House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
1. If he will estimate the contribution of golf to the economy in Scotland in the last 12 months.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
May I begin by expressing the solidarity of the people of Scotland with the people of Belgium at this difficult time? Our thoughts, prayers and condolences go to the families and friends of all those who were killed and, indeed, everyone caught up in yesterday’s horrific events.
Golf makes a huge contribution to Scotland’s economy. Independent analysis in 2013 showed that the game contributes more than £1 billion in revenues and supports some 20,000 jobs. There are almost 600 golf courses across the country, generating annual revenues of £582 million.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, and I very much share his sentiments of solidarity towards the people of Belgium at this very difficult time.
Given the success that my right hon. Friend talks about in relation to golf in Scotland, what steps is he taking to try to secure further investment in this very important industry for Scotland?
David Mundell
One new opportunity to support golf and young people in golf arose in last week’s Budget: the sugar tax element of the Budget will see investment in sport in schools in the wider UK. I hope the Scottish Government will follow through on that and use those funds to develop sport in schools, including golf—a very popular sport, as I have said. This year, we also have the opportunity to present Scotland’s golfing merits to the wider world during the British Open at Royal Troon. It will be a showcase for the world of Scotland’s golfing opportunities.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning my local golf course; I am the MP for Royal Troon, and we look forward to welcoming people in July.
Will the Secretary of State discuss with Front-Bench colleagues a regional strategy for smaller airports—at Prestwick, people fly in over Royal Troon—and, while the Chancellor is in a listening mood, will they consider a VAT reduction for rural tourism, which would help many constituencies across the UK?
Mr Speaker
Indeed they do, as the hon. Lady pertinently observes from a sedentary position.
David Mundell
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss those issues further. I am also very interested in pursuing the proposed Ayrshire regional growth deal, which, in promoting tourism in that part of Scotland, will have golf at its heart.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
May I add my contribution on this topic by saying that it was with pleasure, last week, that I saw the Secretary of State sharing a platform with the First Minister, who I am sure raised the topic we are discussing? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is an example of the two Governments working together in the interests of the people of Scotland?
David Mundell
Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that the First Minister and I met and shared a platform in St Andrews, which is of course the world home of golf. On sport, as on any matter, Scotland of course does best when Scotland’s two Governments work together.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
This is the first opportunity in Parliament to put on the record our total revulsion at and condemnation of the terrorist atrocities in Brussels, as well as our solidarity with everybody affected. We join the Secretary of State for Scotland in that.
The promotion of the Ryder cup in Scotland was a huge achievement for the Scottish Government and the then First Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). Today is the last sitting day of the Scottish Parliament. Given that he is standing down from Holyrood, may I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his remarkable tenure as an MSP and as First Minister, and pay tribute to all other MSPs from all parties who are retiring? Does the Secretary of State agree that there is much that can be built on following the success of the Ryder cup? How does he plan to contribute to that?
Mr Speaker
I am sure that that was a courteous tribute, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not object if I say that the first part of his question was way off the fairway.
David Mundell
Securing the Ryder cup to be held in Scotland was a significant event. I agree that the former First Minister of Scotland has made a remarkable contribution to Scottish politics, although the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and I will probably differ on the detail of that. What the former First Minister and many MSPs who are standing down—I also pay tribute to them—have done, and what we all need to do, is promote Scotland together, because that is when we get the best results for Scotland.
Angus Robertson
I will try to remain on the fairway, Mr Speaker.
Tourism is one of Scotland’s most important industries, and golf and whisky are key drivers for people visiting the country. Does the Secretary of State welcome local initiatives better to promote iconic Scottish regions and locations, such as Speyside? What encouragement would he give to public and private sector partners in making the most of Scotland’s world-class potential as a tourism draw?
David Mundell
I am aware of the initiatives to promote Speyside, having recently visited the right hon. Gentleman’s picturesque constituency, and I wish them well. Such opportunities reach their full potential only with significant public and private sector partners playing a full part, and I look forward to hearing about progress from Speyside and other regions of Scotland that are making the most of that potential.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
2. What discussions he has had with representatives of the North Sea oil and gas industry on UK Government support for that sector.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors, including the oil and gas industry. Last week, the Chancellor announced a further package of reforms to support jobs and investment in the oil and gas sector. That will help the industry respond to the challenging commercial conditions caused by the steep fall in oil prices.
Stuart Andrew
The excellent Budget package for the oil and gas industry has certainly been welcomed by that industry. Is that another example showing that when Scotland’s two Governments work together they can get the best outcome for Scotland in the United Kingdom—something that an independent Scotland could never have achieved?
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Will the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues commit to taking action to ensure that companies in the oil and gas sector have appropriate access to finance at this time?
Mr Gauke
The Government do all they can to support businesses the length and breadth of the United Kingdom in all sectors. My point is that we are able to take action and support the oil and gas sector because we are the United Kingdom. Had Scotland become independent, it would be facing a very substantial loss of revenue and have great difficulties absorbing that.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
3. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the effects of the Government’s welfare programme on social and economic inequalities in Scotland.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
I meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and counterpart Ministers in the Scottish Government on a regular basis to discuss devolution of welfare programmes to the Scottish Government.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Last week’s Budget saw one of the most iniquitous measures proposed by this Government, which was to cut the personal independence payment for 40,000 disabled people in Scotland. When did the Secretary of State for Scotland, and Ministers, first realise that that was the wrong thing to do? Was it around the Cabinet table, during the Budget statement or on Sunday when the Prime Minister was forced to backtrack?
Priti Patel
The Government’s position on PIP and disability reforms is clear, and was announced by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House and the people of Scotland when he realised that those cuts were wrong, or was he planning a resignation over the weekend?
Priti Patel
As I have said, the Government’s position has been made abundantly clear. If the hon. Gentleman missed the statement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on Monday, I will be more than happy to share it with him again.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I start by echoing the comments of the Secretary of State and the leader of the Scottish National party, and pass on my heartfelt condolences to all those involved in the events in Brussels. We will defeat terrorism, but, as the Secretary of State said, it will take solidarity and resolve.
Last night, the House passed a Budget that was unprecedented. It contained a £4.4 billion black hole after the Chancellor was forced to reverse his decision to cut personal independence payments. The Government’s long-term economic plan is turning into a long-term economic scam. These savage cuts, following the £1,500 a year reduction in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group, affect over 60,000 Scots. Those cuts would have gone through had it not been for the resignation of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). Will the Minister guarantee that, when the Chancellor returns with revised public spending, no cuts will fall on the disabled and the most vulnerable?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I welcome his comments with regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). The Government have been very clear that we are not proceeding with the changes and we will not be seeking an alternative offset in savings.
Ian Murray
It is clear from that answer, and from the previous answer, that the Government now have absolutely no idea what to do. They are creating untold anxiety for the people in Scotland who are affected. Let me remind the House what the former Secretary of State said: that the cuts in the Budget risked dividing society, put pounds ahead of people and were distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest. Does the Minister agree with her former Cabinet colleague, and many on her own side, that the cuts to disabled people in Scotland are not defensible? Does she want to take this opportunity to apologise, on behalf of the Scottish Conservative party, to the tens of thousands of vulnerable and disabled Scots affected by this shambles?
Priti Patel
I reiterate that the Government’s position is fundamentally clear: there will be no further changes to disability payments. The hon. Gentleman will have realised that last night the Budget was passed by the House. That was right and proper. He, of all people, should recognise that the Government are delivering on the Smith commission and devolving powers to the Scottish Government. We look forward to working with the Scottish Government on welfare reform and the delivery of employment and support programmes for the benefit and the betterment of the Scottish people.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
4. What recent discussions he has had with business groups on economic trends in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I regularly meet a wide range of business organisations to discuss economic issues in Scotland. As I alluded to, last week I shared a platform with the First Minister of Scotland at the annual forum of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, where we discussed the important issue of productivity.
Karen Lumley
Given that businesses in Redditch have welcomed the devolution deal for Birmingham, what representations have business groups in Scotland made to my right hon. Friend about city deals there?
David Mundell
I have been particularly delighted at the welcome from business groups in Scotland for the announcement yesterday of the Inverness and Highland city deal. The Scottish Government, UK Government and Highland Council will deliver a £315 million package. I welcome in particular the early-day motion from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and his colleagues. I pay tribute to him for his part in bringing the deal about.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that about 400,000 workers in Scotland earn less than the living wage. The Government claim to be on the side of working people, so why have his Scottish Tory colleagues voted repeatedly alongside the SNP Government to thwart Scottish Labour proposals to extend the living wage?
David Mundell
I will resist the temptation to give the hon. Lady a lecture on the Scottish Labour party’s woes and the fact that it has not been a credible opposition to the SNP in Scotland. This Government are very, very clear on our proposals to increase the wages of the poorest in society by the introduction of the national living wage.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
13. Local government clearly has a role to play in economic development. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the Scottish Parliament also devolves power to local government? Might it look to England for a lead—on elected mayors, for example?
David Mundell
I very much take my hon. Friend’s comments. When I spoke with the First Minister of Scotland at the Scottish Council for Development and Industry forum last week, I was particularly encouraged by what she said about her support for city deals. I hope that the city deals we see emerging in Scotland will not just include financial packages but go on to include greater devolution within Scotland.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
People in my constituency are extremely concerned about the perceived impact on the local economy and local jobs of the proposed closure of HMRC sites. What impact assessment is being made of these closures on the local economy and jobs?
David Mundell
Initial proposals have been set out for the future shape of HMRC. We hear repeatedly in the House about the wish to make HMRC more efficient and effective, but no steps will be taken in the hon. Lady’s constituency or elsewhere without full consultation with all those involved.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
5. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers of the Scottish Government on UK membership of the EU.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
As the First Minister and I both confirmed last week when we shared a platform in St Andrews, in the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency, the official position of both the UK and Scottish Governments is that the UK is better off in a reformed EU.
Stephen Gethins
First, may I associate myself with the remarks about Brussels, having spent many happy years in that wonderful city? Secondly, the Secretary of State will be aware of the benefits that EU membership has brought us, such as paternal rights and holiday entitlement. Does he agree that we should focus on those benefits, not a rerun of “Project Fear”?
David Mundell
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman saw the details of my speech yesterday, in which I made a positive case setting out the benefits to Scotland of our remaining in the EU, but I look forward to sharing platforms over the coming weeks with him and his colleagues to make that case.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Given that we have a £62 billion a year trade deficit with the EU, does the Secretary of State think that, were we to leave the EU, the Prime Minister would have the ability to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU?
David Mundell
My position is clear: I believe that Scotland and the UK are better off in the EU under the reformed arrangement that the Prime Minister has already negotiated.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
14. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a recent survey confirmed that the Scottish Government were one of the most trusted Governments in Europe? Does he look forward to the re-election of Nicola Sturgeon and her team so that we can continue being the most trusted Government in Europe, including beyond 23 June?
David Mundell
I want to ensure that Nicola Sturgeon and her team are held properly to account in the Scottish Parliament, which is why I am encouraging people to vote for Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Ministers of the Scottish Government on withdrawal of funding for the carbon capture and storage scheme at Peterhead.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Ministers of the Scottish Government on a number of important energy issues affecting Scotland. The most recent was last night.
Clive Lewis
The Government’s own advisers on energy and climate change have warned that the cost of meeting our climate change targets could double without Peterhead and CCS. Given that the Government are having a good run on U-turns when it comes to saving the Chancellor, perhaps they would also like to make a U-turn when it comes to saving the planet—something that people feel is far more worth while.
David Mundell
We are looking carefully at all options in developing our approach to CCS, informed by Lord Oxburgh’s CCS advisory group. In parallel, the Government continue to engage with the CCS industry—including Shell, which is leading the proposed Peterhead project.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
At the time of the announcement of £1 billion of funding for the CCS scheme at Peterhead, the Energy Secretary was forced to deny that it was a bribe prior to the independence referendum. Now that the withdrawal of this supposedly ring-fenced capital investment exposes it as just that, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise today to the people of Scotland?
David Mundell
If anybody should apologise to the people of Scotland, it is the hon. Lady and her friends for suggesting that oil tomorrow would have a price of $103 a barrel. What is clear in relation to CCS is that the costs are high and must come down. We have not ruled CCS out, and we are committed to working with the industry to bring forward innovative ideas for reducing the cost of this potentially important industry.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I am reluctant to refer to the Budget because we cannot be absolutely sure what is in and what is out. For example, the Chancellor’s support for the oil and gas industry is welcome, but it does not take us very far forward. Unfortunately, it appears that the Government here in London are taking their cue from the Government in Holyrood. There, the SNP Government recently axed £10 million of tax breaks for renewable firms, yet they like to see themselves as a green Administration. Are we not seeing two Governments who are confused, pursuing contradictory policies, and not knowing whether they are coming or going?
David Mundell
I can point out one distinct difference between this Government and any Labour Scottish Government, or indeed SNP Scottish Government—and that is that we are not putting up tax for ordinary people as both those parties propose. We have made it very clear that the door is not closed on CCS, but the costs must come down.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
7. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on commencement of the fiscal powers in the Scotland Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The UK and Scottish Governments have met 10 times under the Joint Exchequer Committee since the election last year. These discussions resulted last month in the agreement of a new fiscal framework for the Scottish Government. Agreement on the fiscal framework enables us to deliver on the vow we made to the Scottish people and delivers one of the most powerful and accountable devolved Parliaments in the world, with the economic and national security that comes from being part of the UK.
Nigel Huddleston
Does the Minister agree that it would be bad news for Scotland if it became the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom? Does he agree with Ruth Davidson MSP that Scottish taxpayers should not have to pay any more in tax than fellow Britons in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Does the Minister agree with me about the Chancellor’s reckless, last-minute intervention to tweak the fiscal framework after it had been agreed by the Treasury and the Scottish Government? Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor’s brinkmanship intentions endangered the framework at the very last moment?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
8. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect on Scotland of measures announced in the Budget.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Chancellor has delivered a budget that delivers for Scotland. This will be the last Budget where a UK Chancellor sets out income tax rates and thresholds for Scottish earners. The changes to the income tax personal allowance will benefit 2.6 million taxpayers in Scotland. The Budget delivers on our plans to build a stronger Scottish economy as part of the UK and put the next generation first.
Deidre Brock
I congratulate the Minister on finding the Chancellor to have those discussions—earlier this week, we thought he had gone walkabout! The Budget had £1 billion-worth of cuts to the Scottish budget and £650 million-worth of cuts to the English NHS. Given the volte-face on social security cuts, does he think he could persuade the Chancellor to reverse Scotland’s cuts and put in a good word for the English NHS as well?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
12. Did the Secretary of State discuss with the Chancellor the merits of an £8.5 billion corporation tax cut and a £6 billion giveaway in capital gains and inheritance tax versus those of a proposed £4 billion cut in payments to the disabled, and how that would affect people in Scotland, or did he sit there and do what he was telt yet again?
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 March.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
Adrian Ismay, a Belfast prison officer, died last week as a result of injuries caused by a bomb placed under his vehicle. A murder investigation is under way, and one man has been charged in connection with the attack, but we should today offer our condolences to the family and friends of Mr Ismay.
Let me also update the House on yesterday’s terrorist attacks in Brussels. Details are still emerging, but our understanding is that at least 34 people were killed and many others injured. Daesh claimed responsibility for the attacks, which follow the horrific suicide bombing that they carried out in Istanbul on 19 March. We are aware of four British nationals who were injured in the attack, and we are concerned about one missing British national.
We face a common terrorist threat, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our full solidarity with the people of Belgium following these terrible attacks. I spoke to the Belgian Prime Minister, Charles Michel, yesterday to pass on our condolences. Our police and agencies are doing everything they can to support the investigation. In this country, we have increased police patrols and border screening. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement later setting out all the steps that we are taking.
Britain and Belgium share the same values of liberty and democracy. The terrorists want to destroy everything that our two great countries stand for, but we will never let them.
Mr Speaker, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Bombers, everywhere and every time, aim for publicity, public reaction, and disunity. Can we disappoint them by uniting for hope, not hate?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that. These people packed their explosives with nails in order to kill as many innocent people, including women and children, as they possibly could. We should unite in condemnation of them, and we should stand with the people and the Government of Belgium and with all countries that are being afflicted by this appalling terrorist menace, and say that they shall never win.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I support the words that have just been said by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and the Prime Minister, in solidarity with the people of Belgium and the victims of the horrific attacks that have taken place in Brussels, and also in Ankara, in the last few days. We pay respect and tribute to all their families and friends, and we pay enormous respect to the emergency services of all denominations for the huge amount of work that they have done to try to save life. We must defend our security and values in the face of such terrorist outrages, and refuse to be drawn into a cycle of violence and hatred. We take pride in our societies of diverse faiths, races and creeds, and will not allow those who seek to divide us to succeed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will respond, on behalf of the Labour party, to the statement that the Home Secretary will make at 12.30 pm.
I also join the Prime Minister in sending my deepest condolences to Mr Ismay’s wife, Sharon, and his three daughters. The people of Northern Ireland made a profound choice to follow the path of peace when they widely adopted the Good Friday agreement. The actions of an unrepresentative few should not be allowed to change a course that is supported by the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland.
Let me now raise a different subject altogether. Last week, I received a letter from Adrian. He wrote:
“I’m disabled and I live in constant fear of my benefits being reassessed and stopped…and being forced onto the streets”.
Will the Prime Minister do what the Chancellor failed to do yesterday, and apologise to those who went through such anguish and upset while there was a threat of cuts to their personal independence payments?
The Prime Minister
Let me first thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the terrorist attacks in Belgium, and about Northern Ireland and the fact that we have achieved so much peace and progress in that valuable part of our United Kingdom.
Turning to the issue of disability benefits, as I said in this House on Monday, when you are faced with having to take very many very difficult decisions—including many spending reductions—as we were after becoming the Government in 2010, you do not always get every decision right. I am the first to accept and admit that, and on every occasion that that happens it is very important that you learn the lessons, but as we do so, we will continue to increase spending on disability benefits, which will be more than £46 billion a year by the end of this Parliament, compared with £42 billion when I became Prime Minister.
Jeremy Corbyn
Government figures published only this morning show that the number of people with disabilities and who are homeless is now up by 39% since 2010, and that 300,000 more disabled people are living in absolute poverty. That is why people like Adrian are very worried. There has been big disarray in the Cabinet over the last few days, so can the Prime Minister now absolutely and categorically rule out any further cuts to welfare spending in the lifetime of this Parliament? Simply: yes or no?
The Prime Minister
Let me respond to all the points that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. First, he talked about the number of people in poverty. We have actually seen poverty fall during this Parliament. The second thing he referred to was the regrettable rise in homelessness, with figures out today, but homelessness is still 58% below the peak that it reached under Labour. That is important. He talked about the number of disabled people. This is a Government committed to supporting the disabled, but it is worth making the point that in the last two years an extra 293,000 disabled people have got into work. We want to continue to close the disability gap, as we have set out in our manifesto.
As for the question about further welfare reductions, let me repeat the statement that the new Welfare Secretary made on Monday and that the Chancellor made on Tuesday. I am happy to make it again. I dealt with these issues on Monday. I turned up and gave the answers even though the Leader of the Opposition had not asked the questions. We are very clear that we are not planning additional welfare savings other than the ones that we set out in our manifesto and that are in train.
Jeremy Corbyn
My question was actually about the poverty of people with disabilities, which the Prime Minister did not answer. In his failure to explain how he would fill the hole in his Budget left by the change of heart on personal independence payments, the Chancellor said:
“We can afford to absorb such changes”.—[Official Report, 22 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 1394.]
If it is so easy to absorb changes of this nature, why did the Chancellor and the Prime Minister ever announce them in the first place? Will the Prime Minister now listen and learn, and withdraw the £30 per week cut to disabled employment and support allowance claimants that his Government are pursuing?
The Prime Minister
The changes to employment and support allowance have been through both Houses of Parliament. It is important to note that employment and support allowance for the most disabled—that is, those in the support group—is up by almost £650 a year under this Government. We have increased the higher rate of attendance allowance, we have increased carers allowance, and we have increased the enhanced rate of PIP because we believe that a strong economy should support the most disabled people in our country, and that is exactly what we have legislated to do.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get on to discussing black holes, I say bring on the argument. We inherited an 11% budget deficit from the Labour party, and under this team of Ministers and this Chancellor of the Exchequer we have cut that deficit by two thirds since we became the Government. From Labour, all we have had is more proposals for more spending, more welfare, more taxes and more debt—all the things that got us into the biggest mess with the biggest black hole in the first place.
Jeremy Corbyn
If it is all so fine and dandy, the question has to be asked: why did the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) feel it necessary to resign as Work and Pensions Secretary, complaining that the cuts being announced were to fit arbitrary fiscal targets? He said that they were
“distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest”.
In the initial announcement, he proposed cuts to PIPs then changed his mind. Is not the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green right when he says that this was a political decision rather than one made in the interests of people in this country?
The Prime Minister
I believe that after seven or eight years of economic growth it is right to be targeting a surplus, because a responsible Government put aside money for a rainy day. I do not want to be part of a Government that do not have the courage to pay off our debts and leave them instead to our children and grandchildren. That is the truth. What is dressed up as compassion from the party opposite just means putting off difficult decisions and asking our children to pay the debts that we were not prepared to pay ourselves. [Interruption.] I do not know why the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), is shouting at me. We have a very interesting document today: the spreadsheet showing which Labour MPs are on which side. The hon. Lady is shouting, but it says here—[Interruption.] No, no, it says she is “neutral but not hostile”. On the other hand, the Opposition Chief Whip is being a bit quiet. There are five categories. We have “core” support—[Interruption.] I’ve got all day, Mr Speaker. We have “core” support—I think you can include me in that lot very strongly. We have “core plus”. The Opposition Chief Whip is being a bit quiet because she is in “hostile”. And I thought I had problems!
Jeremy Corbyn
Let me invite the Prime Minister to leave the theatre and return to reality. The reality is that he has presided over a Budget that unravelled in two days and now contains a £4.4 billion black hole. He may wish to consult the Chancellor on yet another change of heart on this matter. Will he now consult the Chancellor and tell the country who is going to pay for the black hole? Will it be through cuts or tax rises? Where will the cuts fall? Where will the tax rises take place, as £4.4 billion has to be found from somewhere?
The Prime Minister
Suddenly the king of fiscal rectitude speaks. The right hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the Budget passed last night. It is a Budget that cuts the deficit in every year of this Parliament. It is a Budget that delivers a surplus by the end of this Parliament. None of that is going to change. He talks about this Budget—[Interruption.] The “hostile” shout, but the “neutral but not hostile” have to be quiet, I think. I want to know: hands up, who is “core plus”?
I will tell you what this Budget did. It took a million people out of income tax. It saw more money for our schools. It helped the poorest people in our country to save. It cut taxes for small businesses. It cut taxes for the self-employed. It made our economy stronger. It made our country fairer. It is a Budget that will help this country do better.
Jeremy Corbyn
The truth is that it was a Budget that fell apart in two days. The truth is that many people with disabilities went through the most unbelievable levels of stress and trauma after the PIP announcement was made. There are many people who are still going through stress and trauma in our society. There are still—[Interruption.] I am not sure that the Government Members who are shouting so loudly have any idea what it is like to try to balance a budget at home when you do not have enough money coming in, the rent is going up and the children need clothes.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is too much shouting on both sides of the House. Stop it. The public are bored stiff by it. The right hon. Gentleman will finish his question and we will have an answer. There will be no shouting from Members of any grouping. That is the message.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Budget has to mean something for everybody in our society, however poor and however precarious their lives are. This Budget downgraded growth, downgraded wage growth and downgraded investment. The Chancellor has failed on debt targets and failed on deficit targets, as the official figures have shown. The fiscal rule is quite simply failing. The Treasury Committee scrutinised the Government’s fiscal rule and could not find any credible economist who backed it. Can the Prime Minister find anybody who backs a policy and a Budget with a big hole in it which downgrades every single forecast the Government set themselves before the Budget was made?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is just a bit late, because the Budget passed through this House with large majorities on every single vote. Let me remind him: this Government are spending more on the disabled than in any year under the last Labour Government. We are spending more on the most disabled, including the most disabled children in our country. We have got more disabled people into work than ever happened under Labour. What we see with this Budget is the background of an economy that is growing, where employment is at a record high, investment is rising and businesses are creating jobs in Britain, which is the envy of other European economies. It is because we have a strong economy that we are able to provide this support. That is what we see: Britain getting stronger and the Labour party a threat to the economic security of every family in our country.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Q2. I am sure the Prime Minister is as appalled as I am that incidents involving anti-Semitism are on the rise. Does he agree that all organisations, public and private, should root out anti-Semitism, without hesitation?
The Prime Minister
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; anti-Semitism is an absolute cancer in our societies and we should know that when it grows it is the signal of many even worse things happening to ethnic groups and different groups all over our country. There is, sadly, a growth of anti-Semitism in our country and we see it in attacks on Jewish people and Jewish students—it absolutely has to be stamped out. We should all, whatever organisation we are responsible for, make sure that happens. I have to say that we do see a growth in support for segregation and indeed for anti-Semitism in part of the Labour party, and I say to its leader that it is his party and he should sort it out. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This sort of gesticulation across the Chamber is way below the level and the dignity of senior Members on the Front Bench on either side. It is terribly tedious—cut it out.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
When terrorists attack Brussels or Paris or London or Glasgow, we are as one in our condemnation of the atrocities, as we equally condemn the killings of Yazidis, of Kurds, of Syrians and of Iraqis by Daesh and others extremists. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who work here and abroad to protect us in the face of the ongoing terrorist threat, so will the Prime Minister confirm that absolutely everything is being done to help the Belgian authorities and the people of Belgium in the wake of the Brussels attacks?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly confirm that. In my conversations with the Belgian Prime Minister I made a number of offers of policing and intelligence assistance that we could give, particularly on high-end, expert and technical capabilities. There are already some intelligence officers embedded with the Belgian authorities and there is strong police-to-police co-operation. Clearly, the Belgians are coping with an unprecedented situation in their country. We stand ready to do anything more we can and we are also, clearly, examining all the capabilities and things that we have here to see what more we can do to safeguard our own country.
