise awareness of the 1999 regulations—the regulations that already exist. The key point made by a number of hon. Members was that the starting point should be to enforce the regulations that we have, rather than jumping to introduce new regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) made a very important point about the impact on clay pigeon shooting and the danger of steel ricocheting. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) mentioned that some countries—notably, Norway—had introduced a ban and then reversed it. I understand that in that case, it was for the somewhat surprising reason that steel bullets were getting embedded in trees and that was affecting the machinery of timber merchants. That shows that all sorts of unintended consequences can come from these things. My hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds and for Richmond (Yorks) highlighted their view that some of the data used in the reports were out of date, particularly in relation to the Oxford symposium, and predated the 1999 regulations. I think that is probably a fair point, although other hon. Members have made an equally strong argument that the 1999 regulations are not being enforced as effectively as they could be at the moment; that is also very valid.
In conclusion, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) said: this is a very important issue. The contributions in the debate show how complex it is and how strongly felt views are on both sides. That is why the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State are right to take their time to weigh up all the evidence carefully before submitting their response to the LAG report.
Gerald Jones
I thank hon. Members for their contributions in this important debate. I mentioned during my speech that this is not an attack on the countryside. It is not about shooting or the rural economy; for me, it is very much a health issue. Risks have been identified by health organisations, and even small risks deserve to be considered and removed, because there is a detrimental effect on birds and, as we have heard, potentially on humans through the food chain. That needs to be considered and action taken.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered lead shot ammunition.
Written Statements
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU Competitiveness Council: Post-Council Statement
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) has today made the following statement.
The Competitiveness Council took place in Brussels on 30 November and 1 December. The UK was represented by Shan Morgan, deputy permanent representative to the EU.
Day one started with a “competitiveness check-up”. The presidency updated Council members on the outcomes of the Foreign Affairs Council (trade) on 27 November, where the Commission had said it was ready to use all available tools to tackle issues affecting the steel sector, including trade defence instruments (TDIs), third country dialogue and free trade agreements. The Commission announced that as a follow-up to the emergency steel council, the high-level group on energy intensive industries (EIIs) would be reconstituted and would meet on 18 December. This would be followed in early 2016 by a special stakeholder conference which would discuss the issues facing the steel sector in more detail. On steel the UK noted that it was looking forward to the stakeholder summit and that the recent extraordinary council had demonstrated that the Competitiveness Council was capable to reacting to real world events.
The Commission presented data on competitiveness in the EU, which highlighted that throughout the economic crisis the EU had retained a high share in global markets.
The UK intervened to highlight the productivity gap between the EU and the US which undermined the EU’s ability to compete and grow; this would be helped by removing barriers to trade in services. Other member states intervened to highlight the need to bring down barriers for start-ups and scale-ups and there was widespread support for the competitiveness check-up to remain a standing agenda item for future Competitiveness Councils.
The second item was an exchange of views on the Commission’s single market strategy. The Commission opened the discussion and highlighted the sectoral approach that it was taking on services, with a particular focus on construction and business services. The UK, alongside other likeminded member states, intervened urging the Commission to maintain their level of ambition, specifically on the services passport. The UK also noted the importance of proper enforcement of existing single market rules. One member state intervened to say that the strategy was not as strong as it ought to be on new business models. Several member states talked about the link between the single market and digital single market and the regulatory barriers in the sharing economy. There was one cautionary note from a member state who did not want to see the country of origin principle on services and was also cautious on company law issues. The discussion drew to a close with the Commission saying they were committed to rapid action on the single market, although it must be in conjunction with member states, who needed to redouble their efforts on domestic reform. Member states support for the Commission’s ambitions were a sign that the EU was serious about reform.
The afternoon session began with a presentation by the Commission on the proposal for a system of national competitiveness boards. While a large number of member states welcomed the Competitiveness Council discussing this proposal, there was concern that the boards could duplicate existing arrangements, thereby offering little value and imposing unnecessary cost and bureaucracy.
Three influential member states gave implicit support for the principle, as long as it remained flexible. Two other member states welcomed that the boards were open to all member states. The UK did not intervene. The presidency concluded that while there was broad support for structural reforms, the vast majority of member states had hesitations and doubts as to whether the boards are necessary or useful.
There were no more substantive items discussed on day one. The remaining agenda items were Commission updates to the council on a package to ensure emissions from diesel engines used in light vehicles reflected “real driving emissions” (RDE), proposals adopted by the Commission on the control, purchasing and possession of firearms and the work of the small and medium-sized enterprises envoy network.
Day one ended with a presentation on the priorities of the incoming Netherlands presidency. The Netherlands will prioritise work on the single market, digital single market and better regulation.
Shan Morgan also represented the UK on day two of the Competitiveness Council.
In response to the council conclusions on research integrity, the Commission reported that it would strengthen the European research model grant agreement to embed the principles set out in the conclusions.
The Commission welcomed the council conclusions on gender equality in research and urged member states to implement the measures therein as soon as possible. The UK supported the conclusions, as they highlight the importance of action in this area but do not impose mandatory targets or quotas, which would undermine the merit principle and conflict with the recommendations of the Davies review. The conclusions were accepted unanimously, though some countries commented that they would have preferred them to go further in the direction of legal or financial incentives and targets at EU level.
The UK intervened to support the conclusions on the governance of the European research area and called for the swift implementation of a number of reforms to streamline the reporting lines and governance of a number of committees in this area. These reforms, steered through by the UK co-chair of the European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC), will bring to an end a protracted period of discussion on the subject.
The Commission then gave a presentation on the European fund for strategic investments (EFSI), outlining how it interacts with all other EU financial mechanisms: such as Innovfin—a joint initiative launched by the European Investment Bank—and the SME guarantee. This was followed by a round table discussion, in which the UK supported the principle of deploying innovative finance products to support research and innovation. Most member states commented that there was a need for more information on who received funding and how many research projects were being funded.
The incoming Netherlands presidency then outlined its priorities. It will focus on encouraging the EU and member states to invest more in research and development, creating the framework conditions for innovation and encouraging open science.
[HCWS364]
ECOFIN: 8 December 2015
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 8 December 2015. Ministers are due to discuss the following items:
Financial Transaction Tax
An update on the progress of implementing a financial transaction tax in participating member states will be provided. Britain is not taking part in the financial transaction tax.
Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB)
Following a presentation by the presidency on the state of play regarding the CCCTB proposal, the Council will have an exchange of views.
Completing the Banking Union
A presentation will be given by the Commission on the proposal for a European deposit insurance scheme and the Commission communication “Towards Completion of the Banking Union”. This will be followed by an exchange of views.
Current Legislative Proposals
The presidency will update the Council on the state of play of financial services dossiers.
Implementation of the Banking Union
The Commission will give an update on several dossiers linked to the banking union: the single resolution fund, the bank recovery and resolution directive and the deposit guarantee scheme directive.
Fight against the financing of terrorism
After taking note of a Commission presentation on the next steps to reinforce the European framework in the fight against terrorism, the Council will hold an exchange of views.
Future of the Code of Conduct (Business Taxation)
The Council will be invited to adopt conclusions on the future of the code of conduct group on business taxation.
Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)
The Council will be invited to adopt conclusions on base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) in the EU context.
European Semester
Following the publication of the annual growth survey, the Commission alert mechanism report and the draft Council recommendation on the euro area, a presentation will be given by the Commission followed by an exchange of views.
Common position on flexibility in the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)
A debrief will be provided by the chair of the Economic and Financial Committee on the common position agreed with regards to flexibility in the SGP for short-term economic conditions, structural reforms and public investments.
Statistics: EU Statistics and implementation of the European Statistics Code of Practice
Council conclusions will be adopted on the annual statistical package followed by a Commission presentation on the implementation of the European statistics code of best practices.
European Court of Auditors’ annual report on the implantation of the budget for the EU for the financial year 2014
The European Court of Auditors (ECA) will present its report on the implementation of the 2014 budget followed by an exchange of views by the Council.
[HCWS365]
NATO: Montenegro Accession Talks
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
At their meeting of 1-2 December in Brussels, Foreign Ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) took an important political decision on enlargement, and asked the Secretary-General to invite Montenegro to begin the accession process, with a view to Montenegro becoming the 29th member of the alliance upon signing and ratification of its protocols of accession.
In taking this decision, NATO Foreign Ministers recognised the progress that Montenegro has made on internal reform, particularly in relation to intelligence and security services, rule of law, fighting corruption and organised crime, and in building public support in Montenegro for its prospective NATO membership.
I congratulate Montenegro on this achievement. The United Kingdom has long supported Montenegro’s partnership with NATO and its membership ambitions, and we and allies will continue to work with the Montenegrin Government through the accession process to ensure that the reforms they have undertaken so far are continued and built upon as Montenegro prepares for membership. NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg will now officially invite Montenegro to open accession talks in the coming weeks. We will bring the protocols of accession before Parliament as part of the formal ratification process once NATO and Montenegro have agreed them.
Montenegro’s invitation is a welcome reaffirmation of NATO’s open-door policy, enshrined in article 10 of the Washington treaty, by which NATO may invite any European state in a position to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to the treaty. The United Kingdom stands strongly behind this principle. Alongside Montenegro, NATO Foreign Ministers also reiterated their support for the membership ambitions of Georgia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In a statement issued at the end of the meeting, NATO Foreign Ministers reconfirmed their commitment to working closely with Georgia, including implementing in full the substantial package of support agreed at last year’s Wales summit. The statement also noted that progress had been made in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2015, and encouraged a redoubling of efforts to allow the conditions to be met to activate a membership action plan at the soonest possible opportunity. On Macedonia, NATO Foreign Ministers confirmed that they stood by the conditional invitation that Macedonia received in 2008, but expressed concerns at the political developments that have taken place during 2015, encouraging Macedonia to intensify efforts at political compromise and reform and to fully implement the July agreement brokered by the European Commission.
The statement by NATO Foreign Ministers on “open door” is available on the NATO website, at:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_125591.htm?selectedLocale=en.
[HCWS366]
Policing: Review of Local Targets
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
In May 2015, I announced at the Police Federation conference a comprehensive review of targets in policing, to be led by Chief Superintendent Irene Curtis. I said that the review would examine the use of targets in each force to understand where, how and why targets are being used, and analyse the impact of targets on police officers’ ability to fight crime.
I am pleased to tell the House that the review has now concluded. I am grateful to Irene Curtis for her thorough investigation and analysis of the use of targets in policing.
The review sheds light on current practice among forces and confirms the problems I have long noted with numerical targets: skewing priorities; causing dysfunctional behaviours; and reducing officer discretion. It shows that the police need to go further in order to tackle the culture of narrow target-chasing and bureaucracy that has hampered and limited officers, preventing them from exercising their professional judgment. Quite rightly the public expect to see forces serving their communities, not chasing arbitrary targets. The police need performance management systems that help effective decision-making to improve performance, while also enabling individuals to be appropriately held to account.
The review makes recommendations for the leading organisations and individuals in policing: chief constables, who are tasked with improving their performance measurement, monitoring and reporting processes; Police and Crime Commissioners, who will need to develop a more sophisticated dialogue with the public on police and crime “success” factors; the College of Policing in developing a set of principles for performance management; and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to improve the presentation of performance data and communication of monitoring processes. It will be for each organisation to consider its own response but I welcome the evidence the review provides. Its implementation will help improve performance measurement and management practices across policing.
Irene Curtis’s review has highlighted the importance of understanding the demands upon the police. A key step to achieving this is a robust and consistent framework for recording those demands—both crime and non-crime incidents. We will engage with our partners to consider options for greater alignment of National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR) with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS).
The review also recommended that the Home Office review the annual data requirement for victim satisfaction data. A police-led review of user satisfaction surveys, to ensure that changes proposed to the data requirement are of assistance to police forces, will be undertaken by April 2016. The Home Office will consider its findings as part of the 2017-18 annual data requirement process. In the meantime, the current annual data requirement for user satisfaction surveys will continue for 2016-17.
A copy of Chief Superintendent Irene Curtis’s report will be placed in the Library of the House. It can also be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=home-office.
[HCWS367]
Offender Management
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)
The management and care of transgender people in prison is a complex issue and one that the Government take very seriously. The National Offender Management Service is committed to incorporating equality and diversity into everything it does and treating offenders with decency and respect.
Currently, transgender adult prisoners are normally placed according to their legally recognised gender. However, we recognise that these situations are often complex and sensitive. That is why prisons exercise local discretion on the placement of those who live, or propose to live, in the gender other than the one assigned at birth. In such cases, senior prison management will review the individual circumstances, in consultation with medical and other experts.
However, we have received a number of representations expressing concern that the present system does not sufficiently address the needs of transgender prisoners.
As already announced, NOMS is undertaking a review of prison service instruction 7/2011 to ensure that it is fit for purpose and provides an appropriate balance between the needs of the individual and the responsibility to manage risk and safeguard the wellbeing of all prisoners.
The review will now be widened to consider what improvements we can make across prisons and probation services and across youth justice services.
The review will develop recommendations for revised guidelines which cover the future shape of prison and probation services for transgender prisoners and offenders in the community.
The review will be co-ordinated by a senior official from the Ministry of Justice who will engage with relevant stakeholders, including from the trans community, to ensure that we provide staff in prisons and probation with the best possible guidance. NOMS, the Youth Justice Board, the NHS and the Government Equalities Office will provide professional and operational expertise.
In addition, Peter Dawson and Dr Jay Stewart will act as independent advisers to this review. Peter Dawson is deputy director of the Prison Reform Trust and has served as deputy governor of HMP Brixton and governor of HMP Downview and HMP High Down. Dr Jay Stewart is a director of Gendered Intelligence, an organisation that aims to increase understandings of gender diversity.
A copy of the terms of reference will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The review will be expected to conclude its work early next year.
[HCWS368]
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Fall
Introduction: Baroness Primarolo
Syria and Iraq: ISIS
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what military action the United Kingdom is undertaking against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, UK forces are striking Daesh targets in Iraq and Syria, including command and control facilities, lines of communication, military equipment and defensive positions. We are also providing intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance to support coalition operations in both Syria and Iraq. UK military personnel are providing specialist training for Iraqi security forces, including Kurdish Peshmerga.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, given that the war has already lasted five years, does my noble friend recognise that while bombing is important, it will never defeat ISIS unless there is a strong army on the ground? Will he therefore re-read the speeches made last Wednesday by the noble Lords, Lord Wright of Richmond, Lord Ashdown, Lord Owen and Lord Dannatt—and possibly my own—and recognise that the only hope of defeating ISIS is urgently to find a way to deploy the army of Assad and his allies? Otherwise, ISIS will survive and cause mayhem in the rest of the world.
Earl Howe
My Lords, it may encourage my noble friend to know that I have re-read the debate held last week and I fully agree that Daesh has to be defeated on the ground. The most likely way to defeat Daesh on the ground is to bring about an end to the Syrian civil war, which would allow those keen to support a unified, inclusive and peaceful Syria to unite against Daesh. That could include Syrian moderate opposition forces, Syrian Kurds, or an army of internationally supported Syrian government forces. But we believe that such unity will come about only once Bashar al-Assad leaves the scene.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, when the Minister re-read the debate held last Wednesday, he may have noted that I suggested that if our Tornados and Typhoons are sent into action without adequate co-ordination and consultation, there might be a serious risk of collision with the Russian and Syrian forces. Can he tell the House what clearance has to be sought from what I understand is the joint flight clearance centre in Damascus, and how much co-ordination is there with the Syrian authorities before military action is taken?
Earl Howe
My Lords, all UK and coalition missions are co-ordinated by the US-led Combined Air and Space Operations Centre in Qatar. The coalition has implemented safe separation measures for aircraft operating in Syria which reflect the provisions of the United States/Russia memorandum of understanding to prevent flight safety incidents over Syria. Those measures are kept under constant review, including in the light of the Russian jet incident with Turkey. Our own aircraft operate over Syria as part of the coalition campaign and are covered by those measures.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that in 2008, the only way we stopped the uprising in Iraq and destroyed al-Qaeda there was when General Petraeus got the Sunni tribes fully on side to turn against it. We did that by bribing them and talking to them. Are we doing that now to ensure that they turn against IS, because up until now they have felt that IS is better for them than the Government in Baghdad?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there is no doubt that the Kurds will need to be part of a long-term solution. I believe that they must play an important role in a political settlement for Syria. As part of that, they must recognise the importance of Syria’s territorial integrity and the parameters set out in the Geneva communiqué. However, I recognise the force of what the noble Lord has said about the lessons learnt in Iraq, and I am sure those lessons will not be lost as we go forward.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, although this Question is about Syria and Iraq, has my noble friend noticed that Daesh is forming very strong centres in Sirte and Derna in Libya, and elsewhere in the Maghreb? What attention are we going to pay to those areas, which may well turn out to be even more important than Raqqa as centres of operation for Daesh?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, we are veering slightly off Iraq and Syria, but I can tell him that the presence of Daesh in Libya is causing us considerable concern and is the focus of attention across the coalition. Beyond that, I cannot say more at this stage.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, it would help if we could restrict the flow of ammunition to Daesh. We know that it is using ammunition produced by our allies and coalition partners. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the supply chain is being broken?
Earl Howe
A number of measures are being taken to ensure that smuggling of equipment and ammunition is blocked. The Syrian moderate opposition forces have been quite successful in blocking those routes, particularly between Turkey and Syria. More widely, there is an international effort to close down the sources of finance that Daesh has as its disposal. A lot of that work, I am proud to say, is being led by the United Kingdom.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, it is right to label ISIL as evil and murderous, because it is those things. But are we asking why it is? What research and studies are we undertaking to get into the mind of ISIL, so that we better understand its motives, and the many structures and layers of operation that enable it to recruit in countries as varied and diverse as Afghanistan and Britain, and to produce a blueprint to create a state? If we are to help rid the world of this ideology, we need first of all to know our enemy as well as he knows himself.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is absolutely right. The UK is leading international efforts to counter Daesh’s poisonous ideology. Our work with the internet industry, for example, has helped to stop the proliferation of Daesh propaganda. We announced at the UN General Assembly in September that the UK would host a new coalition communications cell. That cell helps countries that have previously lacked the means or knowledge necessary to deliver effective communication interventions against Daesh to do so. It is already helping to drive the coalition strategic communications to counter Daesh’s extremism and ensure, essentially, that no media space is left uncontested.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we cannot destroy a negative ideology based on a harsh interpretation of medieval Islam by bombs and bullets alone? Is the Minister aware that the Muslim community and Muslim leaders have condemned Daesh, and will the Government work with them to ensure that their message of condemnation is carried to every mosque in the country—preferably in English, which is the language young Muslims best understand?
Earl Howe
My Lords, this is a central theme of the Government’s counterextremism strategy, about which I spoke in last week’s debate. I fully agree with the noble Lord that to disrupt and defeat Daesh and its ideology requires more than just military action. It requires the disruption of its ideology in the ways that I described, and discrediting it across the world in the way the noble Lord indicated.
Health: Adult Pneumococcal Vaccination
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Greengross
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the efficacy of the adult pneumococcal vaccination programme and to ensure optimal coverage of target populations in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, vaccination of children, adults and risk groups with pneumococcal and influenza vaccines has led to a significant reduction in pneumococcal disease in the UK. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation published an interim statement on adult pneumococcal vaccination on 18 November. The JCVI statement is subject to stakeholder consultation before being finalised. The interim statement advises continuation of the existing adult pneumococcal vaccination programmes. The Government will respond fully once the advice is finalised.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
I thank the Minister for that reply. As he knows, this disease puts an enormous pressure on the NHS and on patients. The recent report that he mentioned from the ONS showed that pneumonia was the underlying cause in almost a fifth—19%—of the 43,900 excess deaths in England and Wales just last winter. The recent review by the Joint Committee mentioned by the Minister recommended no changes to the adult pneumococcal vaccination programme at this time, which is a bit surprising. The committee is currently consulting, as the Minister mentioned, and it acknowledged that there are weaknesses with the levels of protection offered to at-risk adults. Will the Minister look into this issue and work to make sure that the pneumococcal vaccination programme provides optimal protection for vulnerable adults?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the report by the JCVI was very clear in its recommendation that the existing vaccination, PPV, was the most appropriate for those aged over 65 and that PCV 13, which is the vaccination used for young children, because it provides herd protection—that is, young people who are treated with it can no longer carry the disease—offered the best long-term protection for the elderly as well.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this year community pharmacists have been given the opportunity to provide NHS vaccinations. Can the Minister say something about how successful that has been? Does he think that there is much greater potential for community pharmacists to do more work for the NHS in this and other areas?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, there is a huge and growing role for community pharmacy in delivering services that have traditionally been supplied by the NHS. If we were to discuss this in five years’ time, I am sure that we would see a far greater role played by community pharmacy. I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord a specific answer on vaccinations. I can just say that the flu vaccination rate so far this year to date is 66%. Last year, by the end of the winter, it was 72%, so we are roughly on target to do the same as last year.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the service standards say that local authority directors of public health have a key role to play in ensuring good coverage of vulnerable groups in their area. Given that fact, what assessment has the Minister’s department made of their ability to carry out that role, given the recent large cuts in public health budgets?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the principal role for pneumococcal vaccination—the subject of the Question—lies with GPs. Take-up of the PPV for those aged over 65 is 70%; for those aged over 75, it is 80%. For young children, the rate is more than 95%.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, one of the great advantages of the pneumococcal vaccination programme is that it is widely believed that a single injection gives lifelong protection—or at least substantially lifelong protection—against pneumococcal pneumonia and pneumococcal meningitis. Is the Minister satisfied that that is still sufficient?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the noble Lord knows far more about this than I do. I can tell him that the PCV 13 vaccination for young children provides long-term protection and, as importantly, prevents the disease spreading. The PPV—the polysaccharide vaccination provided to older people—does not have the longevity of PCV 13, but it provides wider protection against 23 of the serotypes, rather than 13. It does not provide the length of protection that PCV 13 does, but it still provides some protection.
Adoption
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness King of Bow
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the drop in the number of children being placed for adoption.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, adoption decisions have fallen by around 50% since September 2013 following two court judgments that have been misinterpreted as having changed the legal test for adoption. The Prime Minister has been clear about his commitment to ensuring that adoption should be pursued where it is in the child’s best interests. The Government are actively considering whether legislative change is necessary to ensure this.
Baroness King of Bow (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the clarity of that reply. In the vast majority of cases where children are not being placed for adoption, they are instead being given special guardianship orders or placed in long-term foster care. The problem is that both those arrangements have dramatically higher breakdown rates than adoption. Given these facts, does the Minister share my sadness at hearing what a social worker told me last week? I have heard it from very many other social workers as well. The social worker told me not to advise a white couple to apply for adoption, because:
“In the last year we’ve stopped putting forward white children without severe complex needs”,
for adoption. The DfE warned that it would not hesitate to take action if placement orders fell. How and when will the DfE decide that the time for hesitation is over?
Lord Nash
I share the noble Baroness’s concern about this. I know that it is of particular relevance to her own experience. We have announced that we are making changes to the regulations governing how special guardianships are assessed to make it more robust. Our review of special guardianships has shown compelling evidence that they are not always assessed in a way that puts children’s interests first. We plan to publish the wider findings of that review before Christmas. As I said, the Prime Minister announced that we are considering legislative change to ensure that decisions are always made in children’s best interests, and to take proper account of the timeliness, quality and stability of placements. We will publish our thoughts in the new year and we will engage widely with the sector about this.
Lord Storey (LD)
It is vital that all children are in a loving and stable home. Data released from the Minister’s own department, the DfE, show that 6,000 children went missing from care in the year to March 2015. What is he going to do about that?
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, we can all agree that the most careful checks need to be made before a child is placed for adoption. However, there have been long delays in many cases. What are the Government doing to ensure that those delays are kept to the absolute minimum?
Lord Nash
The Children and Families Act was very much about speeding up the process. The number of placements made within a year has almost doubled and the time children wait for adoption has fallen by several months. I have already alluded to the issues we have in the immediate short term and the possible plans for legislative change to remedy the situation.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, just last night in this Chamber, noble Lords discussed amendments to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill which sought to exclude kinship carers and adoptive parents from the two-child limit in tax credits. Given the worrying decline in the number of adoptions, this seems an eminently sensible proposal. If things go through as they are at the moment, this would act as a significant financial disincentive for some families to take on extra children as kinship carers or adoptive parents. This House was told last night that that is not being considered in the present Bill, but no reasons were given. Will the Minister explain why this very helpful suggestion is not being taken up?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, following up on the question asked by the right reverend Prelate, what is the Government’s assessment of the impact of the Bill to which he was referring on the number of children placed for adoption?
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, I may have misheard my noble friend, but I thought that in his Answer he referred to misinterpretation of court judgments. Misinterpreted by whom?
Lord Nash
We believe this may have been misinterpreted by some social workers with, I am sure, the best interests of children in mind. The president of the Family Division has clarified the meaning, particularly in Re B-S and in Re R, where he made it absolutely clear that the law on adoption had not changed. However, it seems that these decisions have sometimes been misinterpreted as raising the legal test for adoption so that adoption should not be pursued unless there is no other option. We are particularly concerned about this.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the greatest shortfall in adoptions is among harder-to-place children. What assurances can he give to people willing to adopt children in that category that they will have full support to enable the adoptions to become permanent?
Lord Nash
We have made £30 million available for the central agency fees, specifically for this category of children. The regional adoption agencies, which the noble Lord will know about because we debated them, will give these harder-to-place children immediate access to a larger pool of potential adopters.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that because of the restrictions, there is an increase in adopting children abroad on the part of many families who wish to adopt but are perhaps considered too old or do not pass various criteria in this country? Those people would be very good parents for children in this country but cannot adopt them.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister do me the following courtesy? I am sure he will feel that he needs to add to the answer he gave to the right reverend Prelate. Will he please send copies of that answer to me and other noble Lords with an interest in this area? Merely to say that it is not within his brief does not fully answer the question.
Business: Advice Services
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the closure of the Business Growth Service, including the Manufacturing Advisory Service, on economic growth and access to advice for businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, we do not expect closure of the Business Growth Service to have an impact on economic growth. The most important way we can help small businesses is to continue to secure a strong growing economy by cutting red tape, extending small business rate relief and dealing with late payment. In future, businesses will be able to go to their local growth hub, which will co-ordinate local, national, public and private sector support.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the Business Growth Service has supported more than 28,000 businesses and since 2012 has added £4.8 billion GVA and 100,000 jobs. Manufacturing industry, which began a welcome rejuvenation under the last Government, is reeling from the sudden decision to close these services. Given how fundamental a part of the industrial strategy this service was, will the Minister tell the House how the Government intend to support the industrial strategy and companies’ ambitious to grow in the future?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the Chancellor made it clear in his Autumn Statement that businesses need an active and sustained industrial strategy. We continue to work closely with different industry sectors—I do so with electronics and professional services. A whole series of announcements were made in relation to manufacturing to provide more support for aerospace, automotive, defence and transport.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned SMEs. Is she aware of the concern that the central government procurement contracts are actually squeezing SMEs out from winning contracts? Is she prepared to look at government procurement policy again?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am concerned to hear what the noble Lord says because we put a lot of work into improving the procurement process for small businesses. I will certainly write to him with the details, including on the payment periods, which have been severely reduced.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
Will my noble friend tell us how the Government’s future plans intend to help small and medium-sized businesses increase their exports?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am glad that my noble friend mentioned exports because a huge export drive is part of the BIS agenda. UKTI provides tailored help for small businesses on suitable markets, export opportunities and, of course, finance. Having been involved in export in a prior life, I know how very helpful that work is to business.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware that the SMEs mentioned by the two previous speakers use the Manufacturing Advisory Service extensively. Is she receiving any information about the effect that not having that facility is having on the way they conduct start-ups and advance their businesses?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the Manufacturing Advisory Service is, indeed, part of the Business Growth Service. As I have explained, we are doing things differently. In future, businesses will be able to get their support from local growth hubs. We have a strong menu of support through the British Business Bank, start-up loans and in other ways, but the main way to secure success for small businesses is to have the right framework to progress profitable activities. Of course, that means growth, a lesser burden of red tape and of rates and so on.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, three years ago the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in his report No Stone Unturned in Pursuit of Growth, remarked on the inconsistency of support for small businesses through government policy. With this change, are the Government still on the side of inconsistency, and will they act on his other recommendation to strengthen, through extra resources, local chambers of commerce and LEPs to provide greater support and consistency to allow small businesses to grow?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am delighted that the noble Lord mentioned LEPs because, of course, LEPs bring together chambers of commerce, business interests and local authorities. The growth hubs that I mentioned are indeed part of that LEP network, which already has 31 hubs and will have 39 by next April.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government’s Enterprise Investment Scheme has been a tremendous help to small businesses in providing risk equity capital? Is she aware that the requirements forced on the UK by the EU Competition Commissioner, in order to meet the state aid requirements, are going to severely reduce the likely flows of risk equity money to SMEs under the EIS?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I, too, am a huge fan of the EIS and of good tax support for small businesses. I am also a huge fan of competition so, although I am not entirely aware of the detail of what the Competition Commissioner said, it is important that we support competition right across the EU.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that many small businesses were actually built on the back of invoice discounting and factoring. What are the Government doing to push that kind of funding?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Lord makes a good point. One of the reasons that is necessary is because the bigger companies do not pay the smaller companies quickly enough. That is why, on a cross-party basis, we have been trying to do a lot of things about late payment, and there is a whole series of measures in the pipeline, which I believe are overdue.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of research conducted by Cardiff University’s Business School, which estimates that UK businesses are missing out on up to £48 billion every year in lost contracts because of a lack of language skills in the workforce, which prevents them being able to bid for contracts or even to understand the tender documents, which are by no means always written in English?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I was not aware of that report but it sounds a very valuable one. Having operated internationally, I am a huge fan of languages, both in the curriculum and being really useful when you are trying to export; getting my own children to speak foreign languages has been a problem.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has raised the issue of late payment. There is a tremendous problem within the construction industry, as she may know, and a lot of people are getting together to put the facts forward. Will she address this issue in the new year? Retention of payments, payments after 120 days when they should be within 30 days—these are very live issues, which I and others will be addressing in the new year, and I hope she will start to address them now.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Indeed, retentions are an issue in the construction industry. That is why we have set up a review, partly as a result of discussion on the Enterprise Bill, to bring the question of late payment in construction into the piece, which is already tackling business generally and insurance.
Scotland Bill
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 3, which is also in my name. The purpose of the amendments is to leave out subsections (1) and (2) of the proposed new section. I have tabled them to enable my noble friend the Minister to justify the inclusion of these subsections. I am aware that they derive from the recommendations of the Smith commission. Paragraph 21 of the report states:
“UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are permanent institutions”.
However, there is nothing in that report to justify the recommendation. In his foreword the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, said:
“The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent in UK legislation”—
but that exhausts references to the proposal.
During Second Reading, I touched upon my concerns with both subsections. One concern I raised in response to an intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It was that the recommendation falls outside the terms of reference of the Smith commission. The commission was established to make recommendations for further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. These subsections do not provide for the further devolution of powers. We are in something of a double bind. The Smith commission did not produce a reasoned report but, rather, a list of recommendations, and the Government committed themselves in advance to implementing its recommendations. The justification for the provisions of the Bill is thus generic: that they deliver on the commission’s recommendations. What we lack is a clear exposition of the reasoning behind each provision. The Government, in effect, offered the commission a blank cheque and I do not think that it is our task to cash it without questioning the transaction.
The other concern I raised was that the provisions fly in the face of the Government’s own guidance on making legislation. I quoted the most recent edition of the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation, published in July, which stated at paragraph 10.9:
“Finally, when writing instructions … to keep in mind the general rule that a bill should only contain legislative propositions. These are propositions that change the law—they bring about”,
a change in the law,
“that would not exist apart from the bill”.
The guide goes on to record:
“It can sometimes be tempting to ask the drafter to prepare a provision that is not intended to change the law but is instead designed to serve some political purpose or to explain or emphasise an existing law”.