Angus Robertson
A defining characteristic of a democratic society is our trust in our institutions and democratic oversight by parliamentarians of those who work so hard to keep us safe. We have that oversight with our police and with our security services, but we do not yet have it with UK special forces under the Intelligence and Security Committee or the Defence Committee. Will the Prime Minister address that?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that I just part company with the right hon. Gentleman on that one. We have put in place some of the most extensive oversight arrangements for our intelligence and security services. Our services do a remarkable job, and the police are regularly called to account both locally and nationally. The work that our special forces do is vital for our country. Like everyone else in this country, they are subject to international law, but I do not propose to change the arrangements under which these incredibly brave men work.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Q6. In England, this Government have delivered better GCSEs, better A-levels and a better chance of getting into university than Labour has in Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members have no right to criticise our education policies when their own Education Minister in Wales has had to issue a public apology for the failure of his own?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. What we have seen in England—and we should praise the teachers who have worked so hard to deliver those results—is a result of rigour in standards, independence in our schools and accountability for results. When we look at Wales, we do not see those things in place, so I urge the Welsh Assembly Government to look at that, and I urge the Welsh people, when they have a choice at the coming elections, to ensure that they vote for parties that put education reform, education standards, education rigour and education accountability first.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Q3. In 1992, the oil tanker Braer ran aground off the south coast of Shetland. It was carrying 85,000 tonnes of Gullfaks crude, which then spilled into the sea and on to our shoreline. It caused economic and environmental devastation. Since the Donaldson report into that disaster, we have had an emergency tug stationed in the Northern Isles. It is our protection against ever being blighted in that way again. The Maritime Coastguard Agency now wants to take that tug away. There will be no finance for it after September. Will the Prime Minister look again at that decision, and repeat the undertaking that he made to the people of Shetland in 2014 that he will not leave them exposed in that way again?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. My understanding is that the one tug that has been sustained off the coast of Scotland has played an important role in the past. The cost is between £2 million to £3 million a year. It is currently used very sparingly, so it is right to look at the right way to deliver the service in the future. Alternative options would clearly take time to develop and implement, which is why we have announced that this will be funded until 30 September 2016, and we will have to make a decision on provision in due course. I will keep him in touch with those developments.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Q7. We believe in doing the right thing—[Interruption.]—which is why it is absolutely right that the proceeds of crime are returned to the local communities that have been the victims of crime. Staffordshire’s police and crime commissioner, Matthew Ellis, is calling on community groups in Cannock Chase to apply for grants from his commissioner’s proceeds of crime fund. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that our excellent Conservative police and crime commissioner is delivering real value for the people of Staffordshire?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Police and crime commissioners have really bedded in properly as a means of bringing our police to account. The Home Affairs Committee, an all-party Committee, reported recently that those PCCs provide greater clarity of leadership for policing and are increasingly recognised by the public as accountable for the strategic direction of their police force. That is an important reform, and when PCCs bring forward ideas such as using the proceeds of crime in the way that she suggests they should be rewarded at the ballot box.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
Q4. The list of Ministers and advisers who have resigned after the Prime Minister expressed his full confidence in them is extensive, so may I ask him this: does he still have full confidence in the Chancellor?
The Prime Minister
Of course, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. The Chancellor is the one who, as part of a team, has delivered the fastest growing economy in the G7. We have 2.4 million more people in work; inflation that is virtually zero; wages that are growing; and an economy that is getting stronger.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Q8. The House of Commons Library confirms that this year our net contribution to the EU will increase by more than £2.6 billion—I think it is actually £2,627 million. Should that money be spent on supporting people in Bulgaria and Romania, or should it be spent in this country, supporting our vulnerable and disabled people?
The Prime Minister
I say to my hon. Friend that our net contribution accounts for just over one penny in every pound paid in taxes, so as we enter this vital debate we have to work out whether we believe that that sort of investment—one penny out of every pound—is worth the jobs and the investment, the growth and the security, and the safety and the solidarity that we get through working with our partners. I will be on the side that thinks it is, and clearly he will be on the side that thinks it is not, but we should have a polite and reasonable debate as we go through this. What I will say, which I am sure he will welcome, is that we have limited our contributions to the EU budget because we set an overall EU budget that is falling over the next six years. The reason our contribution varies is that part of it is determined by the success of a country’s economy and—to return to the questions I have just been answering—because our economy has been growing faster than others in Europe, we will make a slightly larger contribution than we otherwise would.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Q5. Not only has my constituent Susan Sutovic suffered the death of her son, but the unexplained circumstances of his death have led to a 12-year battle with the authorities in Belgrade, where this happened in 2004. The UK coroner has now ruled that the death was murder. Will the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary meet the family and do what can be done to get a proper investigation, to resolve the questions that remain and to achieve justice for Petar?
The Prime Minister
I am not aware of the case the hon. Lady raises, but obviously it is important that her constituent gets proper resolution. I shall make sure she has a meeting with Foreign Office Ministers to discuss it.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Q9. JPMorgan Chase, Sunseeker, Cobham, Lush and many other local businesses are supporting the inaugural Mid Dorset and North Poole apprenticeships and jobs fair. If he happens to be free on 15 April, I know the Prime Minister would be warmly welcomed at Queen Elizabeth's school in Wimborne. I know that he will welcome the news that unemployment in my constituency is down by more than 60%, but will he ensure that we are not complacent and that we secure the vital infrastructure needed to get good-quality jobs in Dorset and across the south-west?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons we have managed to get our unemployment rate down to about 5% and 2.4 million more of our fellow countrymen and women into work is that businesses have recovered using apprenticeships. Events such as the one in his constituency will play a part in reaching our 3 million target for apprenticeships in this Parliament.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Q10. Academics, civil society and the Scottish Government have all condemned the Government’s anti-lobbying clause in new grant agreements. How can the Prime Minister promote transparency, democracy and freedom of speech overseas when that clause is clamping down on those principles here in the UK?
The Prime Minister
I would answer simply that I want taxpayers’ and charities’ money to go to good causes, rather than to lobbying Ministers and MPs and spent here. That is what they should be spending the money on. It is worth making the point that we are only one day away from what would have been separation day for Scotland. Had that happened, there would not be money for charities—there would not be money for anything.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Q13. Pubs are the beating heart of many communities across the UK. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the support given to our pubs in successive Budgets by joining me for a duty-frozen pint in the Crown Hotel in Colne, and tell the House what more he can do to support this vital part of our economy?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind invitation. In Budget after Budget, we have seen this Government supporting the pub industry, which is such an important part of our economy and particularly of rural communities. I can make an announcement today that, subject to the usual conditions, we will be extending pub opening hours on 10 and 11 June this year, to mark Her Majesty the Queen’s 90th birthday. I am sure that that will be welcomed across the House.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
Q11. If I compare my constituency with the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s, I find that I have four times the number of youths unemployed, more than double the disabled claimant count and an average weekly wage that is 20% less. Are those the reasons why the Prime Minister and the Chancellor never understood and never had the compassion to realise, as everybody else did, that the disabled cuts were so obviously wrong? I give the Prime Minister one more opportunity: will he apologise to my constituents, who have been scared witless over the past week?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, there remain challenges in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but the claimant count is down by 16% in the past year alone, the claimant count has fallen by 50% since 2010, and the youth claimant count that he specifically mentioned has fallen by 12% in the past year. That has been delivered because we have a strong economy, businesses want to invest in our country, we are supporting apprenticeships, and we are making sure that that growth is delivering for people. In just two weeks’ time, the national living wage will come in, giving the poorest people in our country a £900 a year pay rise, and that will be tax-free because we are lifting the tax threshold in our country.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the remarks this morning by the Foreign Minister of Russia, Sergei Lavrov—that we should put aside our differences and that terrorists should not be allowed to run the show? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would be stronger if we could work together, but to do that we will have to have a better understanding of Russia’s security needs?
The Prime Minister
Of course, we want to work with everyone we can to combat terrorism, but particularly when it comes to what is happening in Syria it is vitally important that the Russians stop any attacks and do not restart any attacks against moderate Sunnis and moderate Syrian opposition, which clearly have to form a part of that country. We cannot in the end defeat terrorism simply through the use of guns and missiles. We defeat terrorism through governance and good working democracies, because in that way people can see their own interests being represented by the countries in which they live.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Q12. The former Work and Pensions Secretary described the cuts to personal independence payments for the disabled as divisive, unfair and against the national interest. The Chancellor’s U-turn suggests that he now agrees. Can the Prime Minister explain how on earth he allowed this to happen in the first place?
The Prime Minister
It is good to have an intervention from someone who, I think, is “neutral but not hostile”. If the hon. Lady keeps going, she could join “core group plus”, with the rest of us. She would be very welcome in “core group plus.” Let me tell her what this Government have done: they have increased spending on disability benefits, and seen 293,000 more disabled people into work in the past two years and 2.4 million more people in work. That is bringing the country together, because we have a growing economy that is delivering a fairer society.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will have seen the recent OECD report on literacy and numeracy in England. Based on data from 2012, it ranked our teenagers bottom out of 23 developed countries for basic maths and reading—a damning indictment of 13 years of Labour’s education policy—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady is entitled to ask her question, and the same goes for every other Member.
Suella Fernandes
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does that not show why a more rigorous curriculum and more autonomy for schools to succeed are vital to turn around the life chances of the next generation?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that it is worth while benchmarking our education system against those of other advanced countries. What we have seen in recent years is that the competition is very tough. When we look at the countries that are succeeding, whether it is the Republic of Korea or Finland, we see that they have well-paid teachers, proper accountability systems for results and rigour in terms of discipline, and that is exactly what we are introducing in our country with the new curriculum coming in right now.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Q14. The women of this country are tired of waiting—waiting for equal pay, waiting for an end to maternity and pregnancy discrimination, and waiting for a fair deal for WASPI pensioners. It is 2016. How much longer?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to raise these issues. It is good that the pay gap is now at an historic low. It has almost evaporated for under-40s but there is more to be done in the public sector and in the private sector to bring that about. On pensions, we have introduced a pensions system which will benefit many, many women in years to come, because we have a single-tier pension without a means test, uprated by prices, earnings or 2.5%. We were able to do that only because we raised the pension age, saving over the long term something like half a trillion pounds—a difficult decision but the right one, because it means that we can look our pensioners in the eye, knowing that they are getting dignity and security in old age.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Two hundred and sixty thousand new apprenticeships have been created since the election, but the whole public sector needs to play its part if we are to meet the 3 million target to which the Prime Minister has referred. Will he ensure that every part of the public sector invests in training our young people so that we have the skills the country needs?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. Getting 3 million apprentices trained during this Parliament is a very stretching target. We will have to see those large companies that have really put their shoulder to the wheel on this agenda continue to do so, but there are two sectors where we need to do better. One is the public sector; we need more public sector organisations to get behind apprenticeships. We also need to make it simple and attractive for small businesses to start training apprentices again. That is absolutely what the Minister for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), is doing with the skills agenda. We all need to work very hard to deliver this by the end of the Parliament.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
Q15. If the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union in June, does the Prime Minister believe that the EU institutions will respond vindictively?
The Prime Minister
It is a very difficult question to answer. We should not be naive, were we to vote to leave, in believing that other countries would automatically cut us some sort of sweetheart deal. Just take one industry as an example: farming. Our farmers know now that they have duty-free, quota-free and tax-free access to a market of 500 million people. Were we to leave, could we really guarantee that French, Italian or Spanish farmers would not put pressure on their Governments to give us a less good deal? I do not think that we could. That is one of the many reasons why I think we are safer, more secure and better off in a reformed European Union.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
In April 2015 the Prime Minister said that there should be a new Carlisle principle to ensure that other parts of the UK do not lose out as a result of Scottish devolution. Can he confirm that that principle will apply, who will review the position, when it will report, and who it will report to?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is particularly important for constituencies, such as his, that are close to the border, to make sure that decisions that are made, quite sensibly and rightly, by the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies do not disadvantage the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the principle set out, and the Chancellor will report regularly on that as he updates the House on his fiscal plans.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I trust that the Prime Minister will be aware that there is a critical meeting of the board of Tata in Mumbai on Tuesday. I will be flying out to Mumbai with the general secretary of the Community union to make the case for British steel. That meeting will decide the future of the Port Talbot steelworks in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister join me in exhorting Tata to stand with that plan and secure the future of the Port Talbot steelworks?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely give the hon. Gentleman my backing on that. A team of Ministers met yesterday to discuss all the things that we can do to get behind the steel industry at this vital time. It is an extremely difficult market situation, with massive global overcapacity and the huge fall in steel prices, but there are areas where we have taken action already and we will continue to look at what more we can do: state aid compensation so that we can secure the energy costs; greater flexibility over EU emissions regulations. We have done a huge amount in terms of public procurement, which I think can make a big difference to our steel industries. We are doing all those things and more, and we are making sure that Tata and others understand how valuable we believe this industry is to the UK and that the Government, within the limits we have, want to be very supportive and very helpful.
Petition
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
This is a petition of the residents of the United Kingdom, who declare that in November 2015 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the tax and revenue office, announced that the Walsall HMRC site will close in March 2017. This means that HMRC will no longer have a presence in Walsall. With the closure, over 60 permanent jobs will be lost from Walsall. There could be a loss of £1 million in the local economy. This loss will inevitably impact on businesses in the locality. The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge HMRC to reverse the decision to close the Walsall HMRC site and carry out a full public consultation exercise on this closure. A petition in similar terms has been signed by 500 people.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that in November 2015 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) announced that the Walsall HMRC site will close in March 2017; further that HMRC will no longer have a presence in Walsall; further that this closure will result in over 60 permanent jobs losses in Walsall; further that this could lead to a loss of £1 million in the local economy; further that this loss will inevitably impact on businesses in the locality; and further that a local petition on a similar matter has been signed by 500 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HMRC to reverse the decision to close the Walsall HMRC site and carry out a full public consultation exercise on this closure.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
Brussels Terrorist Attacks
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the terrorist attacks in Brussels, our response and the threat we face from terrorism in the United Kingdom.
The cold-blooded attacks in Brussels yesterday morning have shocked and sickened people around the world. Fourteen people were murdered and 106 wounded when two bombs exploded at Brussels airport. A further attack at Maelbeek metro station an hour later killed 20 people and wounded more than 100 others. As the Prime Minister has just said, four British nationals are among the injured and we are concerned about one missing British national. Their families have been informed and they are receiving regular consular assistance. We are working urgently to confirm whether any other British nationals have been caught up in these attacks. The investigation into the attacks is still ongoing. These figures may change, and it will take some time for a fuller picture to emerge, but we know that Daesh has claimed responsibility.
These were ordinary people simply going about their daily lives—families going on holiday, tourists visiting the city, workers making their way to their offices. They have been attacked in the most brutal and cowardly way, and I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to the victims, their families and those who have been affected by these events. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
In Belgium, the authorities have increased that country’s terrorist threat level to four, the highest level available, meaning that the threat is serious and imminent. Yesterday, I spoke to my Belgian counterpart, Jan Jambon, to offer my condolences and to make it clear that the UK stands ready to provide any support that is needed. Belgium is a friend and an ally, and we work closely together on security matters. Following the attacks in Paris last November, we deployed police and intelligence service resources to Belgium to support the ensuing investigation, which last week resulted in the arrest of Salah Abdesalam.
This is the 14th attack in Europe since the start of 2015. In January last year, gunmen killed 17 people at the office of Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in Paris; in February, two people were shot dead at a synagogue and a cafe in Copenhagen; in August, an attack was prevented on a Thalys train en route to Paris; and in November, 130 people were killed, and many more were injured, in a series of concerted attacks in Paris. There have been further attacks in other parts of the world, including in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt and Tunisia, where 30 British holidaymakers were murdered. More recently, a suicide bomber killed at least five people and injured more than 30 in an attack in the heart of Istanbul. And there continues to be a threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism. The murder of prison officer Adrian Ismay, who died on 15 March, is a stark reminder of the many forms of terrorism we face.
In the UK, the threat from international terrorism, which is determined by the independent joint terrorism analysis centre, remains at severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. In the last 18 months, the police and the security services have disrupted seven terrorist plots to attack the UK. All were either linked to, or inspired by, Daesh and its propaganda. We know, too, that Daesh has a dedicated external operations structure in Syria which is planning mass-casualty attacks around the world.
Following yesterday’s attacks in Belgium, the Government took precautionary steps to maintain the security of people in this country. This morning, the Prime Minister chaired a second meeting of COBRA, where we reviewed those measures and the support we are offering to our partners in Europe. Border Force has intensified checks at our border controls in Belgium and France, increased the number of officers present at ports and introduced enhanced searching of inbound tourist vehicles. Further measures include security checks on some flights and specialist search dogs at certain ports. The police also took the decision to increase their presence at specific locations, including transport hubs, to protect the public and to provide reassurance. In London, the Metropolitan police have deployed additional officers on the transport network. I can, however, tell the House that neither deployment is in response to specific intelligence.
As I have informed the House on previous occasions, since 2010 the Government have undertaken significant work to bolster our response to the threat we face from terrorism. Last year, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 provided new powers to deal specifically with the problem of foreign fighters and to prevent radicalisation. We extended our ability to refuse airlines the authority to carry people to the UK who pose a risk, and we introduced a new power to temporarily seize the passports of those suspected of travelling to engage in terrorism. That power has now been used on more than 20 occasions, and in some cases has led to longer-term disruptive action such as the use of the royal prerogative to permanently cancel a British passport.
A week ago, the House debated the Second Reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill, which will ensure that the police and the security and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to keep people safe in a digital age. Through our Prevent and intervention programmes, we are working to safeguard people at risk and to challenge the twisted narratives that support terrorism. That includes working with community groups to provide support to deliver counter-narrative campaigns. Our Channel programme works with vulnerable people and provides them with support to lead them away from radicalisation, and, as we announced as part of strategic defence and security review in November last year, this year we will be updating our counter-terrorism strategy, Contest. In addition, we have protected the counter-terrorism policing budget. Over the next five years, we will invest an extra £2.5 billion in a bigger, more capable global security and intelligence network. That will include employing more than 1,900 additional staff at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, and strengthening our network of counter-terrorism experts in the middle east, north Africa, south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
Together, those measures amount to a significant strengthening of our domestic response, but, as the threat continues to adapt and morph, we must build on our joint work with our international partners. As this House is aware, the UK enjoys the longest lasting security relationship in the world, through the “Five Eyes”, with our allies the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. That relationship allows us to share information, best practice and vital intelligence to disrupt terrorist activity, prevent the movement of foreign fighters and stop messages of hate spreading.
Following the attacks in Paris last November, our security and intelligence agencies have strengthened co-operation with their counterparts across Europe, including through the counter-terrorism group, which brings together the heads of all domestic intelligence agencies of EU member states, Norway and Switzerland. Through that forum, the UK has been working to improve co-operation and co-ordination in response to the terrorist threat and to exchange operational intelligence. We are also working bilaterally to increase aviation security in third countries. As I told the five country ministerial in February, defeating terrorism requires a global response, and we will not succeed by acting in isolation.
The United Kingdom has intelligence and security services that are the envy of the world, and some of the most enduring international security relationships. Together with our allies around the world, we must act with greater urgency and joint resolve than we have before. We must continue, as we already do, to share intelligence with our partners, be proactive in offering our expertise to help others, and encourage them to do likewise. We must organise our own efforts more effectively to support vulnerable states, and improve their ability to respond to the threat from terrorism. And we must do more to counter the poisonous and repugnant narrative peddled by Daesh and expose it for what it is—a perversion of Islam, built on fear and lies.
This is the third statement to the House that I have given following a terrorist attack in just over a year. Each horrendous attack brings pain and suffering to the victims and their loved ones. Each time the terrorists attack they mean to divide us. But each time they fail.
Today, all around the world, people of all faiths and nationalities are standing in solidarity with Belgium, just as they stood together after the other appalling attacks. In the UK, people of all backgrounds and communities—Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu and Christian, and people of no faith—are united in our resolve to defeat terrorism. The terrorists sought to strike at the heart of Europe. They seek to attack our values and they want to destroy our way of life, but they will not succeed. These attacks occurred away from the shores of the UK, but we should not forget that our own threat level remains at severe, which means that an attack is highly likely. We will remain vigilant. The police and security services will continue in their dedication to keeping people safe, and the public should remain alert. Together, we will defeat the terrorists. This is the challenge of our generation, and it is a challenge we will win. I commend the statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
The Opposition support everything that the Home Secretary has said, and we assure her of our continued full support in confronting this threat. Today, our thoughts are with the families of those killed or injured, with the family of the British person who is missing and with the people of Brussels. We think of all the people who have suffered in all the attacks that the Home Secretary mentioned, including those last week in Istanbul and Ankara. This was more than an attack on Belgium. It was an attack on the heart of Europe and on all of Europe—a statement of intent from the terrorists, which must be met with a raised and renewed determination to defeat them.
First, let me start with the immediate advice to UK citizens. We welcome the support that is being provided to those caught up in the chaos, but as we approach Easter many families may have travel plans that include travelling to, or through, Belgium. Will the Government consider issuing more detailed travel guidance to them so that they can make informed decisions based on the best available information?
Secondly, on international collaboration, can the Home Secretary say more about the nature of the immediate support that has been provided to Belgium? People will have seen reports suggesting that the suspects were linked to the attacks in Paris and known to Belgian police. That raises the question of whether the Belgian authorities have sufficient capability to deal with the extent of the problem. Is there more that can be done to support them on a longer-term basis? More broadly, given the global nature of the threat, the Home Secretary was entirely right to talk about our collaboration with all European partners.
Thirdly, on border security, we are learning more about the extent of terror networks in Belgium. As we do, it raises questions about travel between the UK and Belgium. Britain has extensive air, sea and rail borders with Belgium. We welcome the immediate steps taken yesterday to strengthen the presence at our borders, but is there now a case for a longer-term review?
Border Force operates juxtaposed controls at six locations in France. However, in respect of Belgium, juxtaposed controls apply only on Eurostar and not at ferry terminals. Will the Home Secretary immediately initiate a review of our borders with Belgium, with a view to strengthening them? She knows of the concerns that I have raised before about UK terror suspects on police bail who have fled the country through sea ports, and we propose to table an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill to close that loophole. Will she today give a commitment to work with us on that?
More broadly on borders, I have serious concerns about further cuts that are coming following the spending review. Border Force has faced years of cuts and is already stretched to the limit. The new financial year starts in a week’s time, but I notice that the Home Office is still to publish a 2016-17 budget for Border Force. Will the Home Secretary correct that today, so that there can be a debate about whether that budget is enough? Surely now is the time to strengthen our borders, not to cut them.
Fourthly, on UK preparedness, we know that seven terror plots have been foiled here in the last 12 months, and we thank all those in the police and security services who are working to keep us safe, but we must keep our own arrangements under review. The public will want reassurance about our ability to cope with a Paris or Brussels-style attack—multiple, simultaneous incidents designed to cause maximum fear and confusion. We know that plans are in hand to improve firearms capability in London, and we welcome those, but there is concern about the ability of cities outside London to cope. A Home Office report on firearms capability published in July 2015 found that the number of armed officers had fallen by 15% since 2008, including a fall of 27% in Greater Manchester and 25% in Merseyside.
There was a report in The Observer late last year that Scotland Yard had briefed the Home Secretary on its fears about the lack of capacity in regional forces to respond to terror attacks. Is that true, and can she say more about it? Has she reviewed the ability of all major cities to respond, and can she provide assurance today that if there were to be a Paris or Brussels-style attack outside London, our police and fire services would have the necessary capability to respond?
In conclusion, while we think of the Belgian people today, we remember, too, that many victims of attacks around the world are Muslims, which suggests that this terror is not about Islam. We also know that, at moments such as this, great anxiety will be felt in the British Muslim community, with fears of reprisal attacks, rising Islamophobia and hate crime. Does the Home Secretary recognise those concerns, and will she today send an unequivocal message to anyone who seeks to promote division or hate on the back of these attacks that they will be dealt with severely? Will she condemn the ill-informed comments made on UK television today by Donald Trump and take this opportunity to distance the UK Government from them? They play into the hands of the terrorists. They are intended to drive a wedge between the Muslim community and the rest of society, who are united in revulsion at what happened yesterday.
Daesh called the innocent people who died and were injured “crusaders”. They were nothing of the sort. They were ordinary, innocent people of all faiths and none, living side by side in one of Europe’s great cities. This is a moment not for division, but for maximum unity among peoples of all faiths and none—a moment to reject those who preach Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and all forms of extremism. Let the unanimous message go out from this House today that we stand together across it as a united country; that we stand with our neighbour Belgium in its hour of need; and that, whatever it takes, and however long it takes, we will face and defeat this threat to our way of life together.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and the tone that he adopted. He is absolutely right. Everybody in this House condemns the terrorist attacks, and we will stand against anybody who seeks to divide our communities.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. On travel guidance, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has updated its website, and it will continue to do so. It will monitor the situation and update the travel advice on the website as necessary. I say to those who are travelling this weekend that because we have extra checks in place, particularly at the channel ports, people may experience delays that they otherwise would not have done. People should try to make sure that they have ample time when they are travelling this weekend.
In relation to immediate support for Belgium, as I said, following the Paris attack last November, we had already given support to the Belgian Government in both policing and the intelligence services. We are building on that, and we have made some specific offers—both the Prime Minister to Prime Minister Michel, and myself to Interior Minister Jambon—of areas where we believe we have expertise that could be of benefit to the Belgians. We look forward to working with them on that.
On the issue of the borders with Belgium, the Immigration Minister has already had some discussions, prior to the attack, with Belgian Ministers about how Border Force operates at certain ports and how we can enhance and increase our ability to act in those areas. Border Force is a more flexible organisation now. It is able to draw on resource more easily from around the country when it needs to surge capacity in certain ports, and that is exactly what it has been doing.
On the question of firearms capability, the uplift that we announced in firearms capability is not just about London. It is about looking at the firearms capability of police forces across England and Wales. The programme that is being put in place by the police covers not just London but other areas and other cities. It looks, crucially, at where there is felt to be most need to uplift firearms capability. We are looking at uplifting the armed response vehicles and the trained counter-terrorism specialist firearms officers.
In relation to working with other emergency services, one of the measures that we have introduced—we started this work a couple of years ago; it has been brought to fruition but it continues—is the joint emergency services programme, which brings ambulance, fire and police together at incidents to enable them to work with better communication and in a more co-ordinated fashion.