I have not sought to omit new subsection (3) because that does contain a legislative proposition, albeit one that merits amendment.
The wording of Clause 1 was discussed in Committee in the other place and it was amended on Report. However, the discussions took as given that there should be a provision stipulating that the Scottish Parliament and Government were permanent. The debate itself was somewhat disjointed, given that the amendments were considered with others. There was no sustained debate focused on subsections (1) and (2).
The Scottish Parliament was created under Section 1(1) of the Scotland Act, and there is nothing in that Act that limits its existence. What then do new subsections (1) and (2) add to the statute book? What is the relationship between these subsections and subsection (3)? New subsection (3) establishes that the Parliament and Government of Scotland,
“are not to be abolished except on the basis of a … referendum”,
in Scotland. It could be argued that this subsection qualifies subsections (1) and (2), given that it envisages circumstances under which the Parliament and Government cease to be permanent. However, it may also be argued that they confuse rather than clarify.
The Constitution Committee noted in its report on the draft clauses that Clause 1 creates,
“the potential for misunderstanding or conflict over the legal status of the Scottish Parliament which may result in legal friction in the future”.
It went on to state:
“If there are different interpretations as to the status of the Scottish Parliament in its present constitutional configuration then it is not implausible that Clause 1 could be interpreted by certain judges to be a form of entrenchment that could not then be repealed by Westminster legislation without the consent either of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish people voting in a referendum”.
The committee returns to the point in its report on the Bill, drawing attention to the problem with the revised wording, which, it says in paragraph 36, risks,
“introducing uncertainty concerning the absolute nature of parliamentary sovereignty where there should be none”.
The problem is exacerbated by the removal of the word “recognised”.
New Section 63A(1) states that the Parliament and Government are permanent, and subsection (2) may be read as affirming that this section is Parliament’s commitment to that. The political reality is that the Scottish Parliament is permanent—that is not in doubt. Why then introduce these new subsections? They raise more questions than they answer. If they are to remain in the Bill, it would be prudent to accept Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, which would add:
“Nothing in this section alters the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament”.
I can anticipate some of the arguments that may be deployed by the Minister against that amendment, but those arguments could be utilised in respect of new subsections (1) and (2). I invite my noble friend the Minister to provide the Government’s substantive thinking behind new subsections (1) and (2) and thus get it on the record. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 2 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord McCluskey (CB)
My Lords, I had not expected to be on my feet just at this moment, but I will speak to Amendments 4 and 5. Amendment 4 asks that the word “only” should be inserted into line 11, so that the new provision would read:
“The only purpose of this section is … to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government”.
The first question I have to ask the Minister is: if this is not the only purpose of the section, what other purpose or purposes does the section have? I do not see any value in having the words, “The purpose”, unless we make it clear that this is the only purpose.
My Amendment 5 would remove the words,
“with due regard to the other provisions of this Act”.
As I understand statutory interpretation, when a court or other body is called upon to understand an Act of Parliament, it may well be necessary, in the case of any kind of ambiguity, to look at any other provisions of the Act which bear upon the same matter. There is a duty in law and in custom for courts and others to have due regard to the other provisions of the Act, so I do not see what purpose this provision serves here. My own general approach is that the shorter legislation is, the better. Legislation is often too wordy and too confused. If the words are not necessary, they should not be there. That is the simple basis on which I speak to both the amendments standing in my name.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 7, which stands in my name, but before doing so I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, just said about wordy legislation and endorse entirely what my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said in his crisp, succinct introduction of his own two amendments. This is a very unsatisfactory Bill, brought about by extremely unsatisfactory circumstances. If we in your Lordships’ House are going to try to improve a bad Bill—as is for ever our task, and one which was never more needed than in the case of this Bill—we have to address certain very important aspects of it.
I concentrated my amendment on the whole subject of parliamentary sovereignty. Although the Scottish Parliament came about because of the wish of the Scottish people in a referendum, nevertheless it was created by Act of Parliament. If it is to be abolished, that should be done by Act of Parliament, too. I neither forecast nor advocate its abolition but if we are to have such a provision in this Bill—I doubt whether it is needed, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth made that position plain in his speech—it should be a parliamentary provision. That is why I suggest that it should be on the basis of a two-thirds majority in a vote of the House of Commons, in which 75% of the Members elected by Scottish constituencies vote for abolition. That provides as strong a parliamentary safeguard as can be envisaged. It is infinitely to be preferred to the referendum route.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it is probably right that I should now speak to Amendment 6, as set out on the Marshalled List, which assumes that subsections (1) and (2) in the new clause remain as printed in the Bill, and then seeks to alter the wording—and, I respectfully suggest, improve it—of subsection (3).
I should explain the origin of the wording of the amendment. I have done my best to keep the Minister informed about my thinking on this matter. As with other amendments on the Marshalled List in my name, the source from which I drew is a series of amendments proposed by the Scottish Government in June, in advance of Committee stage in the House of Commons. However, I tabled these amendments entirely on my own initiative. I am not instructed by anybody and did not table them on behalf of anybody other than me—although they have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who may say a word on some of them in due course. It simply seemed to me on reading them, without any political background whatever, that they had some merit in view of their wording and therefore should be discussed. Some of those amendments, which I will come to later, were before the other House but were withdrawn or not moved and therefore have never been discussed. That seemed an unfortunate state of affairs if one is seeking to improve the Bill. This amendment was, I think, tabled on the first day of Committee in the other place and was negatived on a Division. Nevertheless, it is open to this House to look at the wording again and that is what I seek to do.
Before I say more about the wording itself, perhaps I can respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The report of the Constitution Committee, chaired expertly by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, referred to a passage in a judgment that I wrote in the Supreme Court in a case called AXA General Insurance Ltd v the Lord Advocate in 2011. In the passage referred to, I sought to describe what I understood to be the position between Scotland and the Parliament at Westminster. I made the point that the Scotland Act 1998 provides that the,
“Scottish Parliament takes its place under our constitutional arrangements as a self-standing democratically elected legislature”,
with a,
“democratic mandate to make laws for the people of Scotland”.
I made the point that it does not, and was not intended to, “enjoy the sovereignty” this Parliament has and went on to say that,
“the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament … is the bedrock of the British constitution”,
and,
“remains with the United Kingdom Parliament”.
Nothing that I may say in the course of the debate is intended to detract in any way from those propositions. I believe absolutely in the crucial position that this Parliament enjoys. It is well understood that the Scottish Parliament does not have sovereignty in that sense, and that is perfectly clear because its legislation can be reviewed by, among others, the Supreme Court to see that it falls within the parameters set for the powers of the legislature under the Scotland Act. That is all by way of background.
In considering the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, one has to recognise that the Smith commission, which discussed the matter in layman’s terms, said that the position of the Scottish Parliament should be recognised by legislation. Given that that proposition was made and accepted by all the parties to the discussions before Smith, it seems difficult to avoid having at least a clause that recognises the permanence of the Scottish Parliament. So it is against that background that I do not quarrel with subsections (1) and (2) but direct my attention to the wording of subsection (3), with the aim of improving it to clarify the position.
The amendment would insert a new subsection, which states:
“Subsection (1) may only be repealed if … the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal”.
That is there simply to recognise that the repeal we are talking about is a repeal of the provisions establishing the Scottish Parliament in the Scotland Act. There seems merit in the proposition that, if that Parliament is to be abolished, it should at least be in a position to express a view as to whether that is desirable. I am not seeking to undermine in any way the sovereignty of this Parliament; I am simply looking at the relationship between the Parliament created by the Scotland Act and a measure that would seek to abolish it. Once it has been created and when it is still in existence, it would seem rather odd that it should be unable to express a view on whether that should or should not happen.
The other part of the amendment simply looks at the proposition that there should be a referendum, which the Government have accepted should be part of the package to support the remaining provisions in Clause 1. The amendment would clarify what the subject matter of the referendum is to be and state in terms that there would have to be,
“a majority of those voting at the referendum”,
before it had the effect suggested by the clause. The condition is that a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal, and that a majority of those voting in the referendum have consented to it. It may be that that is implied by the wording, but it seemed to me that in the interests of clarity, it would be better to make the matter express, because what we are contemplating is such a major political event that the exact condition that would give rise to authorising the proposed repeal needs to be put beyond doubt.
I shall make submissions later in support of other amendments, but those are the reasons behind this amendment and the background to why I tabled it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I do not often disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but I think he was walking something of a tightrope there, for obvious reasons.
What is wrong with this first clause is the whole approach to the Bill. The Government, in advance of even knowing what the conclusions of the Smith commission would be, undertook to implement them and expected both Houses of this Parliament to ratify them. In speaking in support of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Norton, I draw the attention of the House to page 7 of our Constitution Committee’s sixth report of Session 2015-16 on the Scotland Bill. Paragraph 8 states:
“The Bill contains a number of provisions of the highest constitutional importance. In affirming the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government and declaring that they are not to be abolished except following a referendum in Scotland, and in giving statutory recognition to the Sewel convention, the Bill carries potential implications for Parliament’s own sovereignty”.
Too right it does.
Paragraph 9 states:
“In our report on the Draft Clauses”—
which were contained in the document which was ironically entitled Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement—
“we expressed concern at ‘the failure of the UK Government directly to address the implications of these proposals for the United Kingdom as a whole.’ We questioned how any process that did not consider the future of the Union ‘could provide for an “enduring” settlement’, and recommended that ‘the Government give urgent consideration to the consequences of the Draft Clauses for the constitution of the United Kingdom as a whole. This should happen before they are passed into law.’ There is little evidence that such consideration has been given to date”.
That conclusion is something of an understatement, to put it mildly.
If we look at the Smith commission proposals in respect of these amendments and the clause which we are discussing—a point I made at Second Reading—we see that under the heading, “A More Autonomous Parliament”, the Smith commission report stated:
“The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent in UK legislation and given powers over how it is elected and run. The Scottish Government will similarly be made permanent”.
It does not say, “We recommend that Parliament considers how it could be made permanent”, but that it will be made permanent.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the fact that the heads of agreement built on what he said by stating:
“UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are permanent institutions”.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Indeed. Perhaps I have missed out on this modernisation process that is going ahead, but I understood that laws are made by Parliament and receive the assent of the Crown. I did not think that they were made up by subcommittees of appointed party politicians meeting in secret and then getting together with the leaders of the parties, who did not in any way consult their parties, with Parliament then being expected to rubber-stamp them. This takes us back to the time of Henry VIII. We could save a great deal of money by getting rid of this whole apparatus of Parliament and leaving it to the leaders of the parties to get together, decide things and agree that they will be passed into law and leave the monarch with the dubious task of having to give Royal Assent to such matters.
A colleague I was speaking to earlier said, “I’m not coming in for the Scotland Bill. I’ve really had enough of Scotland”. I said, “But it’s not about Scotland; it’s about the United Kingdom”. He said, “Oh, I didn’t realise that”. It would appear that the Government do not realise that, either, judging by the nature of this clause.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
I believe that some of our legislation has now been privatised. Is that not the reason for the noble Lord’s problem?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
All I can say is that it needs a bit of competition, then. I support my noble friend’s amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, it is always dodgy for bishops to speak about Scottish matters. The kirk has sometimes considered the possibility of introducing bishops but the one condition it has always applied is that they must not be like English bishops—they must be quite different.
I have some credentials inasmuch as I have had a close association with Scotland for 40 years, since I went to Edinburgh as a student. I have had a house in Scotland for 30 years, I have two Scottish degrees and one Scottish wife, who has kept my feet on the ground over the years. I shall also retire to Scotland shortly, and very much look forward to doing so.
My observation, from my perspective, is that when Parliament, a London-centred body, speaks about Scotland, the Scots always perceive it as being rather patronising and as not taking them seriously. That was the underlying dynamic which led to such a close shave in the referendum. I speak as a unionist through and through, but the Scots felt that they were not taken seriously. When the Scottish Parliament was created, it was not created but reconvened. It was made clear when it first met that it was a reconvening rather than a wholly new event. One has to acknowledge that over the years Scotland, for most of its history, has felt itself to be an independent country, and it participates in the union as an independent country.
When I first saw these clauses, they jarred with me. They remind me of when I go to services and an enthusiastic minister overemphasises the wrong word: I hear, “This IS the word of the Lord”, and I think, “Oh, is it?”. Sometimes, if you emphasise a word you create an uncertainty by emphasising the wrong part of the sentence. “This IS a permanent part of the UK” almost creates a doubt because the emphasis is in the wrong place. My second reaction when I read this was, “Death and taxes are permanent—we are now to add the Scottish Government”.
The absence of a written constitution means that constitutional elements are enshrined in our Acts of Parliament. This is being enshrined in the Bill because we do not have a written constitution. It is a fact of life that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament are a permanent feature, and at the end of the day, it is probably wiser to say that than to raise doubt about it.
To remove this part of the clause from the Bill at this point would be utterly disastrous and give all the wrong signals. For whatever reason it has got here—and it may be that I do not know about the legislative process—to remove it would give all the wrong signals. In the Bill, we must not create the sense—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If the clause is dishonest in the information which it conveys to the public, how can it be wrong to remove it or amend it as such, and how can it be disastrous to amend it in a way which makes it clear what its real meaning is?
The Lord Bishop of Chester
If the people of Scotland are told, “We toyed with the thought of saying that it was a permanent Parliament but we decided that it wasn’t”, it will simply give the wrong message. Of course I agree that laws can be changed, just as if you have a written constitution it can be changed by some process. However, it corresponds with the reality on the ground.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
The fact is that we have a written constitution; we do not have a codified constitution.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
I am not sure that I entirely agree with the point, but I will not argue as it would take me down the highways and byways in a way that would not be helpful. I will end on the following point—and I speak as someone who loves Scotland and who will live there in retirement and no doubt will be buried there. When we talk about Scotland, often a slightly grudging spirit comes into our discussions, which is a great mistake. At the end of the day, this provision is a valuable one.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I have not spoken previously in this debate but am prompted to do so partly because for a long time I was a member of the Constitution Committee and therefore take a good deal of note of what it says. I am also prompted to speak partly because of what has just been said. The trouble is that we do not have a written constitution but we are advancing ad hoc, step by step, and it is a very dangerous process. We will very shortly be debating a Wales Bill and I can just see it happening—we will be told that the Welsh Parliament has to be made permanent and cannot be altered by this British Parliament. This is a matter that affects the United Kingdom as a whole and therefore we should take seriously the clear observations of the Constitution Committee and of my noble friend Lord Forsyth.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord has just indicated, it is very clear that there are implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is just a great pity that the Government will not accede to the request from all sides of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom for a constitutional convention, in which many of these relationships could be properly looked at. The right reverend Prelate reminded me that we have to be careful with the wording here. To say so stridently that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent will start raising doubts about whether anyone would think anything else. That is why care has to be taken here.
In the 1990s I was part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It came up with the blueprint for the Scottish Parliament, which, to its credit, the Labour Party, elected in 1997, faithfully put into legislative form. I remember many discussions in the constitutional convention about how to entrench the Parliament. We kept going round in circles on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and on whether we should have a referendum. In the end, the convention decided that it could make no such proposal. The Labour Party proposed a two-question referendum. My party and I were opposed to that as it was not what the convention had agreed, but I think that I was wrong. The fact that we had a referendum in 1997 and that the Parliament was established on the basis of a very strong popular vote in Scotland meant that it found its own form of political entrenchment. We could go round in circles here having a highbrow constitutional discussion on the nature of the sovereignty of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, used the words “political reality” in moving his amendment. At the end of the day, we come back to political reality. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that if the people of Scotland voted to abolish the Scottish Parliament, primary legislation in this Parliament would be required for that to happen, but of course if this Parliament chose to ignore what the people of Scotland said, that would bring about a constitutional crisis because political reality would kick in. That is why I also disagree with the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He is saying that if the Parliament were removed, it would have to be done not only on the vote of the Scottish people but on the vote of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament might well vote to get rid of the Parliament because it was not doing a particularly good job. Therefore, you do not give the veto to the people whom you want to get rid of and who have a vested interest in keeping the Parliament.
These things are hypothetical because, quite simply, I do not see them happening. That is why I think that political reality is more relevant to this debate than highbrow discussions on parliamentary sovereignty. As ever, I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On the subject of political reality, is it not the policy of the noble and learned Lord’s party to have a constitutional convention with a view to creating a federal United Kingdom? What happens if we have a provision in law saying that the Scottish Parliament as it stands is permanent and the rest of the United Kingdom wishes to alter the structure and have a federal constitution along the lines that he suggests and that is blocked because of these provisions? Perhaps he thinks the political reality is that what he wishes for will never happen, but surely it is wrong to create inflexibility, given that he and his party accept that the present system is not a stable, lasting settlement.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord makes a very good point. But under any federal system there would be a Scottish Parliament. I echo again Section 1(1) of the Scotland Act 1998: there still would be a Scottish Parliament. It may have a different form and different powers, but there still would be a Scottish Parliament. I do not think anyone is suggesting that the Scottish Parliament that we refer to in Clause 1 of this Bill is for ever frozen in aspic or that it would not inherit other powers at some time to come.
The issue is indeed one of political reality. We are also duty bound to have regard to the wording of this part of the clause.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Is the noble and learned Lord saying that when the clause heading says:
“Permanence of the Scottish Parliament”,
this is not referring to all the powers and privileges of that Parliament but just to the name, and that the powers could be changed? Is he saying that the effect would be that we could take away all its powers but, provided that there was still a building and something called the Scottish Parliament, that would be covered?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Let me get back to political reality. I do not believe that that would happen. But I think it is very likely that we will have some measures in the future—probably the not-too-distant future—under which more powers are given to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, it comes back to the same thing: to the political reality. If there was a move resulting in a constitutional convention or a federal system for the United Kingdom, which my colleagues and I aspire to, the political reality of that would see it delivered.
I have much sympathy for the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because I simply do not know what is meant by,
“with due regard to the other provisions of this Act”.
No doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will tell us in his reply what the importance of including those words is.
I also wonder what is meant in subsection (3), which says:
“In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum”.
I do not think that the “people of Scotland” is anywhere defined in this. Is it the people resident in Scotland, which was the qualification for the referendum in 2014? At that time, many noble Lords received many representations from expatriate Scots living abroad or living in London who consider themselves to be part of the people of Scotland. So would they be part of the referendum that is proposed by the Government with regard to the future of the Scottish Parliament? That is why I think that the wording proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in the second part of his amendment—
“a majority of those voting at the referendum”,
which has been held in Scotland—has greater clarity than the Government’s wording of this particular clause.
Just as Parliament could, technically, repeal the Statute of Westminster of 1931 but would never dream of doing it, the constitutional reality of the sovereignty of Parliament is not relevant to this. At the end of the day, what will matter is what the people actually want.
The Marquess of Lothian (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 1. We have heard a lot of intricate and technical arguments and I do not intend to get involved in them.
I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. He mentioned Section 1 of the Scotland Act. I remember that Act well because I was leading for the Opposition in the other place at that time. I think we all accepted that the Scottish people had asked for devolution, that there would be a Scottish Parliament and that, for all we knew, it would be there for a long time if not for ever. But the word “permanent” was never introduced into the legislation, partly, I suspect, because, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth has said, the draftsmen would not have allowed it, but also because we all accepted that to enter it into the legislation would set a whole lot of other constitutional hares running. That is really my purpose in rising to talk merely about Amendment 1.
What we are looking at here is part of the problem that we have suffered from constitutionally in the country over the past 20 years: we keep on amending the constitution piecemeal, unintentionally, and without regard to the possible consequences in other areas. When I look at this word “permanent”, I see an attempt to say that this Parliament can bind other parliaments by saying that the Scottish Parliament is there for ever.
I said in my speech at Second Reading that, as a young law student in Scotland in the 1960s, I was for ever being taught by various professors about the entrenchment of the Act of Union. Section 1 of the Union with England Act states:
“That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall … hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain”.
I was told that that was entrenched and, parliamentary sovereignty aside, we could accept that would never change. But we went into the Scottish referendum last year on the understanding that, if there had been a yes vote, that Act of Union would have been changed. It would not have been for ever because the Scottish people had decided unilaterally that they did not want it to be for ever. What we are looking at here is very important.
The same applies to this clause. If we believe that permanence is permanence, we should say that it is part of our constitution. Or, we should say that the sovereignty of Parliament is supreme, which is what I have always believed, and that one Parliament cannot bind another. If that is the case, we should not indulge in language that dishonestly suggests that we do not believe that to be true. I am not just talking about this Scotland Bill. If we go down the road of saying that whenever we introduce the word “permanent” into legislation, it will bind subsequent Parliaments for ever, we have substantially changed the constitution of this country, and we would have done that without thought, debate or proper consideration. I do not believe that the clause is necessary.
I did not like devolution. I did not like Section 1 of the Scotland Act. I opposed it, but once it was passed I accepted that it was there and that it would always be there. However, I would not have accepted the word “permanent” being introduced if it suggested that the United Kingdom Parliament was anything less than sovereign. We must think very carefully about this when we look at the Bill. The right reverend Prelate said that we should not get rid of this clause because that would have all sorts of other consequences. But if we leave this clause in, we are giving permission for future Parliaments to create permanence in other areas. I may be too old, possibly, to suffer the consequences of that, but I hope my children and grandchildren will not find that we have abandoned the sovereignty of Parliament just in the cause of getting this Bill through.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I want to put to the noble Marquess a point that I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. The problem is created by paragraph 21 of the heads of agreement, which states in terms:
“UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are permanent institutions”.
There may be an answer to the point that he raises. The word “permanent” is lay man’s language. After all, this was drafted by people sitting around without consulting lawyers at the time. It could be regarded as lay man’s language and there may be some other way of taking away the word “permanent” but nevertheless fitting it into the UK context. The previous paragraph, paragraph 20, says,
“in the context of Scotland remaining within the UK”.
I am not suggesting a form of words, but I wonder whether the noble Marquess would accept that the Government have a problem in having to give effect to paragraph 21. Maybe there is a way of softening the word “permanent” to fit it in with the United Kingdom and the well-understood constitutional principles. Perhaps we are being too attached to the word “permanent”, which lay men use and was perhaps not very cleverly chosen.
The Marquess of Lothian
I accept the noble and learned Lord’s suggestion. The word “permanent” is the one that concerns me. I do not think heads of agreement can change the British constitution—only Parliaments can change the British constitution. We could say something along the lines that we envisage that this will last for a long time or for ever, but we cannot say that it will because that is what transgresses against the sovereignty of Parliament.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am grateful to my noble friend but I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was referring to the heads of agreement in the Smith commission. The Smith commission was simply a group of Scottish politicians or representatives from Scottish politics meeting in secret, having a chat and producing heads of agreement. To argue that the Government somehow have to go along with that because they said in advance that they would accept the Smith commission’s recommendations means that the whole object of having a Bill and everything that we are engaging in is a waste of time. That cannot be acceptable.
The Marquess of Lothian
I do not disagree with my noble friend. What I said was that I do not think that heads of agreement can change constitutions, nor do I think that Governments, by heads of agreement, can change them. The constitution can only be changed, Parliament by Parliament, by Parliament itself, and that is what this clause seems to argue against. I would very much like to think that we could withdraw this clause and, if necessary, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has said, find another way of expressing our hope that what is being done today may go on for a very long time.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may do my best to introduce a little reality to what has happened in this case because, to quote the well-known words, I was there. I was in your Lordships’ House on 21 July 1998 during a debate on an amendment which I had moved concerning Clause 2 of the then Scotland Bill of that year. I have before me a helpful summary of the history of that event, which may assist noble Lords in deciding the way forward in a real and understandable way.
In one sense, Clause 2 refers to what happened that night when, in the course of appearing in the case, Lord Sewel made a statement which I have had a brief opportunity to look at in Hansard. He said,
“we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament”.—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 791.]
That means that the facts of what happened were as follows. I had moved an amendment that did not refer to the convention which would be normally effective. As we all know, the Bill proceeded and, of course, became law. I am informed by the report I have in front of me that,
“Since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, there appear to have been no significant problems with the operation of the convention. It applies when UK legislation makes provision specifically designed for a devolved purpose”,
and also when UK legislation,
“would alter the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish”,
Government. While some years later we can speculate about what people in this House were thinking in July of 1998, one of the phrases that causes some irritation and annoyance, and which there is clearly a wish to get rid of, is the term, “normally legislate”. It is quite obvious that that was not discussed in any detail that night.
It may also be of interest to noble Lords to know that the convention has evolved over the years and has been agreed through memoranda of understanding and by the House of Commons Procedure Committee. However, the clause refers to only some of the circumstances in which there is in practice the need for a legislative consent Motion. There is further reference to a document entitled Devolution Guidance Note 10, which was used to address some of these issues. What this proves, I would submit, is that the terms that are causing offence were not the result of any detailed debate between the parties to the proceedings before the House, and I trust that this will be of some assistance to noble Lords.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, I shall be brief. I spent 17 years in opposition along the corridor, and there are present at least four or five former Ministers in the Government at the time who were always telling me, whenever I moved an amendment to a Bill, that we cannot bind a future Parliament with laws we pass in this Parliament. That is a basic rule. In fact I was even taught that in constitutional history at Oxford in the 1950s. You cannot bind one Government.
Lord McCluskey
In the light of the debate so far, I should like to add something to what I said before. I remind the House that the purpose of legislation is to effect a change in the law—to state the law. Subsection (1) is a statement:
“The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part”.
Whether or not that changes the law, I do not know. Given the arguments about sovereignty, it may state the law at present but it cannot change it a week next Tuesday because, as my friend Sir Gerald Gordon, an expert lawyer in Scotland, said, there is no written constitution in Scotland in the United Kingdom, but it can be written in one sentence, and that is: “There shall be a Parliament at Westminster, and it can do what it likes”. Another version is: “There shall be a House of Commons at Westminster, and it can do what it likes”. Apparently, the Government do not hold to that view because, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has pointed out, it cannot do what it likes and must do what the Smith commission has decided it will have to do.
The point I want to make is the important one that subsection (1) makes a statement, although I do not know its legal effect at all. But when we look at subsection (2), where I want to add the word “only”, it states:
“The purpose”—
which probably means the only purpose—
“of this section is … to signify the commitment of the”,
UK Parliament et cetera to something or other. In other words, if you interpret subsection (1) by looking at subsection (2), which you have to do, of course, you find that its only purpose—or “the” purpose—is simply to make a statement of fact. I do not see how these things change the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made remarks about the parliamentary draftsmen. They have my deep sympathy because they were given an appalling job to do, given the terms of the report and the whole background to it, including matters discussed at Second Reading. If this is the best they can do, maybe we can try to do better, but we are writing on water here.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on these amendments because I thought that I would prefer to speak on Clause 1 stand part. However, it might save time if I speak now, not least because the debate has already ranged very widely over a number of more general points.
I also wanted to speak at an early stage to thank those noble Lords—in particular my noble friends Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Forsyth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—who made polite reference to the report of the Constitution Committee. My noble friend Lord Forsyth’s excellent speech in particular, in which he managed, in that wonderful tone of slightly supressed indignation, to quote from the report, reminded me just how strongly the committee felt about it when it prepared that report. Committees tend to present reports in fairly moderated terms, but these are very serious issues. Indeed, we were in a pretty bad mood to start with because we had already produced a report on the draft clauses, which came out some time before this Bill appeared, in which we drew the attention of the Government to some seven major points of constitutional principle that we thought should be replied to. The reply we eventually received was just more than two lines long. We had to express pretty considerable indignation at that.
While I am on the same theme, it is also a matter of regret to us that the Government have not yet been able to reply to our latest report, which we particularly hoped to have had ahead of the start of this Committee. I hope that that response will appear very soon.
In our report, we criticised very strongly the progeny of the Bill and the fact that the Government had committed to accept the Smith commission’s terms. I will not dwell on that point any longer; it has been very well covered by other noble Lords. We also placed strong emphasis on the importance of the position of the United Kingdom and, with all this demand-led devolution that has been going on, of stabilising and securing the sovereignty of the United Kingdom for the future. I am glad to say that another instalment of our work is on its way to your Lordships in due course on the union and devolution, which will cover that theme and, I hope, carry it forward.
Reverting to this debate, the clause we are looking at and the amendments to it are about sovereignty, which is a clear, absolute and easy-to-identify concept. All the amendments are about protecting it from potential inroads that arise from all the changes made in the other place that depart from the simple request made by the Smith commission. It is a declaratory clause. As my noble friend Lord Norton pointed out at Second Reading, by making a declaratory clause the core of a new parliamentary Bill it has been drawn up in the face of the Government’s own guidance on drafting legislation, which deplores such treatment.
Not only is it unwise, but it also compromises the subject by adding specific changes that were not requested by Smith. They are changes that weaken the principle of sovereignty, in particular the requirement under subsection (3) that there should be no abolition of the Scottish Parliament without a referendum for the Scottish people. Smith did not request that. That is not declaratory; it has specific substance. How does it protect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom?
I also ask my noble friend the Minister: why do the Government think that the Scottish National Party wanted that amendment to the Bill? It does not believe in permanence; it wants impermanence. It wants to undermine sovereignty and provoke the United Kingdom Parliament. Ultimately, it wants to break up the United Kingdom. Every extra concession granted makes that more possible.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, referred to political reality. Yes, no one believes that the Scottish Parliament will be abolished and no one wants it to be abolished—you cannot put the smoke back in the bottle—but why compromise the position with qualifications of this kind in this important Bill? The Scottish National Party talks a lot about the sovereignty of the people—what one might call the “Braveheart philosophy”—but we have to wonder whether the clause makes the issue justiciable. Might some Scottish judge at some future date rule that the combination of permanence and a Scottish referendum in a statute overpowers the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament? I do not know the answer to that, but I know that at Second Reading a number of my noble and learned friends identified this area as one that needed close attention.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord has talked much about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, as have other noble Lords. In a very recent lecture the right honourable gentleman the former Attorney-General Mr Dominic Grieve said about that:
“Today, at least in theory, this means that any government with a parliamentary majority could pass a Bill requiring us to collectively worship the moon every other Tuesday. Provided the Queen were minded to give royal assent to it … then that would be the law of the land and we could be punished for not complying”.
Is he really happy that the sovereignty of Parliament, which he asserts so vigorously and to which he is so wedded, could lead to the kind of outcome that the right honourable gentleman Mr Dominic Grieve said could happen?
Lord Lang of Monkton
As I do not know the context and full detail of what my right honourable friend the former Attorney-General said, I can hardly answer the noble and learned Lord. But I hope that sovereignty can be reconciled with common sense and realism. Certainly that would be my objective.
There is a threat to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom which is potentially raised by the wording of these clauses, and the intrusion of new elements into them which cloud out the specific issues of principle. If a court in Scotland did overrule the power of the United Kingdom and managed to pass a judgment that said that the United Kingdom Parliament was overruled by the view of the Scottish Parliament, it would not be devolution but separation. We must not plant the seeds for such a development in this legislation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Does the noble Lord not agree that there is now considerable case law in Scotland which has looked at the competences of the Scottish Parliament and the reach of legislation from this place? So under the existing arrangements, it is perfectly in order for UK legislation to be challenged on the extent of its interaction with devolved legislation. We currently have that practice and it does not seem to have undermined our constitution irrevocably.
Lord Lang of Monkton
That does not surprise me, because I have always taken the view that, ever since we embarked—for all kinds of reasons I will not go into in this debate—on an ill-conceived and unbalanced form of devolution, we were on the slippery slope and sliding towards separation and independence unless we were very careful. As I have said many times, this Bill carries us one step nearer to that.
In his wind-up speech at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Dunlop said:
“The sovereignty of Parliament remains”.—[Official Report, 24/11/15; col. 667.]
That is a commendable, clear, concise statement. We also know, and have reminded ourselves today, that no Parliament can bind its successor. But my noble friend also said of this clause that it puts the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, “beyond all doubt”. In conceding the referendum point on Report in the other place, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that it makes clear,
“beyond question that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent institutions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/15; col. 57.]