The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to raise the issue of those in the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. The Transport and Home Office Minister, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, has spoken to a number of imams and other faith leaders today about these issues. There are many people in the Muslim community in the United Kingdom who are, once again, standing up and condemning the atrocities that have taken place in Brussels.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the comments that Donald Trump has made today. I understand that he said Muslims were not coming forward in the United Kingdom to report matters of concern. This is absolutely not the case: he is just plain wrong. As I understand it, that has been confirmed this morning by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu of the Metropolitan police. People in Muslim communities around the United Kingdom are as concerned as everybody else in the UK about both the attacks that have taken place and about the perversion of Islam underlying the ideology that has led to violence. We are working with them and we will continue to work with them to ensure that everything we do is about uniting our communities, not dividing them.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I share entirely the Home Secretary’s sentiments in commenting on this appalling attack. In explaining the level of security co-operation that we can achieve with Belgium, and indeed with other European countries, my right hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the co-operation that can be achieved through European Union mechanisms. Does she agree with me it is somewhat strange that there have recently been suggestions that those mechanisms in some way endanger our security? Does she agree that, in fact, they greatly enhance it and provide a means by which such co-operation can be improved?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments, with which I agree. A number of mechanisms that we are part of within the European Union enhance our security. As I said in my statement, we need to co-operate on a global basis to defeat these terrorists. Co-operation with other countries, such as within the “Five Eyes” community, is important as well, but we can use mechanisms within the European Union that are of benefit to our security.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I welcome the tone of the Home Secretary’s statement, and I thank her for notice of it. I wish to associate myself and the Scottish National party with the comments of the Home Secretary and others in condemning outright these appalling and devastating attacks in Brussels. Our thoughts are with everyone affected in Brussels and across the globe. Like many other hon. Members of the House, I have spent time in the beautiful city of Brussels over the years, and I have friends and colleagues there. My heart goes out to its many diverse citizens. In addition, we must not forget those affected by the outrages in Turkey. I add the condolences of SNP Members to those of the rest of the House to all those across Europe who have lost loved ones in these terrible atrocities. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected, most particularly the family of the missing British national in Brussels. We sincerely hope that his partner and her sister will be successful in their efforts to locate him.
I wish to associate myself with the comments of the shadow Home Secretary and others about the gratitude we across the House feel to all those, whether the police or the intelligence services, who strive to keep us safe in the United Kingdom. I wish to reiterate the comments of Scotland’s First Minister that these terrorists must not succeed and that we must “unite as a community” to defeat such threats across the United Kingdom and across Europe.
The Scottish National party is committed to protecting the people of Scotland and to keeping our communities safe. While we are aware of the challenges we face from increasingly sophisticated criminals and terrorists, the Government in Scotland have committed to work with the UK Government to defeat these threats against the freedoms we value so dearly. I note that although the UK threat level has not been changed, and we are reassured that there is no specific threat in Scotland, the Scottish Government have taken swift action to place police patrols at airports and rail stations to increase reassurance.
The frightening statement from Daesh promising further attacks and saying that
“what is coming is worse and more bitter”
is the point at which I turn to the Home Secretary for reassurance. People right across the UK will be sitting at home worried for their families and their communities. What reassurances can the Home Secretary give the House about how safe we are in the United Kingdom? What action is her Department taking to ensure that we are protected from and capable of dealing with a future attempted attack? I note that the Home Secretary referred during her statement to the fact that all seven plots that have been disrupted in the UK were either linked to, or inspired by, Daesh propaganda. Does she accept the importance of undermining Daesh’s propaganda capabilities, particularly online, and what is she doing to address that?
Finally, as I have said many times in the House—I think others have acknowledged this—what is of the utmost importance when faced with such serious criminal and terrorist attacks is to ensure that our response is proportionate, targeted and effective. The terrorists aim to instil fear, to divide us and to destroy our freedoms and civil liberties, but we must not give into that narrative. We must ensure that, whatever additional measures are taken to keep our communities safe, they remain united. I am very reassured by what the Home Secretary said about remaining united with our Muslim brothers and sisters in Britain. I associate myself with what the shadow Home Secretary said, and I invite the Home Secretary to condemn Donald Trump’s comments on British media today. Will she assure me that she will keep the importance of our having a united community across the UK at the core of her efforts in fighting terrorism?
Mrs May
The hon. and learned Lady refers specifically to the issue of threat and to safety and security across the whole of the United Kingdom. As I have said and as she will know, the threat level from international terrorism is not set by Ministers; it is set independently by the joint terrorism analysis centre. It has maintained the threat level at severe, which means that an attack is highly likely. Against that background, as I also said in my statement, the police have increased their presence at certain key locations, notably at certain transport hubs, and we have increased the action taken by Border Force at various ports, and that is right. We will obviously keep those levels of activity under observation and monitor them according to the nature of the threat that we see.
It is for us all to be vigilant. I think the public should be alert, not alarmed. We do everything that we can to keep the public safe and secure. Underlying that, however, is of course the need for us to ensure that in particular our intelligence services—our security and intelligence agencies—are able to access the intelligence that enables plots to be disrupted. That means having the powers that we believe are right for them to have to be able to do that role.
The hon. and learned Lady talked about the counter-narrative. It is absolutely right that, as part of the work we do, we should deal with the poisonous ideology that is leading people to violence. That work is being done. We do such work through the counter-terrorism internet referral unit to ensure that pieces are taken down from the internet. The speed at which that happens—the number of items taken down—is now something like 1,000 pieces a week. That has increased significantly in the past year or so. We led on the establishment of an internet referral unit at Europol, which is now enabling that capability to be available not just in the United Kingdom, but across the European Union.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
One of the most effective weapons that the police and security services have in fighting Daesh terrorism is a constant flow of information and intelligence from within the various Muslim communities in this country. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that she and the Government will continue to make every effort to ensure that, in all those communities, there remains the instinct and habit of co-operation with the police and the security services so that this vital flow of information is maintained?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend is right to refer to this as a “vital flow of information”, which it is. From time to time, we look at how to make sure that opportunities are available for people to come forward in a variety of different ways with information that they feel is important. For example, the Metropolitan police have on occasion undertaken campaigns to encourage people to come forward with information. We did that, in particular, in relation to people who might be travelling to Syria. We of course continue look at how to make sure that every opportunity is available for people in Muslim communities and others who feel they have concerns that they need to express to government in various forms to do so. As my right hon. Friend says, that intelligence is absolutely vital.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I commend the Home Secretary’s statement and the unity of all parties in support of what she has said. She was right to protect the counter-terrorism budget last November. At least two of the Paris attackers had gone to Syria to fight and then returned to Europe, and 800 British citizens have now gone abroad, and 400 have returned. I accept her assurances about the borders between our countries and other EU countries, but my concern is the EU’s external border, because anecdotal evidence suggests that those people come from Turkey into Greece. Will she assure the House that the Greek Government are given all the support they need to track people when they return to Europe in the first place? Once people get inside Europe, the Schengen agreement means that they can travel anywhere they like, so that external border is critical.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the external border is important, which is why within the European Union we have been arguing with others for a strengthening of that border. He will also be aware that this issue pertains to the migration crisis in Europe and, at the European Council last week and at the previous meeting, decisions were taken about enhancing our ability to strengthen that border. We have already given significant support to Greece regarding the way it deals with people coming across the border, and we are looking to enhance that support. We stand ready with others to ensure that the work at that border is appropriate and does what is necessary to identify people and ensure that those who should be returned to Turkey are returned. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the Schengen border free zone, and the United Kingdom has its own border at which we are able further to check people who are coming into the UK.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that this issue is now the existential threat of our times and our people are in danger, and that now—as in the 1,000 years of our island history—the channel is our best bulwark. Given that thanks to the Schengen agreement, dozens of jihadists can access all parts of Europe with European passports, will she institute checks on all vehicles entering the United Kingdom from continental ports, and will all the passports of people entering our airports or ports be checked against intelligence sources, whether or not they are European passports?
Mrs May
As I indicated in my statement, Border Force has increased its checks at certain ports. However, I think there is a misunderstanding in my hon. Friend’s question, because we have checks at our borders and we are able to check people’s passports when they come through. That is an important part of our structure in the UK and our security, and we will retain it.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary agree that groups such as Daesh no longer distinguish between the near enemy and the far enemy, and that the twisted ideology that she referred to considers European values such as religious freedom, human rights and democracy as an offence against God?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Daesh is indiscriminate in whom it chooses to attack. Its terrorist attacks have taken place not only in Europe and Turkey and the countries I referred to, but nearer to its base in Syria and Iraq, where many Muslims have died as a result. It is indiscriminate in the people it attacks, and it is attacking our fundamental values which, as he says, include those of democracy, freedom of religion, and law and order, and which underpin our society. That is why it is so important for our society to say once again that we will not let the terrorists defeat us, and I welcome all the comments made around the Chamber that go out from this House today.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
On a recent visit to Europol, the Home Affairs Committee viewed one of the horrific videos on the internet created by Daesh, and the propaganda that it uses to recruit people to its hideous cause. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the security services and police need modern, digital powers, including bulk powers, to destroy those criminals and keep us safe?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and those powers are necessary for our police and security services. That is why we will be putting the Investigatory Powers Bill through the House, because it includes powers to ensure that those whose job it is to keep us safe have what they need to do that job.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The first duty of a Government or any political leader is to protect their citizens. The global list of atrocities that the Home Secretary cited shows that this is a worldwide jihadist ideology, the fight against which we cannot opt out of in the hope that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. I implore her to make this battle not just one of critical public safety, but also about the values that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) spoke about, such as democracy, human rights, equality between men and women, and the freedoms that we enjoy in this country and in others.
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is not something that we can walk away from, and we cannot say that if we do nothing we will be safe and secure. We must fight this ideology and these terrorists, and ensure that the values that underpin our society, which the terrorists are attacking and trying to destroy, are maintained. That is one reason why the Government have looked not just at counter-terrorism, but also at our counter-extremism strategy. We want to work with communities across the United Kingdom to promote the values that underpin what makes this country such a great place to live in—values that are shared across the United Kingdom and across all communities.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Home Secretary referred to the fact that Daesh has a dedicated external operational structure in Syria that is planning mass casualty attacks around the world. It is self-evident that it is much easier for Daesh to progress those attacks against us if it controls an area of territory from which to project that force. Now that there is a cessation of hostilities in Syria, does the Home Secretary agree that it is our priority to assist those Syrian forces that have ceased hostilities to recover the territory now controlled by ISIL-Daesh in Syria?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right to say that the fight against this brutal terrorist group is not just about what we are able to do for our security or with our partners, but also about what happens in Iraq and Syria, and the action being taken against Daesh there. It is important that a solution is brought to the conflict in Syria, which is why the Government are considering not just protection and security in the UK and intelligence sharing, but also the action that it is necessary to take in Iraq and Syria, and the diplomatic efforts to bring about that political solution and stability.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I wish to stand with the Home Secretary, and the people of Northern Ireland will wish to stand with the people of Belgium at this time, given that we endured three decades of this type of terror. The Home Secretary referred to Adrian Ismay who was murdered last week, and she will know about the necessity of cross-border co-operation on the only land border between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. What levels of increased co-operation will there be to prevent any further ingress by international terrorists who may use the Irish Republic as a base from which to launch attacks on the United Kingdom?
Mrs May
We are working closely with the Irish Government to look at areas where it is possible for us to work more closely to enhance our collective security across Ireland and the United Kingdom. We are able to use security measures relating to cross-border arrangements between the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom to help with that security, but we talk to the Irish Government about how we can enhance our co-operation to ensure we keep both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom as safe and secure as we can.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Holyhead is the second-busiest ferry port in the country and, as such, is a significant point of entry from within the common travel area. Is she entirely satisfied that security arrangements at Holyhead—in particular, checks on vehicles and foot passengers— are adequate to address the terrorist threat as she perceives it?
Mrs May
The extent to which Border Force operates checks at various ports is constantly kept under review in relation to threat and perceived risk. My right hon. Friend refers to the common travel area. That is precisely one of the issues we have been working on with the Irish Government to see how we can enhance our collective external border security to ensure that internal border security within the common travel area is improved.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Our unique intelligence capability helped to first identify that it was terrorists who brought down the Russian plane in Egypt, at a time when that was being denied by the Russians themselves. Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that there are no unnecessary obstacles to our sharing such vital information in a timely fashion with our European partners and allies to help them fight this scourge?
Mrs May
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not only sharing information and intelligence with our European partners but encouraging European member states and others to share intelligence so we can build that collective picture. The terrorists know no boundaries and no borders. We need to work together to ensure we can deal with them.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In issuing travel advice to the public, which they rely on to make an informed choice, will the Home Secretary ensure that we have safety first, but that we do not allow terrorists to close down our way of life and are mindful of the impact of that advice on partner nations? I am thinking in particular of north Africa in recent times and of the impact that advice has had on Tunisia, specifically.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The attack in Tunisia saw the murder of so many British holidaymakers. Action on travel advice was then taken, working with the Tunisian Government. If people do not travel, that will of course have an impact on a country’s economy. I assure him that, in looking at travel advice and in issuing guidance on travel, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office considers a range of issues, but of course what must come first is our desire to ensure the security and safety of British citizens.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I echo the Home Secretary’s condolences. Belgium and Brussels have suffered a severe blow and we stand in solidarity with them. I would also like to echo what she said about the Muslim communities here. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the British Muslim Council of Britain, for instance, have been very quick and forthright in condemning the attacks. After Paris, the Metropolitan police said they would be recruiting an extra 600 armed police officers. Is the Home Secretary able to give us a progress report on that, and does the programme now need to be accelerated?
Mrs May
I think there is absolute unanimity around this House in our condemnation of these terrible attacks. There are two elements to the upgrade of the Metropolitan police’s armed response. I think that the 600 figure to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is not the recruitment of new firearms officers but the training of existing officers in certain parts of the Metropolitan police. As I understand it, that training is under way. The uplift in armed response vehicles across the country, which I referred to earlier, is also under way.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The events yesterday underlined the fact that this is an international threat that requires an international response. We are making every effort to strengthen our domestic capability in the Investigatory Powers Bill. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that, in talking to international partners, she will ensure that the Bill can be practically and swiftly enforced elsewhere?
Mrs May
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. One key issue in the Bill is the ability to issue lawful warrants against communication and internet service providers who are located elsewhere, in particular the United States of America. We continue in the Bill to assert the territorial jurisdiction that we and previous Governments have always asserted in relation to those powers, and we are discussing with the US Government the possibility of an agreement that will ensure a very solid basis on which such exchange of information can take place.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Home Secretary satisfied with security at international airports with flights to the UK?
Mrs May
We have a programme, working with the Department for Transport, to look at airports across the world and assess what security arrangements are necessary. There are occasions when we ask airports to increase their security arrangements. That is a regular programme. Obviously, when a particular incident takes place, such as the attack in Tunisia, we provide a very particular focus on the security available there, not just in tourist resorts but in airports as well.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the cross-party condemnation of the terrible acts that have taken place in Belgium. Sadly, these determined terrorists have very sophisticated digital communication capability. What support is my right hon. Friend receiving from internet service providers and other related businesses to help to support the battle against these extremists?
Mrs May
Our interaction with internet service providers is of various types. Obviously, there is the question of access to intercept on the issue of a lawful warrant. As I referred to in my answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), we are looking at an agreement with the United States of America in particular on that. Internet service providers have also been involved in our work to look at how we can ensure the vile propaganda put out by Daesh and other terrorist groups can be taken down from the internet, and how companies can use their own terms and conditions to ensure that that propaganda is not there to infiltrate the minds of those who could be radicalised.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I add my party’s deepest sympathy with Brussels and all the people who suffered there yesterday. Can the Home Secretary reassure soccer fans travelling from Wales and other UK nations to this summer’s UEFA European Championship that every step will be taken to ensure their safety at football stadiums?
Mrs May
There is a very well used method of co-operation with other countries when they are hosting major events, such as European football. The police have already been discussing with their counterparts what arrangements are in place. We will of course continue to monitor those arrangements. We want people to be able to go and enjoy the football, have a good time and have confidence in their security.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has rightly identified the importance of digital and signals intelligence. She will be aware of the recent conflict, if that is the word, between Apple and the FBI over the San Bernardino terrorist attack. What steps is she taking to talk with companies such as Apple, Samsung and Blackberry to try to make them co-operate for the safety of all our people in the United Kingdom and elsewhere?
Mrs May
We have regular meetings, both at official and ministerial level, with a variety of internet and communication service providers to discuss their interaction with the Investigatory Powers Bill and the powers our law enforcement and security agency services in accessing this information. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is important. As more and more people are communicating across the internet, we need to ensure that powers in this area are available to our agencies and the police. That is exactly what we are doing in the Investigatory Powers Bill.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. It became clear following the Paris attacks that there were deficiencies in intelligence and policing linked to what was happening in Belgium. Is she happy that we have learned the lessons of those failures and that they have been carried forward to the intelligence services in this country?
Mrs May
The intelligence services in this country obviously look at any attack that takes place elsewhere in the world and at the information available to see what lessons we need to learn. The key has been the increase in co-operation and intelligence sharing off the back of these attacks. It is important we learn lessons when things happen. Of course, because of the attacks we have sadly suffered in the past, the UK has developed, particularly post 7/7, ways of dealing with these issues, and we are working and sharing our experience with others.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and all that she has said. Does she agree with the comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury in Davos that Europe needs to regain the capacity to use theological language to counter terrorism? She is absolutely right that we have to take down the poisoned propaganda online. What steps are being taken to work with faith communities to put up a counter-narrative online?
Mrs May
I was not aware of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments, but I think he is right. It is important that theological arguments are used to counter this narrative, which is a perverted theology and ideology, and that is exactly what is happening. The Home Office works with people in communities, and, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, there are many imams who put on the internet and elsewhere a counter-theology to ensure that this perversion of Islam does not win through.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She will know that the key to defeating this evil is to understand, disrupt and defeat its terror networks, and a key element of that is its funding. Can she assure the House that she is working closely with colleagues in the Treasury and across Government to target the funds that finance this murderous activity?
Mrs May
Yes, we are doing that. We are looking to see what more we can do to enhance our ability to deal with terrorists’ funding. The UN came together last year, when Finance Ministers from 70 countries met for the first time, to look at the financing of serious crime and terrorism and to see what more action could be taken globally.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Within moments of these atrocities, constituents of mine at GCHQ will have deployed resources to assist their Belgian counterparts. GCHQ is a vital and unique capability. Can the House be assured that it will continue to have the resources it needs to meet what is, regrettably, a growing workload?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people at GCHQ will have responded in support of the authorities in Belgium. Day in, day out, they work to keep us safe and are a vital part of the security and intelligence agency and law enforcement response in the UK. GCHQ is world leading and respected around the world, and long may it continue.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Our thoughts are with the victims of the terrorist attacks and their families. The Home Secretary will be aware that the number of racist and Islamophobic incidents goes up following terrorist attacks, as far right and other extremist groups seek to exploit that space, and that takes up huge amounts of policing resources. Will she assure the House that the police will have the support they need to ensure proper security, support and reassurance in communities such as mine?
Mrs May
Yes, we have supported the police in that way, but we are doing more. We have committed to identifying and recording those hate crimes that have a religious element to give us a much better picture of what is happening. The hon. Lady is right that the number of anti-Muslim incidents often increases after a terrorist attack. The police at a local level will be doing everything to deal with them.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
We are all shocked and saddened by the attacks in Brussels, but understandably members of the Jewish community in my constituency are particularly concerned about the risks facing them. Will the Home Secretary update the House on her assessment of those risks and the steps the Government are taking to deal with them?
Mrs May
I understand my hon. Friend’s comments. The Jewish community in the UK has seen an increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents over the last couple of years. That is a great cause of concern for us, and the Government are working in several ways to ensure a proper response to those incidents and to send out the message collectively—it is important that the House sends it, as the Prime Minister has done in the last few days—that we condemn anti-Semitic incidents. The Jewish members of our community are as much a part of our British community as are the Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Christian members and those members who are of no faith. We are one community and must do everything we can to stop these terrible anti-Semitic incidents.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to an earlier question, does the Home Secretary accept that the best people to make the point that Daesh is perverting the true faith of Islam are not herself, the Prime Minister or any non-Muslims, but any and all Muslim groups here and abroad who reject violent jihadism? Is she prepared to make the sometimes difficult calls to empower and back groups here and potentially regimes abroad who do that, even if they might not accord with all the liberal, secular and democratic values we rightly hold dear in this place?
Mrs May
The Government work with those who wish to send that message to counter the narrative of the perverted Islam that comes from the ideology that underpins this terrorism. We do that through a variety of community groups in the UK. As I indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), many imams in the UK and around the world—I have met some of them—are actively working to spread a different theological message. That is important work.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that sadly many British citizens have joined ISIL in Syria and that many have returned. They represent a terrorist risk and might poison other people’s minds. What assurance can she give the House that they will be apprehended to ensure they do not represent a threat to our security?
Mrs May
We gave extra powers to the police and the authorities in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Over and above that, when somebody returns, we make sure they are looked at case by case. For some people, certain interventions will be necessary and will be put in place, but that will be determined case by case.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Regrettably, I stand again to condemn barbaric attacks, this time in Brussels and Turkey, and to say that these people are not of my faith and should not be considered by anybody to be linked to my faith.
I congratulate the Home Secretary on the budget for the intelligence and security services, but will she also look seriously at the issues with Border Force—in particular, people with e-passports who are validated but not checked properly to see where they have been? Will she reconsider the funding for local policing, particularly for community support officers and local police officers? They contribute hugely to tackling radicalisation and dealing with the intelligence they come across. Finally, will she look at the issues of hate crime affecting all communities and ensure that local authorities and police can deal with them?
Mrs May
On hate crime, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is an issue we have taken up with the police. By looking at how we record hate crime, we hope to build a better picture of exactly what is happening. I commend him for the resolute stand he has consistently taken. This is sadly not the first time he has stood up in the Chamber, following an attack, to say they do not take place in his name. That message is echoed throughout Muslim communities in the UK. On e-passports, obviously e-gates have security capabilities, and we look at the number of Border Force staff available to support those going through them, but, in themselves, the e-gates are part of our security resilience at the border.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I pass on my sympathy for, and solidarity with, all those in Belgium who have suffered from what happened. The Government have published their “Stay Safe” principles to help the public and guide them in the event of attacks in this country, particularly those in mass transit. Can more be done by the rail operators and airline companies to ensure that the message is prominently displayed? Although the message is bleak, we would all be the better for reading it.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is believed that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who was responsible for the Paris attacks, comes from the Molenbeek district of Brussels. I understand that he was able to visit Birmingham last October. Can the Home Secretary confirm that he did visit the UK? Does she know who accompanied him? Can she rule out that it was anyone associated with the present atrocity?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman asks me to refer to people who were involved in the current atrocity that has taken place in Brussels. This is obviously an ongoing investigation, and we are working very closely with the Belgian authorities to ascertain as much information as possible about the individuals involved.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Local media in west Yorkshire this lunchtime are reporting that the family of one of my constituents believe that he is the Daesh terrorist pictured online and responsible for a recent suicide bombing in Iraq, which is claimed to have killed and injured over a dozen people. It is clear that local families have deep concerns about the radicalisation of family members. How can we support those families and tackle terrorism together?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. It is precisely the need to ensure that people do not move down the path of radicalisation that underpins the Prevent strategy and the use of the Channel programme. Through them, at local level, we want to support those who have concerns about what might be happening within their family or community. We want to ensure that where somebody is at risk of radicalisation, action can be taken to ensure that the individual does not follow that path. I believe it is important that we have put the Prevent duty on a statutory basis, which strengthens our ability to act within communities. I ask anyone who has any concerns about a member of their family or any other individual to contact the authorities at local level so that appropriate support and help can be given.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
I would like to associate my party with the Home Secretary’s comments about the terrorist attacks in Belgium and also those about the murder of Adrian Ismay, a prison officer, in Belfast. Does the Home Secretary believe that the European convention on human rights provides any protection, or any additional protection that is not required, to those living under our jurisdiction who may be intent on carrying out terrorist activity?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman may know that I have had my own interactions with the European convention on human rights, when the European Court of Human Rights has been used to try to prevent me from deporting people from the United Kingdom. In certain key cases, we were able to ensure the deportation or extradition of individuals who we believed were a danger here in the UK. The operation of the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights should indeed be looked at, which is why the Government are looking at introducing our own Human Rights Act and possibly a Bill of Rights, which will interact with the ECHR.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
An important section of the UK border exists in my constituency at Gatwick airport. I seek my right hon. Friend’s assurances that Border Force has been strengthened at that location, particularly given that it accepts so many flights from the vast Schengen area. We need to ensure that terrorists who might have made it into Europe cannot then make it into the British Isles.
Mrs May
Yes. Border Force has looked across airports and sea ports to see where it needs to enhance the checks that it provides. It is very conscious of the fact that the coming weekend is a particularly busy one for Gatwick at the start of a holiday period. It will take action accordingly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and commend her for her courage and fortitude at this very difficult time. At this stage of the investigation, it would seem that those who activated the bombs in that murderous attack in Brussels airport did so before they got through security. Is there any intention to upgrade or have spot checks, for instance, outside the present security system? It is quite clear that something more needs to be done.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, on which there has been some commentary in the media. The practical problem is that if security is instigated at an earlier stage, a crowd is simply created in a different place. That is why that suggestion will not necessarily solve the issue of removing the ability to mount an attack on a large number of people. As I have said, the police presence and the visible security presence at certain airports has been increased, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s proposal would necessarily remove the opportunity for terrorists to attack a large number of people.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The appalling events in Brussels highlight the vital work done by our security services to keep us all safe. In the recent debate on the Investigatory Powers Bill, all parties adopted a conciliatory tone. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming that tone and does she share my hope that in the course of the Committee stage we can arrive at a Bill that all parties can support?
Mrs May
Yes, I hope that we can achieve that. We responded to the reports of three parliamentary Committees and revised the Bill accordingly. The Bill before Committee has had those revisions made to it. Both the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), will take the Bill through Committee.
Given the tone adopted in the debate and in the interventions today, I think we could see a constructive process taking place in Committee so that we will shortly have a Bill on the statute book that delivers the safety and security that the people of this country need.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We need urgently to increase our number of armed officers so that we can rapidly respond to the sort of incident that tragically happened in Brussels. It would be a shame if that were delayed in any way by the need of police forces to take decisions about competing demands on their resources. Can the Home Secretary give an assurance that she is confident that the police have the resources they need to rapidly increase the number of armed police officers, as they are requesting?
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the tenor of the statement, and it is clear that reason and resolve, rather than prejudice and bigotry, should define our response. What discussions about firearms capability has my right hon. Friend had with the Ministry of Defence in respect of the availability of military support for civilian law enforcement, particularly outside the major metropolitan areas?
Mrs May
Arrangements are in place for military assistance to the civil power, which can be operated in certain circumstances. Following the attacks in Paris of January last year, we looked at enhancing the capability of the military to support the police, if a multiple attack were to take place. Those arrangements are in place so that there is greater ability for the police to call on the military at an earlier stage if necessary.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has provided some welcome reassurance about the work under way to track and disrupt the movement of terrorists. Will she tell us specifically about any work under way, both here and across Europe, to disrupt the flow of weapons and explosives? That work is also crucial to our safety.
Mrs May
Yes. We have been very clear that we need to see more being done within the European environment and across Europe on firearms. I am pleased to say that, following representations, the European Commission has produced a new draft directive on firearms. I am very clear that we should ban dangerous semi-automatic weapons. That discussion is taking place, but we are clearly pushing for greater ability across the EU to deal with the movement of firearms.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I worked in Brussels for seven years, and my thoughts are naturally with friends and former colleagues in Belgium, as well as with the families of those who were murdered and maimed yesterday morning. Effective security co-operation with other European Union countries is obviously vital, but will my right hon. Friend also consider how we can effectively exchange appropriate security information with allies through membership of other international organisations, such as NATO and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure that we use every available opportunity, when appropriate, to exchange security information, support and intelligence, and to work together. That is why, as I said earlier, we have the “Five Eyes” co-operation, which is very important to the United Kingdom. We work within the European Union, but other organisations are involved as well. As I said to an Opposition Member earlier, in the United Nations there has also been a greater understanding of some of the measures that need to be taken.
Points of Order
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like your advice on a Select Committee report that was published only this morning, but which, I am afraid, relates specifically to some of the business that is before the House today.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has reported on an investigation into a complaint against HS2 Ltd that was upheld by the ombudsman, who fined HS2. The Committee received and published a large body of evidence that is highly critical of HS2 Ltd. Following its investigation, the Committee has declared that the
“culture of defensive communication and misinformation within”
HS2
“is not acceptable. Unless those responsible for delivering HS2 understand that first and foremost they serve the public, and take action to reflect this, then they will continue to be vulnerable to the criticism that they have disregard for members of the public who are impacted by”
HS2.
The report was published only this morning, so it has obviously been impossible to table amendments to the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, with which we shall be dealing later today, in respect of the report and that poor communication and disregard for people affected by HS2. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether it would still be possible, in the House, to call for a separate debate on the report, and to look into the continuing disrespectful behaviour of HS2 Ltd and its management?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order, to which my response is twofold. First, as I am sure she will be aware—this will not satisfy her, but I say it as a matter of fact—the report to which she has referred is tagged to the Third Reading debate on the Bill. That is to say, it is highly germane to that debate.
Secondly, the right hon. Lady asked me whether she could call for, or seek by one means or another, a separate debate on the report. The answer is that most certainly she can seek such a debate, and she may well be successful in obtaining such a debate—I do not, at this point, know—but that, of course, will not assist her in terms of the business scheduled for today. The matters that are up for debate in the House today will naturally proceed, and must, in terms of good order, do so. Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady, who is a wily operator, has made her point in her own way, and it is clearly on the record. That seems to bring—
Mr Speaker
—a warm smile to the visage of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, from whom we shall now hear.
Mr Speaker
Whose birthday, allegedly, it is. It is always useful to have a bit of information. I wish the hon. Member for The Cotswolds a happy birthday, and I look forward to hearing his point of order.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
On a point of order, Mr Speaker —and thank you for your good wishes. As you will know, I very rarely make points of order in the House, but on this occasion I must seek your advice on how I might lobby the business managers about the inadequacy of the time that has been provided for the Report and Third Reading debates on the Bill today.
Millions of people up and down the line are affected by this large and highly complex project, and by the Bill. I do not think that three hours for Report and Third Reading is sufficient to give Members of Parliament an opportunity to make representations on this complex project on behalf of their constituents, let alone members of the Select Committee, some of whom—although not I—spent 160 working days sitting in the Select Committee. Some might give the House the benefit of their wisdom by suggesting how the hybrid Select Committee procedure could be improved.
Mr Speaker
First, let me acknowledge and pay tribute to the extremely unselfish and conscientious work that the hon. Gentleman and others did on the Committee, under the distinguished and stoical chairmanship of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms). Secondly, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that if the Government Chief Whip was here, he would have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but he is not, so he has not. That said, I feel sure that the thrust of it will be conveyed to the Chief Whip ere long.
Mr Speaker
Of course I will come to the right hon. Lady, and will treat her with the very greatest respect.
As Members know, and as others attending to our proceedings need to be aware, these are not matters for the Chair. Members are ventilating their very real sense of grievance and unhappiness, but these are matters for the business managers to determine. They make their own judgments. People operate—if I can put it in this way—at their own level in regard to what they judge to be the proper treatment of business and of the thoughts on these matters of Members, including minorities of Members. Those are not judgments that I can second-guess. We all have our own views, but I think that I should properly leave it there.
Mrs Spelman
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that I, too, rarely make a point of order in the House.
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for understanding the frustration that we feel, as Members representing the affected constituencies. The fact is that, given that roughly 50 amendments have been tabled, if we were to put our amendments to the vote in the time available—one hour for the first group and two hours for the second—there would be no time for us even to discuss them.
A great deal of work, and a great deal of excellent assistance from the Clerks, has gone into creating amendments that I believe would ameliorate the consequences of the Bill. Will you use your good offices, Mr Speaker? When you speak to the Lord Speaker, will you draw her attention to the fact that, although amendments were tabled, we had very little opportunity to debate them and press them to a vote?
Mr Speaker
That was an extremely well chosen and thoughtful point of order. I acknowledge that, as the right hon. Lady said, she very rarely raises points of order; her seriousness of purpose is, I think, respected in all parts of the House.
I will indeed convey that sentiment to the Lord Speaker. I think that the unhappiness is well known. It is a matter of fact that, among those affected, there will be very real consternation about this. That the individuals affected are a minority of the electorate is not in doubt, but they will be very unhappy about it, and that is not something that should be blithely dismissed by the Executive branch of our political system.
There will be those who think, “All that you do is get the business through and that is all that matters”, and who are quite hard-headed and perhaps even a bit cynical, but people ought to have regard to the views and interests of minorities. They might, on a particular issue, one day be in that position themselves; they will then want the very protection that the right hon. Members for Meriden and for Chesham and Amersham, and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, are seeking. I will certainly relay the concern to the Lord Speaker.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was always my understanding that if one wished to add one’s name to amendments, as long as one did it the day before the day on which the Order Paper was to be published, that was sufficient. So I was a little surprised, on reading today’s Order Paper, to see that, despite the personal visit that I made yesterday to the Private Bill Office—no one suggested to me that I was too late to add my signature to a number of the amendments—my name does not appear at all. I wondered whether that was a matter on which you could shed any light, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
We have been extremely well served, as always, by our Clerks, who do their business with great commitment and prowess, and I have just been advised on this matter. That advice is that I will cause the matter to be investigated. The truth is that, off the top of my head, I have absolutely no idea why the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s name has not been added to those amendments. One would assume that in the ordinary course of events it would be, so I am rather taken aback. His understanding of the normal practice is, as usual, quite correct. Let us have the matter looked into, but I hope that it will be trumpeted to the good people of the Beaconsfield constituency that he sought to have his name added to the amendments, and the work in progress is that he may yet succeed in that mission.
Mrs Gillan
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that I am not trying your patience, or that of the House, too much by raising a further point of order. I want your advice on this matter for the benefit not only of those in the House but of the people outside who watch these proceedings. It might be of interest to know that when the Channel Tunnel Bill went through the House in 1987, its Report stage was not guillotined and lasted from 7 pm until 1.50 am. Only after that did its Third Reading debate begin. Mr Speaker, could you confirm that, according to the timetable motion on the Order Paper, if any Member chose to press an amendment in the first or second group to a vote, that vote would eat into the time allowed for Members to debate these matters? Our constituents are not going to understand why Members do not press these amendments to the vote, but the Government have engineered this so that if we do so, we will have no time to debate the Bill. There might be Members present who wish to have their amendments voted on, but if they press their amendments to a vote, they will rob Members on both sides of the House who are affected by the Bill of the opportunity to speak. As you have pointed out, Mr Speaker, this affects only a very small minority because both the main parties in the House are being whipped to vote for the Bill.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Lady’s interpretation is correct. I always think that it is important for our proceedings to be intelligible to people beyond this place, so let it be stated on the record that these exchanges have not eaten into the time available for debate at all. They have obliged the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is about to present his ten-minute rule Bill, to wait patiently before being able to speak to it, but they have not in any way detracted from or taken time out of the debate on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is correct to say that if Members seek a Division on a particular amendment, that will eat away at the remaining time available for debate. A lot of people will feel that that is a regrettable state of affairs, to put it mildly. I note what she has said about the precedent of the Channel Tunnel Bill. The Secretary of State is not in his place, although he might very well be here for Third Reading. As far as I am aware, he is a person of robust constitution and perfectly capable of staying in the Chamber for an appreciable period to debate matters of important public policy. I have never had any reason to suppose that his conscientious Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—[Interruption.] His Minister of State, indeed. No discourtesy was intended to the hon. Gentleman. I have never had reason to suppose that the Minister of State was incapable of strenuous parliamentary endeavour over an extended period.
Mr Goodwill
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to point out that last night’s Business of the House motion was not objected to. On the matter of Members having had their say on the Bill, the Select Committee sat for 160 days, which was more than 700 hours. It heard 1,600 petitions, and 21 Members of this House appeared before it a total of 36 times. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) herself attended three times, for a total of two hours and 10 minutes.
Mr Speaker
That is a matter of indisputable fact, and I thank the Minister of State for taking the opportunity to make that point. So far as last night is concerned, it is also a matter of fact that the motion was not objected to. The Business of the House motion appertaining to this matter was of course objected to on Monday evening by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. Had it been objected to last night, there would have been a requirement for a debate today on Members’ concerns, which would have eaten into the available time. The absence of an objection last night and the fact that I have just mentioned are obviously causally linked.
Mrs Gillan
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, and to the courteous contribution from the Dispatch Box by the Minister of State, I would like to confirm that I did object to the sittings motion, but in discussions with the business managers I was informed that if I objected on the second night, the matter would have come back today and eaten into our debating time. That would of course have been completely self-defeating. I think the point was made on the first day when the objection was made, and the Minister should really understand the procedure in that sense.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Lady has put the matter fairly and squarely on the record. I am always happy to hear points of order and to do my best to respond to them, but I think it is fair to say that for now we have exhausted that terrain. We should move on to the ever-patient right hon. Member for North Norfolk.
Cannabis (Legalisation and Regulation)
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to provide for the lawful production, packaging, marketing, sale, purchase, possession and consumption of herbal cannabis in specific circumstances by certain persons; and for connected purposes.
It is long overdue that we call time on the so-called war on drugs launched 45 years ago by the then President of the United States of America, Richard Nixon. Since then, billions of dollars every year have gone straight into the hands of organised crime, Governments have been corrupted by the drugs trade, thousands upon thousands of people have lost their lives in countries such as Mexico and Colombia, profits from the drugs trade have funded terrorism—as recognised by the United Nations Security Council—and thousands of our fellow citizens every year are criminalised for using drugs. This has been a catastrophic failure.
There is an urgent and compelling case for a more rational approach. Thankfully, around the world, sense is breaking out. In the United States, Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia have all legalised cannabis, introducing a regulated market. Uruguay has done the same thing. In Europe, Portugal has decriminalised drug use—a move that now has cross-party support from right to left—and is instead taking a health-based approach. Drug-related deaths and sexually transmitted diseases due to drug use have decreased dramatically as a result of the change. And now in Canada, the new Liberal Government have been elected on a manifesto that commits them to legislating for the legalisation of cannabis. My plea is that in this country we should base our approach on evidence and on reducing harms rather than on fear and anxiety about public reaction. My sense is that the public are, in many respects, way ahead of the politicians on this subject.
My starting point is that I am instinctively hostile to drugs, legal and illegal. Tobacco kills about 100,000 people in our country every year. Alcohol causes untold damage to very many families, not least because of its association with domestic violence. It also leads to violence on our streets. The most potent strains of cannabis also carry health risks, including psychosis and memory loss, but do we really think that we best protect people by leaving the supply of cannabis in the hands of organised crime? No criminal is interested in people’s welfare. When someone chooses to buy cannabis, they have no idea what they are buying or how potent the product is. So-called skunk is widely available on the criminal market in every town and city across our country. Any idea that we can protect people by keeping it illegal is fanciful. No one now believes that we can actually win the war on drugs, so a public policy intended to protect people from harm is achieving precisely the opposite, and we are putting billions of pounds every year into the pockets of organised crime. What a spectacularly stupid self-defeating policy!
Some people raise a legitimate anxiety about people moving from cannabis to harder, more dangerous drugs, but the risk is self-evidently far higher when people buy from criminals, who have a direct interest in persuading them to do just that. On top of that, we criminalise tens of thousands of people every year for the use of cannabis, blighting their careers, damaging their life chances and restricting their ability to travel. Many people with mental ill health resort to cannabis as a relief from the pain they suffer, and then we criminalise them. What a cruel, unjust policy that is. We criminalise multiple sclerosis sufferers and many others who use cannabis to relieve pain, so I strongly support the “End Our Pain” campaign.
There is real hypocrisy here. While those people are knocked back by criminal convictions, others, usually the more privileged, go on to build successful careers. How many members of the Government have smoked cannabis while maintaining their support for the conviction of their fellow citizens? The Prime Minister was a reformer. It has also been reported that he and others were caught smoking cannabis at Eton. He has gone on to do quite well. Having signed up to a Select Committee on Home Affairs report in 2002 calling for the then Labour Government to initiate a discussion of alternative ways, including the possibility of legalisation and regulation, to tackle the global drugs dilemma, he retreated once elected Conservative leader and now seems implacably opposed to reform. Why has the Prime Minister changed his mind? Why continue to allow our fellow citizens to be put at risk, with the possibility of criminal conviction, for doing exactly what he did?
My party, the Liberal Democrats, commissioned an independent expert panel to advise on a more rational approach. The panel was made up of leading experts and included a retired chief constable of Cambridgeshire, Tom Lloyd, and the serving chief constable of Durham, Mike Barton. They know better than anyone the drain on police time caused by dealing with drug possession offences. The report, published on 8 March, is rational, wise and balanced. It points to a different approach, and the Bill seeks to implement that approach.
The proposed framework is based on the primary goal of protecting and enhancing public health and community safety, with a particular focus on the health and wellbeing of vulnerable and marginalised groups. It is guided by evidence and deliberately cautious and proposes regular reviews. It sets out plans to establish a cannabis regulatory authority. Producers and products and sales would be licensed. Cannabis would be sold through licensed outlets. There would be mandatory provision of health advice to consumers at the point of sale. Cannabis would be sold in plain packaging. There would be a minimum age of 18 for the purchase and consumption of cannabis. Critically, there would be controls on potency, with a minimum requirement of 4% cannabidiol, which is important for reducing the risk of dependence, psychosis and memory loss. Of course, no such safeguards are available on the existing criminal-controlled market.
The expectation is that sales could raise up to £1 billion in tax. There would be significant savings of police time, enabling them to focus on serious and violent crime. Limited amounts of home growing for personal use would be permitted, with an enforceable limit of plants per household. The scheme would also permit small-scale licensed production for membership-based cannabis social clubs similar to those that have existed for years in Spain. They would have to be operated on a not-for-profit basis and would be subject to conditions, including limiting the size of clubs to fewer than 100 adult members and limiting per-member production and supply. It would remain a serious criminal offence to drive while impaired by cannabis.
I understand why many people’s first instinct might be to fear the consequences of legalising cannabis, yet thinking through the disastrous consequences of maintaining prohibition of this drug—the profiting of criminals, the health risks resulting from people not knowing what they are buying, the criminalising of so many people, including those with mental ill health and multiple sclerosis—leads to the recognition that a new, more rational approach is desperately needed.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Norman Lamb, Tim Farron, Mr Nick Clegg, Tom Brake, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Caroline Lucas, Paul Flynn, Michael Fabricant, Crispin Blunt and Mr Peter Lilley present the Bill.
Norman Lamb accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 April, and to be printed (Bill 156).
High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 273 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 43 / Noes: 245 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 190 / Noes: 254 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 399 / Noes: 42 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Reimbursement of local authorities for expenses and lost business rate revenue resulting from HS2—
‘(1) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport shall conduct an assessment of costs incurred by local authorities that arise directly and indirectly from the construction and future operation of HS2, including staff costs, and shall ensure that such additional funding as is required to reimburse local authorities for those costs is made available.
(2) To the extent that such additional funding is not made available through service level agreements, the Secretary of State for Transport shall make the additional funding available through other means of local authority funding within six months of the end of the relevant financial year.
(3) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government shall appoint an independent auditor to assess the extent of any shortfall in local authority revenue attributable to closure of or movement of businesses and consequential diminution in business rates.
(4) The Secretary of State for Transport shall establish a mechanism whereby any such shortfall shall be made good within six months of the end of the relevant financial year.’
This new clause is intended to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for costs consequential on the construction of HS2, and to ensure that there is compensation for lost business rate revenue.
New clause 2—Reimbursement of local authorities for damage to highways resulting from HS2 construction—
‘The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport shall conduct six-monthly assessments of the amounts required to repair and make good highways in each county following construction of HS2 Phase One, and shall ensure that such additional funding as is required to meet those amounts is made available to local authorities.’
This new clause is intended to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for highways repair costs consequential on the construction of HS2.
New clause 3—Amount of funds allocated to the Business and Local Economy Fund and Community and Environments Fund—
‘The Secretary of State for Transport shall allocate a sum of £150,000,000 to the funds established to support business and local economy and community and environment initiatives to mitigate and address the effects of HS2 construction.’
This new clause is intended to increase the amounts allocated by the Department for Transport to the Business and Local Economy Fund and the Community and Environment Fund from £30m to £150m.
New clause 4—Compensation procedures—
‘(1) The Secretary of State for Transport shall ensure that included within contested valuation procedures for claimants under statutory or discretionary HS2 compensation schemes are processes for valuation by a valuer with knowledge of local markets.
(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that all compensation applications are acknowledged within a period of two weeks and responded to substantively within a period of ten weeks, failing which the application will be deemed accepted.’
This new clause is intended to insert procedures for valuation by local valuers in disputed compensation cases, and to seek to ensure timely responses to compensation applications.
New clause 20—Public Sector Operators—
‘(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (public-sector operators not to be franchisees) does not apply in relation to the franchisee in respect of a franchise agreement—
(a) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more Phase One of High Speed 2 passenger services, or
(b) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more other services for the carriage of passengers by railway where—
(i) the services run wholly or partly on the route of Phase One of High Speed 2, and
(ii) the services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption because of the construction of Phase One of High Speed 2.
(2) The following may in particular be taken into account in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption—
(a) the frequency with which the services are likely to be disrupted,
(b) the duration of the period in which the services are likely to be disrupted (and, in particular, its duration relative to the length of the franchise term),
(c) the severity of any likely disruption.
(3) In this section—
“franchisee”, “franchise agreement” and “franchise term” have the meanings given by section 23 of the Railways Act 1993 (designated passenger services to be provided under franchise agreements).’
New clause 21—Financial Reports—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on expenditure under this Act in relation to each financial year.
(2) Each report must contain details of—
(a) expenditure incurred during the financial year to which the report relates (with capital and resource expenditure specified separately in relation to construction and other activity under this Act and in respect of each head of expenditure referred to in section 1(4)(a) to (c) of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013);
(b) the extent to which expenditure incurred during that year represents an overspend or underspend as against the budget for such expenditure for the year;
(c) the likely effect of any such overspend or underspend on a total budget of £55.7 billion in 2015 prices (which includes construction and the cost of rolling stock);
(d) total expenditure incurred under section 67 up to the end of that year;
(e) sums or assets received in that year in connection with expenditure incurred under this Act, including in relation to section 48.
(3) In this section, “financial year” means—
(a) the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending;
(b) each subsequent period of 12 months.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay each report under this section before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which it relates.’
New clause 26—Protection of business continuity by extended notice of entry in the case of vulnerable businesses—
‘(1) If an operator of a business or undertaking believes that the business or undertaking’s continued operation or profitability would be vulnerable if inadequate notice is received of the planned exercise of powers under sections 4, 5, 6, 12 or 15 of this Act and the associated schedules, the operator may notify the Secretary of State of this belief.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “inadequate notice” means a period of notice that would not provide a reasonable amount of time for the business or undertaking to relocate to a new premises and refit that premises to a reasonable standard before the exercise of the powers.
(3) Upon receipt of such notification, the Secretary of State must facilitate a dialogue with the operator in relation to timing and funding of business relocation, and required notice periods, and shall consider the reasons for the operator’s belief.
(4) Unless the dialogue provides a satisfactory resolution within three months of initial notification—
(a) a 12-month minimum notice period shall apply for the exercise of powers mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to the relevant business or undertaking; and
(b) the early compensation payable to the operator shall be 100%, not 90%, of the estimated relocation costs, and such compensation shall be payable in full, nine months before the anticipated relocation date notified by the operator.”
New clause 27—Report on classification of HS2 as England-only project—
‘Within 3 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—
(a) the classification of HS2 as an England-only project for the purposes of Treasury expenditure, and
(b) how much extra money Wales would receive in terms of Barnett consequential money as a result of such classification.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on reclassifying HS2 as an England-only project for the purposes of calculating Treasury expenditure through the Barnett Formula and how much more money Wales would have received as a result.
New clause 30—Community detriment fund—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must establish a community detriment fund.
(2) The community detriment fund will provide an additional source of funding to communities, supplemental to that available through the community and environment fund.
(3) The community detriment fund will be available to address adverse impacts of HS2 construction on communities, including but not limited to impaired accessibility, diminution in availability of community amenities, and physical effects of construction.
(4) A principal objective of the fund will be to remove the need for formal compensation claims and to provide an expedited means of claiming funding for detriment.
(5) The fund will be available only to address adverse effects on communities, not impacts on individual households, businesses or undertakings.
(6) Among the measures that may be considered as available for funding to address detriment shall be transport facilities such as shuttle services.’
New clause 32—Review of fairness of rural support zone compensation—
‘The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the reasons for situating the boundary of the Rural Support Zone in west London which shall be laid before both House of Parliament within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent.’
New clause 33—Compensation—
‘(1) Within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report responding to a review of compensation applicable to those affected by HS2 Phases One and Two which shall by then have reported in accordance with directions already issued.
(2) The review shall consider the following—
(a) whether a compensation framework based on a property bond system could be an equally or more effective means of compensating those affected by blight from HS2 construction and operation while maintaining a functioning property market, having due regard to demands on public expenditure and investment;
(b) whether the current rateable value limit for compensation and blight claims by owner-occupiers of business premises should be abolished or amended;
(c) whether loss payment ceilings are fair and appropriate;
(d) whether a higher proportion of advance compensation for relocation than the current 90% should be payable in certain instances;
(e) whether the time limits for claiming compensation where no land is taken should be re-evaluated;
(f) the position of those affected by blight caused by HS2 whose property is subject to mortgage and who may find themselves unable to remortgage or in a position of negative equity as a result of such blight;
(g) whether those considering a claim for compensation should receive advance payment of fees for professional advice.’
Amendment 15, in clause 48, page 18, line 8, after “considers” insert
“having regard to the relevant development plan,”.
Mr Goodwill
I must confess that I feel like a queue-jumper, because I added my name and the Government’s support to new clause 19 and amendment 15 only last night. I will be brief, because I know that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) will want to expand on them and to explain why his case was so convincing and compelling. It is another example of how our new railway will be delivered not only on a cross-party basis in this House, but with the support of the great cities of the midlands and the north.
I welcome new clause 19 on vocational qualifications. I strongly believe in the importance of ensuring that we utilise the opportunities that HS2 will create for skills and jobs, which is why we have invested in the National College for High Speed Rail. New clause 19 will further bolster the importance of delivering skills as part of the development of HS2. As such, the Government support it becoming part of the Bill.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know that he needs to get on. Does he agree that it is important that the National Construction College and the Construction Industry Training Board are closely involved in this skills initiative?
Mr Goodwill
Indeed, I look forward to being in Doncaster soon with the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), the Opposition Chief Whip, to cut the first sod in that project. It is important that we look at skills across the board. The college’s hub and spoke arrangement will enable other educational establishments to engage fully and will allow for other qualifications.
Similarly, I welcome amendment 15 from the Opposition. It relates to clause 48, the purpose of which is to ensure that the regeneration opportunities presented by HS2 are maximised in a timely manner. It is a backstop power and we expect that local authorities will lead such opportunities using their existing powers, but in the event that development is impeded we will have the ability to step in to ensure that development progresses. It is important that such development takes into account relevant development plans. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) tabled the amendment, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support it.
Turning to the other proposed changes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has proposed several new clauses and amendments. She has been a tireless advocate for her constituents affected by HS2. However, all her points have been considered before, at length, through the Select Committee process, parliamentary debates, and the many parliamentary questions she has asked my Department. The process has delivered clear benefits to her constituency, including a 2.6 km tunnel extension, meaning that almost 86% of the route in her constituency is tunnelled, with the rest in a cutting. Her constituency has also benefited from the removal of an area of sustainable placement at Hunts Green and more noise barriers along that cutting. I acknowledge the points made but do not believe that new clauses 1 to 4 should be added to the Bill.
New clause 20 deals with the nationalisation of rail services, an area of ideological difference between the Government and the Opposition. I am therefore unlikely to convince them on it, and, I suspect, vice versa. It is clear to the Government that the franchising process delivers better services, better value for money and a better railway. Since privatisation, the rail industry has been transformed, with the number of passenger journeys more than doubling over the past 20 years. We believe this remains the right approach overall for Britain’s railway.
In any case, the new clause is unnecessary, as under the existing legislative framework it is possible for the state to operate rail services, as happened temporarily on the east coast main line. It is possible, and indeed quite likely, that the state might run HS2 initially, to prove certainty on operation and passenger numbers, but for the long-term successful future of HS2 a privately operated franchise is the best way forward.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is giving a pretty fair assessment of how he sees this proceeding. The new clause provides for a permissive power, meaning that it would simply be available going forward. The proposal has been mirrored in previous legislation, such as that dealing with Crossrail, so what is the Government’s objection to a permissive clause of this kind?
Mr Goodwill
I thought I just said that this power is already available and therefore this is a superfluous new clause and we do not need it to give us these powers. I very much doubt Opposition Members will agree with my view that nationalisation of the railways is not the way forward, so stuck as they seem to be in the 1970s, but I hope I may have provided sufficient explanation as to why this power is not required.