By putting things beyond doubt, he raises doubts in all of us. The Government’s arguments are in deadlock: they hit each other head-on. That is why, at Second Reading and now, so many noble Lords have tabled amendments and why the House badly needs reassurance. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give it to us when he winds up the debate.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden (Con)
My Lords, I am one of the few non-lawyers who are even putting their foot into this particular hole. I stand to be corrected by the Front Bench, but Clause 2, which has been referred to, makes perfect sense if the United Kingdom Parliament remains sovereign and can legally legislate on anything, including devolved matters. But that would contradict Clause 1 if the purpose of that clause is to entrench all provisions that are unalterable. I want our Front Bench to answer that question.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I do not agree with the mood of the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, because I do not share his views on Amendment 1. I am happy that the Government inserted further clauses into the Bill. I am pleased that that was the result of cross-party consideration and that the Government responded to the Smith commission—in a difficult context—and put into proposals what I think most people in Scotland now understand: that they have two Parliaments. This is not an easy thing to do and parliamentary draftsmen have a difficult task because we now operate in a situation where we have more than one sphere of power over primary legislation. That poses considerable difficulties for some because they believe that one should be primary and one subsidiary to it. So far as primary legislation is concerned, most people in Scotland consider themselves as having two legislatures. It is even harder because we do not have a written constitution. In the absence of one, we have to rely on other measures to see how we entrench parts of our governance.
It is not the case that this has simply been dreamt up over the last couple of months, as some noble Lords have indicated. Nor it is the case that it is in response to the referendum. Nor is it the case that it is only to do with political expediency. Some of us have believed for a considerable time that it is right to reflect in statute the permanence of the Scottish Parliament in the context of a new and evolving structure of governance in the United Kingdom. I absolutely believe that that is best in a codified federal relationship, which I hope would be the result of a constitutional convention—others have a different view. However, in the absence of that, I believe that we then have to look at what has been a developing process in the United Kingdom.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
These are clearly very deep waters, into which a non-lawyer plunges with some concern. I am very glad that I understood part of what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said. I agree with him about the need for a convention.
My real worry about all this is that I do not believe in declaratory law. I strongly believe in 2% of GNP on defence; I strongly believe in 0.7% on aid; I strongly believe in emissions controls—but I do not believe in putting these things on the statute book. I do not believe in emissions control targets with no known means of fulfilling them. I do not believe in law that sends a message. A law is not worth having unless it changes something. I subscribe to the doctrine explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
At Second Reading, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who is our prophet in these matters. He said:
“The Scottish Parliament is already permanent under the terms of the Scotland Act; it remains in being unless this Parliament legislates otherwise. New subsections (1) and (2), introduced by Clause 1, do not make it any more permanent than it already is”.—[Official Report, 24/11/15; col. 638.]
I understand the conundrum about the Smith commission, well explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord’s own amendment, with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, goes two-thirds of the way to delivering what he feels we are required to do. Amendment 6 does not require subsection (1). The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, have demolished subsection (1).
What we need is something that says: “The provisions of the Scotland Act, which established the Scottish Parliament, shall not be repealed unless the Scottish Parliament has consented and”—here I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Lang; I think there is a need for a referendum—“a referendum has been held in Scotland on a proposed repeal and a majority of those voting have supported it”. We do not make it any more permanent by stating its permanence, and if a new provision adds nothing, we should not make it. It is permanent because it is on the statute book. I agree that in the real world the Scottish Parliament would not vote for its own abolition, but that gives a meaning to permanence.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
What about England? I agree it is not the real world but one can imagine circumstances in which the Scottish Parliament has been given all these powers and has got itself into a right mess and the people of Scotland wish to come back and be part of Westminster. It is entirely conceivable that people in England and Wales will want no part of that. So where is the opportunity for the United Kingdom to look at this as a whole?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I do not think the noble Lord has quite understood my proposal. My proposal is that the language in the amendment in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, should be preceded by the words: “The provisions of the Scotland Act establishing the Scottish Parliament may not be repealed unless”—and then the two conditions laid out in the amendment. It follows that I mean there would need to be a vote of this Parliament as well as of the Scottish Parliament, and the referendum that the noble Lord, Lord Lang, would not want but I think is necessary.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that I think the idea of a supermajority in this Parliament is a very bad one. I think supermajorities in general are a bad idea. Just as we should not add to the statute book provisions which add nothing, so we should not complicate our procedures by inventing a supermajority.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Does the noble Lord accept that he has very cleverly been answering the conundrum that I put to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, of trying to translate “permanent” into some other language that fits constitutionally with our established principles? I was suggesting that one should not be too tied by the word “permanent”, which is used by lay men, and the noble Lord has perhaps cleverly expressed a way of doing that.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord but I refuse to be drawn into a debate among lawyers about how clever I am.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know whether I should have asked for a suit of armour before coming to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, but here we go. First, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for being the only speaker so far in this debate, with the possible exception of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, to recognise that the mandate for the Westminster Parliament is held in Scotland at the moment by the Scottish National Party. It clearly won the election and it is a blow to this House—that is, there is something missing from it—when we do not have that voice here to put its point of view. The great defenders of democracy this afternoon have not seen fit to refer to that lack of democracy, so I thank the noble and learned Lord. I know that he was not putting forward the Scottish National Party’s point of view but he was putting forward views that it has represented at various times, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.
I also take this point of view. If there is consensus on the changes that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is putting forward—consensus between the UK Government and the Scottish Government that these provisions are technically superior and would improve the legislation—we would be happy to support his amendment. We welcome the noble and learned Lord’s initiative in doing this.
Everybody recognises the position of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, as that of probably the prime constitutional expert, but he does not always get it right. I am sure he is modest enough to recognise that as well. The thing is that these amendments were moved by Labour in the House of Commons and, to the Government’s credit, they accepted them.
I have to express a level of disappointment, which the right reverend Prelate identified. It seems that some Members of your Lordships’ House are still fighting the devolution battle, which was lost in the referendum of 1998. The danger for your Lordships’ House, although I am not saying that this is the case, is in coming across as unconstructive by objecting to the very existence of devolution, and putting forward with negativity amendments that would destroy the whole concept of the Scottish Parliament. Not all the amendments tabled but many of them would destroy that concept. The facts of life are that while I fought on the other side, the people in Scotland—
The Marquess of Lothian
Can the noble Lord explain how the removal of new subsection (1) would affect the existence of the Scottish Parliament?
Lord McAvoy
To echo the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I am not a lawyer and will not get into the detail of that. But as we are getting a wee bit into the nitty-gritty, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and quite a few other Members of this House are in many ways responsible for the attitude in Scotland towards devolution and “getting away from English Tory rule”. I condemn that attitude. The onus is on the Labour Party to win a UK election but the language used and the attitude shown by some Members of your Lordships’ House only confirm to the Scottish National Party that “The English are hostile to us”. I humbly ask that Members of your Lordships’ House be a wee bit more circumspect and not allow the Scottish National Party to portray legitimate concerns as hostility to the existence of a Scottish Parliament. I genuinely urge that.
Several noble Lords have mentioned permanence, which relates directly to what I have attempted to describe—the seeming hostility among many people in England towards Scottish devolution. The permanence issue was agreed in the Smith commission. The commission has been portrayed as politicians deciding things behind closed doors, but there people were behind closed doors with a mandate from the different parties. Getting agreement through the Smith commission was surely an example of delegated democracy at work, because if some things had not been agreed to, there would have been no Smith commission. It is slightly wrong to try to devalue the Smith commission.
The point about permanence is there to reassure the people of Scotland. We can, quite rightly, take the view that it would be impossible or wrong to do, and all the rest of it, but symbolism is important. The clarity of words is important, because we are not all politicians sitting in the House of Lords or even the House of Commons—we are dealing with ordinary folk here. The issue about permanence is completely understandable and gives an assurance. I do not think there is any chance of anybody here in your Lordships’ House or the other place doing down Scotland. I do not believe that. Everybody keeps on saying we have to deal with the political reality, but the reality in Scotland is that many people believe that we here are out to do Scotland down in some way.
In short, we oppose all the amendments—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I will just gently point out to the noble Lord, in relation to his point about the use of language, that throughout the 1980s the Labour Party referred to the Conservative Government as not having a mandate in Scotland. That was the language of nationalism. The nationalists were opposed to devolution, and the Labour Party believed that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. If symbolism and the Smith commission are so important, why was it that, with the Smith commission and the commitment to implement its recommendations, all three unionist parties in Scotland were reduced to one seat?
Lord McAvoy
The emotional state of the Scottish electorate after the Scottish referendum is still to be analysed by a number of people and institutions. I do not know what happened and will be bold enough to say that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, does not know exactly what happened. But it certainly happened. He refers to people in the Scottish Labour Party thinking that nationalism would be killed off by a Scottish Parliament, but I am not one of those. It is about showing the Scottish people that we are trying to do our best for them. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that a constitutional convention is required. In the long run, it must be required, because these issues keep cropping up.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
We Scots are quite a canny lot. Is the noble Lord quite sure that Scots would not spot that a declaratory law adds nothing? He said he opposed every one of the amendments, but he did not state in terms—no doubt he now will—that he opposed the one I drafted on my feet, which would limit the ability of the Westminster Parliament to change the provisions relating to Scotland by adding conditions such as a referendum and a vote in the Scottish Parliament. Is he quite sure that it would not cut more ice in Scotland if one was defining rather than declaring permanence?
Lord McAvoy
I appreciate what the noble Lord said and apologise for not dealing with his amendment comprehensively. Even as he was saying that, it occurred to me that the reason we object to this is that it is laying down the law—to use that phrase—to the Scottish Parliament as to what they must do. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may be trying to do that but I am not. That would be seen as trying to impose conditions on the Scottish Parliament. I take the point that not every Scot goes about saying, “I need to have this word ‘permanence’”. I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, stays in Scotland.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Is there a residential qualification to take part in these debates?
Lord McAvoy
No, and I am sorry if the noble Lord took that the wrong way. However, I spend my life in Scotland, week in, week out. I listen to people there and am heavily involved in community organisations. I am not trying to devalue the noble Lord’s point of view but I can speak only from my experience. There is a suspicion there—justified or not—about Westminster trying to lay down the law. I know I tempt fate saying that in front of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but there we go. We are suspected of laying down the law in a popular way, not in a legal way—once again, there are too many lawyers. We are talking about how this would be seen as being dictated to by Westminster and interference in the mandate. The Smith commission had the agreement and we are pushing that forward. We would be interested in supporting the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and I look forward to an interesting night.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
First, I thank all noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate for their informative submissions, observations and comments, with regard to both Clause 1 and the proposed amendments to it. I begin by making a number of general observations. First, no one on the Government Benches is in any doubt about the supremacy and sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. In that regard, I take issue with some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. Ultimately, it is for this Parliament to determine the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, alluded to some observations he made in the case of AXA General Insurance and others in 2011. I recall those well. He may in turn recall that my client came second in that case. Reference was also made to some obiter dicta of the noble and learned Lord in the case of Jackson, to which we would not necessarily subscribe. However, they are there and are a helpful insight into the thinking of the court at that time with regard to the issue of sovereignty.
The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Smith commission agreement. To suggest that there is no mandate for that is, in my respectful submission, quite inaccurate. Each of the five political parties in Scotland went into the Smith commission and negotiated the terms of an agreement. The Government have undertaken to seek to implement that agreement. That is the purpose of this Bill.
Lord Maxton
On that point, all the political parties went into that Smith commission and all of them signed the report. However, the Scottish National Party immediately came out of the Smith commission, John Swinney among them having signed the report, and rejected it.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am aware of the conduct of the Scottish National Party in that regard and do not make any comment at this stage upon that. Perhaps it will be seen by others as extremely unfortunate that it should have lent credence to the agreement and then sought to renege from it. The point that we make is that it was signed—it is an agreement. It is in that context that this Bill is brought forward.
As I say, no one on the government Benches seeks to take issue with the proposition that this Parliament is sovereign and supreme. What we have here is a provision in the Smith commission agreement that we should recognise the permanence of the Scottish Parliament. It has been observed that it is, in a sense, already permanent—so be it—but let us remember that Clause 1 is concerned with a political statement, as much as any legal statement. That is its purpose, and it is not wholly exceptional in that regard. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, made reference to the Cabinet Office provisions on legislation at Chapter 10.9 of the Guide to Making Legislation. But when looked at, it expresses a generality—and, where there are generalities, there may of course be exceptions. This is one of those exceptions. I note that my noble friend Lord Forsyth agrees with me on that point.
My noble friend in turn suggested that there was little if any precedent for this form of legislation. I remind him that the Act of Union with Scotland of 1706, under the Gregorian calendar, referred to a Parliament of Great Britain for all time. In saying that, it made a political statement as much as a legislative provision—and that, again, is what we are doing here. We are recognising the political reality reflected in the Smith commission agreement.
Amendments 1 and 3 seek to modify Clause 1 by removing reference to permanence of the Scottish Parliament and the UK Government’s commitment to the permanence of that Parliament. We would not consider that appropriate. It appears to us that, in light of the Smith commission agreement, the Government should be prepared to make that political declaration of permanence. It does not take away from the supremacy or sovereignty of this United Kingdom Parliament. That remains.
Lord Cormack
Can my noble and learned friend give any other example of an extra-parliamentary body—the Smith commission in this case—binding Parliament, saying that Parliament will do this or that? Can he give any example of any other outside commission or body making such a declaration and binding Parliament?
Lord Keen of Elie
The proposition is not well founded, with respect. The Smith commission is not binding this Parliament in any sense. Whatever the wording of the Smith commission agreement itself, it does not and could not bind this Parliament; it will be for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to decide whether it passes this Bill into law. So I do not accept the underlying proposition that was relied on by my noble friend Lord Cormack in that context.
On the terms of subsection (2) of new Section 63A, a point was raised about the words,
“with due regard to the other provisions of this Act”.
In my submission, those are helpful, because the other provisions of this Act include the cross-references to Section 28 and, in particular, Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998. There again, you have underlined the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament and the right of this Parliament to legislate on all matters, including devolved matters, in respect of Scotland.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am slightly behind my noble and learned friend’s speech, but I wanted to check the facts. He has made great play of the importance of including the word “permanence” as a result of the recommendations of the Smith commission. Will he explain why the Bill as originally presented to the House of Commons made no mention of permanence and why Part 1 was headed “Constitutional Arrangements” and “The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government”?
Lord Keen of Elie
In the course of the Bill’s consideration, steps have been taken to strengthen the political statement contained in Clause 1. Indeed, the noble Lord’s proposed Amendment 2 picks up this very point. He noticed that in the other place the words “recognised as” were removed from Clause 1 for the same purpose. Perhaps I anticipate the further contribution that the noble Lord may wish to make to this debate.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Forgive me, but as in the best parliamentary answers, my noble and learned friend is telling me something I already know. My question was: if the Government thought that they were meeting the obligations of the Smith commission by presenting the Bill as it was originally presented, that they met the terms of the Smith commission and that that is the overriding purpose and the agreement, why was it necessary to add these words which create such difficulty, as is clear from the speeches made in the House? My noble and learned friend has not really answered the point.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, I rather thought that I had answered the point made by the noble Lord, but let me reiterate it. The word “permanence” appears in the Smith commission agreement. After further consideration, it was felt that in order to strengthen the political statement contained in Clause 1 that word should feature in the clause itself.
I return to Amendments 6 and 7 which seek to alter the basis upon which any decision would be made with regard to the provisions of Clause 1. As was observed, it is not anticipated that there will at any point in the future be a referendum upon that issue, but nevertheless as this matter proceeded in another place it was again considered that this would strengthen the political statement that is being made here. Let us be clear: the use of a referendum in this context is consistent with precedent. In 1997, the people of Scotland supported the creation of a Scottish Parliament on the basis of a referendum. In 2014, in the independence referendum they reaffirmed their wish to have two Parliaments and two Governments for the purposes of reserved and devolved administration in Scotland. Therefore, it is appropriate that any question about the abolition of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, which is not envisaged, should be based on the expression of the will of the people of Scotland in a referendum. Let me be clear: that is a theoretical point. There has never been any question that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are anything other than permanent parts of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements. That remains the case.
It is unusual, but not wholly exceptional, for a clause of a Bill such as this to contain a political statement, an affirmation of the status quo, a declarator that it will not change, and that is the fundamental purpose of Clause 1.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am grateful to the Minister because I feel that he may well be making my point for me on the subject of new Section 63A(3). If the Government’s position, which I support, is that there can be change only if the people of Scotland make it in a referendum, does that not adjust the absolute sovereignty of this place, which can make an unfettered decision?
Lord Keen of Elie
Clearly it is not, because, notwithstanding the outcome of any such referendum, this place might decide not to legislate in accordance with the outcome of the referendum. One cannot use these arguments to undermine the ultimate sovereignty and supremacy of Parliament.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I shall take up the point that the Minister made about Clause 1 as a whole—I think he was referring to the whole clause as it now stands, with all three new subsections—that it was simply a political statement. New Section 63A(3) is not just a political statement; it lays down a condition. If that is the right reading of the new subsection, does the Minister not recognise that it might be better to address some of the possible imperfections in new Section 63A(3) as it stands? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, among others, made the point that the phrase “the people of Scotland” is a little ambiguous, and it might be better to say “a referendum held in Scotland” to tell you where the referendum is going to be.
It is quite commonplace in Committee debates for Ministers to say, “We’ll take this away and look at it and perhaps reconsider whether the wording we have in the Bill is the best that could be used”. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared at least to look at proposed new paragraph (b) in Amendment 6; leaving aside the mention of the Scottish Parliament in its proposed new paragraph (a), it suggests a rewording of new Section 63A(3) to see if it is the best wording that could be adopted. I absolutely accept that it deals with a hypothetical situation but, if one is laying down a condition, would it not be better to use the best possible terms in doing so?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for reminding me of the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, in that context. At this time the Government consider that we have achieved the best possible wording for the purposes of new Section 63A(3) in Clause 1. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his eyesight and his ability to read my notes at such a considerable distance. However, the position of the Government remains that we are satisfied that a relatively open provision in this context with regard to the people of Scotland voting in a referendum is the appropriate way forward.
Lord McAvoy
The Minister said a minute ago that the result of any referendum would not be implemented if the Bill were passed and became an Act. That is the reply that was given, and in the current atmosphere it will set lots of hares running. Would he care to clarify?
Lord Keen of Elie
I would be pleased to clarify. We were speaking theoretically in the context of the supremacy and sovereignty of this Parliament. In the light of the referendum finding that the Scottish Parliament should be abolished, it would be necessary for legislation to be put forward. It would in theory be possible for that legislation to be defeated in this Parliament. That is all that I was saying. However, we are in the realms of extreme speculation here—or it appears to me that we are.
Lord McCluskey
My noble and learned friend Lord Hope has pointed out the possible difficulty in the current wording. I am very fond, as are many Scots, of the well-known tennis player called Andy Murray. Is he one of the “people of Scotland” in new Section 63A(3)?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not in a position to say whether he or any other individual falls into that category, and at this stage I would not speculate on his status.
Lord Cormack
If my noble and learned friend cannot answer that very simple, straight question, does not that in itself indicate that he must recognise the validity of the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that the Bill is capable of further improvement? In his eyes—not necessarily in ours—it was improved in the other place. Is he saying that the Government have got it absolutely right and it cannot be improved in this place?
Lord Keen of Elie
On the last point, just to be clear, that is what I am saying.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Maybe I can help the Minister. Perhaps he is saying that this is all just declaratory, because after all it does not matter what you put in new subsection (3). That subsection just makes the permanence referred to in new subsection (1) conditional because there are conditions there which, if fulfilled, would not make it permanent.
Lord Keen of Elie
If I can complete the journey around the houses that the noble and learned Lord has begun on that point: it appears that new subsection (3) simply underlines the political structure—the declaratory statement contained in the clause as a whole. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, observed that of course it goes a step further in so far as it introduces conditionality to the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, which I acknowledge. As to it being,
“a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum”,
that term is capable of clear and objective definition in due course. Respectfully, however, it appears that that wording is sufficiently clear for these purposes.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Just to carry on a little around the House: the Minister did not make it clear at the Dispatch Box when he said that the people of Scotland would not necessarily be sovereign if this Parliament did not adhere to the result in that referendum. That is absolutely contrary to the Edinburgh agreement that the Prime Minister signed, which stated that the Government would respect that view. The sovereignty of the people should be absolute, not anything else he may say at the Dispatch Box this evening.
Lord Keen of Elie
I cannot agree with the interpretation of sovereignty the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, puts forward. At the end of the day, if there was a referendum—and we are talking about a theory, not political reality—it would be necessary for there to be legislation to implement the outcome of that referendum if it involved the abolition of the Scottish Parliament. No one in reality is contemplating the abolition of the Scottish Parliament. The whole purpose of Clause 1 is to make clear the permanence and the recognition of the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has to recognise that the outcome of any referendum could be implemented only by way of legislation that went through this, the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. That is the only point I seek to make.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I may be able to help my noble and learned friend to get off this line of argument. I have been reflecting on what he is saying about this clause, which is essentially that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament remains unaltered, and that what is contained in this clause is simply a declaratory political statement. Can he explain to me what a declaratory political statement is? Is a political statement one that says something but means something else? He appears to be saying that the statement is that the Scottish Parliament is permanent, and at the same time that it is not permanent because this place is sovereign. Is his definition of a political statement one which can mean whatever you want it to mean and which is basically not entirely straightforward?
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not accept that expression of the position. As I said at the outset, the whole purpose of Clause 1 is to make a political statement that reflects the terms of the Smith commission agreement, which determined that there should be an expression to the effect that the Scottish Parliament is permanent. We acknowledge that, and that is the political statement being made. It is a declaration of will. However, we also recognise, as I believe this House will recognise, that the United Kingdom Parliament is ultimately sovereign and supreme. I am seeking to make that point. At the end of the day, this Parliament is sovereign, and it cannot disclaim that sovereignty.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
In that case, can the noble and learned Lord expand on the meaning of the Government’s wording in this clause? It states that,
“the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum”.
Therefore, if the people of Scotland vote in a referendum and make a decision, and the Government or Parliament then disregard the view and the decision of the people of Scotland, does that mean that this clause has no purpose at all in legislation? If that is the case, what is the point of this wording being in the Bill?
Lord Keen of Elie
It has a purpose inasmuch as it determines that there cannot be abolition without a referendum. I am simply making the point that, as this is a sovereign and supreme Parliament, it could decline to legislate in accordance with the terms of that referendum result. However, politically that just would not happen.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab)
Perhaps I may intervene. The noble and learned Lord—I was going to say “my noble and learned friend” but he is not in this context—has made it entirely clear, beyond peradventure, that this Parliament may do what it chooses because it is sovereign. When he says that this Parliament makes a declaratory statement, that is within its sovereign power. Surely that is the end of this point. If Parliament decides to make this declaration, then so be it.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. It seems to me that we make no further progress on this point, notwithstanding the further observations of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I simply underline the sovereignty of this Parliament, and nothing in Clause 1 derogates or takes away from that. That is the bottom line. It is necessary to make progress with this Committee debate rather than to stay in still waters on one sterile point. Therefore, at this point I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Perhaps I may return to new subsection (3), which relates to a separate point from the one that the Minister has been emphasising concerning the sovereignty of Parliament and so on. If we look ahead to the day some time next year when this Bill comes back on Report, it is quite likely that there will be an amendment seeking to reword new subsection (3), perhaps along the lines that have already been discussed. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he would carry a little more credibility if he were to depart just a fraction from the briefing that he is reading from and were prepared to say that he would look again at this. He does not have to commit himself to any rewording, but sometimes when we have these debates in Committee it softens the atmosphere a lot if one is prepared to say simply, “Well, some interesting points have been made. We’ll have another look and perhaps come back with something on Report, or perhaps not”. It would ease the atmosphere a little on this point and avoid repetitive interruptions.
Lord Keen of Elie
I notice what the noble and learned Lord says with regard to new subsection (3) in Clause 1.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 also refers to the fact that it is a declaration that:
“Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section”.
Subsection (2) goes on to say:
“But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland”.
Obviously there is a context to that, but does the noble and learned Lord think that it might be helpful to add a further subsection indicating that, if a wish is expressed by a majority in a poll of the people of Scotland that the Scottish Parliament should be repealed, the Secretary of State will bring forward the necessary legislation to give effect to it?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, it does not appear to me that the two situations are immediately comparable. In those circumstances, it does not appear to me that that would add to new subsection (3) in Clause 1. I renew my submission that the noble Lord should withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cormack
I ask my noble and learned friend to respond more positively and helpfully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. It was a very simple point that he made. All he asked was that my noble and learned friend would reflect on what has been said during this debate and come back at a later stage, having reflected. He may be equally adamant, but he really owes it to this House to reflect on what has been said in this debate.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to my noble friend, I will reflect upon all observations that have been made in this House, but without commitment.
Lord Norton of Louth
Well, my Lords, this has been a quite fascinating debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, that I fully accept I am a Lord and not the Lord and therefore am quite capable of getting things wrong. However, on this occasion, I am not sure that I have, given the excellent speeches that we have heard in support of these amendments. I really think it is incumbent to pursue the matter further along the lines that several noble Lords have suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, argues that declaratory statements are appropriate—and indeed they are but, as the guide to legislation makes clear, not necessarily in legislation. Declaratory statements are the sort of thing that should be done at the Dispatch Box. As the Minister pointed out, there have been occasions when declaratory statements have appeared in statute. But what is quite clear from the debate is the unusual context in which we are discussing this, given that it derives from extant legislation and actually complicates, rather than clarifies, what Parliament has already stipulated in legislation.
My starting point in all this is very similar to that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—that the Smith commission heads of agreement said that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government will be made permanent. All parties accepted that, as he said, and the debate has proceeded on that basis. It has largely been taken as given.
It strikes me that there are two problems deriving from that. The first is that it has not been properly debated. I really think that the debate this afternoon in your Lordships’ House is the first thorough, proper debate on principle in relation to this issue. What it has demonstrated is the need for further consideration of the matter. The second problem is the extent to which the Government appear to have taken almost literally the heads of agreement—they have just taken what was said and plonked it in legislation. We will see that shortly when we discuss the Sewel convention. The Government’s line is that this is what Lord Sewel said, so that is the convention and the words go into statute. It is not put on a statutory footing; it is just plonked in statute. I think that the same has happened here. Because the heads of agreement said that it would be made permanent, the Government decided to put in place legislation to make it permanent without thinking through the implications.
Those implications have been well drawn out by the Constitution Committee, as my noble friend Lord Lang has pointed out, and I declare an interest as a member of the committee. In the context of the debate, it is well worth reminding your Lordships of the committee’s report on the Bill, especially paragraph 36:
“It is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that Parliament is sovereign and that no Parliament may bind its successors. There is now a strong argument that Parliament is seeking to limit its own competence in a way that the courts may seek to uphold in future given that it rests on a requirement for popular consent. While we recognise that it is extremely unlikely that this will ever be tested in the courts, it is nonetheless symbolically important and we are concerned that these provisions, as currently worded, risk introducing uncertainty concerning the absolute nature of parliamentary sovereignty where there should be none”.
This is an extremely serious issue.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Lothian and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who have come up with some very positive suggestions. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, I see no reason why the Government could not at least go away and think about the wording of the clause and come back. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said, we must try to do better. I hope that between now and Report that is exactly what we will do. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, we have had quite a good debate already—some two hours or more —on Clause 1, but I would like to move Amendment 2. Anticipating what the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, would say when he advised us to tread carefully on people’s dreams and anticipating that the Front Bench might not be inclined to listen immediately to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, I tabled Amendment 2, which at least softens the impact of the clause as currently drafted.
The effect would be to introduce after “are” the words “recognised as” so that it would read, “The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements”. Adding “recognised as” implies that there is another party, which is the sovereign Parliament.
I am looking forward to hearing the Minister explain why he is not prepared to accept the amendment—in the unlikely event that he is not prepared to accept it—because these words were in the original Bill presented to the House of Commons. They were taken out as a result of representations from the Scottish nationalists. The Scottish nationalists may have a mandate in Scotland and they may have a mandate in the House of Commons in that they represent 56 seats—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, says under his breath, “54”. I do not wish to go into the half-life period of nationalist Members of Parliament and the reasons for their disintegration, but 56 were elected and I will not be tempted down that particular road.
They were elected on a mandate that is destroying the United Kingdom. We had a referendum in which the people of Scotland clearly expressed the view that they wished to remain part of the United Kingdom. I do not buy the argument that we should immediately incorporate into the Bill suggestions from people who do not believe in devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, was kind enough to point out that the Scottish nationalists were against devolution. I was against devolution. I believed that it would result in a platform for the nationalists that would eventually threaten the existence of the United Kingdom. I am sorry to say that that has proved to be the case. Alex Salmond voted against devolution and was against it because he shared the view of the Labour Party that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. It is true that we were both against the constitutional convention, but for different reasons. The nationalists, of course, proved to be luckier than their judgment. So the Government have taken out “recognised as” and we now come back to what exactly the Government are doing with their political statements. Are these political statements words that are meant to appease the nationalists, but they do not mean what we say they mean? That was a point made in the previous debate.
I say to my noble and learned friend the Minister that we can vote in Committee. We choose not to vote in Committee so that Ministers have an opportunity to listen to the debate and come back with their thoughts and reflections. They might not necessarily come back with thoughts and reflections in line with the representations that have been made. But if Ministers are not prepared at the Dispatch Box to listen to well-argued arguments and instead say at this stage in Committee that they are not prepared to go away and think about it, perhaps we need to start thinking about dividing the Committee. My noble friend the Chief Whip is not in his place, but it is not unreasonable, in return for not seeking to divide the Committee, that Ministers should listen to the arguments and give a clear undertaking that they are prepared to consider them and come back on reflection.
In moving the amendment, I am simply requesting that the Government put back into the clause the words that they themselves thought necessary when they introduced the Bill to the House of Commons, particularly in the light of the vigorous debate we have had and the concerns that have been expressed. Including the words “recognised as” would at least offer some respite to those of us who feel that we may be pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate with the clause as it stands.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester told us that it would be absolutely disastrous in Scotland to change the clause. I think it would be even more disastrous to present a fraudulent clause that gives a false impression of the position and could be a source of bitterness in future years. After all, we won the referendum campaign as “Better Together”; we do not want to end up as “bitter together”.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify a point. I would not want to introduce a question mark over the commitment to permanence. Perhaps I may try an analogy, although it may not work. When I solemnise the marriage of a couple as a permanent union, I do so because of the significance of that, but knowing full well that future circumstances might make that union untenable. That is the possibility. It is simultaneously true that one is committed to the permanence of something but can recognise that circumstances can change in the future. That is simply the nature of a vow—a word that we have not used this afternoon but has been used in previous debates. A vow is a solemn intention, and the commitment to permanence in the Bill is in a sense a solemn commitment. That is what it is and it is the basis on which it has been included. To withdraw it would simply send the wrong signal. That is not to say that something is then set in stone and Parliament cannot change it; that is clearly not our constitutional arrangement, but it is, as it were, the solemn commitment to the people of Scotland that is enshrined in the use of the word “permanent” in the legislation.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate, but the vow is something that was dreamed up, as I said at Second Reading, by the editor of a tabloid newspaper, the Daily Record. The party leaders, some of whom are no longer with us as party leaders, who signed up to it were unaware that it would be presented on the front page of that newspaper as a vow. It is the old story. When you complain to an editor about a newspaper story, they always say, “I am terribly sorry. It was the subeditors who wrote the headlines and they did not really read the text”. In this case, that is the status of the vow. I hesitate to intrude on the right reverend Prelate’s territory, but I certainly would not confuse it with the marriage vows, which, in my own case, I took as being absolutely permanent and for life. My worry about the Bill is that this marriage of the United Kingdom is being turned into a system where we appear to be living apart from each other, in houses next door to each other with different regimes operating in those houses, but that is for another day. I beg to move.