We have given consideration to the other proposed new clauses and amendments. Although I understand the importance of some of the issues raised, I do not believe they belong in the Bill, as they have already been considered during the Select Committee process. To conclude, in order not to take up any more time than is necessary, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be able to support the inclusion of new clause 19 and amendment 15, but I urge them to not to press the other proposals, which I do not believe are required.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate and play a part in this Bill’s progress. We fully appreciate the importance of this vital piece of infrastructure and the benefits it will bring to our country for generations to come. It is not common to find such consensus in this House, but I am pleased that both the Government and the Opposition understand the need for this high-speed railway. HS2 was, of course, the brainchild of the previous Labour Government, but I readily acknowledge the work that the current Government have done in progressing the project. It is to be very much welcomed for the country that we have such consensus across the House on such important national infrastructure projects.
In that same vein, I shall discuss new clause 19, which stands in the name of the Minister, as well as in my name, those of some of his colleagues and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). It deals with vocational qualifications.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Just in case it might be thought that there is not still entrenched opposition to these proposals, may I say, speaking not only for myself but for many of my colleagues and for people in Staffordshire, where we get no benefit from this scheme at all, given the damage it is doing to our countryside, that I wish to register opposition to this in its entirety?
Andy McDonald
I think I used the word “consensus” not “unanimity”. I sincerely thank the Minister for his constructive approach to this issue and for adding his name to mine by way of support. There is agreement across the House that both jobs and skills are a core part of the case for HS2, and I note that the recent Shaw report calls for much deeper strategic engagement of trade unions across the rail industry. Accordingly, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and HS2 Ltd for their positive engagement with the TUC in securing an agreement to make sure that trade unions, HS2 and its suppliers work together to maximise HS2’s economic and labour market potential?
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman at all worried about the possible job impact on the existing railway, because most of the passengers for this line are going to come from journeys that would otherwise have been made on existing trains? Presumably, there will therefore be a decline in fares, revenue and job opportunity on the existing railway.
Andy McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman misses the point: this is about having a positive impact on capacity issues. That is the singular and most important purpose of this development.
In the words of the magnificent Frances O’Grady:
“It is clear that trade union engagement is vital to ensuring that HS2 is delivered to time and to budget—and that it is delivered in a manner that reflects the best of socially responsible development.”
The agreement contains the commitment to pay the voluntary living wage—and the voluntary London living wage—and to offer a minimum number of apprenticeships and workforce skills development, among other things. The agreement is an excellent example of how industrial relations should be approached from the outset in projects of this magnitude, and indeed throughout the construction industry, and I hope that it can be the template for good practice throughout industry. The construction of such infrastructure projects places demands on a nation to provide the necessary skilled workforce, creating opportunities for people, and younger people in particular, to equip themselves with not just the vocational qualifications to assist in the construction of this railway, but the tools necessary to forge careers that will be of benefit to both themselves and the nation long after the completion of HS2. Labour Members welcome the fact that, following on from the success of the Kings Cross construction skills centre, a National College for High Speed Rail will be located both in Birmingham and Doncaster, providing specialist vocational training to the next generation of engineers working on HS2 and beyond. We also welcome the fact that HS2 Ltd will provide £4.1 million towards a Euston construction skills centre.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I, too, am sorry to break the cosy consensus of the two Front-Bench teams, who seem to be conspiring to spend possibly £100 billion of taxpayers’ money on what I believe to be a white elephant. Does the shadow Minister have no concern at all about supporting the Government on a major infrastructure project where the cost-benefit ratio is as low as £1.40 for every pound spent?
Andy McDonald
Let me clarify that this is not about a cosy consensus; it is about rigorous examination. There has been a forensic examination of this matter through a lengthy Select Committee and a Bill Committee. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong about the cost-benefit ratio. The correct figure is 2.3:1.
Andy McDonald
I have already given way and I must now make some progress.
The Government estimate that as many as 2,000 apprenticeship opportunities will be created by HS2, and there will be about 25,000 people employed during its construction. That is welcomed by Members from all parts of the House. Because of the importance of the creation of vocational qualifications in connection with HS2’s construction, we feel it is appropriate that Parliament is given proper oversight on progress in this regard. That is why we tabled new clause 19, which will impose a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report on vocational qualifications obtained in each financial year in connection with HS2 construction. It seems to us to be eminently sensible for the Secretary of State to report annually on the progress of the creation of vocational qualifications, and I am grateful that the Government have accepted that the new clause should be part of the Bill.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I support the new clause. Will this annual report capture people gaining qualifications not only through HS2 Ltd and the key construction companies, but further up the supply chain?
Andy McDonald
The new clause is focused principally on HS2 Ltd, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I am sure the Minister and the Secretary of State are listening intently to him. The intention must be to embrace all those within the supply chain.
Amendment 15 would make a small change to clause 48. It simply seeks to insert a requirement that as and when the Secretary of State considers that there is an opportunity for regeneration or development, and land is to be acquired compulsorily for that purpose, regard be had to the relevant development plans that obtain in respect of that particular location. I am grateful that such a modest and reasonable amendment finds favour with the Government.
New clause 21 deals with financial reports. It would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report on expenditure in each financial year. Each report would contain details of any overspend or underspend against the budget for such expenditure for the year, as well as the likely effect on the total budget.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andy McDonald
I will give way in a moment.
According to the McNulty report, the fragmentation of our rail network has left us with an efficiency gap of between 30% and 40% compared with other European networks, which means that the money that should be used to address the cost of travel and to fund much needed investment is needlessly wasted.
Sir Simon Burns
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We had this litany from him, which was put just as eloquently, upstairs in Committee. I wish to ask him this: first, if the privatisation of the railways was such a disaster and disservice to the travelling public, why do we now have record levels of people using the railways; and, secondly, why did the last Labour Government not renationalise it during their 13 years in power?
Andy McDonald
I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman. It was because the last Labour Government put record investment into the railways and made it the safest railway in Europe. We were clearing up the mess of that botched privatisation of Railtrack, which cost people’s lives. We made the network safe.
We have been left with a ticketing system that is the most expensive and confusing in Europe. Indeed, commuter fares are up by a quarter since 2010, having risen three times faster than wage growth. What the public clearly do not accept is that private and many foreign state-owned companies receive subsidies from the UK taxpayer and make significant profits at the expense of rail passengers.
Andy McDonald
I will carry on, because I know that people want to contribute to the debate.
In illustrating the benefits of publicly owned operators, one could hardly ask for a better example than the recent east coast main line. The last Labour Government took the important step of bringing that back into public operation after the private operator reneged on its obligations in 2009. East coast proved itself to be one of the most efficient operators, returning more than £1 billion to the taxpayer in premium payments as well as investing every penny of profit back into the service. In addition, fares were kept down in real terms in 2014 at a time when no privately run franchise took the same step. East coast had record passenger satisfaction and its engagement with the workforce was an unparalleled success.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I am sure that the shadow Minister will welcome the new service that will be starting from Middlesbrough as a result of the Virgin franchise, which will serve his constituents and provide new trains.
Andy McDonald
Of course I welcome it; it would be churlish not to. Why would I not welcome that? It does not mean that the system is right, or, for goodness’ sake, that the trains are getting to the right places.
It is difficult to see how east coast’s brilliant delivery for the taxpayer and for the commuter could be seen as a failure, or in any way undesirable. It simply does not make any sense for the UK taxpayer to subsidise foreign state-owned companies so that citizens of Germany, Holland, France and elsewhere can enjoy cheaper and superior services.
Quite simply, the rejection of even the possibility of public ownership is driven by an outdated ideology and is totally out of kilter with the views of a large majority of the public—including many Conservative voters—which is why I am so pleased that Labour is committed to a publicly owned service that puts the passenger first rather than the profits of private or foreign state-owned companies, as is currently the case.
Andy McDonald
No, I am going to move on.
We have heard the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Transport and others speak in glowing terms about how High Speed 2, when completed, will be a proud national achievement, and I completely agree with that. The scale of the project, the amount of talent that will be utilised in its design and construction, and the dedication over the years ahead will be a mark of pride, and represent a proud feat of British engineering and ingenuity.
It is my contention that if we, as a nation, are good enough to build a world-class high-speed railway, then we are good enough to run it, too. From the initial privatisation to the Government’s re-franchising of the east coast main line, Tory rail policy has always been far too focused on its “private good, public bad” ideology. However, new clause 20 would not require the sort of Damascene conversion that we witnessed from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) earlier this week. It asks only that the Government keep an open mind. New clause 20 would allow, but not require, High Speed 2 passenger services to be run in the public sector. A similar clause was part of the Crossrail Act 2008, leaving open the option to run passenger services in the public sector. Indeed, we have worded this new clause so that it is as similar as possible to section 26 of the 2008 Act.
May I remind the Minister and the House that the Conservative party did not reject the idea of at least keeping an open mind about who might be the best operator to run Crossrail—or the Elizabeth line—in future years, and it would be disappointing to see the Conservative party move from a position of pragmatism to one of sheer ideology. It would be talking Britain down to suggest that private companies and the state-owned rail companies of the Netherlands, France and Germany are able to run successfully passenger services on our railways, but we ourselves are not. I hope that the Government do not have such a pessimistic view of our capabilities as a nation and will vote in favour of new clause 20.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
It was disheartening to hear the Minister dismiss my amendments in this group before hearing what I had to say, although I am grateful to him for acknowledging that over the past six years I have fought for my constituents and their rights and interests in the face of opposition from many people outside this House. My new clauses in this group are practical and sensible and will, I think, assist my constituents and others up and down the line.
New clause 1 is about local authority finance. Local authorities the length of the HS2 route have received no extra help to support their work on this major infrastructure project. The burden on my two local councils, Buckinghamshire County Council and Chiltern District Council, has been enormous, but the new clause would also apply to other councils.
Buckinghamshire County Council is naturally concerned that without central Government intervention and help its costs will continue to escalate. If the last six years are anything to go by, they certainly will. The county council’s outturn figure for 2015-16 is nearly £520,000 for costs relating to the legal petitioning process, engagement with HS2 Ltd and getting the best deal for Buckinghamshire residents. The council has just submitted the recharge to HS2 Ltd on the current memorandum of understanding and can recoup barely £10,000 for the last year. Why must taxpayers in Chesham and Amersham and elsewhere not only pay for this railway to be built, but pay again through their council tax for their local authorities to carry out inescapable pre and post-construction work for which they get very little help or none at all? Over the past six years, Chiltern District Council has spent nearly £1.18 million on complying with HS2 requirements —a huge amount for a district authority.
Councils have paid out literally millions in the past six years. The costs will only grow during the construction phase and there is no guarantee that local authorities will be fully recompensed. They would appreciate a clear, legally enforceable commitment from the Government that the extra burden will be recognised, particularly in the light of the local government finance settlement. My county, Buckinghamshire, was heavily affected by the settlement. It was only through myself and other Buckinghamshire MPs making very strong representations that we got some increased moneys for our local authorities. If accepted, new clause 1 would ensure security for our local authorities along the whole route where service agreements do not provide additional funding, received by the end of the year. The Minister should appreciate that I am asking for statutory and legally enforceable requirements because there is great distrust of the process so far. I think it is essential to enshrine the provision in statute, so that it is legally enforceable.
New clause 2 is designed to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for highways repair costs consequential on the construction of HS2.
Sir Henry Bellingham
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee pressed HS2 hard on reimbursement to highways authorities regarding damage to verges, culverts, drains, inspection covers and so on, and the company gave a very positive response? New clause 2 is a belt-and-braces provision. Does she agree that HS2 has already given quite firm commitments?
Mrs Gillan
I appreciate the work my hon. Friend did on the Select Committee. He is correct that there are undertakings, but they are not enforceable and I am afraid that HS2 does not have a good track record of either keeping good records and accurate information or of following through on its promises, hence my decision to table the new clauses. If HS2 is in good faith going to adhere to those undertakings, it should have no fear of their being put in the Bill. That is why I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the new clauses to be accepted.
John Redwood
My right hon. Friend might like to point out that there are 65 pages of road and footpath closures scheduled in the Bill and 67 pages of associated works to existing roads, railways and utilities. The work is massive in scale and, obviously, all those involved will need compensation.
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Perhaps that shows the scale of the battle that has been going on for six years, in which people are trying to defend their environment and locality or, if they cannot have the whole project cancelled, at least to get the best possible deal for their locality.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
In my constituency, we have had significant problems in engaging with HS2—and not just me as the Member of Parliament; the county council and the district council have simply not had their letters answered. That gives us no assurance that HS2 will engage in a timely fashion with those who have to use the roads every day.
Mrs Gillan
My hon. Friend makes a point that is entirely familiar to me and many other people along the line of the route. That is why I want these not unreasonable assurances to be put in the Bill.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It seems to me rather strange that the Government will not accept the amendments. The history of statutory undertakers doing work on highways shows without any difficulty the shoddy restoration that takes place afterwards. In this case, we are talking of a massive project involving many miles of roads that will require repair. My right hon. Friend may agree that the assurances being given ought to be reinforced by statutory powers.
Mrs Gillan
Any addition to my right hon. and learned Friend’s point would be otiose. He is absolutely correct.
Andrew Bridgen
May I take my right hon. Friend back to the point about HS2 liaising with the public? Is she aware of the damning ombudsman’s report that came out last night, which stated that HS2 regarded consultation as merely a box-ticking exercise?
Mrs Gillan
I drew the House’s attention to that report in a point of order. The report is appended to today’s debate, but of course there was no possibility of tabling amendments that referred to that report in an attempt to alter HS2’s behaviour.
New clause 2 is designed to ensure that all local authorities are properly compensated for any damage to roads as a result of HS2 constructions. As others have confirmed, that vital safeguard should be added to the Bill. The Secretary of State, who is now in his place on the Front Bench, visited my constituency earlier this month and saw at first hand some of the problems that my constituents face. I am grateful for that visit. He also saw the problems we have in Buckinghamshire with potholes. I am particularly concerned about the roads in and around Great Missenden. Quite by chance, my right hon. Friend witnessed maintenance works being carried out on those roads during his visit.
Buckinghamshire County Council highways authority estimates that it will spend about £7.5 million on pothole-related maintenance over the next five years. That figure takes no account of patching, resurfacing, drainage, road sweeping and other related costs. I believe that considerable additional costs will arise from the large number of heavy goods vehicles pounding their way up and down some of Buckinghamshire’s fragile roads. Local authorities may well be reimbursed for reasonable costs, but what are reasonable costs? I want them to be reimbursed fully and I want that to be enshrined in statute, to make sure that the provision is both sufficient and justiciable.
New clause 3 is intended to increase the amounts allocated by the Department for Transport to the business and local economy fund and the community and environment fund from £30 million to £150 million. The £30 million originally announced for those funds to assist those affected by HS2 has been felt across the board to be meagre and insufficient, especially as the funding is intended to cover the entire route of phase 1. The Select Committee acknowledged the significant shortfall and the Government’s response to its final report stated that the sum would be increased to £40 million. I contend that that is not enough. The impacts of the project will be long standing and severe for the environment, local authorities and communities. Through new clause 3, I propose that the funding be increased to £150 million to give those affected the compensation they deserve and to ensure that adverse effects are minimised.
Sir William Cash
Both of us have signed new clause 33 on compensation by reference to a property bond. I wanted to put that on the record. My right hon. Friend is doing a great job, and I do not want to take up the time of the House to refer to new clause 33, knowing that she agrees with me.
Mrs Gillan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and grateful for the support that I have received from colleagues across the piece.
On new clause 3, there is currently no information on how the funds will be divided, which areas will be prioritised or how the money could be spent. There is also no clarification of whether, for example, the funds to be allocated will include the moneys already allocated to the Colne valley. Will those come out of this funding envelope? There has been a suggestion that the money will be delivered locally through local enterprise partnerships, but that would be most unsuitable. In Buckinghamshire, for example, we have two overlapping LEPs. How would the money be administered? I think it should be kept separate from the LEPs and genuinely given to local groups so that they can decide how best to distribute the funds. I urge the Minister both to increase the funds and to provide further details on how they will be administered.
The last new clause to which I shall speak in this group is new clause 4, which deals with compensation. All the MPs who have constituencies along the route will know that compensation issues have caused great worry and stress to our constituents, and many of the recommendations of the HS2 hybrid Bill Select Committee, although welcome, have yet to translate into changes to the schemes. The Select Committee’s report in February 2016 stated that
“the Government said that it would work to implement a revised process for the valuation of properties for ‘Need to Sell’ that will allow more local valuers to be used”.
That review was promised for autumn last year, but we are still waiting.
The Department for Transport’s response to the Select Committee report is silent on the valuation point, and although a response was promised before Third Reading, when I last looked I had not yet received that. I may be wrong—HS2 tends to slip out its documents just in time for debates, which I think is poor practice. In this case such poor practice is affecting people’s lives. Implementing a fair valuation process for property owners who are receiving unacceptably low offers from HS2 is of paramount importance.
I still have a large number of constituents who have been negotiating with HS2 for months to get a fair price for their property, and I know from colleagues that it is a similar story up and down the route. I have been appalled at the treatment of individuals, who have had to employ expensive lawyers even to get timely and rational answers from those employed by HS2 or from HS2 itself. My colleagues and I have raised these points for years, yet there continues to be a litany of errors from HS2. There have been internal emails that are rude and disrespectful about constituents. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report published earlier today refers to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report, which accused HS2 of being guilty of maladministration. I believe that that has characterised the way in which HS2 has dealt with people who have lost their houses, their businesses and their land.
Victoria Prentis
One of my greatest concerns about going forward without the Select Committee, which has been of enormous help to those of us whose constituents have been affected, is that there is nobody to help us mediate with HS2 Ltd and to encourage the company to respond to us in a timely fashion. There is no transparency about the way it does business. Does my right hon. Friend have any ideas to help us with this?
Mrs Gillan
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said today from the Opposition Dispatch Box that transparency would be the watchword for HS2. I agree with my hon. Friend—transparency has not been the watchword for HS2. Right from the beginning, when the Major Projects Authority’s reports were withheld from this House and from the Select Committee that considered the Bill, there has been the reverse of transparency. That is what is so distressing about this project; it could have been handled so much better. It has let many people down.
Finally—I know that others want to speak—new clause 4 is designed to ensure that valuers with local knowledge are included on the HS2 panel, and that all compensation applications are responded to substantively within 10 weeks to avoid long periods of uncertainty for property owners on the route.
I started by saying that I was disappointed that the Minister dismissed my amendments before even hearing what I had to say today, so I am not expecting any positive response. But I have learned always to walk in hope, even on the impossible project of HS2, and I invite the Minister to accept my amendments today and add them to the Bill, thereby showing that he has the respect that I believe this House should have for the people whose lives are affected so drastically by HS2.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
High Speed 2 is extremely important and is necessary to expand capacity on a railway that is ever increasing in popularity. Where communities are adversely affected, they should be treated properly and there should be adequate compensation. The amount of that compensation is clearly a matter for judgment, and some of the amendments today address that.
It is exceedingly important, too, that the potential for jobs and economic development created by the building of High Speed 2 is maximised. That was one of the key points that the Transport Committee emphasised when we first looked at High Speed 2 back in 2011. We have published four reports on that since then. Back in 2011 the point considered in new clause 19 was emphasised. We supported High Speed 2 but highlighted the importance of maximising the job opportunities—jobs in the construction of the high-speed network or jobs opened up by economic development in the areas through which HS2 passes—and regional development. I am extremely pleased to see new clause 19 and pleased it has all-party support, because of the focus it puts on jobs.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that a link between Euston and St Pancras might offer an opportunity for jobs? My constituents thought they would be able to get on a train in Birmingham and end up in Paris, but instead they have to schlep across London with their heavy bags. Another possible link is one between Curzon Street and New Street, so that there might actually be a connected railway, which at present there is not.
Mrs Ellman
The hon. Gentleman makes some important points that are worthy of consideration. I believe the decision likely to be taken later this evening will be the beginning of a very important High Speed 2 network, which may well expand after more people see its benefits.
New clause 19 refers to the need to look at the qualifications achieved by people working on the construction of High Speed 2. I agree with that, but it should be extended a little to include the diversity of qualifications and employment opportunities that can be offered during construction—the wide range of skills that can be obtained and the potential to attract a wide range of people who could benefit. I hope the aims of the new clause can be extended, if not in words tonight, then in the way it is implemented. I am particularly pleased to see the plans for the skills college at both Birmingham and Doncaster, and I hope they can be extended.
It is important, and it is implicit in some of the amendments, that economic development in the areas and regions through which High Speed 2 passes is maximised, working with the local enterprise partnerships, local authorities and business. It should not be just the stations through which High Speed 2 passes that benefit, but the surrounding region.
I also support the proposals to monitor expenditure on High Speed 2, because it is important that the scheme is kept within budget: over £50 billion is a lot of money, even over 20 years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I trust that hon. Members will now be very brief, because we have only 15 minutes left for this part of the debate.
Mr Grieve
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I shall be brief.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). I am mindful of the fact that, in promoting this scheme, the Government can make a powerful and perfectly rational case. Indeed, the hon. Lady highlighted some of the points that have been raised. The difficulty that I have, as a constituency MP directly affected by the scheme, is that throughout the whole process of engagement between HS2 and my constituents, HS2’s behaviour towards my constituents has consistently been wanting, both in sensitivity and in its levels of engagement. I have to say that the way in which HS2’s management has dealt with perfectly reasonable objections from people who are very anxious about the future of their communities has led me to be deeply anxious about how this will actually work out in practice.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), in presenting this batch of amendments, has highlighted some key areas where the Government, by providing some greater reassurance, could go a considerable way towards not satisfying everybody—inevitably some people will remain dissatisfied with the proposals—but providing them with reassurance that some of their worst fears about how this will pan out in practice are misplaced. For example, there has been considerable concern about the way in which compensation is calculated. There have been arguments about failure to take account of local features.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way on that point; I intervene because I had wanted to speak on this new clause but now will not have time. We heard cases in the Select Committee where it was quite clear that the lack of local valuers is doing an injustice to the people whose homes are being acquired. Does he agree that the Government must put that injustice right? The Select Committee made very strong recommendations about that aspect. This injustice must be put right.
Mr Grieve
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, these are precisely the areas where Government intervention would be valuable. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, even at this late hour, to give this careful consideration.
There is a similar story on the relationship with local authorities. Most of our local authorities, like all local authorities in this country, given the difficult conditions resulting from the continuing economic problems besetting our planet, are short of money to carry out important local projects. Therefore, the prospect of having their infrastructure ripped up during the construction process is inevitably a subject of legitimate concern to them. There is no proper reason why they and the local council tax payer should have to bear the end cost, of any description, on this project going ahead. Here again is an opportunity for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to beef this up and provide the necessary tools to ensure that HS2 honours these commitments.
I am no position to speak to HS2, and I do not understand why it has been so deficient in its approach to dealing with local communities, but that is the reality. I note from the Public Administration Committee’s most recent report that HS2 says that it has learnt its lessons and will do things differently in future. I very much hope that is the case, but until I actually see it with my own eyes and witness it from the comments of my constituents, I have reason to continue to doubt that that will in fact happen. That is all the more reason why these amendments, which are straightforward and should not add to HS2’s costs, or indeed to the burden of carrying out the project, ought to be accepted.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I rise to support new clauses 26 and 32. Paradoxically, I agree with most of what has been said today, because I do think that it is possible to be pro-infrastructure investment, pro-progress and pro-brand new trains. I am pro the concept of high-speed rail, but I am not pro-HS2 Ltd and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, the rather cavalier way it operates. In the Select Committee its QC called my residents tedious, which I thought showed complete contempt for them.
New clause 26 is about protecting vulnerable businesses and the time given for relocation. I have spoken to some of the businesses in the Park Royal area of my constituency. The businesses there are quite mixed. Many of them deal with food preparation—for example, supplying olives to restaurants in the west end—and need to be close to the A40, which is a vital artery. They are family businesses. They have been told that when it happens they will be given three months to relocate. They have a combined turnover in the millions. They are all extremely concerned that they will be forced to close because three months is not enough time for them to start again.
I spoke with a prop hire company. It occupies thousands of square feet of warehouse space, with antiques and big fat televisions behind wooden veneer cabinets. It supplies props for films such as “Star Wars”. It would find it very difficult to find alternative premises quickly. Those companies would also like an assurance of 100% compensation for their sites, not the 90% on offer.
The Conservative party is the party of business, surely. It is the party of small and medium-sized enterprises. [Interruption.] I think this new clause has genuine cross-party support, judging by the Members who have signed it. It is deeply worrying that those firms are being forced to move towards what is called extinguishment, because apparently their balance sheets do not show enough turnover, so HS2 considered their financial value to be too small to warrant relocation. That is a slap in the face and an insult to hard-working, small family businesses.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is doing a brilliant job of representing her constituents, as she always does. Does she agree—I think this is the purpose of her new clauses—that it is often the businesses in urban areas that are the most fragile and therefore the worst affected, but the levels of compensation and concern shown to them is the worst on offer—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We do not have time for long interventions.
Dr Huq
My hon. Friend puts it very well. He anticipates my new clause 32, which is about the fairness of the rural support zone. I know the constituency of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) well, because she and I were on the same ballot paper in 2005. She represents a rural constituency, but the urban and suburban constituencies, such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), are not treated the same as rural support zones. I believe that needs to be looked at.
One house in my constituency has a zero valuation—you could not make this up. Someone wanted to re-mortgage a house in Wells House Road, and the mortgage valuer came up with zero. That would not happen elsewhere. For the sake of fairness, that should be looked at. There seems to be a wrong assumption—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that there is about to be a vote, so I will say my last sentence. We should not accept that suburban or urban dwellers should simply put up with it. I urge Members to support my two new clauses.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to the new clauses in my name and to put the case of my constituents in North Warwickshire, which is arguably the most blighted part of the HS2 route, outside of London.
I would like to use the short time available to make a final case to the Government to adopt vital protections for local communities such as Kingsbury, Water Orton, Coleshill, Middleton, Lea Marston and Wishaw. Those protections are set out in my three new clauses, as well as in provisions tabled by other right hon. and hon. Members, which I have co-signed.
A recurring theme my constituents have faced is the lack of engagement from HS2 Ltd during the process to date. Many of the questions that have been asked of the company remain unanswered, and its credibility locally is in tatters. Those affected by HS2 have little confidence that communication will get better during the construction stage; indeed, unsurprisingly, the fear is that, should the Bill be approved by the House, communication will get worse.