Lord Lang of Monkton
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who is absolutely right. The fact that the Government had the wording as per his amendment in the original Bill represents what must have been their best thought, after careful preparation, on what should be in the Bill. They have succumbed unnecessarily to pressure in another place and now we are faced, as in a number of other areas in the Bill, with what they must consider second best. I do not think that is good enough for an important Bill of this type, and I urge my noble and learned friend to accept the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, this is an interesting amendment. I wonder by whom the recognition is supposed to be given. “Recognised as” requires that someone does the recognising; who is it? This is a much better clause as it stands than it was originally. The process of improvement in Parliament has in fact worked in this case by missing out a nonsensical requirement and replacing it with one that is reasonably clear.
So far as I am concerned, the purpose of a clause of this kind is to declare the situation as it is and as it will be for this Parliament and for any subsequent Parliament that does not decide to repeal it. As we know, the Act of Union was supposed to be for ever, but we are all mortal, and Members of Parliament, in particular, are mortal. It may well be that a later Parliament has a different idea. The sovereignty of this Parliament is perfectly clear, but that does not mean that it binds a subsequent Parliament, and therefore there could be a change in a subsequent Parliament.
That brings me to a matter that was referred to about the referendum. The point that is made in the clause is that the Parliament is to be permanent, and therefore there is no question of a referendum until someone decides that there should be a question about that permanence. It is quite inappropriate to include detailed provisions about what would happen in the event of a decision that perhaps the Parliament was not permanent after all in the shape of a referendum. That is a matter which, at the very least, would have to be looked at in some detail, just as recently we have been looking in great detail at the referendum Bill about moving out of the European Union. If a Bill was required to alter the status of the Scottish Parliament, I feel certain that it would need some pretty careful consideration. That probably will not occur in my lifetime or, I suspect, in the lifetimes of most noble Lords who are present, except possibly the very young.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief observation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, quoted the 1998 agreement that affected Northern Ireland. I have to say that if you have a political agreement such as the Smith commission which you are trying to implement, you cannot be expected to translate it word for word into legislation. The Belfast agreement contained diplomatic language, political language, and of course there was an international dimension to it which is not present in the current proposals. The phrase that comes to mind when discussing these matters is, “There is nothing as permanent as the temporary”. We should not be working within an absolutely rigid framework which says that we have to replicate word for word the particular phrases used by the Smith commission.
It is never intended that a political agreement from a commission which has been established should automatically be transferred verbatim into law. That is not feasible and I urge noble Lords not to put themselves completely on the hook over this because of the fear that if something is changed, it will be seized upon by people who will say that you are running away from the agreement. The fact is that those people will seize on it whether you do or whether you do not. That is because we know that they signed up to it, and now they have walked away from it. The issue is this: is it right and proper legislation or is it not? Is it consistent with the aims and objectives that were set out by the commission to which the parties have agreed? I would have thought that that is a better measure for judging the quality of the legislation rather than putting yourself in a terrible position where if you change a word, a dot or a comma, somehow or other you are committing a political sin. That is not what Parliament is here to do. Everyone has been put into difficulty by getting themselves shackled to this proposal.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, we have spent more than two hours arguing more or less about the number of angels dancing on the head of a needle. Ultimately the power of this Parliament, and any Parliament, derives from the people. Sovereignty for any Parliament derives from the will of the people. If the will of the people changes then the legislation will change and the future of Parliaments will change.
I do not want to intrude on the personal grief on the government Benches because much of the argument has come from there, but we have to concentrate on trying to move on into how we can make this legislation more relevant to the complex society that we have. There has not been much evidence of that so far. I greatly regret the fact that I never studied law—well, I used to greatly regret that—but I have to say at the end of this afternoon, thank goodness.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 2, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, can be legitimately accepted by Ministers on the basis that it is a more accurate assessment of the present situation.
When I first became an advocate I was summoned by the Solicitor-General. I went up to him, not knowing what he was going to say, and he said he wanted to know whether I would become a parliamentary counsel. At that time I had not the faintest idea what a parliamentary counsel was so I said I would give him an answer as soon as possible. I then learned that a parliamentary counsel was merely a draftsman, and I fear that if I had given the wrong answer I might still be one of the draftsmen drafting the provisions of this Bill, rather than being given the privilege to comment on the best way forward.
There is no question but that the view generally taken is that the Scottish Parliament is there on a lasting basis and on the basis of permanency. There is no doubt whatever that this Parliament is sovereign and that one Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments. The results of the referendum and the general election both pointed in the direction of the maintenance and security of the United Kingdom, and also of greater powers for the Scottish Parliament. In some ways, we are having to walk a tightrope reconciling those two different aims. However, I believe there is room for manoeuvre, and this is a very small adjustment which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is suggesting. Without losing anything of the political declaratory nature of the first provisions of the Bill, the amendment could legitimately be looked at and acceded to.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, the Government in their wisdom accepted the Labour amendment in the other place to reflect the Bill as it is. We support that. We think that it was very wise of the Government to do so. It puts the permanency of these institutions beyond any doubt. We all know the law regarding ultimate sovereignty but nevertheless it would be foolish—I am repeating myself—to reject the symbolism of having that in the Bill, so for those reasons we oppose the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I begin by making the observation that, without commitment, of course we are listening and of course we reflect upon the terms of this debate. There can be no question about that. We are here for that very purpose. I do not accept the implication that somehow we have come here with our ears closed or our minds closed, because that is not the case. I say that without commitment.
In the context of this amendment, the words “recognised as” appeared in the original drafting of the clause. I cannot accept the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, that by amending a clause of this kind we end up with second best. With great respect, that is to invert the whole process of Parliament. The object of amendment—of adjustment—is to achieve a better result, and that is what the Government believe was achieved by accepting the amendment put forward by the Labour Opposition in the other place.
I note—and with great respect adopt—the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that if you go down the route of “recognised as”, it opens up the question of recognised by whom, in what circumstances and why? That seems wholly unnecessary in the context of this form of declaratory provision within the clause. In these circumstances I invite the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, that was an interesting response because, first, my noble and learned friend has underlined, quite rightly, the importance of not having declaratory material in legislation. However, we have just spent the best part of two and a half hours trying to persuade him of that. Secondly, he also made the very sensible point that the whole point of these proceedings is that Governments, legislatures and draftsmen are not infallible, and he took it upon himself to remove that original wording from the original Bill, or at least his colleagues in the House of Commons did.
The Marquess of Lothian
My noble friend is being asked to withdraw the words he is trying to insert because we do not know who is recognising? Subsection (3) of the proposed new section contains the words, “it is declared”. Do we know who is declaring?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend has stolen my thunder. He is absolutely right. The whole point and discussion we have had has been about the nature of the declaratory legislation. Of course, it would have been open to my noble and learned friend if he thought that the effect of my amendment, which after all was originally the Government’s proposal, was that it would create uncertainty, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay indicated. He made the point that there are recognitions and declarations being made when it is not clear who is making them.
We could change the amendment. The Minister could bring back an amendment saying that it is recognised by the UK Parliament, or whatever he thought appropriate. However the truth of the matter is that those words were removed for a purpose, and the purpose was to make the subterfuge which is being presented to the Scottish people that somehow this Scottish Parliament has a degree of independence of its own. That is being done for political reasons. I think that they are foolish political reasons because they are creating a false position as to the reality.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
I take the point that issues of politics can intrude into questions of drafting, but if the noble Lord looks at Clause 2 he will see that the words—I hope I am not stealing his thunder in this regard—“it is recognised” are also found there. Does he take exception to that?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I was not taking exception to anything. I was simply suggesting to the Government that they got it right when they added the words, “it is recognised” to the original Bill, and they got it wrong when they took them out. Fortunately I am not a lawyer, but as a layman, removing the words “it is recognised” indicates that no other party is involved in considering the status of the Parliament.
Lord Norton of Louth
Would my noble friend not wish to call in aid Clause 2 where the Government wish to insert the Sewel convention with the words, “But it is recognised”?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That is the same point, and I am trying to get on to Clause 2. I have to say to my noble and learned friend that as ever, and always, I am trying to be helpful to the Government, I thought that perhaps on reflection they might wish to add those words. I hope that the Minister will consider the debate we have had on these matters and perhaps come back with his own wording. The clause, as it stands, is completely unsatisfactory, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and give notice that we may return to this at a later stage in the proceedings of the Bill.
Lord McCluskey
Lord McCluskey
In light of the answer relating to the word “only”, to the effect that it is implied by the use of the definite article, I see no need to pursue this at this stage. I will not move this amendment and I intimate an intention not to move Amendment 5.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“( ) Subsection (1) may only be repealed if—
(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal; and (b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it.”
Lord Hope of Craighead
In the light of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, I understand that he will at least reflect a bit on what was said earlier. We may return to this on Report, but for the time being I will not move the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
This amendment again relates to an issue that we touched on in our discussion of earlier amendments. The amendment would require that any referendum, as proposed in new Section 63A(3) as inserted by Clause 1, regarding the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, which I must say is highly unlikely, should be a referendum for the whole of the United Kingdom. If there were circumstances where perhaps we had a new Act of Union, or we were establishing a new federal constitution, or—this is hard to imagine—the Scottish Parliament was to be abolished, it would have huge implications for the rest of the United Kingdom.
If there was to be a referendum, it would be, as provided in the Bill,
“on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland”.
We have had some debate as to who the people of Scotland are and whether Mr Andy Murray is in that category. If there was to be a referendum, I accept that proposals would need to be brought forward for its conduct, but at a later stage in the Bill we give the powers to set the rules and nature of referendums to the Scottish Parliament. Would that apply to this particular referendum? It seems to me that if we were making a huge change, where we were bringing back into the United Kingdom a system of government—perhaps into this Parliament or some other system of government—that that would be a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just the people of Scotland. Therefore, my amendment would simply substitute “Scotland” with “the United Kingdom”. I beg to move.
Lord Empey
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, makes a good point in so far as referenda in one part of the United Kingdom clearly have implications for the others, but there would be fairly significant inconsistency. If we look at the Belfast agreement and its proposals for a referendum in Northern Ireland, it is exclusive to the people of Northern Ireland. If the carry-through from his amendment would be that the people of the rest of the United Kingdom would have to vote in that referendum as well, that would mean that there could be two different outcomes. So clearly there are difficulties.
I fear that we are trying to treat the Smith commission and the political issues swirling around it as if they were a treaty rather than a piece of domestic legislation. That is why we are getting ourselves into difficulty here. This amendment would need to be looked at very carefully because of the inconsistencies that could arise. I accept entirely that additional powers to a devolved region would affect everybody else, but, equally, a referendum regarding sovereign status is a very different thing.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, not to anyone’s surprise, we oppose the amendment. It was our amendment in the House of Commons that made it clear that it should be the Scottish people who determine the permanency of their Parliament. It is not a decision for the United Kingdom as a whole.
I believe firmly in the role of this House as a revising Chamber. Therefore, there is no question of having to have a mandate, to be elected or any other method of claiming to represent people. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, it has to be taken into account that he has no mandate for this type of quite dramatic intervention. There is not much of a cry in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for inclusion in such a referendum. It would also pose the additional point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that it would lack consistency and political reality to include the whole of the United Kingdom in a referendum in Northern Ireland, although I accept that there are unique circumstances in Northern Ireland.
I hope that I am not getting too repetitive, but it is my opinion, based on my experience of living and staying in Scotland—I have been in Scotland all my life—that there would be complete outrage if such an amendment were supported by this House. I ask colleagues to reject it.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords. I reiterate that the purpose of the Bill is to implement the recommendations in the Smith commission agreement. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has already observed that the terms of the Bill do that. This provision is consistent with the spirit of the agreement. It is also with precedent, if I can put it in that context. The referendum in 1997 over the matter of devolution was a referendum of the people of Scotland. The referendum on independence in 2014 was a referendum of the Scottish people. It is considered appropriate that we should continue with that model. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed out that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 proceeds in a similar vein. So it is consistent and appropriate that, for the purposes of this Bill, any such referendum—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, himself acknowledges how extremely unlikely it is that that would even be contemplated —should be a referendum of the Scottish people. I therefore urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful, but before my noble and learned friend sits down, could he tell me where in the Smith commission agreement there is a proposal that there should be a referendum of this kind?
Lord Keen of Elie
There is no express reference in the Smith commission agreement to a referendum. As my noble friend is aware, that provision was brought into the Bill in the belief that it would strengthen the political statement contained in Clause 1 with regard to the permanence of the Scottish Parliament.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I believe that this introduces the Welsh element. There would be a profound disinterestedness in Gresford about whether the Scottish Parliament exists or not, save in so far as the Barnett formula gives them so much more money than we get. On the other hand, we would resent it hugely if the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, had a vote in a referendum for the abolition of the Welsh Assembly, or, indeed, any successor.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I know that the noble Lord has not been following our proceedings so closely, but the point being made here was not about the status of the Scottish Parliament. In our earlier discussions I made the point that I cannot imagine circumstances in which we would want to abolish the Scottish Parliament, but it might be, for example, that the noble Lord’s party’s proposals to create a federal constitution and to have a new Act of Union were implemented. That might mean dissolving or altering the Scottish Parliament as it stood.
I do not like Clause 1 and new subsection (3), which provides for this referendum. I tabled the amendment to make the point that the future of the Scottish Parliament were it to be changed, now that we have gone down this road so far—and will have gone further when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament—must be a matter for the whole United Kingdom. I cannot conceive of any other circumstances in which that would happen. I suppose that it could be that the nationalists had made such a hash of it that people in Scotland were pleading for the thing to be shut down and then come back. However, there would then be issues for the Welsh, the English and the Irish about the funding, the obligations and other matters that would arise. All this is pretty hypothetical and extreme but it has been put there in order to mislead people about the nature of devolution, which is power devolved from this sovereign Parliament. It is important that the legislation should not seek to mislead people.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
“( ) Nothing in this section alters the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.”
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I hope I will get a bit of a break after this one. Having argued earlier that it was completely inappropriate to use legislation to write political graffiti—which is what the Government are doing—I reluctantly came to the conclusion that we would perhaps be unable to persuade the Government to rub it out. This amendment, therefore, adds some graffiti of my own. It does what I have been saying we should not do, which is to use legislation to make declaratory statements. However, the declaratory statements included in the Bill as it stands are so misleading that it is essential to add this amendment which simply adds, after line 17, the words:
“Nothing in this section alters the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament”.
I have not been counting, but I have heard my noble and learned friend say that so many times. As he has argued that it is necessary to have declaratory statements in the legislation for a political purpose, that there is nothing wrong with it and that there are precedents for it; and as he has said over and again that nothing in this Bill alters the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, I am looking forward to him accepting the amendment with enthusiasm.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, is it not the case that the sovereignty of the UK Parliament is already protected by Section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998, which provides that the UK Parliament can always legislate for Scotland?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his optimism. The position is clear: we have repeatedly stated, across this House, that the United Kingdom Parliament is a sovereign Parliament. The noble Lord decided to seek a declaratory statement of that. I submit that this is wholly unnecessary: it is beyond doubt that this Parliament is supreme and sovereign. This is restated by Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998. The existing declaratory statements in Clause 1 are not in any sense misleading. They are an expression of a political reality and they are intended to declare that reality as clearly as possible, acknowledging all along the supremacy of this, the United Kingdom Parliament. The proposed amendment is wholly unnecessary and, if anything is misleading it is the necessity for it. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Cormack
I will not prolong this brief debate unduly, but my noble and learned friend seems to be adopting a fairly intransigent line. If it is permissible to make declaratory statements to appease those who would destroy the United Kingdom, is it not permissible to insert them for those who are dedicated to its future?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
That may well be so, but there is already a declaratory statement in the Act which the Bill amends. It was pointed out that, under Clause 1, the other provisions of that Act were to be taken into account. One of those is Section 28(7). I will not say anything about the proposed amendments to Clause 2; the situation may be slightly different there.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, I have tried to follow this. It is not unduly easy but it would help me greatly if my noble and learned friend, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, could explain where it is set out in the legislation, as a declaratory statement, that nothing in it affects the sovereign power of this Parliament. If he is unable to find that bit, would it not be a good idea to do as my noble friend Lord Forsyth says and put it in?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Perhaps I can help my noble and learned friend. Throughout this afternoon, he has argued that it is essential—for political reasons—to put in Clause 1 words that say the Scottish Parliament is permanent. He has argued that we should understand that no Parliament can bind another and that the sovereignty of the UK Parliament remains. All my amendment seeks to do is to add a few words to the clause which give the reassurance that he has been giving to the Committee. I am not a lawyer, but after Pepper v Hart and all that, what is said at the Dispatch Box does actually matter. For him to say that he could not add it to the clause because it would be redundant or that you can find, buried in the previous Scotland Act—
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
It has to be remembered that this Bill is amending the Scotland Act. This provision, which my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean wants to put in, happens to be there already in Section 28(7). That is my objection. Repetition may be a good idea, for all I know, but it is there already. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about unnecessary legislation might come into this. There does not seem to be much need for it, especially when Clause 1 refers to the other provisions of the Scotland Act, into which this is being embedded.
Lord McCluskey
The actual wording of Section 28(7), which I do not suppose many noble Lords will have memorised, reads:
“This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland”.
It does not talk about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament at all. It talks about its continuing power to make laws for Scotland.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I shall give way to my noble and learned friend in a moment. I wish to deal with the points that have been made and what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay indicated the section said. I have huge respect for him. You always know that the Government are in difficulty when he has to come to their aid. He said that the relevant provision was already in the Bill. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has pointed out, it says nothing of the sort. If this provision was already in the Scotland Act, my noble and learned friend could have said, “In order to make that clear, we will move that provision into this clause in the new Bill”. It is not necessary to duplicate it. The point is that the Scotland Act, as amended by this Bill—if it becomes an Act—will have in it sentences which, to say the least, are very provocative in terms of the continuing powers of sovereignty of this Parliament. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that any declaration about the sovereignty of this Parliament should be placed alongside the provision in that section of the Act.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because I thought that what my noble and learned friend said from the Dispatch Box was a little misleading, to say the least.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I think that nothing in this Bill qualifies the ultimate sovereignty of the UK Parliament. My concern about the proposed insertion reflects what I said earlier—namely, that we need to recognise that devolution is changing the way the United Kingdom is governed. It just is. The Scotland Bill, when enacted, will have a major effect in Scotland in ways that I suspect the Scots have not taken on board. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has made this point before. Normally, I agree with what he says. However, we need to face the fact that although devolution will not change the ultimate sovereignty of this Parliament, it does change the character of governance in this country. We need to accept that, go with it and own it, even if we do not like it.
There has been some discussion about whether or not devolution aids the separatist cause. I suspect that if we had not had devolution, and certainly if we did not have this Bill and the Smith commission, there would be much more of a threat to the union than is the case. The cultural forces of separation are much deeper than whether we draft a Bill this way, that way or the other. Although in one sense I am not bothered whether or not this provision is added to the Bill, it is symptomatic of an attitude which does not face the reality of what devolution is all about.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, I put a question to my noble friend Lord Forsyth. Having listened to this argument, does he agree with me that—perhaps I am being oversuspicious—somehow what this clause is about is trying to say to the people of Scotland, “It is all right. This is for ever”, and then saying to this House, “We know that it does not really mean that, because the sovereignty of Parliament means that it might not be for ever in future”? But then my noble friend comes along and says, “Let us put that bit into this provision”. The reason why my noble and learned friend the Minister is resisting it is because that would defeat the purpose of trying to persuade—I think dishonestly—the people of Scotland that the permanence means what it says.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend puts it so succinctly. I wish that I had the ability to put it as concisely as he does. I absolutely agree. My noble and learned friend the Minister wanted to intervene. I will happily give way to him if he still wishes to make his point.
Lord Keen of Elie
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I must confess that I was unclear who was intervening on whom. I add to the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. As I understand the point he was making—it was one that I had endeavoured to make before, but obviously had not made clearly—it is simply that Clause 1 is amending and introducing Section 28(8) of the Scotland Act 1998. It is necessary to read that in conjunction with Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which refers to the ability of this Parliament to legislate in respect of Scotland on all matters. That is a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, alluded earlier as well. That is why the issue of sovereignty—the supremacy of this Parliament—is already contained in the relevant section of the Scotland Act, as it will be amended by this clause of the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, but Clause 2 amends Section 28. We are still talking about Clause 1, which amends a different part of the Scotland Act, so there is a separation there. However, I very much endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said—namely, that any reader of the Scotland Act knows perfectly well that you have to look at Section 28 to understand the competence of the Parliament and the relationship between the two Parliaments. The point is simply that Clause 1 does not deal with Section 28.
Lord Keen of Elie
I accept that correction from the noble and learned Lord. I believe that Section 63 would be amended under Clause 1. However, essentially, the point is that if you read through the whole of Section 28, subsection (7) of that section makes it absolutely clear that this Parliament remains supreme and sovereign in the matter of legislation for Scotland, whether it be reserved or devolved.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I think this may be a good moment for me to withdraw my amendment. However, before doing so, I gently point out to my noble and learned friend the very wise words of my noble friend the Earl of Lothian.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The Marquess of Lothian. I am sorry. My noble friend has had so many names that I find it difficult to keep up. If we are to take the Government at their word—I always do, of course—they have said that it is necessary to have in the Bill a piece of declaratory legislation that makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament enjoys permanence, but at the same time the sovereignty of this Parliament remains unaffected, then the two should be put together and put in the Bill. For lawyers to argue that if you read a particular section and interpret it in a particular way, it means something else, simply will not do in the context of a view that it is necessary to write graffiti on legislation. I do not think that the Government should be doing that at all. However, if they are doing it, then what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am very disappointed that my optimism has proved confounded, but I will certainly want to return to the matter.
Lord McAvoy
The noble Lord is trying to paint a picture of government intransigence. As the Government’s Official Opposition, as distinct from the unofficial opposition, I suggest that one cannot complain when changes are made in the other place thanks to debate, and the Government see the worthiness of that and accept it, and then complain because they do not accept the noble Lord’s amendment. I think he is painting a totally unfair picture of the Government.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
For a moment, when the noble Lord referred to the Official Opposition and the unofficial opposition, I thought he was referring to the new leader of the Labour Party. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, surely the Government can accept this amendment. The Sewel convention, as its name suggests, was a convention established by Lord Sewel during the passage of the first Scotland Bill. The Government are proposing in Clause 2 of the Bill to incorporate the Sewel convention into statute, so that it will have a statutory effect. Therefore, it will cease to be a convention; it will be part of statute. My amendment seeks to remove the words “The Sewel convention” from the Bill, as the Bill seeks to put the Sewel convention on a statutory basis. Henceforth, the Sewel convention will be a section of the consolidated Bill. Surely my noble and learned friend the Minister has been given some discretion in his brief to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I signed this amendment, and support it. I want to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Forsyth has said. In a way, this will lead into a much fuller discussion on the next set of amendments looking at the content of the clause. But my noble friend is absolutely right about the heading. Either you have a convention or you have a statutory provision. You cannot have a convention in statute, although that is what the Government are seeking to do. This would remove doubt on that point and I concur completely with what my noble friend has said. We will be coming back to the actual substance in more detail, but I think this is a necessary change to the clause.
Lord Stephen (LD)
My Lords, it is worth giving support to this amendment and pointing out that the original Sewel convention changed over time. In the Scottish Parliament we used to refer to a “Sewel Motion”, but as the convention developed we introduced the term “legislative consent Motion” and dropped the other term. The Sewel convention was also changed and widened, which we will debate in subsequent amendments. It does seem something of an anomaly.
An interesting point is whether a Member of this House can make an amendment to the title of a clause in this way. It is an interesting point which I hope might be commented on by the Minister. In the past, other Members of this House have been told that that would not be appropriate and it would perhaps be possible for the Government to introduce such a change at a later stage. But it is interesting to see that it is on the Marshalled List today and is being debated. I also note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, who is very wise on these matters, is nodding his head, so I think there is an issue there that needs to be explored.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, I back up what my noble friend has said. I was in the House when we passed the Scotland Bill and I was never, ever happy with having the Sewel convention translated into law. So I am very glad to support the amendment and it is high time that this was put right.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, first, there is the question of whether the heading is a matter for the parliamentary draftsmen rather than this House, and that is an issue, in my respectful submission. But let us turn to the substance of the—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I did take advice on this. The amendment has been tabled so the amendment is in order, surely.
Lord Keen of Elie
I was going to continue by saying that, the amendment having been tabled, I would look to its substance, which is that the heading should be, “Competence of the Scottish Parliament”. I am reminded of Voltaire’s observation about the Holy Roman Empire, that it was,
“neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire”.
Clause 2 is not about competence; nor is it about the Scottish Parliament. It restates in statutory terms the procedural convention of the United Kingdom Parliament with respect to its legislation for devolved matters. If we were to have a heading, “Competence of the Scottish Parliament” when in fact we are dealing with a matter that concerns the legislative competence of the United Kingdom Parliament, in my respectful submission, we would not only puzzle historians but confuse everyone else with regard to the content of the relevant clause.
I note what has been said about the present heading. I will reflect upon the observations made about that heading. But given that it is strictly a matter for the draftsmen, I go no further at this time. I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am neither a lawyer nor a historian so I wonder if the noble and learned Lord can help me with his interpretation of this. As this is an amendment Bill to the 1998 Act, once this clause takes effect, if Parliament approves it, will this title actually exist in the amended 1998 Act? If it does not, is this not all rather academic?
Lord Keen of Elie
As I understand it, the title will not exist in the amended 1998 Act. The title is a matter for the parliamentary draftsmen but, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth observed, the amendment was put on the Marshalled List and therefore it is addressed. As I say, I will reflect upon his observations, but at this stage I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am very happy to withdraw it. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for relieving me of the responsibility for adding to the statute book the words, “Competence of the Scottish Parliament”. But the point remains that it would be ridiculous to put the Sewel convention into statute and to retain a reference to the Sewel convention. If he is saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has very helpfully indicated, that in the consolidated Bill the words “the Sewel convention” will disappear from statute and that the Sewel convention will cease to exist as such because it will now be incorporated in statute, I am absolutely delighted. I am happy to withdraw the amendment with that reassurance. Perhaps he could just give us that assurance and then there will be less for him to reflect on.
Lord Keen of Elie
The term “the Sewel convention” will remain in this Act but will not appear in the amended Scotland Act 1998, which is going to be the relevant amended legislation.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Right, well, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but give notice that we will return to this at a later stage in the Bill.
Lord Stephen
Lord Stephen
My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I will speak also to Amendments 15 and 16, which are in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. We have also signed Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which leaves out the word “normally” in Clause 2.
As background, and to develop what I was saying earlier, Amendments 15 and 16 provide for the consent of the Scottish Parliament to be sought in the event of any alteration to,
“the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Government”.
I acknowledge the support that has been given by the Law Society of Scotland in terms of the background and the drafting of these amendments, which reflect normal working practice—the normal arrangements that exist currently and have developed, as my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood identified, over the period of the existence of the Scottish Parliament; that is, since 1999.
The Sewel convention applies when UK legislation makes provision specifically designed for a devolved purpose. The convention has been agreed in memoranda of understanding and by the House of Commons Procedure Committee, and its practical usage is explained in Devolution Guidance Note 10. DGN10 does not apply to incidental or consequential provisions in relation to a reserved matter. It does apply to draft Bills and Private Members’ Bills. It will also apparently continue to apply to any statutory formulation of the convention. It is significant that DGN10 also requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament in respect of provisions of a Bill before the UK Parliament which would alter the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of Scottish Ministers. It seems, however, that Clause 2 would not apply to this latter category of provision so Amendment 16 is intended to remedy that deficiency.
The Secretary of State for Scotland in the other place rejected the arguments in relation to this. When these matters were considered in Committee on 15 June, David Mundell stated:
“On amendments 19 and 20 … as I have said, the Bill adopts the language that formed the basis of the Sewel convention … We have established that the Bill clearly states that the UK Parliament ‘will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.’ That is what the well-established Sewel convention does, and it has been consistently adhered to by successive UK Governments. We have had more than 15 years of good practice of the convention. It has not been breached. In the context of my earlier remarks, I do not accept that it could be. I believe that that current good practice will continue”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/15; col. 107.]
Unfortunately, Clause 2 deals with only part of the Sewel convention—the part declared by Lord Sewel in the Scotland Bill back in 1998—and does not cover the point in DGN10 about changes to the legislative competence of the Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Government. This deficiency may indicate that the good practice which the Secretary of State wishes to preserve will not apply to these types of issue. My simple question would be: why leave the doubt?
Amendment 11 would qualify Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 to allow for the possibility of circumstances where the power of the UK Parliament to make laws for Scotland is constrained. Taken together with Amendments 15 and 16, Amendment 11 would allow the Scottish Parliament to withhold its consent from UK legislation which relates to devolved matters. Yes, that would impinge on the sovereignty of the UK Parliament but, as someone who supports a federal settlement, I have no problem with restricting the sovereignty of this Parliament. For those who support a constitutional convention—there are many around this Chamber—and those who would support a federal settlement arising from this, we all have to recognise that the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would change.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
In the light of what the noble Lord has said, would it not be logical that legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament should have preceded the legislation that the Committee is discussing today? The Bill is, after all, affecting Scotland yet we do not have the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament in advance.
Lord Stephen
I agree that there is an issue there. I wonder whether the discussions that will take place in coming weeks, and perhaps even months, behind closed doors between the Scottish Government and the UK Government would be greatly assisted if there was a clear statement on the record from the Scottish Parliament that it supported this legislation. While I believe that both Houses will eventually indicate their support for this legislation, it would be helpful to have that clear support on the record now.
A lot has been said today about the monolithic, unassailable sovereignty of the UK Parliament but I ask the Committee to consider this point: the UK Government have introduced a concept called English votes for English laws. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on this: the Government are pursuing a course whereby legislation passed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons can be vetoed by a subset of the House of Commons, so this Government have already conceded the point of a limitation on the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. If it is sauce for the English goose for elected English MPs to veto legislation for England on devolved matters, it must be sauce for the Scottish gander for properly and democratically elected Members of the Scottish Parliament to be able to veto Westminster legislation affecting Scotland on devolved matters.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful for me to speak to my Amendment 12, which in effect restates in combination the points just made in support of Amendments 11, 15 and 16. I will also refer to Amendment 20, which deals with a related issue.
I think I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Lang, was about to rise to his feet and the background to my Amendment 12 is paragraph 38 of the Constitution Committee’s report, which draws attention to problems with the Sewel convention as his committee saw them. One problem was the use of “normally”, which gives rise to doubt as to what exactly that means. There was also the need to clarify the reach of the convention, which was the point just made in support of Amendment 11 and its related amendments. My Amendment 12 puts together in a package the same point that was referred to on those other amendments.
Amendment 20, however, deals with an issue which is closely related to existing practice. It refers to a:
“Duty to consult the Scottish Government on Bills applying to Scotland”.
It says, shortly, that:
“A Minister of the Crown must not introduce a Bill into the Parliament of the United Kingdom … that would make provision applying to Scotland unless a Minister of the Crown has consulted the Scottish Ministers”.
It is intended to reflect what I understand to be the existing practice and to follow on the points made in relation to restating Clause 2 in appropriate statutory language.
I should make it clear, as I did earlier on this afternoon, that the amendments to which I am speaking are in words that were in effect provided for me by the Scottish Government because they were tabled in June this year, in advance of Committee in the House of Commons. But I restate that I do not speak to these amendments on behalf of anybody other than myself; I simply see them as sensible amendments which have merit on their own wording. It is with that in mind that I speak to these two amendments.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
Could the noble and learned Lord indicate what the Scottish Government see as particularly virtuous about the formula that he suggests in this amendment?