That is why I seek greater protection for North Warwickshire residents. As a result of the impact on our area, we have been given an assurance by HS2 that we are a special case. Sadly, despite numerous requests, the company has neglected to advise us what that protection actually is, what the benefits are or even what it covers. After what my constituents have had to endure over the last six years, they deserve better. They deserve some kind of certainty and an acknowledgment that HS2 and the Government are sympathetic to their case.
That is why I have introduced new clause 30, which would set up a community fund to protect local communities from the unintended consequences that could arise in the construction phase. The fund would supplement the community and environment fund, and it would address the adverse impacts of HS2’s construction on communities in terms of things such as impaired accessibility, the reduction in the availability of community amenities and the physical effects of construction.
A principal objective of the fund will be to remove the need for formal compensation claims and to provide an expedited means of claiming funding for detriment. The fund would be available only to address adverse effects on communities, not impacts on individual households, businesses or undertakings. However, among the things that may be considered as eligible for funding would be transport facilities such as shuttle services.
As I have stated, the Kingsbury area and the surrounding villages are clearly a special case in the context of the HS2 scheme, and there can be no argument about that. Engagement with our community needs to address the requirements that come with that special place, and my other new clauses address the current lack of communication, including in terms of referral, escalation and monitoring. Crucially, they seek to ensure that local people’s complaints are resolved in a timely manner.
We will hear further arguments later today in the Chamber about HS2’s environmental impact, and it is hard to imagine the change to the landscape that the railhead in Kingsbury will bring, but my constituents will be forced to live with that change.
I urge the Secretary of State to consider my proposed changes to the Bill and those of other right hon. and hon. Members, which I have supported in the interests of our constituents. Our proposals offer common-sense initiatives to support, and offer mitigation to, those people along the proposed line who need it most.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I did have a very detailed speech on this important issue for Wales, but I am afraid that time will defeat me, so I will be as quick as possible.
Ministers will know of my long-standing concerns about the Barnett classification of HS2. The Plaid Cymru position has always been that this is an England-only railway. All the destinations on the map are clearly in England. The position of the UK Government has always been that this is a UK-Government railway scheme. However, when it came to the statement of funding policy document that accompanied the comprehensive spending review, the railway is an England and Wales railway, because Scotland and Northern Ireland had a 100% Barnett rating for HS2, while Wales had 0% rating.
The impact of that, in a project that may well cost more than £80 billion over the next 20 years, will be severe for my country—in terms of not only HS2, but the precedent set for HS3, Crossrail 2 and the Sheffield-to-Manchester subterranean road. These are massive multibillion-pound projects, and Wales is losing out.
This is an issue of fairness, and unless the Minister says on Third Reading that he will address the issues I have raised in my new clause, my colleagues and I will vote against the Government on Third Reading.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I will be brief. The SNP welcomes this investment. Although, as has been said, the initial roll-out of the route is in England only, we see the benefits that this can bring to Scotland, and we welcome the aspiration for a sub-three-hour journey time to Glasgow and Edinburgh. I welcome the fact that the Minister says trains will run to Scotland on day one.
On the back of the comments by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) about Barnett, I would ask the Secretary of State to consider the wider issue of Barnett consequentials and the estimates process. There needs to be more clarity on that, but I welcome the investment in HS2.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 20
Public Sector Operators
‘(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (public-sector operators not to be franchisees) does not apply in relation to the franchisee in respect of a franchise agreement—
(a) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more Phase One of High Speed 2 passenger services, or
(b) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more other services for the carriage of passengers by railway where—
(i) the services run wholly or partly on the route of Phase One of High Speed 2, and
(ii) the services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption because of the construction of Phase One of High Speed 2.
(2) The following may in particular be taken into account in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption—
(a) the frequency with which the services are likely to be disrupted,
(b) the duration of the period in which the services are likely to be disrupted (and, in particular, its duration relative to the length of the franchise term),
(c) the severity of any likely disruption.
(3) In this section—
“franchisee”, “franchise agreement” and “franchise term” have the meanings given by section 23 of the Railways Act 1993 (designated passenger services to be provided under franchise agreements).”—(Andy McDonald.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Obligation to plant trees—
“(1) The nominated undertaker must publish plans to plant the Referenced Trees within the Construction Period and make arrangements for their maintenance for a period of 10 years from the commencement of services on Phase 1 of HS2.
(2) The nominated undertaker must provide an annual report to Parliament which shall specify—
(a) the progress made on planting of the Referenced Trees,
(b) the number and species of trees planted since the publication of the previous report,
(c) the position of the trees, groups of trees or woodlands, as the case may be, by reference to a map,
(d) the adequacy of arrangements to manage Referenced Trees which have been planted previously.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) “Referenced Trees” shall mean the trees planted to meet the commitment of two million additional trees to be situated adjacent to Phase 1 of HS2 as set out in the environmental statement referenced in Clause 66(4). In subsection (1) Construction Period shall mean the period between commencement of the Scheduled Works and the commencement of operational service on Phase One of High Speed 2.”
New clause 8—Office of the HS2 Adjudicator—
“(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Office of the HS2 Adjudicator hereinafter referred to as “the Adjudicator”.
(2) Schedule [Adjudicator: status and funding] (which makes further provision about the Adjudicator) shall have effect.
(3) The Adjudicator has the functions conferred on it by or under any enactment.
(4) Those functions include—
(a) enforced functions
(b) inspection functions,
(c) information functions.
(5) The main objective of the Adjudicator in performing its functions is to protect the natural environment and communities impacted by the construction and operation of Phase 1 of High Speed 2.
(6) The Adjudicator is to perform its functions for the general purpose of securing—
(a) the minimisation of adverse impacts on communities and the natural environment situated in locations affected by the construction or operation of Phase 1 of HS2,
(b) the provision of additional mitigation measures in the event the environmental impacts of the operation of HS2 are worse than as set out in the environmental statement prepared in accordance with section 66(4).”
New clause 9—Matters to which the Adjudicator must have regard—
“(1) In performing its functions the Adjudicator must have regard to—
(a) the views expressed by or on behalf of the members of the public or organisations about the environmental impacts of constructing Phase One of HS2,
(b) the views expressed by people affected by the construction and operation of Phase One of HS2,
(c) the views expressed by local authorities about the impact of constructing and operating Phase One of HS2 in their areas,
(d) the need to protect the natural environment and minimise environmental impacts arising from the construction and operation of Phase One of HS2,
(e) the need to ensure that any action by the Adjudicator in relation to its areas of responsibility is proportionate to the risks against which it would afford safeguards and is targeted only where it is needed,
(f) any developments in approaches to monitoring and mitigating environmental impacts arising from the construction or operation of Phase One of HS2,
(g) best practice among persons performing functions comparable to those of the Adjudicator (including the principles under which regulatory action should be transparent, accountable and consistent).
(2) In performing its functions the Adjudicator must also have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct.”
New clause 10—Statement on stakeholder involvement—
“(1) The Adjudicator must publish a statement describing how it proposes to—
(a) discharge its oversight requirements to ensure environmental outcomes reflect the forecasts set out in the environmental statement referenced in section 66(4),
(b) promote engagement and discussion with the nominated undertaker and impacted communities concerning adequate levels of mitigation,
(c) ensure that proper regard is had to views expressed by non-government organisations and local authorities concerning the environmental impacts arising from the construction and operation of Phase One of High Speed 2,
(d) arrange for accurate regular reporting of environmental impacts arising from the construction of the scheduled works and operation of Phase One of High Speed 2.
(2) The Adjudicator may from time to time revise the statement and must publish any revised statement.
(3) Before publishing the statement (or any revised) statement the Adjudicator must consult such persons it considers appropriate.”
New clause 11—Compliance with requirements—
“(1) The Adjudicator will keep under review compliance by HS2 Ltd, the nominated undertaker and its contractors with the standards detailed in the environmental statement, Environmental Minimum Requirements and the Code of Construction Practice and the assurances and undertakings provided by the Secretary of State on HS2 and Information Papers prepared by HS2 Ltd (collectively the “environmental documents”).
(2) If it appears to the Adjudicator that any person has failed or is likely to fail to comply with any requirements for which he is responsible set out in the environmental documents relating to the construction or operation of Phase One of High Speed 2, the Adjudicator (hereinafter referred to in this section as the “relevant requirements”) may address to that person an enforcement notice.
(3) An enforcement notice comes into effect 36 hours after it is published on the website of the Adjudicator.
(4) The Adjudicator must also transmit an electronic version to HS2 Ltd, any nominated undertaker or contractor to the aforementioned, or local authority who has supplied to the Adjudicator an email address for this purpose.
(5) An enforcement notice must also be placed on a hard copy register maintained at such a location as the Adjudicator may determine.
(6) An enforcement notice is a notice in writing—
(a) specifying the matters which appears to the Adjudicator to constitute a failure to comply with the relevant requirements set out in the environmental documents, and
(b) prohibiting the recurrence or occurrence of those matters and requiring the person to whom it is addressed to carry out any specified works or take any steps which the Adjudicator considers necessary to ensure compliance with the relevant requirements detailed in the environmental documents.
(7) Where any person suffers loss or damage as a result of any matter specified in an enforcement notice, whether that loss or damage occurs before or after the service of the enforcement notice, he may recover damages for that loss or damage in a civil court from the person on whom the enforcement notice was served
(8) It shall be a defence to any claim under subsection (7) above to prove that the matters alleged to constitute non compliance have not occurred or that they do not constitute non compliance with the relevant requirements
(9) If any person fails to comply with the requirements of an enforcement notice he shall be guilty of an offence.
(10) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £20,000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine.
(11) It shall be a defence to any criminal proceedings under subsection (9) claim to prove that—
(a) the matters alleged to constitute non compliance have not occurred,
(b) that they do not constitute non compliance with the relevant requirements or that any required works or steps were not necessary to achieve compliance with the relevant requirements or
(c) that despite due diligence he was unaware of the provision of the notice.
(12) Where an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
New clause 12—Inspections and studies—
“(1) The Adjudicator may for the purposes of its regulatory functions carry out inspections of—
(a) the carrying on of the Scheduled Works, or
(b) the operation of any train travelling on Phase One of HS2.
(2) The Adjudicator may undertake or promote comparative or other studies designed to enable it to make recommendations—
(a) for improving sustainability and effectiveness in any activity mentioned in subsection (3), or
(b) for improving the management of environmental outcomes arising from the operation of Phase One of HS2.
(3) Those activities are—
(a) the undertaking of construction activity by HS2 Ltd or a nominated undertaker,
(b) the making of arrangements by HS2 Ltd or a nominated undertaker for the purpose of environmental mitigation.
(4) The Adjudicator may also undertake or promote studies designed to enable it to prepare reports as to the impact of—
(a) the operation of any particular statutory provisions, or
(b) any directions or guidance given by a Minister of the Crown (whether pursuant to any such provisions or otherwise),
on economy, efficiency and effectiveness in an activity mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b).
(5) The Adjudicator must undertake or promote a study falling within subsection (2) or (4) if the Secretary of State so requests.
(6) The Adjudicator must publish—
(a) any recommendations made by it under subsection (2) and
(b) the result of any studies undertaken or promoted under that section.
(7) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Adjudicator, by regulations make provisions as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representatives to the Adjudicator before the publication under subsection (2) of any recommendations or the result of any studies.”
New clause 13—Power to require documents, information returns etc.—
“(1) The Adjudicator may require any person mentioned in subsection (2) to provide it with any information, documents, records or other items which the Adjudicator considers it necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of any of its regulatory functions.
(2) The persons are—
(a) HS2 Limited,
(b) a nominated undertaker,
(c) any contractor appointed by HS2 Limited or a nominated undertaker.
(3) The power in subsection (1) to require the provision of information, documents or records includes, in relation to information, documents or records kept by means of a computer, power to require the provision of the information, documents or records in legible form.
(4) The Adjudicator may require a nominated undertaker to make a return to the Adjudicator at such intervals as may be prescribed.
(5) Provision may be made in such requirements as to the contents of the return and the period in respect of which and date by which it is to be made.”
New clause 14—Information and advice—
“(1) The Adjudicator must keep the Secretary of State informed about the following matters—
(a) the environmental impact of constructing Phase 1 of HS2 and whether such impacts reflect the forecasts detailed in the Environmental Statement;
(b) the impact on communities and the natural environment arising from the construction and operation of HS2;
(c) the carrying on of regulated activities.
(2) The Adjudicator may at any time give the Secretary of State advice on anything connected with those matters.
(3) When requested to do so by the Secretary of State, the Adjudicator must give the Secretary of State such advice or information in connection with a matter mentioned in subsection (1) as may be specified in the request.”
New clause 15—Provision of copies of registers—
“(1) Subject to subsection (3), the Adjudicator must secure that copies of any register kept for the purposes of this Act are available at its offices for inspection at all reasonable times by any person.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), any person who asks the Adjudicator for a copy of, or an extract from, a register kept for the purposes of this Chapter is entitled to have one.
(3) Regulations may provide that subsections (1) and (2) do not apply—
(a) in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or
(b) to such parts of a register as may be prescribed.
(4) A fee determined by the Adjudicator is payable for the copy or extract except—
(a) in prescribed circumstances, or
(b) in any case where the Adjudicator considers it appropriate to provide the copy or extract free of charge.”
New clause 16—Speed and Noise Limitation—
“(1) No person shall drive or cause or permit any train to proceed at a speed greater than 300 km/h on track forming part of Phase One of High Speed 2 except to the extent that the maximum peak noise level arising from train passage, when measured according to a procedure defined by the Secretary of State on the basis of representative train passages and locations, does not exceed 60dBA at any point further than 200m from the centre line of the railway.
(2) If any person fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £20,000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine.
(4) Where an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
New clause 17—Prohibition of entry of designated vehicles in designated areas—
“(1) No person shall for the purposes of the exercise of powers granted under sections 1 and 2 drive or cause or permit a vehicle of a designated class to enter a designated area, where “designated class” and “designated area” are as defined in [Schedule: Designated Areas and Classes for Vehicles].
(2) If any person fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £20,000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine.
(4) Where an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
New clause 22—Construction of an integrated Euston Station—
“(1) The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to take reasonable steps to develop integrated and comprehensive design and construction plans for Euston Station that include integration with other Euston Schemes.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “reasonable steps” mean, but are not limited to, the following measures—
(a) The nominated undertaker will seek to maximise, in so far as is reasonably practicable, the volume of excavated and construction material from the construction of the enlarged Euston Station and its approaches to be brought in and removed by rail;
(b) The nominated undertaker will design an enlarged HS2 Euston Station having regard to all relevant parts of the Euston Area Plan and any other relevant Opportunity Area Frameworks or Guidance,
(c) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in the Euston Strategic Board, which shall comprise representatives from the Department for Transport, HS2 Limited, the London Borough of Camden, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, and in any successor or additional future governance arrangements which may be agreed between the London Borough of Camden, and the Greater London Authority and Transport for London from time to time,
(d) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board which shall have the same membership as specified in subsection (2)(c), with the addition of Network Rail and any successor network and station operators, designated under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 and having responsibility for Euston Main Line Station or rail tracks that connect to that station,
(e) The Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board will advise the Secretary of State on the delivery of an integrated and comprehensive design for the enlarged Euston Station and other Euston Schemes, alongside other duties which may be set out in its Terms of Reference which may be updated from time to time;
(f) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Integrated Programme Board, the membership of which shall include the organisations specified in subsection (2)(b);
(g) The Euston Integrated Programme Board shall have responsibility for managing the integration of the nominated undertaker’s Euston Station design and construction work plans with proposals for other Euston Schemes;
(h) The nominated undertaker will be required to take all reasonable steps to maintain public access to Euston Station and through construction sites that are established for Phase One purposes, including for cyclists and pedestrians;
(i) Where it is not reasonably practicable to maintain public access under subsection (2)(h), the nominated undertaker shall identify alternative measures to maintain public access and implement them where it is reasonable;
(j) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Station Design Panel and use reasonable endeavours to agree the chairperson and other members jointly with Camden London Borough Council, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority, and Network Rail or any successor network operator as defined in subsection (2)(d);
(k) The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to have regard to all recommendations made by the Euston Station Design Panel regarding the nominated undertaker’s ongoing design work for Euston Station,
(l) If requested to do so by the Euston Station Design Panel, the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to notify Camden London Borough Council and the Greater London Authority of the full reasons for failing to incorporate into its design work any changes recommended by the Euston Station Design Panel,
(m) The nominated undertaker will make provision for ongoing community engagement during the construction works for the enlarged Euston Station,
(n) Details of the funding expected to be required to rebuild Euston Main Line Station shall be set out when the Secretary of State’s duties are fulfilled under paragraph 1(D)(1) of Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993 in respect of the review periods preceding the rebuild of Euston Main Line Station and the review periods during which the rebuild of Euston Main Line Station is expected to take place,
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), “Euston Schemes” shall be taken to mean—
(a) The enlarged Euston Station as referred to in Schedule 1 to this Act,
(b) The rebuild of the Euston Main Line Station,
(c) Over site development and related development opportunities above the Euston Station and tracks in line with the Euston Area Plan; and
(d) Additional proposals for new subterranean railways that may be introduced by the Greater London Authority or Transport for London during the Phase One construction period.
(4) Nothing in this section shall override other limitations imposed by this Act.”
New clause 23—Noise and visual mitigation at Mixbury, Oxfordshire—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall require the nominated undertaker to construct, at Mixbury in Oxfordshire, along the west side of the railway’s Hollow Barn embankment, a noise barrier of height between 1.4 metres and 2 metres and of equivalent specification to the noise barrier to be constructed at Westbury.
(2) The area between the Hollow Barn embankment and bridleway no. 303/4 shall be planted with tree screening such that within five years of construction there shall be a tree height adjacent to the embankment of at least 5 metres.”
New clause 24—Benefit/cost review of potential Wardington bypass—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall commission a review of the potential benefits of constructing a road bypass on the A361 at Wardington in Oxfordshire.
(2) The review shall have regard to possible alleviation of HS2 construction traffic and other traffic, and to other alternatives for such alleviation.
(3) The review shall include estimates of the costs of construction of a bypass and other relevant costs.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the outcome of the review before both Houses of Parliament.
(a) within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent; and
(b) before commencement of any HS2 construction works necessitating more than 24 heavy goods vehicle movements through Wardington, per day.”
New clause 25—Protection of bridleways in Oxfordshire—
“(1) The nominated undertaker shall take all reasonably practicable steps:
(a) to keep open bridleways in the vicinity of the railway and associated construction works in Oxfordshire; and
(b) to ensure that such bridleways are safely useable for their intended purposes.
(2) Where closure of a bridleway cannot be avoided, the nominated undertaker shall take all reasonably practicable steps:
(a) to keep the duration of the closure to a minimum; and
(b) to provide safe alternative routes on alignments which so far as reasonably practicable avoid proximity to construction works.
(3) Bridleways shall be screened from construction works with appropriately designed screening of a suitable height.
(4) The nominated undertaker shall consult with users of bridleways on suitable ways to implement the duties set forth in subsections (1) to (3).”
New clause 28—Kingsbury railhead special management zone—
“(1) There shall be a special management zone for the area of the Kingsbury railhead, which shall include the areas falling under the aegis of the Kingsbury, Lea Marston, Curdworth, Wishaw and Middleton parish councils and north Warwickshire as a whole.
(2) The nominated undertaker will employ a community engagement team for the special management zone, which shall have responsibility for managing community relations, including the referral, escalation, monitoring and resolution of complaints and the provision of timely information about the status of complaints.
(3) The community engagement team will arrange regular meetings of the nominated undertaker, lead contractors, local authorities and local community representatives to discuss construction issues and forthcoming programmes of work.
(4) The community engagement team shall provide advice on support mechanisms and shall implement the HS2 stakeholder engagement framework.
(5) The community engagement team will be staffed by appropriately experienced personnel and will include—
(a) a single point of contact for local authorities; and
(b) named individual points of contact for property owners affected by construction.
(6) Implementation and enforcement of the Code of Construction Practice within the Special Management Zone will be the responsibility of a senior manager within the community engagement team.
(7) The community engagement team will coordinate responses to the construction of Phase One alongside planning of Phase Two.”
New clause 29—Kingsbury railhead restoration—
“The Secretary of State must require the nominated undertaker, on completion of Phase One construction, to restore the land and environment at and in the vicinity of the Kingsbury railhead to its state as at the date of Royal Assent to this Act, notwithstanding that mitigation measures to be implemented during construction will include earthworks and bunding.”
New clause 31—Mitigation in environs of Old Oak Common—
“(1) Conservation areas in the vicinity of Old Oak Common shall be the subject of special consultation whose objective shall be to mitigate the long-term effects of construction in the area.
(2) The nominated undertaker will use reasonable endeavours to situate heavy goods vehicle entrances to the Old Oak Common construction site as far from residential dwellings in Stephenson Street, Wells House Road and Midland Terrace as is reasonably practicable.”
New clause 34—Mitigation of construction impacts at Canterbury Works vent shaft—
“(1) Commencement of construction work at the Canterbury Works vent shaft construction site shall be subject to there being already in place before construction a traffic management scheme.
(2) The traffic management scheme shall include a requirement that construction on the Canterbury Works site does not entail more than 100 individual heavy duty vehicle trips per day (50 arriving and 50 departing).
(3) It shall be a further requirement of the traffic management plan that trips to be made by heavy duty vehicles will avoid the beginning and end of the school day.
(4) The nominated undertaker will require that all heavy duty vehicles entering or employed within the London low emission zones be powered by Euro VI (or lower emission) engines.
(5) The nominated undertaker will undertake regular environmental assessments of dust levels on the premises of St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, particularly in recreational areas such as the playground.
(6) The nominated undertaker will consider on a monthly basis where further measures at source may be required in order to reduce the effects of pollution, and publish its findings.
(7) The Secretary of State will provide the local authorities in the area of the Canterbury Works with the funds they deem necessary for additional road safety measures to ensure children’s safety during construction.
(8) During construction, the nominated undertaker and its contractors must maintain a construction operations website and a telephone helpline staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to handle enquiries from the general public and local business regarding construction activities.
(9) A log shall be kept of all complaints relating to HS2 construction sites, whether those complaints are made to HS2, local authorities or the police, and all complaints, with HS2’s response and action taken in response, should be published prominently on HS2’s website.
(10) Where there is a pattern of repeated infringement of construction site conditions, HS2 will pay compensation to all those affected.
(11) Information regarding vent shaft construction effects and progress must be made clear through advertisements, on social media, email alerts, local radio and newspapers.
(12) Information services must be provided in languages appropriate to the needs of the area, using the results of a demographic survey.”
This new clause seeks to make mitigate the effects of construction at the Canterbury Works site, in particular in relation to air quality and child health and safety.
New clause 35—Mitigation of construction impacts at Alexandra Place—
“(1) The nominated undertaker will ensure that any HS2-related construction at the Alexandra Place vent shaft construction site complies with existing air pollution legislation.
(2) The nominated undertaker will explore the possibility of using Loudoun Road for the loading and unloading of heavy duty vehicles and of moving materials by rail on tracks running alongside the proposed vent shaft site and shall implement both possibilities to the full extent possible, with a preference for movement by rail.”
New schedule 1—Adjudicator: Status and Funding—
“1 The Adjudicator shall be a body corporate.
2 (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the Adjudicator shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or any enjoying any status immunity or privilege of the Crown.
(2) The members of the Adjudicator and of their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Adjudicator’s property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
(3) In relation to any matter as respects which the Adjudicator act by virtue of a direction under Section 1.3 the Adjudicator shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Secretary of State for Transport.
(4) Subject to the provisions of any enactment, the Adjudicator shall not be exempt from any tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatever (whether general or local).
(5) The Adjudicator shall receive such funds from the Secretary of State as he considers that it needs to perform its functions expeditiously and efficiently.
Membership
3 (1) The Adjudicator shall consist of not less than 8 and not more than 17 members.
(2) The members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, who shall appoint one of them to be chairman and may appoint another of them to be deputy chairman.
(3) In appointing any member, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the members as a whole having knowledge or experience of all the following, namely railway construction and operation, the preservation of cultural heritage, town and country planning, ecology, arboriculture, landscape, and air quality.
(4) In appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of at least one of them having knowledge of local government (as well as knowledge or experience of one or more of the subjects mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)).
(5) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a chairman, deputy chairman or other member shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment, but no member shall be appointed for a period of more than 5 years.
(6) A chairman, deputy chairman or member may resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.
(7) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member—
(a) has been absent from meetings of the Adjudicator for a period longer than 3 consecutive months without the consent of the Adjudicator, or
(b) has become bankrupt or has made an arrangement with his creditors, or
(c) is incapacitated by physical or mental illness, or
(d) is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member,
the Secretary of State may remove him from his office
(8) If a chairman or deputy chairman ceases to be a member he shall also cease to be chairman or deputy chairman; and if a chairman or deputy chairman ceases to be chairman or deputy chairman he shall also cease to be a member.
(9) A person who ceases to be a member, otherwise than by virtue of sub-paragraph (7), or ceases to be chairman or deputy chairman, shall be eligible for re-appointment.
Staff
4 (1) There shall be a chief officer of the Adjudicator who shall be appointed by the Adjudicator with the approval of the Secretary of State.
(2) The chief officer shall be responsible to the Adjudicator for the general exercise of the Adjudicator’s functions and may, subject to the directions of the Adjudicator, exercise all the powers of the Adjudicator either himself or through nominated staff members.
(3) The Adjudicator may appoint such other employees as the Adjudicator thinks fit.
(4) The Adjudicator shall pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances as the Adjudicator may determine.
(5) The employees shall be appointed on such other terms and conditions as the Adjudicator may determine.
(6) The Adjudicator may pay such pensions, allowances or gratuities as they may determine to or in respect of any of their employees, make such payments as they may determine towards the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any of their employees or provide and maintain such schemes as they may determine (whether contributory or not) for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any of their employees.
(7) The references in sub-paragraph (6) to pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any employees include references to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of employees who suffer loss of office or employment.
(8) A determination under sub-paragraph (4), (5) or (6) is ineffective unless made with the approval of the Secretary of State given with the Treasury’s consent.
(9) The Adjudicator shall make, not later than such date as the Secretary of State may determine, an offer of employment by the Adjudicator to each person employed in the civil service of the State whose name is notified to the Adjudicator by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
(10) The terms of the offer shall be such that they are, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms on which he is employed on the date on which the offer is made.
(11) In determining whether the terms of the offer are more or less favourable to that person than those enjoyed by him on the date of the offer no account shall be taken of the fact that employment with the Adjudicator is not employment in the service of the Crown.
(12) An offer made in pursuance of this paragraph shall not be revocable during the period of 3 months beginning with the date on which it is made.