Lord Hope of Craighead
I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. There are really two points. First, Clause 2 as worded uses “normally”; secondly, it does not set out in full the way that the convention is applied in practice. These points were made very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, a moment ago in moving Amendment 11, which is read together with Amendments 15 and 16. There are two points which needed to be added to Clause 2, one being to alter the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the other being to alter the executive competence of the Scottish Government. These matters are in practice the subject of a consent resolution or a Sewel convention Motion and should be referred to expressly in the clause to cover the reach of the convention. That is the point which the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, was talking about.
Lord Lang of Monkton
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his comments about the word “normally”. It is not a word that alarmed me particularly, as a non-lawyer, but the clause as a whole certainly alarmed and concerned the Constitution Committee. I shall say something about that in a moment but “normally” in its location there seemed to strike the balance between permitting the Scottish Parliament to legislate on devolved matters without intervention from the United Kingdom Government while, at the same time, giving the Government of the United Kingdom the clear right and entitlement in special circumstances to intervene. I will be interested to hear what my noble and learned friend at the Dispatch Box will have to say about it.
My own Amendment 13 simply seeks to strengthen new subsection (8) of Section 28 of the 1998 Act by reasserting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament to reinforce the terms of subsection (7), which subsection (8) might otherwise seem to contradict. Having heard the treatment given by the Front Bench to my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendments, I suspect that I may not be on an ideal wicket. But I want to say a word or two about this clause because the Sewel convention is a dangerous situation in which to legislate.
The Sewel convention is as slippery as a fish. It has changed throughout the years since it came into being quite considerably and may yet change again. When I was first asked about it, I was told informally by my late lamented noble friend Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, who was at that time our Front-Bench spokesman on the Bill, that it was really just a courtesy to the Scottish Parliament for the United Kingdom Parliament to offer to legislate on its behalf, if it was an issue devolved to it on which it would plan to legislate. It would thus save time, expense and duplication. I do not think it was ever quite thus but that was the flavour of how I first understood it. It has now turned into something quite different and I see it as a weapon that seems to allow the Scottish Parliament to intrude into United Kingdom legislation to an unsafe extent, possibly even to the extent of a veto.
What is clear is that the Sewel convention is still so fluid and unsettled as not to deserve the name of convention. I do not think, in its present form, it is fit to be converted into law. It may be that those who have drafted the Bill have found, in the form of words they have used, a more stable and secure base for the long term, but the convention has changed a lot over the years and may again. Initially, the United Kingdom Government seemed to maintain that it applied only to powers already devolved or to restricting or diminishing such a power. That was certainly the original intention as I understood it, but in 2005, Devolution Guidance Note 10 was published, which suggested:
“The convention applies when legislation makes provisions specifically for a devolved purpose”.
I see that as something much broader.
Since then, the Scottish Parliament has claimed it applies to devolved areas rather than devolved matters, so that it also applies to legislation increasing devolved powers, which the UK Government seem at times to have accepted. The Scotland Act 2012 bore this out, as it was almost entirely an empowering measure and was taken to require legislative consent Motions. Astonishingly to me, the Labour Opposition supported an SNP amendment in the Commons and tried to enshrine devolved areas into the legislation. That could have given the Scottish Government a veto on UK legislation, which is what prompted my question to my noble friend on the Front Bench at Second Reading. This one-way degeneration of the original purpose of the convention is potentially damaging to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, and we have to exercise great care in handling this.
The Smith commission asked only that it be put on a statutory footing. Even if we can be confident of a clear, unambiguous wording, the potential troubles do not end there. My noble and learned friend Lord Hope indicated at Second Reading, as he will recall, that it could become challengeable in the courts. My noble friend Lord Norton had serious concerns also, pointing out:
“Clause 2 does not transpose the Sewel convention into statute. It simply states the convention”.—[Official Report, 24/11/15; col. 639.]
I am completely out of my depth in reacting to that and I look forward to his speech a little later in the debate.
My amendment echoes the concerns of others to counter the uncertainties generated by the present wording of the clause. We have all felt the need to reiterate, in every possible way, the need to reassert the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. My amendment is the simplest and shortest—it may not be the best but at least it has a different wording from that rejected by my noble friend on the Front Bench. We must have a wording that is clear and unambiguous and able to withstand challenge in the courts, where I suspect it will probably end up.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 14 and 18. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for adding their names to Amendment 14.
I think we are all aiming for the same thing: clarity and the removal of ambiguity. The one thing that struck me when I was looking at the Bill for the first time was the use of the word “normally”. It is not a very good legal word; indeed it is a word that could, as those who know far more about the law than I do have said repeatedly, be challenged in the courts. In these two amendments, I have sought to remove that word entirely and to give, in Amendment 18, a specific exception. I do not suggest that this is the only answer or necessarily the best one. I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Lang said a moment or two ago, but I would delete “normally” and insert at the end,
“save in times of war or national emergency”.
It is accepted in the Bill that there could be occasions when the United Kingdom Parliament, which has absolute sovereignty, would need to override the Scottish Parliament. None of us wants that to happen—and certainly not often—but if we recognise that that can or could happen, we have to be a little clearer with our definitions. I believe that by removing “normally” and inserting a couple of specifics, we are moving in the right direction. It is in that spirit that I commend these amendments to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, these amendments, on the whole, move us forward. They are an improvement on what is presently an unsatisfactory provision in the Bill. I drew attention to this at Second Reading, but in doing so I was hardly doing anything novel. Attention was drawn to the problem in the last Parliament by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place and by the Constitution Committee of this House. The point was made that this did not even put the Smith commission recommendation in statute. The commission recommended putting the convention on a statutory footing, but the clause as drafted does not do that; it merely takes the words of Lord Sewel and puts them into the clause. It does not provide legal certainty. We are in an unusual position; indeed, this has not happened before. Conventions have been transposed into statute previously, but once in statute, the convention is dead and the statute provides legal certainty.
What we have here is an attempt to provide something in statute while retaining the flexibility of the convention —which basically carries on as a convention. We have to make a decision: either it is a convention, in which case it is not in statute and we just carry on as before—the convention is widely accepted for what it is and is not really in doubt—or we actually put it in statute so that we have legal certainty and clarity, and it is not then likely to come before the courts. The problem with the wording at the moment is that there is that possibility. One could remove “normally”, which would be a major step forward; or we could go with Amendment 12, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has put forward and which I have put my name to, because it provides legal certainty.
If the Government want to retain the flexibility of a convention, there would have to be some additional provision stipulating quite clearly any exceptional circumstances. That could be, for example, through Amendment 18, in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack, which does stipulate those circumstances. One might have to take that further in defining what constitutes a national emergency, but it does refine the provision. Either the Government accept an amendment like that or they have to come up with their own. They could accept Amendment 12 and, if they wish, qualify it, but the onus is on the Government. However, I am quite clear that we really cannot proceed with Clause 2 as presently worded. As I say, either we have a convention or we have legal certainty in statute. I do not think we can try to have both.
Lord McCluskey
My Lords, I was happy to add my name to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. People keep apologising for not being lawyers, but I think it is time a lawyer apologised for being a lawyer. I am a lawyer and I want to say this. It is commonly said by judges up and down the country that words in a statute should be like a piece of crystal—absolutely clear and unambiguous. They should be clear, unambiguous and definitive, but the word “normally” has no fixed meaning at all. I looked it up in a number of dictionaries. In one, the first definition of “normally” was “rectangular”—I do not know where that takes us.
We use a lot of elastic words from time to time, such as “reasonable”, “appropriate”, “usually” or “a piece of string”. There is no clear meaning or definition to these words, but the difference between a word in a statute and a convention is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang, said, a convention is fluid and flexible. You can develop it all the time in the light of experience—qualify it, extend it and so on—but you cannot do that with the words of a statute. My problem is that I do not know what a court would make of the word “normally”.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Could the noble and learned Lord tell me what “normally” normally means?
Lord McCluskey
That depends on the context in which it is used. Normally, “normally” means “usually”—but “norm” means a standard and the main definition in some dictionaries is of conforming to a standard. I cannot understand with regard to devolved matters of legislation what the standard would be. That is why I tabled Amendment 19. If you leave in “normally”, in effect the decision on whether the circumstances are such as to allow the Parliament of the UK to legislate is one for that Parliament to take. That is the first point. In other words, I do not care who decides it, but someone must decide it.
If you do not decide it in this sort of way—namely, by giving the job to a Parliament—you will leave the job to a court. I have no idea what a court would make of the word “normally”. How would a court judge what is normal in the context of devolved and other legislation without hearing evidence? Must a court then hear a lot of evidence from constitutional experts, who are unlikely to be unanimous if today’s proceedings are anything to go by? They are not unanimous and I do not think a court would be able to rule on the matter without hearing evidence. I would hate to see the courts having to deal with this kind of matter, albeit that it would be a bonanza for lawyers—of whom I confess to being one.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Lang in what he said. The wording of this clause reflects what I understood that Lord Sewel said in this House at the time of the passing of the Bill. It says that,
“the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters”.
When that was said before, I think that all of us here—my noble friend Lord Lang reinforced this—thought that it referred to Schedule 5, non-devolved matters, so that a Sewel Motion would be needed for anything discussed in this House outwith Schedule 5.
I have watched over the years as this matter has gradually crept out. The noble Lord, Lord Stephen, mentioned the various steps along which the Civil Service has progressed in making this convention. It was always a fairly constitutional matter and they were chipping away at what we understood could or could not be discussed. To just leave the wording as it is tells only half the story. We must find out what exactly the convention has developed into and what wording would describe it if we want to have it as either a convention or whatever it is. At least we have it on the Floor of the House now and can begin to look at what it should be.
Having seen the wording when the Bill was published, I asked a Written Question of my noble friend the Minister. I asked,
“how many times the Scottish Parliament has passed a legislative consent motion … regarding matters that were not at that time devolved under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act … and in each case what reason was given”.
The Minister kindly replied with one example, but I think there must be many more. His example was that,
“section 10 of the Scotland Act 2012 made provision for certain elements in relation to air weapons to be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”,
the argument being that things that were about to be devolved should be subject to a legislative consent Motion. We need to know exactly how far this goes and what its meaning will be.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support my noble friend Lord Norton’s remarks and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lang. I will not go through all the arguments about sovereignty again because we have done them to death. I will also speak to Amendment 17, which for some reason was put in an earlier group. I tabled it as a probing amendment but having listened to the debate I really think my noble friend needs to go back to the drawing board on this. It surely makes sense to put into statute the Sewel convention and then abandon it as a convention, as we discussed earlier. Of course, when we discussed English votes for English laws, I predicted that by giving the Westminster Parliament an English veto on legislation it would be only a matter of time before people argued that there ought to be a Scottish veto, as the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, did in the context of the Sewel convention.
What my noble friend Lord Norton said was very wise. We need to work out what this convention means and we need to put that in the Bill in a way that is apparent. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who worries about how this will be seen by nationalists north of the border and that some people are trying to refight the battles of 1997, I see no reason why we should not just cut this Gordian knot and leave the Scottish Parliament to legislate on all devolved matters. What happens is that it piggy-backs on legislation that is carried down here and then finds it very convenient to blame Westminster for passing the legislation to which of course it was a party.
This Bill hands a huge new set of powers to the Scottish Parliament, with huge new responsibilities. The whole purpose of the Bill is apparently about making the Parliament accountable to the Scottish people. Well, why not let them get on with passing the legislation necessary to meet their responsibilities? I think that the Sewel convention should be toughened up. It should be made stronger and should basically provide that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not legislate with regard to devolved matters. It is up to the Scottish Parliament. Why would we wish to do so?
Lord Maxton
I am trying to follow the noble Lord’s arguments carefully but it seems that, even with the new powers that we should be or are giving under this legislation, there will still be matters for instance in transport where we might pass legislation that will affect Scotland. I travel on a train from Euston up to Glasgow every week and back down every Monday. That is partly covered by transport legislation from this House. Is the noble Lord saying that once it crosses the border it should then be covered by legislation for Scotland?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Well, devolution was not my idea but that seems to be what it means. You cannot have it both ways. Presumably, if we were bringing in legislation that would affect the noble Lord’s travel across the border there would be the normal consultation process. My argument is: what is wrong with letting the Scottish Parliament get on with passing the necessary legislation? If it is a devolved matter, it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Then we do not have a problem with the Sewel convention. Provided we retain the sovereignty of this Parliament, there is nothing whatever to stop us passing legislation in times of emergency, war or whatever else that could apply. In the Bill as presently constituted, this word “normally” is fine for a convention but ridiculous for a statute.
Having argued that this should be set down properly in the Bill, explaining how it will work as a matter of statute and not as a convention, if we were to retain the convention and were looking at what the convention would be that we sought to enshrine in statute, I would say that it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not legislate with regard to devolved matters. It is entirely up to the Scottish Parliament, if it wishes us to legislate, to argue for the contrary.
Of course, the great irony in this—as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, indicated—is that we are legislating on a monumental scale now in this Bill without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. There is the distinct possibility, as we still do not have the fiscal framework, that the consent of the Scottish Parliament might not be forthcoming and that we might have to do it all over again. So there is a thought.
My noble and learned friend needs to look at these amendments and think about them and come back with a clause in statute that actually defines what the Government believe that the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament should do with—in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—absolute crystal clarity, so that we do not have this business of blaming Westminster any longer for legislation that was covertly supported by the Scottish Parliament. If it has that responsibility, it may very well find, as the Westminster Parliament does, that it has to be discriminatory about what it wants to put on the statute book—and it may very well find that it is no longer able to get away with sitting for a mere one and a half days a week.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
My Lords, there has been a widespread and interesting debate on this very important area of legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, said that the debate had been useful to move matters forward, and I respectfully agree. It has provided the Minister with a smorgasbord of possibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Stephen, is correct in identifying the utility in having clarity where the UK Government may or may not have power where legislative consent Motions may come into being. That is quite clear. The alternative that is proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is a carefully laid out analysis of what the actual problem has been and how it may be converted into statute. If one is going down the route of statute rather than maintaining convention in place, this appears a helpful and clear way forward.
The fact that the executive competence of the Scottish Parliament comes into play is a matter that has troubled people from time to time. One example might be the position of Scottish law officers. In Scotland, Ministers are in charge of day-to-day management of prosecution. Some people might think that that was anomalous. In fact, had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, been here this evening—he is in a more illustrious place—he would recollect saying many years ago that the position of the Scottish law officers in being prosecutors and Ministers was anomalous. Those are the sort of issues that with this approach are clearly put back into the Scottish Parliament to be dealt with by either the Parliament or the Scottish courts.
As for the problems that have arisen when legislative consent Motions have been deployed, they have in fact worked extremely well over 15 years. The notion that in some way they have subverted the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and this Parliament is, I would suggest, somewhat of a chimera. As the Minister has already indicated on a number of occasions, the sovereignty of this Parliament has not been subverted, and is not subverted. So on the notion in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, that sovereignty should be made absolutely clear, on this side of the House we would accept what the Minister has said repeatedly—and we have that before us, if we look at Pepper v Hart—that this Parliament remains sovereign.
On the vexing question of the word “normally”, we support its deletion. We appreciate that the word, despite the helpful guidance from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is not easily understood in applying matters of statutory interpretation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, was a witness and saw the uttering of the legislative consent words, and he very helpfully set out that words can appear without necessarily having the fully considered import that a draftsman might bring to bear. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made the point very clearly in the context of Northern Ireland. So although it may be thought by some, possibly, that deletion of “normally” is in fact an extension of legislative consent, we on this side would support it. If it is seen as in some way increasing a fetter on Ministers, so be it in order that clarity might be produced.
We oppose Amendment 18 advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on the basis that we see that the UK remains the UK. If there is war or a national emergency, the constituent parts of the United Kingdom can be relied on to pull together. We also oppose Amendment 17, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, perhaps unsurprisingly. The legislative consent Motion procedure has been successful over 15 years; either of the amendments proposed, setting out the statutory basis of the legislative consent Motion, would resolve the issue but there has not been a debate about this being an unsuccessful mechanism. It has worked not as a way in which to pose the Scottish Government against Her Majesty's Government but, most of the time, has resulted in co-operation, with the Scottish Government bringing issues to Her Majesty’s Government for discussion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Has the noble and learned Lord not seen the statements made by senior Ministers in the Scottish Government to the effect that, if they do not get what they want out of the fiscal framework, they will veto the legislation and prevent it coming on to the statute book. I am not sure how, given the importance of this legislation and the background to it, the noble and learned Lord can say that the system is working perfectly well.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
The noble Lord will of course be aware that I have seen those statements and have been interested in what they in fact mean. But he will also recollect that we say, from this side of the House, that given the discussion about the fiscal framework and possible use of legislative consent Motions in that regard, we see the co-operation that has taken place between the Scottish Government and Her Majesty's Government in the past as something in which we can repose a good deal of trust that it will continue in relation to this process with the fiscal framework. Our trust may be misplaced, but we conceive otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, cannot see any more than I can into the future, but we are in a position where we repose trust in the process, at least from this side.
In relation to the various amendments before the House, we accept that a number of them are useful. None the less, we oppose Amendments 13 and 18.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I hoped that the noble and learned Lord might say something about Amendment 20. Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear when I introduced these amendments, but Amendment 12 deals with the stage of passing a Bill and says that,
“the Parliament of the United Kingdom may not pass Acts … without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”.
Amendment 20 intercepts the matter at the earlier stage. It says:
“A Minister of the Crown must not introduce a Bill into the Parliament of the United Kingdom … that would make provision applying to Scotland unless a Minister of the Crown has consulted the Scottish Ministers”.
That amendment, as in the case of Amendment 12, was drafted in Edinburgh by people who know how the system is working. In giving his support to Amendment 12, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord meant to give his support also to Amendment 20.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
I apologise for not confirming that we support Amendment 20. I took that as being the overall approach—this smorgasbord—between the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, and the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I hope that clarifies the point.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
What is the noble and learned Lord’s view about the provisions in Amendment 12, which was tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope? It contains paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (a) applies to Scotland and does not relate to reserved matters. I would have thought that is what is meant by devolved matters, but paragraphs (b) and (c) considerably add to that. As far as I can understand them, particularly paragraph (b), they would apply to this legislation.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
Perhaps I can try to explain the proposition put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in his amendment. As we see this, it reflects the reality of the way in which legislative consent Motions have been used over the 15 years, beyond the original.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged for the contributions that have been made with regard to Clause 2 and the proposed amendments thereto. I shall begin by making an observation on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, with regard to English votes. The provision with regard to English votes does not limit the sovereignty of this Parliament in any sense. English votes introduces the principle of English consent for English measures. The new procedures maintain the important principle of Members of Parliament from all parts of the United Kingdom being able to deliberate and vote on all legislation. Members of Parliament are not excluded from the legislative process. I would not accept the proposition that these provisions somehow derogate from the sovereignty of this Parliament.
Lord Stephen
Does the Minister accept that the House of Commons could pass something and the House of Lords could agree with that proposal but it could then be vetoed by the subgroup of the House of Commons who are defined as English Members of Parliament?
Lord Keen of Elie
It merely means that in respect of matters that are English measures, there must be an element of English consent, but I do not accept that that derogates from the sovereignty of this Parliament. In due course, this Parliament might decide to legislate contrary to those provisions.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
While it is true that legislation still requires the consent of both Houses, EVEL gives a group of Members of the House of Commons who are English MPs the ability to veto a provision so that it proceeds no further. I think that is the point that the noble Lord is making.
Lord Keen of Elie
The term “veto”, if you wish to employ it, is there. It means that English measures require the consent of English Members, but it does not derogate from the sovereignty of this Parliament.
Clause 2 delivers paragraph 22 of the Smith agreement which sets out quite clearly that the Sewel convention will be put on a statutory footing. As with Clause 1 on permanence, the Smith commission agreement did not intend that the constitutional position should be changed, but that legislation should accurately reflect the position that already exists and has existed for 15 years.
I shall put this into context. Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 makes it perfectly clear that this Parliament can legislate in respect of Scotland in all matters, including devolved matters. It preserves the sovereignty of this Parliament.
The Duke of Montrose
When the Minister talks about the Sewel convention as it has been for 15 years, that does not include the various modifications that have been introduced in the 15 years. The Government will have to be careful about how they describe it.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to his Grace. That does not, and that is why the convention is expressed as it is in Clause 2. There has been Devolution Guidance Note 10 with regard to how from time to time the convention may operate, but those are working arrangements which may alter from time to time and should not be enshrined in statute. That is not considered appropriate. That is why Clause 2 is in the terms in which it is found—because it reflects paragraph 22 of the Smith commission agreement.
My understanding of why the Sewel convention came to be expressed as it was is that Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act allows this sovereign Parliament to legislate, notwithstanding the terms of the 1998 Act, in respect of all matters pertaining to Scotland. There was, I apprehend, concern that if, for example, in a devolved area of competence, such as education or health, the Scottish Government got into serious difficulty, this Parliament might be open to the criticism that it had done nothing about it, even though it reserved to itself the power to legislate for Scotland on devolved matters in terms of Section 28(7). Therefore, the convention was expressed that normally this Parliament will not legislate for Scotland in devolved areas. That was expressed in those terms in order that this Parliament would not face criticism that it had done nothing as the health or education service in Scotland had deteriorated in the face of legislation from the devolved Parliament. That is the background to the introduction, as I understand it, of the Sewel convention. It works both ways.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. Does that mean that as the number of passes being achieved by school leavers since I left office back in 1997 has fallen by 20% compared with England, there is still the possibility that we might intervene in the hash that is being made of the education services by the present Government in Scotland? I assumed that the answer to that question would be absolutely not, so what is my noble and learned friend getting at?
Lord Keen of Elie
The point is that in terms of Section 28(7) we in this Parliament could, on the face of it, intervene in such a matter. That was the whole point of the convention: to make it clear that normally we would not do so. I may have misunderstood the intervention of my noble friend Lord Forsyth but, with respect, it seems to me that that is precisely why the Sewel convention was expressed in the terms in which we find it—so that if educational attainment in Scotland was failing we would not be faced with the criticism that the United Kingdom Parliament had done nothing about it because conventionally we would not normally intervene in a devolved matter, but we retain sovereignty and we have the right to do so. That is why the Sewel convention is expressed in the manner in which it is. The intention is not that Clause 2 should give rise to any justiciable issue. It is a political expression of the convention in statutory form. That is why the term “normally” appears within Clause 2. It makes it clear that this is not a justiciable issue. It is quite clear that in terms of the Smith commission agreement the Sewel convention will be expressed in statutory terms. It is there, but whether this Parliament would consider it appropriate to legislate for Scotland in a devolved area, which it can do pursuant to Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, is a political issue. It would not be for a court to decide what “normally” meant in that context. It would be a political issue. If it could be litigated in court and made justiciable, the question would be: what possible remedy could the court provide other than a political one? That is why it takes us back to the simple proposition that Clause 2, as set out, would not give rise to a justiciable issue. I give way to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
Lord Hope of Craighead
The problem is that paragraph 22 of the Smith commission report states that the Sewel convention will be put on a statutory footing. Rather like the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I wondered what “statutory footing” meant, and I went to various sources to find out. A translation of it is fairly obvious: it means being put on a firm footing by being written into statute. That raises the question of what the effect is of writing something into statute.
The problem is that, whatever the Minister may say, someone seeing it written into statute is going to say, “Here is something which I can use to challenge a piece of legislation that is apparently being passed without the Sewel convention being observed according to its current usage”. With great respect, it does not do for a Minister to say to the court, “This is just a political matter”, because the judges will say, “It’s a matter for us”. The judge may look at the normal rules to see what the legislation was designed to do, and with a bit of research they will find that it was designed to give effect to the Sewel convention to put it on a statutory footing. The judge will then say, “Well, it’s a matter for me to construe what this means”. I am not at all impressed by the Minister saying that it is all a political matter, because it is now in the hands of the court to adjudicate upon.
The Minister asks, “What remedy does that give rise to?”. It creates uncertainty about the effectiveness of legislation. One of the things that we have to be very careful about is that the legislative process is well founded and not open to challenges, except those that are already subject to legislation in the Scotland Act. So, with great respect, it is necessary to warn the Minister that he cannot get away with assuming that the judges will accept that it is simply a political issue; it is not that at all, once it is written into statute.
Lord Keen of Elie
The noble and learned Lord acknowledges that there would be no remedy other than a political remedy in that context, or appears to do so. He shakes his head; nevertheless, there is no remedy except a political remedy. This underlines the importance of the words “recognised as” and “normally” where they appear in Clause 2.
However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, spoke to his Amendment 19, a proposal that it should be expressly stated that the clause is not justiciable and does not give rise to justiciable rights. That is a matter that I would be pleased to discuss with him, albeit that the Government’s position at present is that there is no requirement to expressly state that in the context of a clause that, on the face of it, is implicitly not justiciable. That would be my position on Amendment 19.
Lord McCluskey
On that point, this provision can be put in to render the matter not justiciable, but that is in the context that the decision would in fact be taken by the UK Parliament and that decision could not be challenged in court. The point about the Sewel convention, which the Minister says is being enshrined in legislation, is that the effect changes entirely because the Sewel convention was not justiciable at all, as I understand it, whereas the statute is always justiciable. The court cannot say, “We don’t want to give it a meaning”; the court has to find a meaning because it always has to answer the question before it.
Lord Keen of Elie
In that context, it would be declaring that this is a clause that gives rise to only a political remedy, and that it was not for the court to intervene and determine whether a particular piece of legislation was normal or abnormal. That would not be an issue for the court, and that is the position of the Government with regard to the clause. That could be made clearer, or could be made express, but, as I say, I would be happy to discuss that in the light of the noble and learned Lord’s proposed amendment.
Lord Cormack
If the Minister is prepared to have those discussions, which are welcome, would he also be prepared to have a discussion with those of us who have signed the amendments to delete the word “normally”? I say very gently to him—echoing someone who should not be echoed in this Chamber, Cromwell—conceive it,
“possible you may be mistaken”.
Lord Keen of Elie
I would respond to my noble friend by saying that anything is possible.
Lord Scott of Foscote
The debate at the moment seems to be concerned exclusively with primary legislation. Clause 2 is concerned with primary legislation made by Parliament, but the bulk of legislation these days is made by statutory instrument—made under powers that are granted by Parliament, of course, and many of these are existing powers—but I cannot see anything in the Bill that really grapples with the position of statutory legislation as opposed to primary. I wonder if that is an oversight or whether it is intended.
Lord Keen of Elie
If I may, I shall respond to the observations from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, after the dinner break. I confess it is not immediately apparent to me what the thrust of his point was, and maybe I am missing it, but I shall give it some consideration.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
If the Minister will allow me, those of us who are not as expert as he is are getting a little puzzled. Can he help the House by giving practical examples of the sort of circumstances in which the UK Parliament would legislate on devolved matters? A few such examples would be helpful for us to understand precisely what this is getting at.
Lord Keen of Elie
In a sense, this is connected to my earlier observation that at the end of the day the clause is not justiciable. It will be for Parliament at the time to decide that it is or is not going to legislate for Scotland in a devolved matter. The term “normally” means “usually” or “generally”, but Parliament at the time may decide that it is going to legislate for Scotland in respect of a devolved matter. There is no limit on that power, as is expressly provided by Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998. There is no limit on this Parliament’s sovereignty and supremacy in respect of that matter. The Sewel convention merely says that normally it will not do so; that is all.
Lord McCluskey
Does the Minister realise that if the UK Government decide that the situation is abnormal and therefore decide to legislate, and the Scottish Government go to a Scottish court and say, “We don’t agree with the judgment about normality”, the court will have to make a judgment about that if the word “normally” remains in the wording. There is no mechanism for that other than the court having to sit down and decide what it thinks Parliament intended when it used the word “normally”.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I do not accept that proposition. It would be for the court to say that Parliament decides whether it is normal to legislate for Scotland in a devolved matter. It is not for us to interrogate that decision by Parliament. “Normally” means just that—no more, no less. It is not for the courts to say, “We don’t think the situation was abnormal”. That is a political decision.
Lord Keen of Elie
In view of the time, no.
Amendment 11 would clearly impact on the ability of the United Kingdom Parliament to make laws for Scotland. To that extent, it would modify Section 28(7) of the 1998 Act. The effect of that amendment could be interpreted as an attempt to limit the sovereignty of this Parliament, a point that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, acknowledged, and the Government would not be prepared to accept such an amendment.
Amendment 13, conversely, seeks to state in the Bill that Clause 2 places no limits on the sovereignty of Parliament. We would say that if you say that expressly in one part of the Bill, you have to take care as to the impact that it will have on other parts of the Bill, and that it is appropriate to acknowledge that nothing in the Bill impinges on the sovereignty of Parliament.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, can I ask my noble and learned friend a question, as he would not accept an intervention? We are in Committee. I am not a lawyer, but earlier in our discussions I gave the example of where the Scottish Government have fallen down on education in the context of his remarks that we retain the right to pass legislation on education, health or other matters where we feel that they are falling down. I put that forward as a debating point, but in circumstances where a Government, perhaps led by me, decided to do this, it would be outrageous if it was a political decision to intervene on an education matter based on a belief that the Scottish Government —an elected Government—were not doing their job. Therefore, if I were on the other side, leading the Scottish Government, I would go straight to the courts and say, “This word ‘normally’ does not provide for the kind of intervention which is being provided”. I do not understand why my noble and learned friend says that the courts would not take a view of what “normally” meant, and in fact, in this case, if I were the judge I would say, “Actually, ‘normally’ means ‘exceptional’”, but they may take a different view. That is what is causing the concern among the lawyers. However, in common sense terms, to have a word such as “normally” and to argue that there would not be judicial challenge and that, if there was, the courts would just walk away from it, cannot be right. Can my noble and learned friend explain why I am wrong?
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not accept the proposition that my noble friend Lord Forsyth advances. The position is that this Parliament is sovereign; in terms of Section 28(7) of the 1998 Act it may legislate for Scotland in all and any matters, including devolved matters. The Sewel convention simply expresses the view that this Parliament will not normally do so. However, that does not fix some black-line test to be applied by the courts as to what is normal and abnormal; it will be a matter for Parliament going forward to decide if or when it would ever legislate for Scotland in respect of a devolved matter.
Lord Norton of Louth
My noble and learned friend’s argument was that the Bill puts into statute the recommendations of the Smith commission, and in this case, recommendation 22:
“The Sewel Convention will be put on a statutory footing”.
Surely on his own argument the Government will have to withdraw Clause 2, not only on the grounds of what constitutes a statutory footing but because it embodies the words of Lord Sewel, which he spoke when the Scotland Bill was before Parliament, and not the convention as understood at the time the commission produced its report.
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not accept that, because it appears that what is understood by the Sewel convention is the expression of that convention by Lord Sewel during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 through Parliament. I indicated before the sundry working arrangements that developed and changed over the passage of the 15 years after that convention came into place, such as DGN10, which is why there is no attempt, and properly so, to express those working arrangements in statutory terms within the Bill.
The Duke of Montrose
Can the Minister say whether that means that there will be a new convention that includes those elements?
Lord Keen of Elie
It may be that further working arrangements will develop as between the two Parliaments with respect to legislation that touches upon devolved matters. However, the provision as expressed in the Bill is simply that as expressed by Lord Sewel at the time the Scotland Act passed through Parliament in 1998. It merely says that while in terms of Section 28 we have the power to legislate for Scotland in all matters, including devolved matters, we will not normally do so.
Lord Stephen
As noble Lords will know, the Liberal Democrats are very supportive of the Bill, but the explanation just given by the Minister of the Sewel convention and the issues around it worries me greatly. From the outset, I say that I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which would leave out “normally”. It seems that much of the Minister’s argument about protecting the sovereignty of the UK Parliament hangs on retaining the word “normally”, because that then gives the UK Parliament very wide discretion, as I read it, to legislate, as the Minister explains it, in areas that could include education, transport, housing, health and all the issues that are the very stuff of the Scottish Parliament. If that is the Minister’s intention, that is hugely controversial. I will say no more than that, because I do not want to develop this issue into a major argument on these points.
However, let me be clear. Back in 1998, when the Sewel convention was introduced, it was not in any circumstances with a view to this Parliament stepping in to legislate in the areas of transport, health and education if the Scottish Parliament was to make a mess of it. That was absolutely not the reason why it was introduced. Its wording and the reasons for its introduction are quite clear; they are here in Clause 2, which says that,
“it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”.
Therefore, even by the Minister’s own explanation, the consent of the Scottish Parliament to legislate in these potentially controversial areas would be required, and it would not happen. There is no way that the Scottish Parliament, in terms of the Sewel Motion as it went back to 1998, would cover legislation in health and education—
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
I have a feeling that the Committee is going down the wrong line here. The Minister has made it entirely clear that he has been talking about something that would never happen. It is just a logical construct. He is looking into the reality, and the notion that one should feel that somehow the UK Parliament is asserting a power to intervene in the affairs of the Scottish Government is a flight of fancy—it is not real.
Lord Stephen
I will readily grab that escape route, and I thank the noble and learned Lord for that assistance. I hope that that is the case, although much has been repeatedly made of the absolute sovereignty of the UK Parliament. If noble Lords check the record, they will find that the Minister has mentioned it many times.
However, moving away from that issue, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton. You either keep the convention or you enshrine it in statute—I think that the wording from the Smith commission was “put it on a statutory footing”. It was not the Sewel convention of 1998 that was expected to be put on a statutory footing; it was the Sewel convention as it exists today, as the Smith commission knows it and as it has been working in the Scottish Parliament and between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. All aspects of the Sewel convention should be on a statutory footing, not just one narrow aspect that started in 1998 and has now gone. If we were forced to go in that direction, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, pointed out, one tiny but important element of the Sewel convention would be in statute but not all the rest. To me, that would be ridiculous.
As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is logically correct: any Sewel Motions and legislative consent Motions could absolutely be prevented, with everything in devolved areas having to be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. The UK Parliament—the House of Commons and the House of Lords—would stop legislating in these areas. However, I conclude by saying that the whole process of legislative consent Motions has been accepted and they have been commonplace. Some people have asked how often they have been used. They are used all the time in the Scottish Parliament. There must have been dozens, if not hundreds, of legislative consent Motions. They work well. Why try to stop or change something that has been accepted and works well? Let us simply put it on a statutory footing and get on with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“(8) But the Parliament of the United Kingdom may not pass Acts applying to Scotland that make provision about a devolved matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
(9) A provision is about a devolved matter if the provision—
(a) applies to Scotland and does not relate to reserved matters, (b) modifies the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, or(c) modifies the functions of any member of the Scottish Government.(10) In subsection (8), “Acts” includes any Act, whether a public general Act, a local and personal Act or a private Act.”
Lord Hope of Craighead
I am bound to say that I am very troubled by this whole matter and we will have to return to it on Report. Leaving the clause in its present form is bound to create instability—for reasons that I need not expand on further. Having given notice that I will come back to this on Report, I do not intend to move the amendment.
Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)
My Lords, I wanted to say a word about Amendment 12.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, we had the opportunity to speak to this amendment in a previous grouping.
Lord Cormack
Vulnerable Children: Kinship Care
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of kinship care as a means of support for vulnerable children.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome and appreciate the opportunity to have this debate. I thank all noble Lords who are interested in this issue and have indicated that they want to speak tonight. During our deliberations on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill last night, we had a useful debate on the challenges for kinship care that will arise from some of that legislation. I hope that the Minister has had the opportunity to read the comments in that debate, because I am not sure that tonight we will manage to get in all the points that we want to make.
I am very grateful to the Kinship Care Alliance for its briefings and, in particular, to the Family Rights Group, which I know and have worked with for several years and for whose knowledge and commitment in this area I have immense respect and regard.
There are an estimated 200,000 kinship carers across the United Kingdom. They are grandparents, older siblings, other relatives and friends who step in to care for children when usually the only alternative is the care system or for them to become what we now call looked-after children. In England, kinship care remains the most prevalent form of non-parental care for children who are unable to live with their parents—and that may well be the case for the whole of the United Kingdom. The most recent figures that we have come from a report from Bristol University published earlier this year.
Despite kinship care still being the predominant option for children in England who are unable to live with their parents, and despite research evidence that children living in kinship care have better outcomes—certainly than those fostered by non-relatives and, it seems from the evidence, than any other form of looked-after child—the results of the University of Bristol study show that a large number of children in kinship care are affected by poverty and deprivation. More than three-quarters of the children in the study lived in a deprived household. As I said last night, we may have arguments across the Floor about what deprivation is and what levels of poverty are and so on, but from this work we know that many of these children are in families that do not have the resources, or access to the resources, that many of us take for granted.
Compared with children growing up with at least one parent, children in kinship care were nearly twice as likely to have a long-term health problem or a disability that limited their day-to-day activities. We know that a kinship carer often takes on far greater challenges than they would if they were simply about to give birth to their own child. Someone else’s child is likely to be older and will bring with him or her much of the trauma of whatever has gone wrong or whatever has happened in their early life.
So we know that the outcomes for children are better than the alternatives in the looked-after system, but we also know that life is still very tough for the vast majority of families where kinship care is the reality. The challenge to the Government is to see what they can do to encourage kinship carers to come forward when children in their family need care for whatever reason. The challenge is also to ensure that they are properly supported so that they can improve even more the outcomes for the children they are caring for.
Earlier this year, the Family Rights Group, along with others in the Kinship Care Alliance, carried out the largest survey of kinship carers that has ever been done. The survey showed that almost half of kinship carers had to give up work in order to fulfil their caring responsibilities, and a further 18% had to give up work temporarily. Sometimes the social worker would demand that they gave up work because the needs of the children were so great. I do not criticise anyone for that; it is simply the reality. Twenty-two per cent of kinship carer households had three or more children aged 18 or under, which is particularly relevant to what we were discussing last night regarding the proposed two-child limit for child tax credits and the reduction in the benefit cap. That is an issue that I know the House will return to.
In the recent survey, 80% of kinship carers felt that when they took on the child they did not know enough about the legal options and the consequences for getting support to make an informed decision. In the light of this survey, what can the Government do to improve the situation and meet the objectives that I earlier suggested should be the Government’s objectives? How could the Government respond?
First, they could move to a presumption of kinship care. That would involve exploring the wider family as a first port of call. I understand and appreciate that that would mean a new duty on local authorities to ensure that potential kinship placements are explored and assessed for suitability before a child becomes looked-after—except, I accept, in emergencies. It may also mean a new duty on local authorities to offer all families the opportunity of a family group conference prior to a child entering the looked-after system, except in emergencies. That would allow kinship carers to come forward and family members themselves to work together in the best interests of the children.
I know that this is something that kinship carers feel very strongly about. They do not want to come in at a stage where the rest of the family think that they are pre-empting breakdown, but, on the other hand, if they hang back for too long, they are not considered and another placement for the child will be made and the opportunity for them to become kinship carers will have gone. It also means that there must be minimum standards for viability assessments with which local authorities would need to comply in order to fairly assess whether a family member is potentially a realistic option to care for the child.
The second thing that needs to change and that the Government need to be concerned about is how to recognise and meet the needs of children in kinship care. To put this briefly, kinship carers need to be viewed in exactly the same way as adopters are viewed. Kinship carers do not, for example, get what adopters get, including maternity and paternity leave. It is that sort of thing that the Government need to think about. There are various other suggestions that the Government could look to, and these are referred to by the Family Rights Group. Like adopters, kinship carers need to know that they will get access to support services, if necessary. As I have said, very many of these children have long-term health problems or a disability. Certainly, mental health issues are often very prevalent because of the trauma that the children have suffered. They really do need access to services.
But kinship carers also need access to information and advice. Of those who responded to the survey, 80% said that they did not have sufficient information about their options and the implications of these when taking on the child. They thought that independent advice was vital. The advice line that the Government and the Minister’s department have supported so far for the Family Rights Group is where kinship carers get the very best legal advice. Indeed, Justice Munby told me that he had great confidence in the quality of legal advice given by the Family Rights Group. It needs that in order to continue to give independent advice.
I can see that the Whip is getting anxious because my time is up. All I want to say is that I have enormous admiration for kinship carers. There are some really inspirational stories, which we do not have time to go through tonight. But this is an opportunity for the Government to recognise the value of kinship carers and make sure that they get the support they need.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, let me congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing this very important topic. I share her endorsement of the excellent work done by the Kinship Care Alliance and the Family Rights Group.
I do not want to cover again many of the areas that the noble Baroness has addressed, except to say that the framework within which we are debating this subject goes back to that landmark piece of social legislation, the Children Act 1989. It was a quite remarkable piece of legislation, to which reference is made around the world. It clarified the paramount interests of the child. In the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the child is always to be treated as a person, not just as an object of concern. It clarified the role of the local authority and the rights and the role of the parents. Having myself been chairman of a juvenile court for several years before I entered this House, primarily in Lambeth but also in other parts of London, as well as working with the CPAG, for Frank Field, in a child guidance unit and as a trustee of the Children’s Society, I was only too aware, as I know the noble Baroness was, of the chaotic and fragmented nature of the legislation concerning children. Local authorities then had a new duty to promote the upbringing of such children in need by their families, in so far as this can fit in with their welfare and the duty to the child themselves. That was a very new statement, and is very compatible with what we are discussing this evening. Local authorities had an absolute duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child looked after by them, for reviews promoting contact between the child and his family, and to consult the family on decisions. There was also specific mention of grandparents. At that time, as the noble Baroness will remember, there was a great deal of discussion of how grandparents were overlooked.
I want to make a particular comment about the debate around the Children Act 1989. I remember the wonderful work of the then Lord Chancellor, James Mackay—now my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern —and the remarkable work of a very talented and dedicated civil servant Rupert Hughes, who died this year. He worked with all political parties and all interests, including the law, the voluntary sector and local authorities, not only to take the consultation and legislation through but then—so unusual in legislation—to oversee its implementation. I arrived in the Department of Health three weeks before the Act received Royal Assent, so my job was its implementation. It was a component of our framework for protecting children, of which we should justly proud. The briefing goes back, time and again, to that 1989 Act. However, in that debate, there was a particularly impressive speech by the leader of the Opposition in another place, who gave a very strong endorsement of the impossible decisions made by social workers: if they intervene too much, they get it wrong; if they intervene too little, they get it wrong. I commend to noble Lords the words of the leader of the Opposition during that debate.
Recently, I talked to a very talented woman I know who has taken on responsibility for her nephew as a kinship carer. She is like many others: she is quite affluent, but her problems are no different from anybody else’s. The sister has mental health problems and the whole family has become involved in the turmoil, the complications, the ambiguity, the anger, the loss and the mourning. I touched base with her today and she said that she has had help of an unimpeachable standard from social workers in Essex, one working with the child, who is 13, and one working with her. As the noble Baroness said, nobody expects adoptions to be easy, and neither are kinship care arrangements easy. There may be a complicated relationship; there may be gratitude from the mother but there may also be resentment. Many people suffer from mental illness or addiction problems, and this makes for great complications and tension within families.
There is one particular group I want to mention, and which this House discusses fairly frequently: the 4,000 women in prison, three-quarters of them mothers of dependent children. These families have a double punishment. The women go to prison—about half of them for theft or handling stolen goods and hardly any for violent offences. Over half have or had emotional, physical and abuse problems, either currently or in childhood. Of their children, only 9% are cared for by the father and the vast majority of the others go to kinship carers. Some 4,000 move in with their grandmothers each year because their mothers have been sent to jail, 5,000 are taken in by other family members or friends, and 2,000 others are adopted or fostered. These children are then likely to suffer greatly and repeat the problems of anti-social or delinquent behaviour. In our work supporting kinship carers, I have particularly identified this group of children who are all too easily overlooked.
In the 1960s, a remarkable woman called Mary Webster started a charity called the National Council for the Single Woman and Her Dependants. I became involved in the early 1970s and about eight years later, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, became chief executive of what is now Carers UK. During those early years, nobody knew what a carer was. They used to say, “This is Mrs Bottomley from the careers organisation”. It was not a familiar term. It is the same with kinship carers. The work of recent years, since the Children Act, has begun to give kinship carers the priority and the recognition that they rightly deserve.
It cannot be said that simply because a child is with another member of the family that it is fine—it is the natural model and has happened for ever and a day. These are individuals and families with special needs. I commend the Minister for Children and Families for recently reporting back on the number of local authorities which have put in place guidance on what they are prepared to do for kinship carers dating back to Family and Friends Care: Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities. That number is up to 83% now—maybe the Minister will have further information for us. I congratulate the noble Baroness and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how we can all work harder to make this an even better service for children.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, in previous debates in this House, the Government have recognised the contribution that kinship carers make to the well-being of some 200,000 children. The reasons are indeed compelling and my noble friend Lady Armstrong and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, have set them out persuasively. Kinship care is the most common permanency option for children who cannot live with birth parents. The carers provide vital support for vulnerable children when parents are unable to care for them, often in urgent circumstances such as domestic violence, drug abuse and parental illness. The only notice that they may have is when the social worker arrives on the doorstep with the children late at night. The children frequently have emotional difficulties, often because they have been living with parents who are drug-dependent or who have abused them. The kinship carers save the taxpayer considerable expenditure and a number of studies demonstrate that most children in kinship care are doing significantly better than children in the care system.
However, kinship carers who voluntarily embrace vulnerable children continue to face many barriers. I cannot list them all, but they certainly include that, unlike birth parents and adopters, the vast majority of kinship carers raising children are not entitled to even one day of statutory paid leave from employment when they take on the care of the child. They care at their own cost. Some 49% give up work permanently and others reduce their earnings because they need to take that time to settle the child. As my noble friend said, a requirement is often imposed by the social worker that they do that—for good reason, because the children can be traumatised and insecure.
Kinship carers do not receive the financial support that foster parents receive. Many still get little help from their local authority, but face a considerable increase in costs. A recent Family Rights Group survey revealed that only 13% of local authorities have a dedicated worker or team supporting kinship carers. The Family Rights Group has identified areas of improvement in both the assessment of and support for kinship carers, recognising that many kinship care placements will be under huge financial strain due to inadequate support. Some may well now break down as a result of the benefit cuts, to the detriment of both the child and the taxpayer.
The Family Rights Group advice service advises more than 2,000 kinship carers a year. My noble friend Lady Armstrong gave a compelling explanation of the Rolls-Royce service that it gives. But funding constraints mean that it can answer only four in 10 of its callers, so the needs of six in 10 remain unmet. Funding has been cut two years in succession and there is no commitment to fund beyond March 2016. That cannot be right.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Armstrong on securing this debate, particularly at this time, because we now see, in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, direct withdrawal of support for kinship carers by the Government, with no coherent reasoning for that withdrawal of support. It is unfair to kinship-caring families, directly undermines the interest of vulnerable children and does not stack up in public expenditure terms. The Bill removes eligibility to the child element of child tax credits for the third and subsequent children born and introduces a two-child limit for receipt of the child element of universal credit for families making a new claim. Kinship care families with three or more children could lose up to £2,780 per year for each additional child, yet some 29,000 kinship carer families have three or more children in their households. The impact of the two-child limit on their family income will be further compounded by the biting of the benefit cap as it is set at an ever-lower level, precisely when these carers are voluntarily taking on vulnerable children and bearing the additional cost. It will be particularly harsh in its impact on kinship carers who already have their own children living with them.
I repeat the figures that I deployed in Committee yesterday because they are worthy of endless repetition. Exempting kinship carers from the two-child limit would cost £30 million. But these carers already save the taxpayer the considerable cost of placing these children in care. The cost of a child in care for a year is £40,000. The cost of care proceedings is £25,000. The savings that these 132,000 kinship families deliver by voluntarily caring for these 200,000 children runs into billions of pounds. The two-child limit needs to deter only 200 kinship carers from caring for three or more children, and that £30 million saving would be wiped out. That is without taking into consideration the human cost to the child or additional pressure on the local authorities when these children need to go into care. No reasoning has been given in any policy document for the withdrawal of support from kinship carers in these reforms.
The noble Lord, Lord Freud, for whom I have the greatest respect and who has previously shown a sensitive and considered understanding of the contribution of kinship carers, had considerable difficulty yesterday in persuading the House that there was a coherent line of reasoning in this withdrawal of support. The impact assessments gave no assessment of the disincentive effect, no assessment of the cost to the other areas of public expenditure from this effect and no assessment of the outcomes for the children. The withdrawal of this support will impact on some of the most vulnerable children. It is not explained, it is not defended and it is not assessed.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for again giving us an opportunity to discuss and examine the issue of kinship care. I hope that, as the Minister for education is answering the debate, it is an indication that education will work alongside other government departments to consider and make recommendations on kinship care and vulnerable children. Their health, education and welfare is a cross-government matter.
Of course, children being taken into care of any kind are vulnerable. They are all suffering loss. Those being looked after by relatives or friends have often lost a parent or parents through death, imprisonment, drug or alcohol misuse, domestic violence, mental health issues or other trauma. Kinship carers accept these children, some of whom may be very young, because they do not want the child or children to be fostered or adopted outside the family. It is worth remembering that many such carers also become vulnerable at the same time as the child, for reasons I shall discuss.
For about 10 years, I was the chair of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. In that time, I became aware of the issues facing kinship carers, and I met many of them. They were mainly women and they were mainly grandparents. Some of them had had to give up work to become carers and all had financial difficulties, or were grieving for a son or a daughter who had been lost to them for one reason or another. One grandparent I met, or “midnight granny” as they call themselves, suddenly had to take on three children aged between one and seven when her daughter died of a drug overdose—and yes, it did happen at midnight. This woman, who was widowed, lived in a one-bedroom flat and worked. Her life was turned upside down. She gave up her job and fought to be rehoused. The rehousing from that one-bedroom flat took two years, although there were three children. She reported having no help from social services and spent hours every week filling in forms. This is not an untypical case. The woman became vulnerable as her health suffered, and she became poor. She struggled to pay for food, clothing and toys for the children. She unselfishly cared for those vulnerable children lovingly, as so many kinship carers do.
It is perhaps not so astonishing to learn that children in kinship care often do better socially, emotionally and academically than children in other forms of care. I, too, was pleased to become acquainted with Grandparents Plus and the Family Rights Group, which are both part of the Kinship Care Alliance. These organisations have been stalwart in seeking a good deal for kinship carers and the children they look after. Much has been achieved, but there is much to do, and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this cause.
A report from the Family Rights Group and Kinship Care Alliance, which has already been mentioned, points out, interestingly, that 40% of children living in care in England live in the 20% most income-deprived areas, while 95% of children being raised in kinship care are not “looked after” by the local authority. Local authority support to kinship carers is largely at the council’s discretion. Only 5% of children in kinship care are “looked after”, so that they qualify for financial support; the rest suffer. Surely there is an anomaly here. Kinship carers save the Government billions of pounds a year in care costs, but are often treated appallingly by local authorities. When I was working in the substance misuse field, I came across only two local authorities which had dedicated support for family and friends carers, and only around 40% of kinship carers receive regular support from a social worker.
So, along with the Kinship Care Alliance, I would plead with the Government to do three or four things. They should require local authorities to publish a kinship policy, set up a dedicated post to oversee it, particularly in terms of monitoring the progression of children in such care. Kinship carers should be given the same support that is available to adopters, as my noble friend mentioned. Kinship carers should be entitled to free childcare, the pupil premium and priority school admissions. They should be exempt from the limiting of child tax credit to two children, the benefit cap, and the work conditionality rules that have been extended to the carers of under-five year-olds.
In answer to an Oral Question in the House of Commons on 26 October, Edward Timpson, the Minister of State for Children and Families, for whom I have enormous respect, stated that a special guardianship review and social work reform is under way to better support children. He also stated that parental leave, providing greater choice for families trying to balance childcare and work, will help. I am not sure how this latter provision would benefit the kinships carers that I am talking about, so I will need to examine that. But I would like to know when the guardianship review will be finished. Perhaps the Minister could let me know about that later. I look forward to his reply and to his comments on the issues raised in the debate today. Again, I thank my noble friend for introducing it.
Lord Storey (LD)
Perhaps I, too, may start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for initiating the debate, the Kinship Care Alliance for providing briefing by my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield, and indeed the House of Lords Library. I said at Question Time earlier today that it is vital that every child is in a loving and stable family or environment. We have made huge progress over the past few years and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, we should congratulate the Government on what has been achieved. However, we heard during the Question on adoption about the fall in the number of children being adopted, and we saw from DfE figures for up to March of this year that some 6,000 children have gone missing from care. We still have quite a lot of work to do and we need to understand why these things happen. We need to understand the impact that family courts can have on local authorities and how they respond to adoption. So there is always work that needs to be done.
We know that kinship children have often been maltreated so they have greater challenges for us to deal with, yet they have better outcomes, as we heard, than those who are looked-after children. The noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Massey, have already mentioned the figures—200,000 children raised by kinship carers across the UK and 49% of carers had to give up work permanently to do so.
I shall preface my remarks by saying that it is important that children do not just drift into kinship care that might be wholly unsuitable for them. In my professional life, I know of children who have been brought up by a family relative who at best is well-meaning but unsuitable, and at worst a real danger to that child. I agree with the Kinship Care Alliance that the wider family should be explored as the first port of call for a child entering care, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings, and also placing a duty on local authorities to ensure that potential places are explored and assessed for suitability before a child becomes looked after.
There is a long history in the UK of children being cared for by relatives and friends when their parents, for whatever reason, are unable to care for the children themselves. Research and knowledge about kinship care is mostly limited to formal kinship care—commonly meaning placements that are made by child welfare agencies where carers have been approved as kinship foster carers. Much less is known about children who live informally with kin where the arrangements are made outside the responsibility of the child welfare agencies. There is considerable concern, since many more children are likely to live in informal arrangements than formal ones.
The policy on kinship care is developing in the UK but perhaps not in a joined-up way. In 2007, for example, the Scottish Government published a strategy for children living in kinship and foster care. Similarly, the Welsh Government agreed that grandparents and other kinship carers should be included in the delivery of parenting programmes in Wales. In Northern Ireland, minimum kinship standards which were introduced in 2012, specifying the requirements which health and social care trusts have to meet when placing looked-after children in kinship care arrangements, and clarifying the level of service that children and families can expect to receive. These relate only to looked-after children in kinship care.
While the rate of change in our four UK countries is variable, it is important to note that the message from children and kinship carers in each country was the same. For all the carers the greatest difficulty was lack of financial support. This added to their burden and made all aspects of their lives much more difficult. The way in which we deal with kinship care and how it has developed is fragmented and piecemeal. We have a complex and wholly unjust situation. Providing kinship care must be a crucial service to the community—a society caring for its own—but it sometimes pushes carers into poverty. Chance dictates whether kinship carers are supported financially or otherwise. As a result, whether kinship carers receive help financially or in kind is not related to the children’s needs or to the financial situation of the carer. Do we not need to ensure that assistance is related to need?
If we look at other countries, for example, we can learn a lot. In Spain, an allowance is paid to carers on the basis that they have enough money to bring up the child or children in care. This would be a much more equitable way of providing financial support than exists at present and would enable more relatives and friends to take on this role. It would also help in the overall problem. At present, there is considerable variation in whether allowances are paid when private law orders are made. The current discretionary system for providing financial allowances to private law orders needs to be completely overhauled and support for flexible working might enable kinship carers of working age to retain their jobs when children come to live with them. Change is needed to replace the current unjust arrangements for kinship care. We should move towards a national kinship allowance to cover the costs of bringing up the children. We need to support flexible working in the hope that it will enable more kinship carers of working age to retain their jobs when children come to live with them
A duty should be placed on local authorities to conduct a children’s need assessment. Would it not be good if we had a cultural shift in attitude for the major contribution of informal and formal kinship care as a good option for children? We know that kinship carers are under huge pressures and yet, despite taking on a huge burden from the state by looking after children who would otherwise end up in the care system, kinship carers and the children they look after are still an overlooked group who experience high levels of poverty with little or no statutory support.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Armstrong on securing this debate on a most important topic.
Kinship carers include every kind of relative, as well as friends who are raising children unable to live with their parents. They provide a crucial web of support for children who have often suffered in ways that most of us, I suspect, could not imagine. Yet it seems they are undervalued by the organisation that ought to be most indebted to them—the Government.
We know that 95% of children living under kinship care arrangements are not “looked after” by the local authority. Therefore, by keeping vulnerable children out of the care system, these kinship carers save the taxpayer billions of pounds each year in care costs, as noble Lords have already said. The financial cost of raising the child typically falls directly on the kinship carers themselves, yet they are treated as the poor relation in terms of parents looking after children who are not their own.
Kinship carers get less support than those who undertake straight fostering, so it may be in a local authority’s financial interest to place a child under a special guardianship order rather than to remove them from that environment and place them into a foster placement or a children’s home. As my noble friend Lady Armstrong outlined, taking on someone else’s child is much more demanding than just adding a child to your family. The Government should acknowledge this important fact.
By contrast, adoption has been the main focus for the Government recently. The Education and Adoption Bill makes provision for regional adoption agencies, which are a welcome development, and recently we heard from no less an authority than the Prime Minister that further legislation on adoption is apparently in the pipeline. The question that has to be asked is why the same attention has not been given to the 95% of children who are in other forms of care, including those who cannot live with their parents and who are being raised by kinship carers. We might also ask why the same rationale for supporting adoption—not least in terms of post-adoption support—has not been applied to kinship care. Unfortunately, the Education and Adoption Bill was drafted so tightly that the adoption provisions could not be amended in favour of kinship care—or, indeed, any other form of care.
Various noble Lords referred to the survey carried out by the charity Family Rights Group. I will not repeat the figures here, but I pay tribute to the group and to the Kinship Care Alliance for the very thorough briefing that it kindly provided.
We know that a review of special guardianship orders is under way and will report next year. It would be hugely encouraging for the estimated 130,000 families raising children in kinship care across the country—often, as we have heard, at cost to themselves and their own children —if a similar review was announced into kinship care.
My noble friend Lady Drake referred to last night’s refusal by the Government during the welfare reform Bill to exempt parents of adopted children from the two-plus children tax credits limit. That point bears repeating because it makes no sense at all. I know that the Minister will say, “It’s not my department”. Of course, as far as that Bill is concerned he is correct, but it is his responsibility. That mean-spirited decision by his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will impact on his department to a considerable extent. At a time when more parents are needed for all looked-after children, the cost of taking a child under a family’s wing is considerable. Parents who already have their own children will now be deterred for financial reasons from becoming involved, which means it will become even more difficult to find sufficient parents for looked-after children. For kinship care, the decision will make it even more difficult to place sibling groups.
I hope that the Minister is fully aware of the implications of the denial of exemption to parents prepared to take on the care of children from troubled backgrounds and that, as a result, he will speak to his colleague and even echo the case made so eloquently by many noble Lords in this Chamber 24 hours ago. It is not too late to have that important exemption inserted in the welfare reform Bill. The Minister would be failing in his duty of service to the Department for Education and many of the children who rely on it for their care if he does not highlight the damage that will be done to children in kinship care and others as a result of the Government’s, at least current, intransigence.
Finally, why should kinship carers be valued less highly than adoptive parents? My noble friend Lady Massey and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, outlined changes that they advocated to the support that could be supplied to kinship carers. I would add to that a positive step the Government could take: to extend the adoption support fund and the adoption passport to children subject to a special guardianship order. If a child is in the care system the parents looking after them are entitled to foster parent or adoptive parent payments. It is fair to ask why those should not be available to and apply to kinship carers.
Often, an older sibling or grandparent steps in to prevent a child being formally taken into care, but if they do that the support given to them is much less. In effect, they are punished financially for relieving the system of the need to look after that child, which means that both the family and the child lose out. That is surely neither logical nor fair. Typically they are the same children with the same range of needs. The legal route taken on how the child gets the care they need should not matter; it is surely first and foremost about meeting the needs of the child and properly supporting those who take on the role of carer.
I have a huge amount of admiration and respect for anyone willing to look after a child who is not their own and provide them with something they may never have known—a loving home in which the child can flourish and reach their potential. I believe that the Minister shares that view, but he needs to use the influence that comes with his office to demonstrate that kinship carers are valued as highly as any other person acting in loco parentis. I hope he will indicate that that is indeed what he intends to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for calling a debate on this important subject. I am sure that the whole House would agree that kinship carers, many of whom are grandparents, play a pivotal role in caring for children who cannot live with their parents. I welcome the opportunity to answer for the Government in this short debate.
First, I make it clear that the Government do not see a hierarchy between adoption, fostering, residential care or kinship care. We are interested not in favouring one type of care over another, but in what is right for each individual child. Over the last five years we have made significant strides in this regard. I am grateful for the supportive remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, my noble friend Lady Bottomley and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey.
For a majority of children, kinship care will be the first and best option. This is not just because it is what the law requires, but because we know kinship care offers children a vitally important bond of familial love and belonging. That is why we applaud kinship carers who step in, often in a crisis or emergency, to take on the care of a child, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said. There will, of course, be many children being looked after by relatives where care proceedings are not an issue but where the primary carers are ill or in distress and cannot easily care for the child. However, the Government recognise that kinship carers take on a role that might otherwise have to be performed by the state. Kinship carers enable vulnerable children and young people to remain with their families, with people they know and trust who can provide the right commitment, security and stability they need to thrive.
We know, through voluntary sector research, that children benefit from living with their extended family and that placement stability is a factor in children’s later achievement. Children in placements with relatives are likely to be more stable than ones in unrelated fostering or residential care. In particular, research indicates that children in these arrangements have fewer emotional and behaviour problems and achieve more academically. As the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, said, an analysis carried out by researchers at the universities of Oxford and Bristol and published only last week found that, among the cohort of looked-after children who were eligible for GCSEs in 2013, children in kinship care had higher GCSE point scores on average than children in other types of care. That is why, through the discretionary housing fund and through funding the advice line provided by the Family Rights Group, we are trying to help kinship carers to safeguard children’s futures by keeping them within the wider family and community.
I welcome the chance, through this debate, to consider the support available to kinship carers and what we are doing to improve this. We know they need better information and support. That is why, during the previous Parliament, we issued family and friends care statutory guidance for local authorities. This makes clear that every council should publish a family and friends care policy, setting out how it will support the needs of children living with kinship carers, whether or not they are looked after. In particular, we made a commitment to increase the number of local authorities that have published their policies for supporting family and friend carers. Following national sector learning days organised by the DfE with local authorities, 83% of English local authorities have now published a policy, compared with 42% in 2012. We intend to write again to councils on this issue.
We recognise that kinship carers are not always accessing the support they should have. Although most authorities have policies in place, we now have to focus on the quality of the support they offer to family and friends carers. To this end, the department has been funding the voluntary sector organisation Grandparents Plus to develop models of best practice in early help and to identify how to overcome the barriers to providing good, well-structured services and early support for kinship carers. Also, we have seen the use of special guardianship orders increase year on year since their inception in 2005. Special guardians are mainly family members, often grandparents, who provide loving, permanent homes for children. This has largely been a positive development and we welcome it. My department has recently completed a review of special guardianship. Evidence from this suggests that special guardianships are, in the main, positive relationships which protect children’s welfare and improve their outcomes into adulthood. We are currently considering the results of the review, including looking at how we might improve appropriate support to special guardians.
We have been working closely with the key voluntary sector organisations, the Family Rights Group and the Kinship Care Alliance. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, I can say that we plan to publish the report of the review before Christmas. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, referred to the important work done by the Family Rights Group, and we are providing financial support to it for its work with kinship carers through, for instance, its helpline and promoting the use of family group conferences. My department has been funding them for more than seven years. That clearly demonstrates our commitment to the valuable work that they do for kinship carers.