(13) Where a person becomes an employee of the Adjudicator in consequence of this paragraph, then, for the purposes of his period of employment in the civil service of the State shall count as a period of employment by the Adjudicator and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.
(14) Any dispute arising under this paragraph as to whether or not the terms of any employment offered by the Adjudicator are, taken as a whole, less favourable than those applying to a person’s employment in the civil service of the State shall be referred to and determined by an employment tribunal.
(15) An employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.
(16) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an employment tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an employment tribunal under this paragraph.
Proceedings
5 Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, the Adjudicator may regulate their own procedure (including quorum).
6 (1) A member of the Adjudicator who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a contract made or proposed to be made by the Adjudicator or by HS2 Limited or by any Nominated Undertaker appointed by the Secretary of State, or in any other matter which falls to be considered by the Adjudicator, shall disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Adjudicator.
(2) The disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
(3) A member shall not—
(a) where a contract in which the member is interested is under consideration, take part in the deliberations on or decision about the contract; and
(b) where any other matter in which the member is interested is under consideration, take part in the deliberations on or decision about the matter if the Adjudicator decide that the member’s interest might prejudicially affect his consideration of the matter.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, a notice given by a member at a meeting of the Adjudicator to the effect that he is a member of a specified body corporate or firm and is to be regarded as interested in any contract which is made with the body corporate or firm after the date of the notice, and in any other matter concerning the body corporate or firm which falls to be considered after that date, shall be a sufficient disclosure of his interest.
(5) A member need not attend in person at a meeting of the Adjudicator in order to make a disclosure which he is required to make under this paragraph if he takes reasonable steps to secure that the disclosure is made by a notice which is taken into consideration and read at such a meeting.
(6) The validity of any proceedings of the Adjudicator shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members, or by any defect in the appointment of any person as a member or chairman or deputy chairman, or by a failure to comply with paragraph 6.
Committees
7 (1) The Adjudicator shall constitute at least one committee to advise them on ecology and at least one to advise them on compliance by HS2 Ltd with its obligations under the Environmental Statement and at least one to advise them on the efficacy of such compensation schemes which are implemented by HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport and may constitute other committees to advise them on those or other aspects of their functions.
(2) The Adjudicator may include as members of committees persons who are not members of the Adjudicator.
(3) The Adjudicator may regulate the proceedings (including quorum) of committees.
(4) The Adjudicator may pay to the members of any committee such reasonable allowances in respect of expenses or loss of remuneration as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.
Instruments
8 (1) The fixing of the seal of the Adjudicator shall be authenticated by the signature of the chairman of or some other person authorised either generally or specially by the Adjudicator to act for that purpose.
(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Adjudicator, or to be signed on the Adjudicator’s behalf, shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be so executed or signed.
Members Remuneration
9 (1) The Adjudicator shall pay to members of the Adjudicator such remuneration and such allowances in respect of expenses as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.
(2) In the case of any such member or past member of the Adjudicator as the Secretary of State may with the Treasury’s approval determine, the Adjudicator shall pay such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of him, or make such payment towards the provision of such a pension, allowance or gratuity, as the Secretary of State may so determine.
(3) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Adjudicator, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may, with the Treasury’s approval, direct the Adjudicator to make to that person a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.
Accounts
10 (1) The Adjudicator shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them.
(2) The Adjudicator shall prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.
(3) The statement shall give a true and fair view of the state of the Adjudicator’s affairs at the end of the financial year and of the Adjudicator’s income and expenditure in the financial year.
(4) The statement shall—
(a) be prepared within such period as the Secretary of State may direct; and
(b) comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the Treasury’s consent as to the information to be contained in the statement, the manner in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(5) The accounts in respect of each financial year ending on or before 31st March 2018 (including any statement of accounts in respect of each such financial year prepared under this paragraph) shall be audited by persons appointed in respect of each financial year by the Secretary of State.
(6) No person shall be appointed auditor under this paragraph unless he is—
(a) eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006; or
(b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy; but a firm may be so appointed if each of its members is qualified to be so appointed.
(7) Where the Adjudicator has prepared a statement of accounts in respect of a financial year ending on or after 31st March 2016, it must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates, send a copy of the statement to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(8) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on any statement of accounts sent to him under sub-paragraph (7).
(9) In this paragraph “financial year” means the period commencing with the day of the Adjudicator’s establishment and ending with the second 31 March following that day, and each successive period of 12 months.
Information
11 (1) The Adjudicator shall make to the Secretary of State, as soon as may be practicable after the end of each financial year, a report on the exercise of their functions since the last report was made or (in the case of the first) since the Adjudicator’s establishment.
(2) Each report shall include a copy of the statement of accounts prepared and audited under paragraph 11 in respect of the financial year and, where the statement has been audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, a copy of his report on it.
(3) Each report of the Adjudicator shall include a statement of action taken by the Adjudicator concerning—
(a) The compliance by HS2 Ltd with the commitments made in the Phase 1 Environmental Statement,
(b) The adequacy of the mitigation measures undertaken by HS2 Limited and any Nominated Undertaker concerning construction of the line,
(c) Recommendations concerning any additional mitigation measures required to ensure adequate environmental mitigation,
(d) The assessment of reasonable practicability undertaken by the nominated undertaker,
(e) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of each report of the Adjudicator before each House of Parliament,
(f) As soon as may be after receiving any report made by the auditors on any accounts audited under paragraph 12 or, as the case may be, made by the Comptroller and Auditor General on any statement of accounts prepared under that paragraph, the Adjudicator shall send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State,
(g) The Adjudicator shall furnish the Secretary of State with such information relating to their property and the discharge and proposed discharge of their functions as he may require, and for that purpose they shall permit any person authorised by him to inspect and make copies of any accounts or other documents of the Adjudicator and shall give such explanation of them as that person or the Secretary of State may require and
(h) In this paragraph “financial year” has the same meaning as in paragraph 10.
House of Commons disqualification
12 (1) In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying offices), there shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
(2) “Any member, in receipt of remuneration, of the Adjudicator.””
New schedule 2—Designated areas and classes for vehicles (Specific)—
“Designated area
The A452 road, Balsall Common, between its junction with Windmill Lane and the bridge over the Rugby and Birmingham railway.
Designated class
A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes.
Designated area
Waste Lane, Balsall Common, between its junction with the A452 and the eastern junction with Old Waste Lane.
Designated class
A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes.
Designated area
The Kenilworth Greenway.
Designated class
Any vehicle except a vehicle crossing from one side of the designated area to a point immediately opposite.”
New schedule 3—Designated areas and classes for vehicles (Generic)—
“Any designated areas
The designated area or areas in which a designated class or designated classes of vehicles are to be expressly prohibited shall be defined by the Secretary of State after consultation with local interested parties. They shall be contained in regulations to be made by statutory instrument, which shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Any designated class
A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes, unless otherwise defined in relation to a particular designated area in regulations to be issued by the Secretary of State as above.”
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, after “1,” insert
“subject to subsections 1A, 1D, 1G, 1I, 1O and 1T”
This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and ensure that any railway within the AONB be built in a fully-bored tunnel.
Amendment 2, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to construct a surface railway route within the boundaries of The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Chilterns AONB).
(1B) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 and within the boundaries of the Chilterns AONB shall be built as an extension to the bored tunnel in this area, which is planned through the works specified in Schedule 1 of this Act.
(1C) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”
This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and ensure that any railway within the AONB be built in a fully-bored tunnel.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1D) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to build a surface railway route within the boundaries of The Chilterns Area of Natural Beauty (Chilterns AONB).
(1E) To fulfil railway construction requirements for Phase One of High Speed 2 within this area, the nominated undertaker shall pursue an extension of the bored tunnel which is planned through works specified in Schedule 1, via a Transport and Works Act order as provided for in section 52 of this Act, or via such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.
(1F) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”
This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and require the nominated undertaker to pursue an extension of the existing bored tunnel outside of this legislation.
Amendment 14, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1G) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 and within the boundaries of the Chilterns AONB shall, between South Heath and Leather Lane, east of the A413 Aylesbury Road in Buckinghamshire, be built within bored tunnel.
(1H) The works referred to in subsection (1G) shall be pursued by means of a Transport and Works Act order or such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.
(1I) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”
This amendment would seek to provide partial further protection of the Chilterns AONB by extending the bored tunnel northward from South Heath for a further mile.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1I) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Clause, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2, until a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts of such works has been completed.
(1J) The cost benefit analysis must include, but shall not be restricted to, an assessment of the environmental impacts of Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 and connected construction works in The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
(1K) The cost benefit analysis shall be undertaken by a review panel, the membership of which must include, but shall not be restricted to, representatives from—
(a) Buckinghamshire County Council,
(b) Chiltern District Council,
(c) Aylesbury Vale District Council,
(d) Wycombe District Council,
(e) The Chilterns Conservation Board,
(f) Natural England,
(g) Environment Agency,
(h) Key community groups,
(i) HS2 Ltd, and
(j) The Department for Transport.
The panel shall be funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.
(1L) Within twelve weeks after the date on which this Act comes into force the Panel must report its conclusions and recommendations to the Secretary of State.
(1M) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must—
(a) make publicly available the reasons for doing so, and
(b) demonstrate how any environmental cost that would have been addressed by the rejected recommendation will otherwise be mitigated.
(1N) Any deviation from works specified in this Schedule required as a result of the panel’s recommendations shall be pursued via a Transport and Works Act order, as provided for in section 52 of this Act, or via such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.”
This amendment seeks to make progress of any construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of an environmental cost benefit analysis.
Amendment 6, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1O) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Schedule, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2, until a full reassessment of tunnelling methodology as applied to an extended bored tunnel under The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, has been completed.
(1P) The reassessment shall be conducted by a panel of experts and other relevant parties, to be appointed, funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.
(1Q) Within twelve weeks of this Act coming into force, the panel must report its conclusions and any recommendations to HS2 and the Secretary of State.
(1R) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must—
(a) make publicly available the reasons for doing so, and
(b) provide a cost benefit analysis of any alternative proposal to that recommended by the panel.
(1S) Any deviation from works specified in this Schedule required as a result of the panel’s recommendations shall be pursued through a Transport and Works Act order, as provided for in section 52 of this Act or such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.”
This amendment would make progress of any works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of a reassessment of tunnelling methodology for an extended bored tunnel under part of The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Amendment 7, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1T) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Schedule, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2, until a full assessment of traffic management requirements has been completed.
(1U) The assessment shall be conducted by a panel of experts and other relevant parties, to be appointed, funded and facilitated by HS2 Ltd.
(1V) Within sixteen weeks of this Act coming into force the panel must report its conclusions to the Secretary of State. The report must include but shall not be limited to—
(a) a full assessment of traffic management requirements consequential to any works specified in this Schedule, and
(b) detailed proposals outlining how such requirements shall be addressed.”
This amendment would make progress of any works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of an assessment of traffic management requirements and implementation of solutions to address such requirements.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) In exercising the powers in this Bill, the nominated undertaker shall have regard to the desirability of minimising the number of gantries to be installed to provide power to the railway, in particular in areas of outstanding natural beauty designated by statute and in other areas of particularly high environmental value and sensitivity, and shall consult with local communities in designing plans for gantry installation.”
Amendment 11, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to construct a surface railway route between Burton Green, Warwickshire, and Mercote Hall Lane east of Hampton-in-Arden, Solihull.
(1B) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 between Burton Green, Warwickshire, and Mercote Hall Lane east of Hampton-in-Arden, Solihull, shall be built as an extension to the tunnel at Burton Green, which is planned through the works specified in Schedule 1 of this Act.”
Amendment 17, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in schedule 1 relating to Canterbury Works in Brent, London until a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts of such works has been completed.
(1B) The cost benefit analysis shall be undertaken by a review panel, the membership of which must include, but shall not be restricted to, representatives from—
(a) HS2 Ltd;
(b) Department for Transport;
(c) Brent Council;
(d) Environment Agency; and
(e) Key community groups
(1C) The panel shall be funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.
(1D) Within twenty weeks after the date on which this Act comes into force, the panel must report its conclusions and recommendations to the Secretary of State.
(1E) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must make publicly available the reasons for doing so and must demonstrate how any environmental cost that would have been addressed by the rejected recommendation will otherwise be mitigated.”
This amendment seeks to make construction at the Canterbury Works site subject to an environmental cost benefit analysis.
Amendment 12, in clause 20, page 9, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) The deemed planning permissions in subsection (1) shall be made subject to the approval of the external appearance of the works by the relevant parish or town council,
(1B) The approval of the external appearance referred to in subsection (1A) shall not be withheld unreasonably, and shall be determined by the relevant parish or town council within four weeks of the submission by the nominated undertaker of full details of the external appearance of the proposed works to the proper officer of the council.”
Amendment 16, in clause 29, page 12, line 29, at end insert—
“(2) Any reconfiguration of utilities taking place pursuant to this Bill at Wormwood Scrubs Common will be undertaken with regard to the value of Wormwood Scrubs Common as an amenity, and shall not involve the creation of any permanent pedestrian or vehicular access.”
Amendment 9, in clause 31, page 13, line 30, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of Royal Assent, consult on and prepare plans for the undergrounding of all overhead power lines over a height of 15m in areas of particularly high environmental value or sensitivity, and shall within one year thereafter introduce legislation or alternative regulatory measures (to the extent such measures are required) to permit such undergrounding to take place by the end of 2020.”
This amendment is intended to compensate for the physical effects of the railway in certain areas by removing existing obtrusive and unappealing infrastructure.
Amendment 10, page 13, line 30, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of Royal Assent, consult on and prepare plans for the undergrounding of all overhead power lines in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty over a height of 15m, and shall within one year thereafter introduce legislation or alternative regulatory measures (to the extent such measures are required) to permit such undergrounding to take place by the end of 2020.
(5B) In this section, “Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty” shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns designated under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”
This amendment is intended to compensate for the physical effects of the railway in the Chilterns AONB by removing existing obtrusive and unappealing infrastructure.
Amendment 13, in schedule 1, page 79, leave out lines 47 to 50.
Mrs Gillan
New clause 6 relates to the Chiltern review group. The Chiltern area of outstanding natural beauty, which has been a designated landscape for more than 50 years, is the only AONB affected by phase 1 of HS2. As it stands, 8.8 km of the AONB is still exposed to the line and remains untunnelled and above ground. It will be a permanent scar on the landscape, and the effects will be irreversible. A Chilterns AONB review group would provide local authorities and key stakeholders with the opportunity to identify greater measures of mitigation and work collaboratively with the promoter to ensure that this precious area was protected to the highest possible level during the construction and operation of the railway.
When the project was first announced, I was assured that local people would have a chance to input their views and expertise into the plans for HS2, but, so far, those opportunities have been limited. This group of amendments would make sure that local people and councils had genuine influence over the future of their area, which will, I believe, be irretrievably damaged by HS2.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Is not new clause 7 actually defective? There does not appear to be any duty to replant trees that have died.
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. He will notice that there are a large number of amendments on the Order Paper in my name. I have not had the advantage of parliamentary draftsmen; I have had only lawyers, friends and my own wits, with the Clerks of the House to fall back on. However, I think that as a probing amendment, new clause 7 will make its point.
Michael Fabricant
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of trees and ancient woodland demonstrates not only a lack of commitment but a deep lack of understanding by HS2 of these environmental issues?
Mrs Gillan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I remember considering the matter in a debate in Westminster Hall, which I believe he led. Like me, he is a passionate and long-term supporter of the Woodland Trust, which does valuable work to preserve our precious ancient woodland and to create more native woods.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I was at the debate about ancient woodland to which my right hon. Friend referred. Does she agree that more ought to be done to try to protect those precious ancient woodland habitats? I understand the economic reasons, but what about the ancient woodland?
Mrs Gillan
My hon. Friend has already made a name for herself in the House for defending our environment, and I hope that she long continues to do so. I agree with her entirely. The Woodland Trust wants ancient woodland to be removed from the “no net loss” calculation, and it is disappointed that HS2 has not done everything that it should or could do to avoid the loss of ancient woodland.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am sure that the right hon. Lady will acknowledge that when HS2’s original estimate of the amount of ancient woodland was reviewed by the Woodland Trust, that estimate was increased by 78%. It is appalling that the initial environmental survey conducted by HS2 did not record accurately the amount of ancient woodland involved.
Mrs Gillan
The hon. Gentleman’s point about inaccurate assessments is, I am afraid, repeated throughout dealings with HS2. This is a particularly bad example. The Woodland Trust petitioned HS2 for a minimum planting ratio of 30:1 to compensate for the fact that irreplaceable habitats will be lost, and the planting of 2 million trees along the wider route is just the starting point. I would have hoped that that could be put in the Bill, which would have made the provision legally binding and ensured that at least some structured replanting and maintenance took place.
Mr Goodwill
May I underline our commitment to no net environmental loss and our commitment to plant 2 million trees, which will be managed to the best arboricultural standards? One of the problems that we had with the assessment of ancient woodland was getting access to land to carry out such assessments, because some landowners would not grant us access. That will not be a problem with further phases, because we have taken those powers as part of the Bill.
Mrs Gillan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I wish I could take it at face value.
Barry Gardiner
As I am sure the right hon. Lady agrees, the Minister’s assurance that there will be no net loss is not worth the air time it is given. Ancient woodland is, of course, as Natural England precisely characterises it, “irreplaceable”. The idea that there can be no net loss of something that is irreplaceable is simply a contradiction in terms.
Mrs Gillan
The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Quite frankly, the fact that anybody actually says they would replace ancient woodland just shows the ignorance of some of the people dealing with this matter.
Mrs Gillan
The Minister is determined to get in again. As we have not heard a lot from him, I will give way.
Mr Goodwill
May I just make the point that translocation of ancient woodland soils is recognised by Natural England as an important mechanism for aiding the creation of ecologically valuable woodlands? If properly planned and undertaken, that can be an important element of compensatory measures, where the loss of ancient woodland is unavoidable.
Victoria Prentis
I am very concerned about the protection of ancient pastureland. In one particularly egregious case in my constituency, HS2 Ltd suggested that it replace ancient woodland on ancient pastureland, which is even rarer and more valuable.
Mrs Gillan
I think my right hon. and learned Friend has had a similar experience.
Mrs Gillan
I think I have given way enough to the hon. Gentleman. I want to make some progress because so many Members want to speak on this group of amendments, and we have so little time.
I have tabled new clauses, drafted by a very senior lawyer, on a proposal that is of particular importance to everybody—the adjudicator. The proposal is of great importance and would improve the project immeasurably. New clause 8 provides for an independent regulatory body regularly to review and monitor progress during construction, and to hold HS2 to account in delivering what has been promised in environmental and other mitigations. The construction commissioner or complaints commissioner proposed by the Department for Transport simply will not have the remit or the expertise to monitor such a large project. In addition, it can only cover claims of up to £7,500. I believe we need truly independent scrutiny by an independent body. Some of the panel members should have relevant expertise, and most importantly, it should have enforcement powers.
The history of this project is full of errors and omissions, including the downplaying of the environmental impacts, together with the “It will be fine” and “The people along HS1 did not complain” attitude of the promoter. We cannot trust what HS2 is currently offering. At the moment, it is in effect responsible for policing itself.
The Government assure us that the environmental minimum requirements and the code of construction practice offer the necessary protections, but close examination of the documents does not provide such reassurance. The devil is always in the detail. In practice, it means that although HS2 is required to adopt measures to reduce the adverse environmental effects reported in the environmental statement, it only has to do so
“provided that such measures are reasonably practicable and do not add unreasonable cost or delay to the construction or operation of the project”.
In effect, that gives the nominated undertaker, which is in charge of monitoring itself, a “get out of jail free” card.
Andrew Bridgen
Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that if HS2 is its own policeman, corners will be cut when the budget comes under further pressure, as it undoubtedly will, and local people and the environment will suffer as a result?
Mrs Gillan
I think that will happen. Once this project is on its way, it will be easy to say that this would delay it or that would cost more. Presumably, it will be very easy for HS2 to say that almost any environmental mitigation could cause delays to the project and add to the cost, and therefore that it is not reasonably practical to implement it.
I have looked at the complaints process. It cannot be sensible or practical to have a complaints process that ends up with the Speaker of the House as the adjudicator of last resort for dispute resolution in relation to the construction of HS2 and, most importantly, the implementation of environmental mitigation. I do not want to be fobbed off by the Minister with reassurances that the Department for Transport has covered it all with the construction commissioner, because we can be very sure that it has not. We owe the people burdened with this project, and the communities that are being destroyed, that extra level of scrutiny and protection, and somebody whom they can turn to immediately.
My remaining new clauses concern the tunnels and the look of this project in my constituency. I will summarise those points briefly because many people want to speak. It is not fair to say that my constituency has not been protected at all by additional tunnelling. As the Minister said in his opening remarks—I am told I am to be very grateful—there will now be a tunnel for two thirds of my constituency. My constituents are grateful for that, but 8.8 km of the route through the area of outstanding natural beauty is outside the tunnel. When we are doing such brilliant tunnelling with Crossrail 2, and when we know that tunnelling expertise in this country leads the world, why are we not using that to tunnel under a nationally protected piece of the environment? I have tabled these new clauses to remind the Minister that we will not give up on this issue at any stage, and I hope that the House of Lords will also give it due consideration.
I have tabled an amendment on traffic, which is important because the traffic assessments from HS2 have been atrocious. I have also tabled amendments on pylons, and the possibility that we will be able to take the opportunity offered by HS2’s construction phase to ensure that if pylons are above ground, they are designed to fit in with the countryside, but that if possible they could be placed underground.
I see that you are getting anxious, Madam Deputy Speaker, as am I, because the Government have not given us enough time to do justice to these new clauses. I am sorry that I have not been able to deploy all my arguments, but in the interest of allowing others to speak, and knowing that time has been taken out of this debate by the Opposition’s forcing a vote on something that is not relevant to now or to my constituents, I will let others speak.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
New clause 22 deals with Euston, which is in the middle of my constituency. It is not easy to convey to the House the devastating impact that HS2 will have on my constituency, but let me try. HS2 will come into Primrose Hill and crash through to Euston, destroying everything in its path.
Let me give the House the sheer numbers affecting my constituency: 2,986 people live within 60 metres of the construction site, a further 3,186 live within 120 metres, and 11,414 within 300 metres. That is 17,568 people in my constituency within 300 metres of the construction site. Some 220 family houses will be demolished, and up 1,000 people will lose their homes. Unless there is a plan for an integrated station at Euston, there is the risk that another 150 family homes will be lost, affecting another 600 people—1,600 people are at risk of losing their home.
Many of the family homes that are not destroyed will be affected by noise, and, according to HS2’s own figures, 1,025 family homes—that is 4,000 people—will be affected by noise that requires mitigating measures. Measures are already in place to consider up to another 850 homes and another 3,400 people. Some 7,000 people in my constituency could need noise mitigation measures because of what will happen with HS2 at Euston.
That is not the end of it. If Euston is redeveloped, 3.5 million tonnes of spoil will need to be removed from the site, which is the equivalent of 26 miles of tunnelling for Crossrail. All that must come out of Euston, and there is no guarantee or assurance that that will be done by rail. The net effect for my constituents is the risk of 800 two-way lorry movements a day to remove that spoil, and 90% of those lorries will be HGVs.
That brings me on to air quality, which is notoriously bad in London. It is particularly bad in the Euston area, and the HS2 environmental statement indicates that HS2 will have a substantial impact on nitrogen dioxide levels in a third of locations in the Euston area. If that was not enough on its own—it will have a devastating impact on the constituency—let me throw in two further factors.
The first factor is time. The original HS2 Bill was premised on the completion of a new HS2 station at Euston by 2026. For my constituents, that seemed like a long time. In September 2015, the Government lodged “Additional Provisions 3”, their current plans for Euston. A new station is now to be developed in three phases. Stage A, to the west of the existing station, involves the construction between 2017 and 2026 of six platforms needed for phase 1. Stage B2, the construction in the second phase of further platforms within the existing station but not all of it, is intended to be completed by 2033. The redevelopment of the existing station, stage B2, is unfunded and unplanned, and may begin before or after 2033—half a station in twice the time.
Another factor—there are more I could add to this litany of devastation in Holborn and St Pancras—is that even in 2033, having endured a construction site for the best part of 20 years, my constituents will not see a complete and integrated station in their constituency. On 1 December 2015, Tim Mould QC, HS2’s counsel, outlined to the Select Committee that a new integrated station at Euston is
“not deliverable within appropriate funding constraints”
and that this is the assessment of
“the government, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister”.
There is no timetable for Government funding to complete the final phase. As a result of the lack of planning and integration, Crossrail 2, which hopes to have an integrated station, is now planning on the basis that it may have to build part of its station in Somers Town, removing 150 buildings and displacing another 600 people—half a station in twice the time, with twice the damage.
Mr Grieve
I will be extremely brief on the issue of the adjudicator. I listened very carefully to what the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said and I have great sympathy with all the points he makes. This is why I am bound to say that I find it so odd that the Government will not accept the creative idea of having an office of the HS2 adjudicator. The scale of the project makes it desirable to have an independent arbitration authority to resolve the inevitable disputes that will arise over the way in which the scheme is carried out. If I may say so to the Minister, I would have thought it very much in the Government’s interests to accept this idea; otherwise, the burden will inevitably fall on Members of Parliament whose constituencies are affected, and the House’s time will be taken up with constant arguments about how HS2 is not observing its obligations or carrying out the work in accordance with the intention it originally presented.
This is going to cause massive problems for the Minister and his Department and will probably clog up some of the House’s business time. It is all the more reason to have an independent adjudicator who is approachable exactly like an ombudsman and who can take on some of that burden and do it professionally and in a manner that reassures people and commands respect. I therefore strongly urge the Minister to accept new clause 8. It would be regrettable if the Government did not, because, as I say, an extra burden would fall on their shoulders as a result of the many problems that will inevitably arise during construction of the project.
Andy McDonald
I wish to speak to new clause 22 on the construction of an integrated station at Euston.
There have been many discussions and consultations between HS2 and Camden Borough Council about Euston, and the new clause draws on the assurances that HS2 gave to Camden. The thrust behind this long and technical new clause reflects the fact that the redevelopment of Euston presents an enormous opportunity to build something of real worth to accommodate not only the station to the west for HS2 phase 1 and all its works but the redevelopment of the mainline station, and to take into account the requirements of phase 1 and, in due course, phase 2, including in anticipation of Crossrail 2 in the fullness of time.