We are currently reviewing our grant payments to voluntary and community-based organisations beyond the end of this financial year in the light of the spending review. We will have more information on this in the new year. In the mean time, I express my thanks to the Family Rights Group for its support to families and emphasise that the Government recognise the important work that it does.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, mentioned the concept of a presumption of kinship care. The law already states that children should be looked after by their families wherever possible. She also mentioned mental health. Improving access to CAMHS for vulnerable children is a priority of this Government. We have committed £1.4 billion to improve mental health services for children and young people over the next five years and we are working closely with the DoH and NHS England. The transformation to services we expect is set out in the Future in Mind report, which makes suggestions about what more can be done to improve access, develop better partnership working with parents and carers and provide the right support for children who have suffered trauma.
Many family members make great sacrifices in order to care for children. Local authorities have a legal duty to support children who leave care under other legal orders, and carers should discuss any needs with their local authorities. Children who have left care for a friends and family placement underpinned by a special guardianship or relevant child arrangement order have access to priority school admissions, pupil premium and free early education for two year-olds.
In relation to support for adopters and whether this should be extended, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the Adoption Support Fund has been set up to address the serious gaps in specialist services for adopted children. It is still in its infancy. If it proves successful, we will look to apply the learning in other areas. We are considering how to improve support for special guardianship as part of the special guardianship review, which, as I said, will be published before Christmas. However, given the wide range of needs and circumstances of family carers, it would be inappropriate as well as complex to provide a national allowance which is both equitable and simple to administer. Children placed in a kinship care arrangement by a local authority are looked-after children, in which case their carer must be approved as a foster carer. In these circumstances, kinship carers must receive the same support as all other foster carers, including financial support. However, the majority of kinship carers will be caring for children who are not looked after. Relatives caring for a child in these circumstances are entitled to support such as child benefit and other benefits available to parents, subject to the usual eligibility criteria. It would be difficult to require local authorities to provide a dedicated support service solely for relative carers, as most of the services required will be the same as those needed by other families.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned that our recent focus had been on adoption; our recent focus has indeed been on improving one area in relation to it. As we have mentioned in other debates, we have done a great deal of work over the last five years on improving the provision for all children in care. The Children and Families Act was a substantial piece of legislation which has substantially improved the fostering arrangements and introduced early placements. Long-term foster care has been recognised as a distinct placement. We have invested £100 million in Pupil Premium Plus. We have virtual school heads and we are currently conducting a review of children’s homes.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
The Minister mentioned other pieces of legislation that have recently gone on to the statute book. I do not expect him to comment specifically on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, but I wonder if he and his department are considering the impact of the decision not to exempt adoptive parents from the two-plus children tax credit limit, because there will undoubtedly be an effect on his department, and indeed on the ability of the number of adopters and kinship carers to be extended in the future.
Lord Nash
Noble Lords will be aware that this was discussed last night. I know that my noble friend Lord Freud will have listened carefully to those arguments and will be considering the response. I will discuss it with him.
Finally, I know that the House recognises the crucial role that working grandparents play in providing childcare and supporting working families, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley mentioned. That is why we have announced plans to extend the current system of shared parental pay and leave to cover working grandparents, thereby providing much greater choice for families trying to balance childcare and work. We will bring forward legislation to enable the change to be implemented by 2018.
I am sure the whole House agrees that kinship carers —grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings and friends—fulfil a vital role in the care system and deserve the continued support of the Government. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Scotland Bill
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“Scottish Senate
(1) There shall be a Scottish Senate which shall be the second chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
(2) The Scottish Senate shall consist of 46 members, to be elected using the Single Transferable Vote system in each region of Scotland, in elections to be held on the same day as the elections for the Scottish Parliament.
(3) Each electoral region shall return the following number of Members—
(a) Central Region: 5 members;(b) Glasgow: 6 members;(c) Highlands and Islands: 4 members;(d) Lothian: 7 members;(e) Mid Scotland & Fife: 5 members;(f) North East Scotland: 7 members;(g) South of Scotland: 6 members;(h) West of Scotland: 6 members.(4) The Boundary Commission for Scotland must keep under review the regions and the number of Members to be returned for each region, and if appropriate make a report to the Secretary of State recommending changes.
(5) Any reports by the Boundary Commission for Scotland under subsection (4) are subject to the requirements, and to the provision for the implementation of recommendations by Order in Council, contained in Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998.
(6) The proceedings of the Scottish Senate shall be regulated by Standing Orders agreed by the Senate.
(7) Standing Orders agreed by the Senate shall include provision for the Senate to—
(a) undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of proposed Bills;(b) consider and propose amendments to legislation agreed by the Scottish Parliament for future consideration by the Scottish Parliament before it is submitted for Royal Assent;(c) debate and pass resolutions on devolved matters; and (d) establish committees with the power to call or require Scottish Ministers to give evidence on any devolved matter.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, if I may plagiarise Monty Python:
“And now for something completely different”.
I am going to be positive and come up with some new ideas, and try not to be repetitive. Many people here will recall that at the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 the late, great Donald Dewar read the first words from the then Scotland Act:
“There shall be a Scottish Parliament”.
He went on to say, “I like that”—and we all felt much the same. But even then, with only one chamber in the Scottish Parliament, questions arose about whether there would be sufficient checks and balances.
The people who raised these questions were reassured by many other people, including from my own party and my own side, and told not to worry about it. First, we were told that that the electoral system they had devised would ensure that no party would have an overall majority—well, we know what happened to that. Secondly, we were told that the committees would have a new role and that they would be the checks to control the overweening and overpowerful Executive. But that has not been the case, as many people here will know. In fact, the irony is that in this Parliament at Westminster, the committees in both Houses have been far more powerful in controlling the Executive, challenging and questioning them, whichever Government are in power, than they have been at Holyrood. It was also agreed at the time that the electoral system would be reviewed after two elections if it did not appear to be working in the right way—but that review has not happened.
After the last election, we have effectively in Scotland a one-party state. That controversial comment has been made by a number of people and challenged by the SNP, because of course there are other parties in the Scottish Parliament, but it has an overall majority which it uses powerfully, coherently and effectively. It has decided to choose one of its number as the Presiding Officer but could have chosen someone from another party. There has never been a Labour Presiding Officer, for example, in the Scottish Parliament. When we were the largest party at first in 1999, we allowed—in fact, we encouraged and moved—the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to become Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament, much to the chagrin of my good and noble friend Lord Maxton.
The majority on committees is exercised powerfully. I do not know of one committee report that has been critical of the Scottish Government. The Justice Committee got nearest but was still far away.
Civil society—I had better not mention the Law Society of Scotland on this occasion—is increasingly in thrall to the one party in control at Holyrood, using, alternately, the carrot and the stick. As a result of that, there have been a number of mistakes, and the Scottish Parliament has legislated in ways that have caused tremendous problems, which I would argue would not have happened if there had been either pre-legislative scrutiny or a second look by a second chamber. Police reform is one example, and there are several examples in education, for example in the current universities Bill, which is creating huge problems already.
I will mention two specific examples, since, as we saw in the last few debates, we have so many lawyers in the House. One was the misguided attempt to abandon corroboration in Scots law—my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey played a large part in raising concerns about this issue—which would not have happened if there had been either pre-legislative scrutiny or checks by a second chamber.
The other is the Act that is supposed to deal with sectarianism in Scottish football. As a number of Members will know, I am a great enthusiast for a particular football team, Heart of Midlothian Football Club. Unfortunately, there has been sectarianism in Scotland over time. The Government brought in the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act, which has been criticised not just by Celtic and Rangers but by a number of people. I read in today’s Daily Record that even Phil Boswell, an SNP MP—who is under a bit of criticism for other things at the moment—said his own party’s law on this was a “major blunder”. I would argue that that major blunder would not have happened if we had had the second chamber that I am proposing.
The second Chamber here has asked the other Chamber—the House of Commons—the government majority in it and, thereby, the Government to think again on a number of things. We asked them to think again on onshore wind after they arbitrarily cut the grants a year early. We are currently looking at votes at 16 and 17 and asking them to think again—today they were doing that and thinking again about it. Most notably, we asked them to think again about tax credit cuts, and thankfully the Chancellor did think again and decided to abandon the proposals. He would not have done that if we had not challenged the measure in the House of Lords.
This brings me to my proposals. Some people, including some of my own friends, have suggested that this is yet another ad hoc change to our constitution. I agree with that and am only doing it because that is the way we do things at the moment. I repeat what I have said on so many occasions in this House: I am in favour of a UK constitutional convention to look at things in a comprehensive way. But we are not at that position yet, as the Government have not accepted it. Everyone else—every other party and much of civil society—has accepted it but the Government have not yet been persuaded to accept it, so we have to look at this bit by bit.
I am suggesting a senate of modest size, with 46 members. I have given the number of members that would be elected in each of the eight regions of Scotland, based on the current electorate, which brings us to a total of 46. I am grateful to the Legislation Office for help in drafting this amendment. One of its suggestions was that the Boundary Commission for Scotland should be included and be given the power to look at the regions and the number of members returned from each region. I think that is right.
I suggest that it should be elected by a different system from the present Scottish Parliament, and I suggest single transferable vote. That is not to get the support of the Liberal Democrats—I have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, who sends her apologies for not being able to be here today—but because it is the right thing to do, not in every case but in this particular one.
Also, I suggest the election should take place at the same time as that for the Scottish Parliament. One of the other criticisms I have had about my proposal is the cost of it. The cost would be reduced if the elections were carried out at the same time. There have been suggestions from my noble friend Lord Maxton and others that it might be better to have it in between elections to the Scottish Parliament, and that is something I would be willing to look at.
The senate I propose would be able to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny and review legislation. It would have debates as we do on topics of particular interest and committees with the power to call Ministers to give evidence. As I say, the one criticism I have had is that of cost. That is why the size is relatively modest. I do not necessarily think that its members need to be full-time, although that is something again that can be looked at.
We can find an existing building in which they could meet. I suggest that a wonderful place for them to meet would be the Old Royal High School, which was converted for our use as a Scottish Parliament had we voted for that in 1979. Many Members here who were Members of the other place will have been at meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee there and it worked extremely well. It looks like a parliament and senate. One noble friend who apologises for having to leave early—he expected this debate to take place a bit earlier but reckoned without some of the fights that took place opposite—suggested that there is a suitable building in Glasgow that might be used for this purpose. Certainly, that could be looked at.
In coming forward with this proposal, I looked at other countries—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The noble Lord twice mentioned cost but has not told us how much this would cost.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Lord knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. The value of this is that it would be an extension of democracy. It would be a very small price to pay for that.
I have looked at other countries. In Ireland, all the main political parties two years ago proposed to get rid of their Senate. The Members of the Dáil wanted complete control and they held a referendum.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
This is the moving of an amendment in Committee. We have Report and later stages coming up, and by that time, if the noble Lord is still here and able to ask a question, I am sure he will get an answer. The cost depends on a whole variety of things and at this stage he can shake his head and put his finger up—we all know what a cynic he is. The new Minister has found out what a damned nuisance he is, as well. He is a thorn in the flesh of the Government but I will certainly not let him be a thorn in my flesh. He will get his answer in good time. As I said earlier, he wants to know the price of everything but knows the value of very little.
I looked at other countries. I looked at Ireland and in the referendum there two years ago all the main parties wanted rid of the Senate. Incidentally, all the opinion polls in the run-up to the referendum said that it would be abolished. The opinion polls in Ireland are no more accurate than they are in the United Kingdom or in Scotland. The people of Ireland decided to keep their senate; they wanted to have control over the powerful Executive of the Government in Ireland, which I was very pleased to see.
I was talking to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, yesterday, and he told me that in Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1975 a senate operated very effectively at Stormont, which is something that can be looked at as well. The other interesting thing, on which I conclude, because I am trying not to take up too much time after a lot of time was taken up earlier, are the other areas of devolved legislatures. Every state of the United States has two Chambers; in Australia, all of them except for Queensland have two Chambers. If it is good enough for New South Wales and Massachusetts to have that kind of democracy, and be able to pay for it, it is good enough for Scotland. This will be a great extension of democracy in Scotland; it will make sure that the kind of decisions that I mentioned, which have caused real problems because they have not been thought through, are unlikely to happen again, and I hope that it will be given sympathetic consideration by Members on all sides of this House today.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I rise to make a few brief comments on a very thought-provoking summary from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. In my speech on Second Reading, I mentioned the issue of scrutiny, as it is a great concern to me. As I said, what concerns me is the very heavy constituency load that members of the existing Parliament have, which means that they simply do not have time to perform proper scrutiny of the legislation, of which there is an awful lot in the Scottish Parliament. I would further develop the argument to say that, if we are lumping a whole lot more powers into the Scottish Parliament, that problem is going to be exacerbated. Therefore, the quality of legislation—and I speak as a resident of Scotland—will inevitably go down.
I make a further point on the skill set required for scrutiny. I had the great benefit of watching the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, prepare for today by just by chance being in and out of his office a few times. The care and precision with which he prepared today and the great scholarship that he has—reflected also by the noble Lord, Lord Norton—do not necessarily exist in the constituency MPs in the current Holyrood Parliament, but they are very necessary for the proper scrutiny of legislation, as we are doing today.
There is also an old adage about absolute power. It disappoints me that the Scottish Parliament has an absolute power today and is in many ways a more powerful Parliament and executive than this Parliament, where at least the mirror can be held up, and the Lords can say no—as they have several times already—which makes the Government reconsider things, which drives change for the better.
I want to address cost and perhaps answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. If it costs £200,000 per member, it would be £9.2 million; if it cost £400,000 per member, depending on what sort of Parliament you had, it would be double that, at just under £20 million. I think that the cost is likely to be in that area, but it would be small compared to the loss of things such as foreign direct investment or the economic damage inflicted by badly drafted and badly thought-through legislation. However, I have one concern: I am not sure that this Bill is the proper place for this set of thoughts, but it is certainly a very valid set of thoughts, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for raising them.
Lord Lyell (Con)
I am fascinated by the marvellous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I was interested that he mentioned one of my great passions, which has occupied a good bit of the Scottish Parliament and is about sectarianism at the football. Indeed, a leading sheriff in Dundee pointed out that he regarded the legislation as “mince”—I hope that is not an abusive term. It came down to the fact of lip-reading whether a supporter was singing the correct words of “The sash my father wore” or other terms which might be abusive. Leaving that aside, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for trying to get a revising chamber for the Scottish Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was kind enough to refer to the superb Second Reading speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The noble Lord was quite tactful not to mention that the noble and learned Lord referred to sheep—that was one of the more moderate aspects. I appreciated what the noble and learned Lord had to say. One of the points he made in that the proposal is relevant to the amendment before us. It was about the standard of pre-legislative scrutiny by the committees of existing Members of the Scottish Parliament. If the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, believes that there is a field of 92 people in Scotland who can provide a higher standard of scrutiny—quite apart from the cost and the time involved—I salute him for his optimism, but I wonder whether, with all the guidance that many of these so-called amateurs might need, he will be able to find them.
On the other hand, I look around your Lordships’ House this evening and find my noble friend Lord Dundee. When it comes to cost, I am tempted to think of the chant “Up with the wallets of bonnie Dundee”. He might be paying, or some of us might be thought to be rich enough to pay ourselves, but I am not too sure. If your Lordships would care to glance at the Second Reading speech and comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, if I were a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I would repeat the wise words of the Vietnamese gentleman Do Duck Low and stay well out of the criticisms that have been quite justifiably directed in that area. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his imagination and thought, but on the other hand I dread to think what the cost might be.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, I remember that “Monty Python” always finished with the words, “And now for something completely different”. It used to throw my late father-in-law into a paroxysm because he could not stand “Money Python”, but we all insisted on watching it. He would think it was the end and give a great big sigh of relief, and then they would go, “And now for something completely different”, and end with exactly the same thing that they had been doing for the rest of the programme.
I have three points on this amendment. First, I support it. I did not support a second Chamber in the first place when we set up the Scottish Parliament because I felt that the powers we were giving it did not warrant a second one. Now that we are giving it extra powers, that warrants having a second Chamber as a balance to the first Chamber. Secondly, I do not believe, as my noble friend said, that the elections ought to be on the same day because there is a grave danger of the political make-up of the senate being exactly the same as the Scottish Parliament and that raises problems about what it will do and how it will be a counterbalance to the main Chamber if it is of the same political complexion. It would perhaps be more expensive to have the elections in between, but they could be on a day when other elections were taking place and, of course, if it were done my way electronically with an ID card, the cost would eventually be considerably less than at present.
Thirdly, if you elect people to a position, they will insist on having more power than my noble friend is prepared to give this senate. That is what happened in the United States. Believe it or not, the original Senate in the States was appointed and had little power; it had the same sort of powers that we have here. Once it moved to an elected system, though, it became increasingly powerful, and in the end was more powerful than the House of Representatives. That, I fear, is the danger with the senate that my noble friend is proposing: eventually you will have elections and they will insist on taking more power than the major body, which is elected by a different system.
I am a first past the post man first and foremost so obviously I would like the senate to be elected that way, along with the Scottish Parliament itself; we would not be in the fix that we are now if we had had first past the post in 2007.
Baroness Adams of Craigielea (Lab)
On the point about the Scottish Parliament: if there were to be a senate, does my noble friend envisage that we would still have to retain the same numbers in the Scottish Parliament?
Lord Maxton
That is a very good point. I look forward to my noble friend Lady Adams tabling an amendment to my noble friend’s amendment on Report. It is an interesting question: why should you have the same numbers in the Scottish Parliament if you have a senate as well?
I support what my noble friend is proposing but we have to look very carefully at it. I hope to be able to move amendments on Report.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I have to say I am astonished that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, should move this amendment at this stage of the Bill. He has spent the past two years arguing against piecemeal constitutional reform and has sat uncharacteristically silent throughout these proceedings, no doubt because he believes in what the Bill is trying to do, which is to allow the Scottish Parliament to determine its own rules and provisions, including on composition and the rest. But here he is, wanting to impose an entirely new body upon it as a second Chamber, ignoring the difficulties that this House has had with the other place in resolving the issue of what you do, if you have two elected Houses, to avoid gridlock and squabbles over powers. Quite frankly, if one were going to create a second Chamber for the Scottish Parliament, which I would have thought was entirely a matter for the Scottish Parliament, it would need to be done in a way that addressed these problems. On the basis of the performance of this House, I should think that that would take at least 100 years and still not be resolved. I find it extraordinary that, with so much to do in the Bill, we should be discussing an issue of this kind.
Also, if the answer to a problem is more politicians, you have certainly asked the wrong question, particularly in the current climate. In Scotland we are overrun with politicians: we have 129 in the Scottish Parliament and 59 MPs, and our constituents have no idea who is responsible for what or who their representatives are. Add to that some people called senators, and I think that the noble Lord will complete the task, already pretty well achieved, of having the electorate treat Members of Parliament with a certain degree of contempt and as a laughing stock.
Lord Maxton
I have to ask the Lord whether he actually believed in being a politician, democratically elected by his constituents. At the end of the day, that is what a politician is: a democratically elected representative of the people. I would not say that more is always better, but it does not necessarily follow that more is necessarily bad.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To deal with the point about politicians, after I left the House of Commons in 1997—or was asked to leave by the electorate—I went to work for Flemings as a banker, and was very proud to call myself a banker. Then, when the financial crisis came along, things got so bad that I started calling myself a politician again. Then we had the expenses scandal so I decided to call myself a company director. Perhaps the noble Lord does not realise that there is a problem, not just in Scotland or in Britain but in France, America and elsewhere—you can see that in some of the eccentric choices that are being made now by the electorate—which comes from a complete contempt for the political class. At this time of all times, when money is short—and by the way, we have not seen the fiscal framework, but when the Bill goes through, money will be very short indeed in the Scottish Parliament, when it substitutes a Barnett grant for a tax base—the notion that they could find money to have an extra 40-plus politicians plus all the attendant special advisers, the machinery and the rest, is utterly ridiculous. Therefore I hope that we will not spend very much time discussing this amendment, which is a complete distraction and totally wrong.
However, the noble Lord is perfectly correct to say that there is a problem with the governance of the Scottish Parliament. Can I just gently point out who was responsible for this? When the noble Lord cited all these examples of failures of policy—I could add considerably more—where was the Labour Party? Where was the opposition in the Scottish Parliament standing up to all of this? Therefore the fault did not lie in the lack of a second Chamber but in the opposition to the SNP and in the case of my own party, which gave it the ability to be in government by supporting it in government, some criticism could be made. However, this is not an argument for a second Chamber but for having vigorous Members of the Scottish Parliament, who I hope will be elected in May, doing the job they are required to do.
As regards numbers in the proposals there is already great confusion—we will come on to this later in the Bill—about the boundaries of constituencies and responsibilities. I was very struck by a poll by ITN, when it discovered that some huge number of the Scottish electorate—90%, I think—had absolutely no idea what powers were going to be conveyed by the Scotland Bill on the Scottish Parliament. When asked, a similarly higher percentage—well over 50%—were of the opinion that whatever the powers were, they did not go far enough. Therefore there is a job to do for the Scottish Parliament in engaging with the electorate and a job for the opposition. It is true that they are failing in a wide range of policy matters, but a House of lairds—a bunch of people calling themselves senators—will not resolve this problem. Fortunately, however, it is not a problem for this House but for the Scottish Parliament.
Lord McCluskey (CB)
My Lords, I may be brief. I made points in my Second Reading speech which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has referred to. We are all agreed about one thing: there is a problem. Whether the unelected House of Lords is the right place to start giving a lead in that matter is something entirely different. I would not fashion the problem in precisely the words that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has mentioned—the one-party state. I think I have previously used the expression that was made well known by Lord Hailsham, “an elective dictatorship”, because in substance that is what you have in the Scottish Parliament at the moment. The Scottish National Party, for its own reasons, whips its MPs so effectively that there is no dissent, and for reasons that I mentioned at Second Reading, the weakness of the opposition is palpable. There are good people and, by the way, one or two good committees as well, but the committees of which I have experience, which are largely to do with justice, are not satisfactory.
I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, that there is a problem with having an elected House. The great thing about the House of Lords is that it is not elected, therefore we are not answerable to constituents, and because very few of us are left with ambition, having reached an age and a state in our careers when ambition is no longer available to us, we can say what we think. However, that is not a popular idea in the country generally.
I am not sure that I am totally committed to the idea of an elected second Chamber but there must be some system. One forgets that many of the institutions that are extremely powerful in shaping the political debate and the political results in this country are not elected at all. I mention, for example, the press, which is said to be free and independent. It may be free, and it is independent of government, but in no sense is it elected by anyone. I get no say in who appoints the editors of the Times or the Sun or, for that matter, the Daily Mail, and they have considerably more influence than this House over what happens in this country, but they are not elected either.
This may be just a start but I feel that there is a duty on those of us who share the idea that there is a real problem to publicise that problem in Scotland and to try to persuade the Scottish electorate and the people generally that it has to be tackled, although perhaps not in this way. However, I certainly support the idea that “something must be done”—an expression which I hesitate to use because of its antecedents.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it was fairly dispiriting to come back into the Chamber and to see our archaic language—which, as a Member of this House compared with being a Member of the Scottish Parliament, it has taken me a while to adjust to—on the annunciator. It announced that the House was “Adjourned during pleasure”, and it was dispiriting when the “pleasure” ended and the Scotland Bill was brought back to us. When I first saw that announcement on joining this House, I asked the Clerk of the Parliaments was it was. He asked me, “Didn’t you have any pleasure in the Scottish Parliament?”. I replied, “No, not very much at all”.
It was a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. His persuasive skills are renowned but I am afraid that I am not persuaded by the case that he made. When I was a constituency Member of the Scottish Parliament, I considered it to be absolutely my duty to be as effective in that role as anyone else, but I was also aware of the pressures on constituency and regional Members of the Scottish Parliament. At one time, I was a member of three parliamentary committees: two were legislative and one—the Finance Committee—was both a scrutiny and a legislative committee. There was most certainly a strain on the number of Members.
It is worth reflecting that it was not designed to be like that. When the Parliament was established and the consultative steering group looked at the fundamental principles of how the Scottish Parliament should operate, it was designed to be a very different type of institution from the one here. There was going to be much stronger pre-legislative scrutiny and that element has been successful. This Parliament has learnt from that approach to pre-legislative scrutiny, with draft Bills now becoming the norm.
The committees in the Scottish Parliament, because of its nature, are both legislative and scrutiny committees. They were designed to be the strength of the Parliament. In a previous element, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that the Scottish Parliament sits for only one and a half days. When I was a Member of that Parliament, that was a frustrating misconception reinforced by some of the press, which I felt had an agenda against the Parliament. There were plenary sessions but, unlike in this place, the committees in the Scottish Parliament had precedence. They met on Tuesday mornings, Tuesday afternoons and Wednesday mornings because of their distinct role.
The feeling was that the convenors of committees were going to be equal to Ministers and that their parliamentary strength was going to be in balancing the Executive’s authority. There was to be a shadow civic Parliament, with a much stronger civic input into the way that the Parliament operated. It is disappointing—there is a mea culpa from my party, which was part of the Administration early on, but it has most certainly been accelerated since 2007—that the Scottish Parliament has become remarkably like the Westminster Parliament. It has an absolutely dominant Executive and the committees have gradually become weaker. Their convenors are not even elected by the whole Parliament—an innovation of the House of Commons. The procedures of the Parliament have become weak in relation to power over the Executive when it comes to money. If there is anything that the Scottish Parliament can learn from our experience now, it is that Parliaments that reduce the ability to hold government to account for the money that it spends on behalf of the people are weakened Parliaments.
Ultimately, that has meant that there have been some examples where there has been less scrutiny than I, as a former Member of the Parliament, would have liked—whether that is on police reform, where mine was the only party to vote against what has happened because there was a large majority and the Executive were able to take it through; criminal justice reform; two areas that are currently being challenged by Brussels, on the Scottish Futures Trust and the delivery of infrastructure; minimum unit pricing, which has been challenged; or the quality. Fundamentally, these are my observations as a former Member who loves that institution, wishes it well and was a very proud Member of it.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: it is not for this place to tell that institution what to do. If this place is to have a role—I know that members of the major party in Scotland will never accept that, and I understand the reasons for it—it is sometimes for former Members of the institutions with deep respect say to that institution that it is worth it considering its own procedures. I live in the area that I used to represent as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and so I maintain a vested interest in that Parliament working well.
There is a case for some form of much heightened, strengthened pre-legislative scrutiny. Sir David Edward, whose qualifications I do not need to rehearse, argued in a very good lecture for a council of state, using the existing organisations that we currently have set up in Scotland—for example, the ombudsman—to be a much stronger check on the proposals being put forward. Corroboration is one area where there should have been stronger pre-legislative scrutiny.
Equally, I believe that there will increasingly be an argument for some form of check before the final stages of Scottish Parliament legislation. If there is a reformed House of Lords, it could be that we have a mandate from the Scottish people directly, or indirectly through the Scottish Parliament for senators in this place, and may well have some joint capacity with both the UK and Scottish Parliaments—I will not need to address the next amendment, which deals with the working relationships, because this is my point. Noble Lords may not be entirely surprised to hear me say that, ultimately, that should be one area that we consider in a constitutional convention: to look at the proper functioning and continued strengthening of how the Scottish Parliament operates and the areas where this institution should rightly have a relationship with it. Ultimately, we should seek a better, stronger Scottish Parliament, able to do its job.
Therefore, I am not persuaded by the solution that the noble Lord has brought forward, but I hope, with the deepest of respect to the institution that I love, that it takes it very seriously, especially in the context of the successful passage of this Bill, in which the Scottish Government’s powers over budget and taxation will be greatly enhanced.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to take up any more time on this issue. However, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, that when I followed the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, at Second Reading I asked him a question. The question was whether, having regard to what we see in the Bill, he felt that the Scottish Parliament was able to cope with the additional powers that we are passing to it. Of course it is a matter for that Parliament to work its own procedures; I absolutely understand that. However, we do have an interest, since we are devolving these additional powers. It would be very unfortunate if the Parliament as presently constructed, and designed for a totally different situation, was so overloaded that it could not fulfil its function.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, for similar reasons, I will keep my comments brief, not least since I see that the target is to reach Amendment 42 this evening.
There is general agreement that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has done us a service, because he has identified a problem. The question is how we address that problem, and there are two facets to it. One is how to ensure that there is a review of the present Chamber, but the problem has also been identified as to how, as responsibilities grow, it is going to cope with the demands made on it.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock for bringing this forward. I cannot help but make the point that it is a pity that we are dealing with this at this time of night and that noble Lords are curtailing their contributions in this most significant period of the evening. Quite frankly, we have been treated to two or three hours of negativity and continual attacks on the Bill and the Ministers bringing forward the Bill, and it is refreshing to have an extremely positive contribution from my noble friend to address a problem—and there is a problem.
Saying that there is a one-party state is overstating it, but we miss the experience of having Scottish nationalist party Members in this House contributing to this debate. It is mirrored in some ways in the Scottish Parliament where the committee system was supposed to balance things. However, I understand that one party controls the committee chairs and members of committees. They are not operating as a check and balance on the Executive. That is to be regretted.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes has no great expectation —although you never know—of this amendment being incorporated into the Bill, but he has sparked a debate about a real issue that we need to address, which the people of Scotland, the Scottish nationalist party and the other Scottish political parties have to look at as well. I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that this is probably not the Bill to do that in, but by moving the amendment my noble friend has raised the issue, highlighted it and received some very thoughtful contributions from noble Lords. They had elements of negativity, but they nevertheless addressed the problem. I will not mention anyone in particular who has been negative all night, but he knows who is.
My noble friend has done us all a service by bringing this forward. The details are in the amendment and noble Lords will understand the amount of work that has been put in by my noble friend in assembling it. It is a first-class amendment and we are not opposed to it. We congratulate our noble friend on bringing it forward and hope that it sparks a debate not just in this Chamber but with our Scottish National Party colleagues in Scotland so that they can turn their mind to this. That would be the real bonus to come from my noble friend’s contribution. If we can spark a debate in Scotland so that the situation is looked at, my noble friend will have done a commendable service. I therefore appeal to our colleagues in Scotland to give this proposal particular attention.
We can be proud of the example we set. Most of us here, although not all, are determined not to destroy the place by what could be called irresponsible behaviour. Most of us are committed to the positive side of this House and the revising job that it does. I would like to see something like that in Scotland and I hope that we can take our Scottish National Party colleagues along with us. I think that the people of Scotland would be better served by that. I close by again thanking my noble friend for his extremely thoughtful contribution.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, might appreciate, I am increasingly conscious that the robust scrutiny of this Chamber could be seen as an elegant example of how a second Chamber can operate. Be that as it may, the proposal he has put forward by way of his amendment is not a reflection of what was contained in the Smith commission agreement. The establishment of a second Chamber did not feature. However, as noble Lords will be aware, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in his personal recommendations observed that the transfer of these substantial new powers would mean that the Scottish Parliament’s oversight of the Scottish Government would need to be strengthened. I recognise the noble Lord’s desire to see that the exercise of these substantial new powers should be properly and effectively scrutinised.
This Government fully endorse the recommendation made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that the Scottish Parliament’s oversight of the Scottish Government needs to be strengthened, but as the noble Lord set out, it is in the first instance the responsibility of the Presiding Officer and the Scottish Parliament to take forward this important work. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his contribution to this debate and for putting before us what was noted by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, to be a real issue. Nevertheless, I say on behalf of the Government that this is not the place for such an amendment. This is not a place to bring in such a proposal when it was not addressed in the Smith commission agreement, and I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I start with an apology to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for my irritation earlier. As my noble friend Lord Kirkhill pointed out to me, the Minister has not been a Member of this House for very long and we should be more tolerant, which is something that perhaps some on his own side ought to reflect on as well. I hope he will accept my sincere apologies.
However, I think he is wrong: just because this proposal was not in Smith, that does not mean it cannot be in the Bill. The Bill states:
“To amend the Scotland Act 1998 and make provision about the functions of the Scottish Ministers; and for connected purposes”.
It does not say that it is simply to implement the Smith commission work. So my amendment is entirely in order. Indeed, the Public Bill Office would not have allowed me to get away with tabling it if it was not.
Perhaps I may say how much I welcome the fairly widespread support for the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, I think everyone recognises that there is a problem. I thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, had a better description of it when he quoted Lord Hailsham talking about an elected dictatorship rather than the effective one-party state that I have described. There are different ways of dealing with it and I have put forward one suggestion. It has been suggested by some in certain quarters, astonishingly, that this is not our responsibility. Notwithstanding that, the same people are trying to impose all sorts of things on the Scottish Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, is right to say that the Presiding Officer, along with her colleagues, has the principal responsibility for this, but there is nothing to stop us, as we saw earlier, making recommendations and indeed legislating.
The only two people who have been Members of the Scottish Parliament who have spoken are the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and me, and we both have respect. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, spoke in this debate although he did in previous ones and, of course—he keeps changing his name so I can never remember James’s latest title—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Thank you. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, was also a Member of the Scottish Parliament.
I have the same respect as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and I understand why he may not be as convinced as I am of the need for change. I served on the audit committee and we did some good work with Hugh Henry in the chair, but that was a time when the SNP did not have an overall majority. I do not know whether the noble Lord fully realises and appreciates the change that has taken place since the SNP has had a total overall majority. We know of PMQs, but even worse are FMQs when the First Minister has the last word. Look at the size of the Executive. What Willie Ross and three junior Ministers used to do is now being done by 13 Cabinet Ministers, each paid over £100,000, and 11 other Ministers. It is really quite astonishing the way in which that has grown.
I accept from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—I do not accept it from others—that this matter would be best dealt with in an overall way through a constitutional convention. The noble Lord and I have been active in that. It is difficult on this occasion, but to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, he also supports the idea of a constitutional convention. However, he has so far been unable to persuade his Government that that is the right thing to do. To some extent it would be useful if he spent some energy trying to persuade his Government to accept the wisdom of that.
I really welcome the support from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. His point about constituency Members being very busy dealing with case loads is a really important one, which added to the case that I made. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who, like me, is a football fan. He knows that it is astonishing that some people can be put in prison for up to five years for one of these offences. That is now being criticised by some on that side in the Scottish National Party, but nothing seems to be able to be done about it. I am grateful for the qualified support of my noble friend Lord Maxton. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, there is a danger that an elected House will want to accrue power. That is something that we must take account of as well.
So, there is a problem; I think everyone recognises that. It is not something to which there is an easy solution. That is why any solution that is brought forward by anyone will be open to criticism of one kind or another. However, it is about time we talked about these things. It is even more important that the issues are addressed in Scotland by Scottish civil society, as well as by the Scottish Parliament. After all, the Scottish Parliament itself says that it is the people of Scotland who ultimately have sovereignty. I am one of those people; I speak not just as a Member of this House. I have been getting quite a lot of support on Twitter for this proposal—I do not often get support on Twitter as some noble Lords will know—and quite a lot of support from other quarters, so it is about time that we started looking at the issue in a sensible, coherent and systematic way. If I have contributed just a little to that, I will feel it was worth while to move the amendment. Nevertheless, I withdraw it.
The Earl of Dundee
“Cooperation between the Scottish and United Kingdom institutionsCooperation between the Scottish and United Kingdom institutions: reporting
(1) Within a year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must review the impact of the provisions in this Act on cooperation between the Scottish institutions and United Kingdom institutions and prepare a report.
(2) In the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and must consider the impact of the provisions in this Act on—
(a) the level of transparency and sharing of information between the United Kingdom institutions and the Scottish institutions; (b) the level of cooperation between the United Kingdom institutions and the Scottish institutions;(c) the sharing of examples of best practice between the United Kingdom institutions and the Scottish institutions; and(d) the appropriateness of devolution arrangements in Scotland.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report prepared under subsection (1) before Parliament.
(4) In this section, “Scottish institutions” means—
(a) the Scottish Government,(b) the Scottish Parliament, and (c) Scottish authorities to which power is transferred under this Act.(5) In this section “United Kingdom institutions” means—
(a) the Parliament of the United Kingdom;(b) the Government of the United Kingdom; and(c) United Kingdom authorities from which power is transferred under this Act.”
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, if adopted, would enable the Secretary of State to prepare a report within a year of enacting the Bill. The subject would cover four aspects: the level of co-operation between Scottish and United Kingdom institutions; transparency and information sharing between them; the sharing of examples of best practice between them; and, as supported by their joint endeavours, an assessment of how successful and appropriate the journey of devolution itself may have become.
Such a report by the Secretary of State could well begin with this fourth aspect. For, to be effective at all, the journey of devolution must go beyond the administrative centre in Edinburgh. Otherwise, Scotland’s different regions and localities would not sufficiently benefit. Equally important, therefore, are the resolve and actions of the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments together to ensure that they do.
The Earl of Kinnoull
My Lords, I am attracted by the thinking behind this amendment. I remind your Lordships of a few lines from the Smith commission report, headed, “Inter-governmental working”:
“Throughout the course of the Commission, the issue of weak inter-governmental working was repeatedly raised as a problem”.
It went on:
“Both Governments need to work together to create a more productive, robust, visible and transparent relationship”.
Then, later on:
“I would encourage them to find solutions”.
This amendment, and the thinking behind it, drives at that area and, therefore, has my total support.
Following on from the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, it is a pity that the SNP are not here to talk to this issue. Thanks purely to their party political policy, they, as the self-styled voice of Scotland, are not here voicing their opinions or advancing amendments. Indeed, we would have none of its amendments were it not for the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I regret this self-inflicted state of affairs.
Anything which promotes co-operation, co-ordination and communication is part of the business of good government. I thought it would be helpful for your Lordships to have one real example of the problems associated with devolution. I am the chairman of the Red Squirrel Survival Trust, a UK-wide charity which is doing pretty well what it says on the tin. Red squirrels run backwards and forwards across the border between England and Scotland with no barrier. In the autumn of 2013, I had a meeting with two senior officials from Scottish National Heritage; men of great calibre and enthusiasm. During the meeting, it came out that they did not know their opposite numbers in England or their telephone numbers. A red squirrel is a UK-wide mammal which is severely endangered, but communication totally broke down at the point of devolution. Being the men they were, they instantly began working at a solution and something called the United Kingdom Squirrel Accord, which covers problems for both red and grey squirrels and for broadleaved trees, grew up. I am, in fact, the chairman of that as well and I salute its work. That is an excellent example of where, if communication, co-ordination and co-operation break down, you get bad government, not good.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I will just intervene, rather than make a speech. I agree absolutely with the noble Earl and with the amendment. I do not know whether the noble Earl has heard but at Question Time I regularly ask UK Ministers, again and again, what discussions they have had with their Scottish counterparts. Invariably, it is none. They ought to meet with them more often. The trouble with Westminster, and Whitehall in particular, is that they do not pay enough attention to the devolved Administrations where there are the kind of issues, such as the red squirrels, which the noble Earl mentioned.
The Earl of Kinnoull
I am grateful to the noble Lord: I had heard that. It is an endemic issue. With the squirrel accord, various governmental bodies from the Welsh, Northern Ireland, English and Scottish Governments now actually sit together once a quarter. If they cannot do so, they are on the telephone. They know each other and have to meet face to face once a year. I feel a bit like a schoolmaster there, but it is extremely effective in this one tiny area. The amendment, and the thinking behind it, could be very effective because the nature of this report will be to find out where there are weaknesses. We have very high-quality officials north and south of the border and, once a problem is identified, they have the ability to sort it out. Therefore, the thinking behind the amendment deserves consideration, if not, perhaps, its precise wording. It is very much within the scope of the Bill, given the quote that I read out. I commend it to the Committee.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I, too, strongly support this amendment. If I have a quarrel with it, it is that I do not think it goes far enough. If I have read the amendment correctly, it focuses simply on the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. The focus on the quality and quantity of co-operation that does or does not exist should go beyond just what this Bill is seeking to achieve; its scope should include all the provisions and measures that have led to the devolved constitution we now have.
For a similar reason I wonder why this amendment seeks just a single report on the level of co-operation that is being achieved. That co-operation is such an important continuing ingredient of a successful devolved constitution that it should not simply be subject to a single one-off review and report.
The perspective that I bring to this precedes the wisdom that the Smith commission added in this area and goes back to the Calman commission, of which I was a member. Noble Lords may remember that the longest chapter in the Calman commission report turned out to be chapter four. We came up with 25 recommendations under just that chapter, which concerned strengthening co-operation. The evidence that we took on the need for co-operation was compelling. The evidence from other countries with stable and successful devolved constitutions was especially compelling. It was quite clear from that evidence that the ability of different Governments and Parliaments to co-operate and work together in a constructive and structured manner is an absolutely fundamental ingredient of a resilient, flexible and successful devolved constitution. There was nothing ambiguous about the evidence that we took.
We also took evidence on the extent to which people in Scotland and interests in Scotland expected there to be constructive co-operation between the Governments and Parliaments of the United Kingdom and Scotland. They expected it to be a norm, not an exception. However, the depressing conclusion that we came to when we reported was that, apart from a few bright spots, good, constructive co-operation between the United Kingdom and Scotland was an exception, not a norm. Therefore, I very much support the direction of travel of this amendment. However, as I said, I would go very much further and widen its scope to include all the measures that comprise the devolved constitution, and I would make it a continuing or regular discipline rather than a one-off one.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dundee on the very attractive sentiments that he expressed in moving his amendment. I also congratulate my noble friends Lord Kinnoull and Lord Lindsay on their contributions, both of which were extremely attractive. That shows how well the elected Members of this House are performing their duties.
I would like to broaden the subject slightly—as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and one or two others—to intergovernmental relations, as it is a very important area. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, was absolutely right to draw attention to it in one of his four points in his preface to the Smith commission report. During the Second Reading debate, I and others made reference to it.
Your Lordships might like to know that the Constitution Committee undertook a report on this subject in 2002. As it happened, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and I were both on the committee at that time. We then left the committee and, having rejoined it, we discovered that nothing at all had been done during the intervening 13 years. We have undertaken another report, which we published earlier this year and submitted to the Government.
We have not had a response to that report, and I make no complaint about that because I know that the Government are thinking very deeply about this subject and a lot of back-room work is going on. I hope very much that once the joint ministerial understanding work has been completed, they will feel able to produce the outcome of their deliberations and include with that a response to our report. This is a subject that your Lordships’ House will want to return to, I am quite certain.
I have only one qualification about my noble friend’s amendment, which is that this is probably not the right time or place to move it. On the other hand, if he thinks it will stand freely on its own, entirely separate from the broader subject of intergovernmental relations, he may wish to press it, and that is a matter for him.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support the noble Earl’s amendment but I agree that it does not go nearly far enough. At Second Reading, as the Minister knows, I took a particular interest in scrutiny. When we come to the financial part of the Bill, scrutiny is going to be even more important.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has done a tremendous job in the United Kingdom since our Government brought it into being. That cannot be allowed to fail when we get to the terms of what goes on in Scotland. What we must see in Scotland is a similar fiscal commissioner, or whatever you like to call it, but if it does not work closely with the Office for Budget Responsibility it is not going to carry much weight at all.
Those of us who are very concerned about the financial provisions of this settlement will be really very interested to see how the Government are going to get agreement with the Scottish Government on this vital issue. While I support very much the terms of what the noble Earl is proposing, it does not go nearly far enough.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl and congratulate him on his amendment. I will be relatively brief as well. We support much of what is suggested, other than proposed new paragraph (2)(d), as we do not believe that the “appropriateness” of devolution needs to be reviewed. We will be proposing similar arrangements with regard to the transfer of the welfare provisions, so the amendment is extremely useful.
I think the noble Earl would accept that such arrangements are founded on mutual respect and co-operation between the two Governments. We all have to be careful with the sensitivity of language but we cannot have it portrayed—I know the noble Earl has not done this—as Westminster talking down to Holyrood. But conducted in an atmosphere of co-operation, friendship and mutual respect, I think there can be a great service done to the Scottish people and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for putting forward this amendment. As your Lordships are aware, the matter of intergovernmental working was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in his introduction to the Smith commission agreement, in which he emphasised its importance in achieving the aims of devolution.
A considerable degree of very positive co-operation between the Scottish and United Kingdom institutions takes place on a daily basis, from routine dialogue on matters such as planning for civil contingencies to supporting business and exports. It would be difficult to report on each and every one of these interactions. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that they should be as transparent as possible.
Specific steps have been taken recently in encouraging more regular collaboration between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments in areas of joint interest. One example of such work is the cross-Administration “Devolution and You” Civil Service capability campaign, which the Cabinet Secretary launched in June 2015. In addition, there is now the Joint Ministerial Working Group on Welfare, which was established to provide a forum for discussion and decision-making on implementation of the welfare-related aspects of the Smith commission agreement.
I also welcome the work of the Constitution Committee on behalf of this Chamber and note its recommendations regarding increased cross-parliamentary scrutiny of intergovernmental relations. This was also recommended by the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee. It will be important to see how Parliament responds to these recommendations. Furthermore, my noble friend Lord Dunlop set out during Second Reading details of how we are working with the three devolved Administrations to review intergovernmental arrangements and ensure effective working relationships with those Administrations.
There is a concern that a statutory duty to report on these interactions could prove burdensome and might prove unnecessary. However, we—the Government —are happy to take away and consider what the noble Earl has suggested, and explore how we may incorporate these suggestions into the work which is going on with regard to intergovernmental relations. I would be happy to discuss this with him. However, having regard to the present terms of the Bill and the comments that have been made, I invite my noble friend to withdraw this amendment.
The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, I thank all of your Lordships for your kind support for this amendment, starting with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord McAvoy. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, emphasised and drew to our attention the vital importance of the two Parliaments and Governments being on equal terms. That must be key to success.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, gave us an example from his own experience, which started off in an intransigent way with people not talking to each other. As he said, that can be converted to something constructive when people do otherwise.
I take the point made by my noble friends Lord Lang, Lord Sanderson and Lord Lindsay, who commented that the amendment might go further than it does. My noble friend also suggested that it should apply to all parts of the Bill and instanced, from his past committee work, evidence from other institutions and Parliaments in other parts of the world which proves beyond doubt that successful government comes from proper co-operation between the parties concerned.
I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he has just said—namely, that he will take this amendment away. Meanwhile, I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, Clauses 3 to 10 devolve full powers to the Scottish Parliament in respect of the registration, franchise, administration and conduct of Scottish parliamentary elections, with the exception of certain specified subject matters which are reflected in the Smith commission agreement.
Government Amendment 24 removes what is now a redundant provision in respect of the Scottish Ministers’ order-making powers under new Section 12 of the Scotland Act 1998, which is to be inserted by Clause 4. Following amendment on Report in the Commons, new Section 12(1) allows the Scottish Ministers to make provision under that section if it,
“would be within the legislative competence of”,
the Scottish Parliament,
“if included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament”.
Since the digital service is reserved under new Section B3(B) of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, as inserted by Clause 3, the order-making power of the Scottish Ministers under the new Section 12 cannot extend to making provision about the digital service. In Clause 6, additional powers are transferred to Scottish Ministers to make provision about the digital service in relation to Scottish parliamentary elections and to local government elections in Scotland, with the agreement of UK Ministers. Amendment 24 is essentially a technical amendment which arises out of the amendment on Report in the Commons to new Section 12(1).
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
“Interval between elections
The Scottish Parliament may not make provision to extend the interval between ordinary general elections as specified in section 2 of the Scotland Act 1998 (ordinary general elections).”
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am conscious of the late hour but I would like to move Amendment 26. As we have already discussed during the course of the evening, there is no second Chamber in the Scottish Parliament. This House has an important constitutional role in preventing the House of Commons from extending its own life. Although the circumstances in which that might happen are hard to consider, it is an important check and balance.
This amendment seeks to make it quite clear that the Scottish Parliament cannot extend the interval between ordinary general elections and therefore prolong its own life under any circumstances. It would have been possible of course to make that subject to the agreement of the Westminster Parliament—the British Parliament—but I think that an absolute prohibition on extending the life is the most appropriate way to proceed. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I note the reasoning behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. At present, Section 2 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that general elections are to be held every four years. That power is to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but it will not be without limitation. The Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation that is not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Pursuant to Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention, there is a requirement for free and fair elections at reasonable intervals. The Smith commission agreement proposes that it should be for the Scottish Parliament to determine those reasonable intervals. We consider that that is appropriate and in accordance with the recommendations of the agreement, which the Bill seeks to implement. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I have to say to my noble and learned friend that I do not think that that is a very satisfactory response. There was talk earlier in the evening about a one-party state and the dominance of the Parliament by one party. The precedent is long established that it is not possible for the other place to extend the life of a Parliament. Were it to try to do so, this House has an important role, which would prevent that from happening except in the most exceptional circumstances. Perhaps I have misunderstood what my noble and learned friend said, but he appeared to say that it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide what the timing is between elections, and that cannot be right.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the Scottish Parliament might decide to do this under its current regime and Administration but I rather anticipated in putting down this amendment that my noble and learned friend would tell me that there was some other protection. Frankly, for this Government of all Governments to say that we should rely on the European Convention on Human Rights is ironic—to put it mildly. I hope that my noble friend will at least undertake to give this further consideration before we return to later stages of the Bill.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, on this occasion we cannot support the proposal in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Elections to the Scottish Parliament will not be able to be held on the same day as the UK general election or a European parliamentary election. Under the Scotland Act 1998, an election must take place on the first Thursday in May in the fourth calendar year. However, Scottish elections are fully devolved matters. When elections are held is a decision for the Scottish Government, other than the restrictions I highlighted. Unfortunately for the noble Lord—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Is the noble Lord really saying that it could possibly be acceptable for a devolved legislature, perhaps dominated by one party, to have the power, having won an election, to decide that the next election would not be for seven years? That would be a completely unacceptable use of the powers of a devolved Administration. Why is he so opposed to having an amendment to the legislation to eliminate that possibility?
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, when you have devolution, you have devolution. The noble Lord poses a potential situation that is totally unrealistic. I do not think it would happen. Any behaviour like that from a devolved Assembly anywhere in the United Kingdom would be punished by that electorate. Devolution is devolution. I do not want to get contentious at this time of night but I think the noble Lord’s attitude is coloured by a continuing non-acceptance of the principle of devolution. You cannot devolve power and then try to dictate to that Parliament what to do—it is not feasible. I do not see it happening anywhere in the United Kingdom, through any devolved Assembly.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord will recall that we already extended the life of the Scottish Parliament from four to five years, I think on one or even two occasions.
Lord Keen of Elie
I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. I had not appreciated that he intended to speak in the context of this proposed amendment and intervened too early. For that I apologise.
I will just add that the Smith commission agreement determined, on the basis of the consensus of five political parties, that elections to the Scottish Parliament should be devolved, and that the timing of those elections should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We must regard the Smith commission agreement as the product of a responsible negotiation by responsible political parties, and we must regard the Scottish Parliament as a responsible devolved body. We have no right to do otherwise, if I might respectfully say so. Given the existing backstop in terms of convention law pursuant to which, under Article 3 of Protocol 1, there is a requirement for free and fair elections at reasonable intervals, in my submission that appears an appropriate way forward.
On the matter of extending the life of the Parliament, as raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, an Order in Council under Section 30 in October 2015 allowed the Scottish Parliament to set the 2016 election at more than four years, extending it to five years. I am not aware of another occasion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On my noble and learned friend’s reference to the European convention, what constitutes a reasonable interval? Would five or six years constitute a reasonable interval?
Lord Keen of Elie
That would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine, and is subject to review. If it gets that wrong, any legislation that it passes is not law, pursuant to Section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998.
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord McCluskey
Lord McCluskey (CB)
This is a technical matter, and it is not worth taking up time on it at this time of night. Accordingly, it is not moved.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hope of Craighead
This is one of a group of amendments running through to Amendment 40. Although Amendments 31 and 32 are not in my name, they duplicate ones that are.
This is another group of amendments that I have taken from the group proposed or suggested by the Scottish Ministers in June this year. The interesting feature of these amendments is that they were tabled on 15 June but were either not called or withdrawn. So they were never considered by the other House, and I thought it right to bring them back so that at least they could be considered in this place and not be lost sight of entirely. Their aim is simply to improve the working of Clause 11, which deals with the supermajority system in the event of certain measures coming before the Scottish Parliament. Reading between the lines, I think what has happened is that draftsmen in Edinburgh have worked through the clause, with their knowledge of how the Scottish Parliament works and in the light of provisions in the relevant parts of the Scotland Act 1998, and made suggestions as to how the clauses could be improved.
Because of the lateness of the hour, I do not want to go through the amendments in any detail. However, the first amendment alters the timing of the decision of the Presiding Officer from the decision that the Bill be passed to putting the Motion. There may be some merit in that alteration of timing. In Clause 11(5), two matters are inserted which are reproduced by Amendments 31 and 32, and which are sufficiently important to be included in the list of protected subject matters. I suggest that there is some merit in those. Clause 11(6) inserts passing without a Division as an event which should have the same status as the passing of a Bill by a two-thirds majority. It is conceivable that that could happen, and it is as well to provide for it. If passed without a Division, there would be a consensus that would meet the broad requirements for a supermajority, ensuring that the Presiding Officer would not have to go through the drill of making a statement in that situation as to whether the provision relates to a protected subject matter.
In Clause 11(10) two situations are inserted which, given what appears above, should not trigger a reference. Importantly, a provision is inserted that would enable the Parliament to take the matter back for further consideration, in which event consideration of the issue by the Supreme Court would not be necessary. That type of treatment is already to be found in Section 36 of the Scotland Act, which deals with stages of Bills. Section 36(4) provides that standing orders shall provide for an opportunity for the reconsideration of a Bill after its passing if the judicial committee decides that a provision would not be within legislative competence. The same mechanism is thought to be appropriate for the supermajority solution. All these amendments are very technical. I do not think there is any political angle to them. There is simply a desire to improve the working of the Bill and to make sure that this rather complicated provision, which I imagine will very rarely, if ever, be triggered, makes proper sense.
I shall make one brief final comment in relation to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, in relation to this Bill. The noble and learned Lord said, if I understood him correctly, that he was of the view that the terms of the Bill meet the requirements of the Smith commission report. I happened to meet the noble Lord on Sunday, and he said that if that is the impression that Ministers have, he has been misunderstood. His attitude is the attitude of a lay man, and he says that, as far as he is concerned, he has not looked at the Bill from the point of view of a lawyer. If there are matters in which it could be improved, given study by lawyers and legislative draftsmen, he is all in favour of it because his aim is to have a Bill that is as good as possible. He authorised me to say that if Ministers doubt my word, they should speak to him directly. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, if he were here, would object to these amendments, whatever he may say about the others.
Lord Stephen (LD)
I rise to speak to Amendments 31 and 34, which are in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. This is back to the future, back to the debate we had just a few minutes ago about the extension of the length of the term of the Scottish Parliament. The issue is still grouped with these amendments, and our proposed approach is to include the extension of the term of the Parliament in the list of special majority or supermajority issues, except for what will be the second extension of the term of the Scottish Parliament, which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned earlier. That is happening right here, right now because the proposal is for the term which ran from 2011 to 2016, a five-year term, to be followed by another five-year term from 2016 to 2021.
The Bill in the Scottish Parliament to achieve that extension was introduced on 17 November. It is called the Scottish Elections (Dates) Bill. We believe that to make it clear and to avoid any uncertainty or confusion, that Bill should be excluded from the requirement to have a special majority. Otherwise, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that this is an important issue. I think there could well be some sort of cap on the number of years for which you can extend. For example, extending by one year is perhaps the maximum that any of us would envisage, but if we have an extension of the term of the Parliament, it seems entirely appropriate that, alongside the other issues listed here, it should be by special majority of the Scottish Parliament.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he deal with the reasons why he is not content to rest on the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Stephen
I was as interested as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to hear that that was the justification for his amendment being rejected. I would say that he has a case for his amendment, but there have been times when a limited and appropriate extension of the term of the Scottish Parliament has been useful. However, if that happens in future, I do not see why it should not be by a special majority to show that there is solid and widespread support for the proposal from all Members of the Scottish Parliament, or as many as make up a supermajority.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Again, before he sits down, could the noble Lord confirm that it is not because he has always been opposed to devolution that he is taking this view?
Lord Stephen
At this late hour, I am happy to confirm almost anything to the noble Lord.
Lord McCluskey
My Lords, in view of the terms of Amendment 33, I shall not be moving Amendment 32.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
My Lords, this has been a brief and helpful debate about the question of the supermajority. We do not oppose the various amendments that have been tabled.
We agree that the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, are technical and doubtless useful in taking matters forward. It would be useful to know why he is in the position of having to advance notions that the Scottish Government would wish this Chamber to advance. We were hearing not so long ago about the good relations that were breaking out at intergovernmental level, which might suggest that these various amendments would have been brought forward by the Scottish Government to Her Majesty’s Government and that, as a result of intergovernmental discussion, one would have been able to achieve some consensus on these points. We look forward to seeing if the improvement in intergovernmental relations takes us that far.
The noble Lord, Lord Stephen, introduces two amendments in relation to parliamentary terms and the supermajority. We support those additions. On the question of the deployment of the European Convention on Human Rights, where the Scottish Government transgress in this regard there will be the protection of the Advocate-General for Scotland raising proceedings before the Supreme Court, but also the Lord Advocate—a Minister of the Scottish Government, as I have already alluded to—as well as the Attorney-General. We certainly do not oppose these amendments; we support them.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords. Clearly I cannot comment on any dialogue that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has had recently with the noble Lord, Lord Smith. I merely observe that there is a distinction between improving the Bill in order to implement the Smith commission agreement and, on the other hand, extending the Bill so that it goes beyond the terms of the agreement, or in fact retreating so that the Bill does not implement it. We would of course be happy to pursue further dialogue ourselves with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, if he felt that that would be useful.
These amendments seem to fall into two broad categories: on the one hand, amendments to the current clauses that are intended to improve the drafting of the Bill, and, on the other, a second theme extending the scope of the supermajority clause to matters that were not included in the Smith commission agreement. I shall deal with these in turn. I turn first to those amendments put forward as a means of improving the operation of Clause 11 as and when it is implemented. Amendment 35 would allow for a Bill to be passed without a Division. Our considered position is that a Division is the most straightforward way of verifying that a two-thirds majority in the Scottish Parliament has been achieved. For this reason, we cannot agree with the proposal in Amendment 35, which provides for a Bill to be passed by consensus.
In addition, we do not agree with the proposal in Amendment 39 that the Scottish Parliament should be able to “reconsider” a Bill if the Presiding Officer decides that a supermajority is required and the Supreme Court later affirms this. Nor do we agree with Amendment 40, which appears to provide that the Scottish Parliament should be able to reconsider a Bill if the Presiding Officer decides that a supermajority is required and the Bill receives only a simple majority. We consider that in both these situations there should be careful consideration and no short-cut to a final vote which requires the supermajority in the context of such legislation.
While we agree with the rationale behind Amendments 30 and 38 and parts of Amendments 37 and 40, we believe that the Bill as drafted provides for these considerations and that therefore such amendment is unnecessary. We would of course be happy to discuss this further with the proposers of the amendments.
I will address those amendments which seek to extend the scope of the supermajority provision, particularly Amendments 31 and 33, and I think a part of Amendment 34. Amendments 31, 33 and 34 seek to ensure that legislation brought forward by the Scottish Parliament concerning the period of time between ordinary general elections to the Scottish Parliament should also be covered by the requirement for a two-thirds majority. The second part of Amendment 33 seeks to ensure that Bills concerning the alteration of boundaries of constituencies, regions or any equivalent electoral area for the Scottish Parliament should also be covered by the two-thirds majority. The simple response of the Government is that the Smith commission agreement specifically outlined the subject matter, which it considered should be subject to the supermajority requirement. It did not propose that legislation concerning the term length of the Scottish Parliament, the date of any Scottish Parliament elections or the alteration of boundaries should be subject to a two-thirds majority of the Scottish Parliament. In these circumstances, we would not be content with the proposed amendments. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in view of the points that have been made by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, the hour is late, but I will say just a few words in respect of this amendment, which, basically, ensures that changes to the franchise, the constituencies and the number of MSPs—which under the provisions of the Bill require a two-thirds majority—have also to be approved at Westminster. I am not a great believer in opinion polls; as we discovered at the general election, they can be quite wrong. However, it is not inconceivable that two-thirds of the Scottish Parliament at the forthcoming elections could be composed of people who believe that Scotland would be better off independent. If that were to happen, and this Parliament, which is the United Kingdom Parliament, had created circumstances in which it was possible for fundamental changes to be made to the franchise, the constituencies and the number of MSPs, that would be a matter of very considerable concern. Personally, I do not like the idea of two-thirds supermajorities; it is an unfortunate intrusion into our constitutional affairs. It has knock-on implications for other devolved institutions and for Westminster, but of course the Smith commission has recommended it, so it would appear that we have to go along with it. The amendment would provide a belt-and-braces safeguard to ensure that key issues such as the franchise, the constituencies and the number of MSPs were approved at Westminster, having also had a two-thirds majority in the Scottish Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, Clause 11 requires certain types of electoral legislation to be passed by a two-thirds majority, or supermajority, of the Scottish Parliament. Paragraph 27 of the Smith commission agreement states in terms that this is:
“To provide an adequate check on Scottish Parliament legislation”,
in these areas. An “adequate check” was the consensus of the five political parties which took part in the Smith commission and which arrived at the Smith Commission agreement.
The Government consider that the supermajority requirement provides an appropriate check on this type of Scottish Parliament legislation. Indeed, to approve this amendment would be to give with one hand and then take away with the other so far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned. It would not be in accordance with the spirit of the Smith commission agreement, let alone with the terms of paragraph 27. In these circumstances, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble and learned friend’s only argument has been, once again, to rest on the Smith commission. He keeps saying that it had the support of all five political parties. I am not aware of the members of the Conservative Party being consulted at all on the Smith commission proposals; nor am I aware of any discussion on those matters in the other place or in this place. What happened was that people nominated by the political parties got together and produced a report. It really is quite misleading to keep saying that this was endorsed by all the political parties. That may have been true of the Liberal Democrats or other parties but it certainly was not true of the Conservative Party. Furthermore, this was all done at an enormous pace—it was all agreed in eight weeks. As we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, himself has not sought to argue that he has endorsed this Bill in terms of the provisions of the Smith commission.
Lord Hope of Craighead
The noble Lord said that he is not to be taken as approving the precise terms of the Bill as a lawyer. He is not a lawyer. He emphasised that he is a layman, and he speaks as a layman when he endorses what is in the Bill. If it were possible to find ways in which the Bill could be improved in relation to constitutional principles or whatever else, he would be in favour of that because that is not his field and he is aware that there could be room for improvement in those areas. What he emphasised was, “Don’t confuse me with a lawyer. I am a layman and I give it support as a layman”. However, if there were respectable arguments from lawyers, he would give way to them and improve the Bill if that was a way of making better progress.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making that clarification. It is important that effective checks are in place. This whole process has been carried out swiftly and without much in the way of discussion either among the membership of the political parties or indeed within the House of Commons. Although four days were allocated to Committee, many of these issues were not considered because of the process by which amendments are dealt with. However, I can sense that folk do not wish me to detain the Committee on this matter and there will be further opportunities to come back to it, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“( ) In paragraph 1(2)(f) of Schedule 4 (protection of Scotland Act 1998 from modification), after “Human Rights Act 1998” insert “except the Convention rights set out in Schedule 1 to that Act”.”
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I do not propose to develop this amendment. Without going into the reasons for it, it arose in relation to the Sewel convention. I would have developed the point more fully if there had been time to explain why, but, in view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that we have already discussed the particular aspects of the Sewel convention that we sought to explain more fully, I think the best thing for me to do is not to move the amendment.