Michael Fabricant
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the integration between Crossrail and Euston and what might be possible at Euston, but does he agree that it is completely mad that HS2, which will be coming from the north, does not go to St Pancras or even connect with HS1 to enable people to travel to the continent?
Andy McDonald
That point has been raised several times. The intention, as expressed in the documents, is to have a pedestrian connection between them.
An overarching approach to an integrated station would not only take account of all the anticipated works but achieve the objectives of securing the best possible outcomes for the residents of Camden and minimising the enormous disruption they will undoubtedly suffer. Many properties will be demolished and other properties will be in extremely close proximity to the works; public open spaces will be lost; there will be fleets of heavy goods vehicles and commercial vehicles; and noise pollution will undoubtedly disrupt the peaceable enjoyment of many properties, including in places such as Cobourg Street, which is a tranquil community with a quiet courtyard at its heart, notwithstanding its close proximity to busy traffic and the railway station. Businesses in streets like Drummond Street will also be disturbed.
We are asking the good people of Camden to put up with a great deal and to make huge sacrifices for the benefit of the nation, and Labour has tried to do all it can, in new clause 22 and in Committee, to mitigate the impact on the quality of life for residents. We acknowledge the sincerity of the Minister and his colleagues in working to that objective, but we take the view that this is so important that the assurances given ought to be in the Bill and have the full force of law.
We seek to minimise the amount of excavated material and construction materials transported into and around the site by road and to have as much as possible moved by rail. Camden Council has developed a Euston area plan, and we propose that any designs for the enlarged Euston station take full cognisance of that plan and other such framework documents and relevant guidance. The assurances talk of various boards, including the Euston strategic board, the Euston station strategic redevelopment board and the Euston integrated programme board, which bring together a number of prescribed partners. We seek to ensure that the nominated undertaker—the relevant body carrying out the HS2 works—is obliged to participate in those boards, as the assurances given by HS2 so describe.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Euston station were holistically designed and developed, it would provide a huge opportunity for regeneration in the Euston area and produce a lot of good quality local affordable housing to replace some of the affordable housing that will be devastated by HS2?
Andy McDonald
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. That is the thrust of our new clause, which I trust he will support. It stipulates that the redevelopment board will advise the Secretary of State on the delivery of an “integrated and comprehensive design” for the enlarged Euston station, and it is for the integrated programme board to make sure that the designs and construction plans for Euston fit with proposals for other Euston schemes.
Access is a real issue, so while the construction is under way, which it will be for many years, we want to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists have continuous access through the site, east to west and north to south, insofar as it is “reasonably practicable” to do so. A design panel will work to ensure that the relevant partners can agree an appropriate design. Whoever is appointed for these purposes by HS2 will be obliged to work with that panel to ensure full buy-in to the design. Indeed, there will be an obligation on the nominated undertaker to take proper notice of the recommendations made by the design panel, and if for some reason the nominated undertaker does not follow those recommendations, our new clause states that it will be required to explain why that is so. The new clause makes sure that the community is properly engaged throughout the construction works at Euston so that its concerns will be recognised and its voice heard.
The provision is even more important, given today’s publication of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on a complaint about HS2. It effectively concludes that there are fundamental problems with the way HS2 Ltd communicates with the residents affected by their plans and the way it handles complaints.
The report dealt with specific complaints, but it is worrying that the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has said:
“There is still a culture of defensive communication and misinformation within this public body and that is not acceptable. Unless those responsible for delivering HS2 understand that first and foremost they serve the public, they will continue to be criticised for having complete disregard for the people, some of them vulnerable, who are impacted by this large-scale infrastructure project.”
Andy McDonald
If my hon. Friend would not mind, I am conscious of my time drifting away.
The Chairman continued:
“We expect HS2 Ltd to prioritise its response to Ian Bynoe’s forthcoming recommendations on communication and engagement and on complaint handling. This is a matter of primary importance for HS2 Ltd, and must be treated as such.”
I trust that the Minister will take on board the criticisms of the Committee and make sure that any necessary cultural and other changes are made so that there is no such repetition. I urge him further to consider, even at this late stage, accepting our representations in the context of this new clause.
The new clause also provides that when the Secretary of State sets out the Government’s periodic railway investment plans, in what we have come to term “control periods”, he or she should set out the costs of and funding for the anticipated works in the planning period before the works start and during the control period in which the works will fall.
Yes, previous infrastructure projects have had similar assurances woven into them and they have been observed, but this is such a huge infrastructural undertaking, the likes of which has never been done before in such a manner, on such a scale or over such a lengthy period of time. We believe that the people of Camden need to have more than just the assurances that have been given. On this occasion, we believe that we have to take the extra step of working those assurances directly into the Bill.
The Minister will not need me to remind him that throughout the Public Bill Committee Labour tabled a number of amendments and new clauses that pressed the Government to justify the inclusion of wide-ranging blanket powers granted to the Secretary of State for the purposes of the construction and operation of HS2. Each time the Minister responded by resisting our attempt to curtail the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers on the basis that the Government was taking a “belt and braces” approach so as to be absolutely sure. I am now therefore asking for the loan of his belt and braces— not to protect my dignity, but to protect the people of Camden.
I do not intend to impugn the sincerity of HS2 Ltd or of the Minister, and he knows that. In the light of the comments from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the special set of circumstances that apply, we firmly believe that these provisions need to be enshrined in statute. I shall test the will of the House on new clause 22 by putting it to the vote.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I have tabled some fresh amendments that are designed to help colleagues whose constituencies are along the line of route. In particular I shall highlight the important issue of the adjudicator, and I shall support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on new clause 7. I want to impress on the Government that when I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and published the “Natural Environment” White Paper, it was made clear that the objective was for a net positive outcome from offsetting. That is more ambitious than no net loss, and it can be achieved by, for example, combining offsets and regenerating degraded land such as the Tame river valley on the east of Birmingham, where the spur to Birmingham station will be built.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
New clauses 34 and 35, which I tabled, relate to construction at Canterbury Works and Alexandra Place in my constituency. I shall say something about the environmental impacts, but before that I want to make a point about the poor communication on the part of HS2, which has also been mentioned by Conservative Members.
Last October, along with volunteers, I delivered letters to constituents living near Canterbury Works. It was the first time that many of them had even heard of the plans, which is simply not good enough. Many of the people who live near Canterbury Works and the Alexandra and Ainsworth estate speak English as a second language, and HS2’s poor communication meant that they had no idea of what was coming along the tracks towards them as a result of this devastating scheme. My new clauses would change that situation, and give some information and assurances to the people whose lives will be blighted by the scheme.
At Canterbury Works, which is in the Brent area of my constituency, a vent shaft will be built in a very deprived area next to a school playground. Parents of pupils at the school have told me repeatedly how detrimental the construction will be to their children’s education, health and welfare. Arancha, a constituent and the parent of a pupil at the school, raised specific concerns about air pollution. She said:
“Children will be directly affected by the impact of noise levels from construction, causing disruption to their learning experience, in particular for the percentage of pupils with Special Educational Needs”.
Her concerns do not stand in isolation; they exist in a socioeconomic context that demands that south Kilburn be given a better deal than the upheaval being imposed by HS2. The areas surrounding the proposed vent shaft in Brent are in the top 1% in the country for income deprivation affecting children.
Let me turn to the other borough in my constituency, Camden. At Alexandra Place, another vent shaft will be built adjacent to crowded businesses and residential properties, and 100 vehicles a day will be emitting dangerous fumes within the confines of narrow roads that are surrounded on all sides by apartment buildings. Residents of a care home and the children living in the apartments on Alexandra Place will face increased risks to their health for many years. An article in The Sunday Times in October said that pollution in London was stunting the growth of children’s lungs, so when the Select Committee report states that “together” the two sites that I have named are “the most sensitive” locations for vent shafts in an urban area, its words should be taken seriously.
I know that there is not much time, so I shall finish by saying that I do not object to transport schemes or infrastructure projects without giving them the utmost consideration. However, I am proud to call my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn home, because it is where I grew up, and the welfare of my constituents comes first. This scheme will blight their lives. It will affect the most vulnerable, and the years of construction will cause confusion and upheaval to people already living in deprived communities. This is my reason for speaking out against a scheme that will affect the most vulnerable in Hampstead and Kilburn.
Victoria Prentis
I should like to add my support to the amendments relating to the office of the adjudicator, which have been debated so well this afternoon. It is critical for my constituents to have someone who can intervene between them and HS2, and the cross-party, high-level legal support for those amendments should be noted by the Secretary of State and the House.
The amendments tabled in my name are specific and I shall deal with them briefly. New clause 23 relates to Mixbury. The estimated frequency of the trains means that the noise will be almost continuous in that unspoiled village, which has as many stables as houses. HS2 has failed to engage with the community in Mixbury—this is a good example of failure to engage—on the question of adequate noise mitigation. The community is so concerned that the villagers are considering fundraising to install noise barriers themselves. I would like the House to take note of that.
New clause 24 relates to Wardington, which, like so many areas in my constituency, has an existing traffic problem. HS2 construction traffic will turn that problem into a vision of hell. The Select Committee agreed that the village would struggle to cope. We have made sensible suggestions, including the movement of spoil by conveyor over the A43 and up the haul road. The new clause asks the Secretary of State to commission a review of the problem.
New clause 25 relates to bridleways. My constituency has been repeatedly dissected over the centuries, including by the Oxford-Birmingham canal and, 29 years ago, by the building of the M40. Both brought great benefits to our area, but our bridleways have suffered. I am determined that they should not suffer again, particularly in pursuit of a scheme that brings no benefit to my constituents.
Andy Slaughter
Given the lack of time, I shall speak only to amendment 16, tabled in my name, which seeks to give statutory protection to Wormwood Scrubs common. I should really say “more statutory protection” because, as metropolitan open land and strategic defence land, it is already protected by an Act of Parliament. More importantly, it hosts an extraordinary range of sports and pastimes. Thousands of disabled children ride at the pony centre every year. An organisation called the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs is seeking to protect its 200 acres of semi-wilderness, which form a substantial proportion of my constituency—an area in which open spaces are at a premium.
However, in the time since HS2 was proposed, we have been asked to put a viaduct across it, and we have been told that it could be turned into formal gardens and that it could be amenity space for the luxury flats being built around the HS2 route. We are now being told that it will be a transit way for hundreds of thousands of people to walk across, which would essentially destroy this London landmark forever.
Although I clearly will not today get the protection that I am seeking, I thank the Select Committee for recognising my representations and acknowledging that they were my only representations. I say to the Government and to HS2 Ltd that it will be a crime if this open space is despoiled over the course of the development.
I wanted to make some more general comments as I think my constituency will see more development than any other. I will not say that I am as adversely affected as other hon. and right hon. Members, and some of the development is of course welcome, but if I am able to catch your eye on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can perhaps make some of those points then. I entirely support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said about the effect on their residents and businesses. As they used to be my constituents, I mention the residents of Wells House Road, Midland Terrace and Stephenson Street, whose homes will be blighted for many years to come and will be entirely surrounded by HS2 works.
I could have tabled something similar to new clause 22 asking for the Old Oak Common development to be regulated, but that should not be necessary because the London Sustainable Development Commission is there to deal with such matters. At the moment, however, it is not working. I hope that it will work under a new Mayor, because we currently have unregulated development on the site and a huge opportunity cost, which is not allowing for proper exploitation of and investment in that land.
Mr Goodwill
The new clauses and amendments principally concern environmental issues, which the Government take very seriously. The Bill and the environmental minimum requirements establish robust environmental controls that have proved to be an effective mechanism on other projects, such as Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link. In addition, many of the new clauses and amendments relate to issues on which we have already provided assurances through the Select Committee process. Some comments were made during the debate, not least from the Opposition Front-Bench team, about those assurances not being worth the paper on which they were written, but they are commitments made to Parliament by the Secretary of State and are enforced by Parliament. The process worked well for Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link, so we do not need a belt when have more than adequate braces—or “gallusses” as we call them in my part of the world. The Select Committee process led to nearly 400 alterations to the scheme and provided some 1,600 assurances and undertakings to those affected by HS2.
I specifically want to touch on new clause 22, relating to the development of an integrated station at Euston, and I was pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) managed to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We share an ambition for the integrated redevelopment of Euston station and assurances have been provided to the London Borough of Camden. Indeed, I recently met the leader of the council to discuss such matters. Work is already under way regarding the commitments given in the assurances to Camden, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority on the overall integration of works at Euston and the co-ordination with Crossrail 2. I can also confirm that funding is available to progress initial feasibility work for the preparation of an outline masterplan for Euston station, which includes the classic, Network Rail element of the station.
Andrew Bridgen
Will the Minister inform the House how many conventional platforms will have to be sacrificed at Euston to accommodate HS2?
Mr Goodwill
We have made it quite clear that phasing the development of the high-speed platforms at Euston will give us the opportunity to carry out some of that work, and we have changed the phasing to make it possible to operate other services into Euston. Indeed, we estimate that around a third of HS2 passengers will alight at Old Oak Common and use the Elizabeth line to access central London or Heathrow. While I recognise the desire to highlight the importance of such issues through new clause 22, legislation is unnecessary for Euston when progress has been and is being made.
Transparency was mentioned by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and we have appointed a residents commissioner to hold HS2 Ltd to account for how it communicates with residents and have committed to appoint a construction commissioner to deal with complaints that cannot be addressed by HS2 Ltd and its contractors. I hope that also reassures my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).
On the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty review group, we have already committed to establish a Chilterns AONB group.
Mr Goodwill
I must make progress because we have only a minute left. On residential demolitions, we have committed to, and are progressing with Camden Council on, the replacement of all lost social housing in Euston as a result of HS2. On the prohibition of vehicles, an issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, the Bill already requires local authorities to approve local routes, so the amendment on that is unnecessary.
Many of the proposed new clauses and amendments would duplicate existing obligations already made to Parliament, and I do not believe it necessary to include them in the Bill. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the proposed new clauses, new schedules and amendments.
Mrs Gillan
In the light of the unsatisfactory reply from the Minister and the fact that he has relied again on saying that his appointees are adequate for the scrutiny of this project, I will have no other choice than to push new clause 8, which deals with the office of the HS2 adjudicator, to a vote. As for new clause 6, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I inform the House that the amendments on the Order Paper have not been selected.
Mr McLoughlin
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Our railways and roads power our economy. It is almost two centuries since this House gave its backing to the pioneering railway from London to Birmingham—a line that changed our country, and on which many of our great cities still rely today. Of course, we could leave it as it is for another two centuries—congested and unreliable—and suffer the consequences in lost growth, lost jobs and lost opportunities, particularly in the midlands and the north. However, the House has already shown that it can do much better than that, by backing a new high-speed route, alongside other transport investments in road and rail access across the country.
In 2013, Parliament passed the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013, paving the way for HS2. That was backed by welcome support and co-operation from all parts of the House, for which I thank all parties. We have made outstanding progress since then. British contractors are bidding to build the line. British apprentices are waiting to work on it. British cities are waiting to benefit from it. That is why today’s vote is so important.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr McLoughlin
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, a lot of people have been here all afternoon. We have a fairly short period for Third Reading, and I want to give other people the opportunity to speak.
On what will be a Great British railway, phase 1 will be the bedrock of the new network. Phase 2a will take it to Crewe. Phase 2b will take it onwards to Manchester and Leeds.
Our trains are more than twice as busy as they were 20 years ago, and growth will continue. HS2 will help us to cope. It will work, it will be quick, it will be reliable, it will be safe and it will be clean. When it is finished, we will wonder why we took so long in getting around to building it.
Many hon. Members will want to speak, so I will keep my remaining remarks short. I will touch on the detail of the Bill. I will also set out the work that has been done on the environment; then I want to describe what will come next, including what we are doing to build skills and manage costs.
First, the Bill authorises the first stage of HS2, from London to Birmingham. The Bill has undergone more than two years of intense parliamentary scrutiny since 2013. Even before the phase 1 Bill was introduced, the principles of HS2 were extensively debated on the Floor of the House. In April 2014, we had the Second Reading of the phase 1 Bill.
There was then a special Select Committee. I thank all members of the Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who chaired it so ably. I also pay special tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, sat on it for the whole Committee stage.
The Committee heard over 1,500 petitions during 160 sittings. It sat for over 700 hours, and over 15,000 pieces of evidence were provided to it. It published its second special report on 22 February this year. The Government published their response, accepting the Committee’s recommendations.
Many of the changes made to the scheme in the Select Committee related to the environmental impacts. Building any road or rail link has impacts, but we will build this link carefully, and we will build it right. For example, HS2 Ltd has today started to procure up to 7 million trees to plant alongside the line to help it blend in with the landscape. The changes made in Select Committee will mean less land-take, more noise barriers and longer tunnels.
Rebecca Pow
I totally understand the economic reasons for this project, but may I just put in a bid for nature and for ancient woodland to be given the reverence it deserves? Much of it is already going to be undermined and threatened, so will the Secretary of State please ensure that this irreplaceable habitat is given all the reverence it deserves?
Mr McLoughlin
I can assure my hon. Friend that, as I think I have shown, given the time taken in Select Committee, the way in which procedures can be put in place and the way in which the Woodland Trust appeared before the Select Committee to make its case, that that will be taken into account. As I have said, the planting of new trees is an important part of the work that has been done.
We have done a huge amount to assess the environmental impacts. More than 50,000 pages of environmental assessments have been provided to the House. We have produced a statement of reasons setting out why we believe it is correct to proceed with HS2. That information is important to ensure that the House makes its decisions to support this vital project in the light of the environmental effects.
I expect construction of HS2 phase 1, between London and Birmingham, to begin next year. To enable that, HS2 Ltd has this morning announced that nine firms have now been shortlisted for the civil engineering contracts for the line. Those contracts alone will create more than 14,000 jobs, and we want those jobs to be British jobs. That is why the HS2 skills college, with sites in Birmingham and Doncaster, will open its doors next year, to train our young people to take up those opportunities.
It is not all about jobs; it is also about materials. HS2 will need approximately 2 million tonnes of steel over the next 10 years, and we are already holding discussions with UK suppliers to make sure that they are in the best possible position to win those contracts.
Later this year, I will set out my decisions on HS2 phase 2. As that happens, we must have a firm grip on costs. The November 2015 spending review confirmed a budget for the whole of HS2 of £55.7 billion at 2015 prices. HS2 is a major commitment of public money, but it is an investment that Britain must make, and it can afford to do so: the cost of HS2 equates to about 0.14% of UK GDP in the spending review period.
I respect the fact that there are those in this House who take a different view of the project, but it is about the future of our nation. It is a bold new piece of infrastructure that will be open to passengers in just 10 years’ time. This is about giving strength not just to the north, but to the midlands. Today I can get a high-speed train to Paris and other parts of Europe, but not to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or Scotland. This is about boosting the links to the midlands manufacturing heartland and the connections to Leeds, York, the north-east and Edinburgh, and to the north-west, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow. It is about making HS2 a part of our national rail network, including Euston, where we are not only building a world-class high-speed rail station, but funding work by Network Rail to prepare for the masterplan for Euston station, which is an important step forward in our vision of an integrated hub that will enhance the area. At Old Oak Common, I have agreed to the transfer of land to the development corporation, paving the way for more than of 25,000 new homes and 65,000 jobs.
High Speed 2 is a measure of our ambition as a country and of our willingness to look beyond the immediate future and to take a hard-headed view of what we need to succeed as a nation. This is a railway that will unlock that future. I urge colleagues to support the Bill’s Third Reading, as they have done to date, and the carry-over motions so that it can continue its passage in the next Session.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I remind hon. Members that we have only half an hour to debate Third Reading and an awful lot of Members wish to speak, so there will be a speech limit of three minutes on all Back-Bench contributions in the hope that we can get as many people in as possible. If you use less time, everybody will be grateful.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Today’s proceedings mark the end of a long process and I am sure the House will want to express its gratitude to all those who served on the Bill Select Committee, the Clerks and all those who petitioned or who assisted the petitioners in making their case. The project has undoubtedly been improved by the parliamentary scrutiny it has received. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who represented the Opposition with great skill in the Public Bill Committee and on Report.
HS2 is a Labour project. When the high-speed rail Command Paper was published in March 2010, the urgent need for greater capacity on our rail network was at its heart. Since that paper was published, passenger numbers have grown by a third. Punctuality has declined as the constraints on our existing infrastructure grow. The case for HS2 was based on the assumption that passenger demand would grow by 2.2% a year; in reality, the average is more than 5%. The case for HS2 has not weakened in the past six years—it has grown stronger and more urgent.
Our north-south lines are testing the limits of their capacity. The midland main line has been officially designated as “congested infrastructure” and freight services are being turned away. The east coast operator has said that
“this route faces track capacity limit.”
Nowhere is our capacity shortfall more keenly felt than on the west coast main line between London and Birmingham, which is the most congested part of the busiest and most complex mixed-use line in Europe, carrying a quarter of all passengers and freight. At least £9 billion was spent on a hugely disruptive modernisation package for the line, and it did not deliver the benefits we were promised. Just a few years on, we have used up almost all the extra capacity, and even if we lengthened every train and converted every first-class carriage to standard, that would not be enough and it would not enable us to run a single extra train. On some sections of the west coast main line, the notorious curves and gradients are pre-Victorian, and they cannot be altered. We have reached the practical limits of the existing infrastructure, and new signalling would have limited benefits on such a busy route, where inter-city commuter and freight services all compete for scarce paths. The scale of the capacity challenge requires us to take action. Commuter services have already been cut back in the west midlands and on the approaches to Manchester because of a lack of capacity on our main lines.
Paul Farrelly
Does my hon. Friend recognise that in its current form, the Bill does not satisfy the concerns of north Staffordshire? There is no connectivity with or stop for Stoke-on-Trent, which is a far greater conurbation with a bigger economy that that of Crewe.
Lilian Greenwood
I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the Bill deals with the creation of the line between London and Birmingham. I am sure that we will return to questions of connectivity when we reach phase 2.
As I was saying, freight operators are turned away, forcing lorries on to our already congested motorways. That has real consequences for our ability to meet our greenhouse gas emissions targets. I have visited places in the areas that my hon. Friend talked about south of Stoke where local stations have closed, not 50 years ago under Dr Beeching but in the last decade after paths for local services were reassigned.
Some might ask why we are investing in new infrastructure when sections of the existing network need to be upgraded, as, of course, they must be. The Great Western electrification scheme, the costs of which have risen by more than 400% in just five years, is a sobering reminder that route upgrades are no panacea. We could spend an equivalent sum on a conventional modernisation programme, but it would lead to 2,000 weekends of closure and misery for passengers, and it would trigger enormous compensation payments to train operators. At the end of such a project, a conventional upgrade would deliver less than half the additional capacity of a new line. By contrast, new build infrastructure is more resilient and it will allow us to integrate high-speed rail with existing lines, revolutionising journeys between cities directly on the route and beyond it.
That potential is reflected in the support for this project not just from the leaders of Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds, but from those of Liverpool, Bristol, Newcastle, Cardiff and Glasgow. After billions has been invested in Thameslink, Reading, HS1 and Crossrail, this project is about building 21st-century infrastructure in the midlands and the north, not just London and the south-east. It will support jobs and skills through our world-class rail supply chain at Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe, Bombardier in Derby, the training colleges in Doncaster and Birmingham, and the hundreds of small and medium-sized enterprises across the country that support the construction and maintenance of tracks and trains.
We urgently need better connections and more capacity, and HS2 is the right project to provide them. There are, however, questions that need to be answered about the Government’s stewardship of the scheme. HS2 was always conceived of as a wider network, and Ministers were due to confirm the phase 2 route at the end of 2014, but that deadline has slipped by two years. That is compounding planning blight for residents, prolonging uncertainty about station locations and warding off private sector investment. It is incumbent on Ministers to confirm their plans for high-speed rail in the midlands and the north.
We have heard today about the Government’s inadequate treatment of Euston. The 1960s station is no longer fit for purpose. With 10 million more passengers a year using Euston than in 2010—a staggering increase of 43%—it is clear that a rebuild would be needed even without HS2. We urgently need a plan for a comprehensive redevelopment of Euston station, but four times HS2 Ltd has presented different plans for the site, all of which would lead to years of disruption for residents and businesses.
I have been glad to work with the Labour leadership of Camden Council to help to win a series of assurances from the Government on the removal of construction materials by rail rather than road, the development of a plan for an integrated station design and support for affordable housing provision. However, the reality still falls a long way short of the Chancellor’s rhetoric, and it is deeply disappointing that Ministers voted against our amendment on the matter. The Opposition will, no doubt, come back to that in the other place.
To conclude, as well as putting on the record my appreciation of the role played by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who served as shadow rail Ministers during the passage of the Bill, I want to record my appreciation of my predecessors as shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), who all showed great constancy, even when there were reports of leaves on the line.
HS2 is essential for meeting our capacity challenge and rebalancing the economic geography of the UK. I will vote for the Bill today, and I encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to do the same.
Mrs Gillan
I have three minutes to sum up six years of hell for my constituents in Chesham and Amersham.
I pay tribute to the dignity and persistence of my constituents, who have remained committed to positive change in the face of great adversity. Those individuals are too numerous to mention, but they include my dedicated constituency staff, our local councils at all levels, our environmental and community organisations, the Clerks of the House—they have been tremendous—and colleagues who have served on both the Committees on the Bill.
I thank colleagues who have stood four-square with me, despite all the pressures that have been brought to bear on them when I have opposed the project. We have succeeded in making some positive changes that will make a real difference to people’s lives. The two extensions to the Chilterns tunnels are very important; the improvements to the “need to sell” scheme are also significant; and even the Chilterns AONB review panel, if it comes about, is important—to name but three aspects of the project.
However, HS2 is being built on the backs of my constituents, who are losing their homes, their businesses, their peaceful retirement, their heath and their communities. The Prime Minister promised me the most environmentally friendly Government ever and that compensation for people affected by HS2 would be fair and generous. This project will still cause damage along over 8 km of the line through a nationally designated, environmentally protected area, and many of my constituents are still fighting for fair treatment and compensation. They would not use the words “fair” and “generous” about the compensation.
For the all the inequitable and atrocious handling of the project, for the poor value for money for the taxpayer, for the inadequate integration of the project and for the damage it will cause my constituency and constituents, I will vote against the Bill again this afternoon. I urge hon. Members to join me in doing so. It may not achieve very much, because Labour and Conservative Members are being whipped to support the project, but at least I will be able to put my head on my pillow knowing that I have done the best by my constituents. I have tried to protect them from the ravages of a project that will consume vast amounts of taxpayers’ money and suck it out of the rest of the system. My constituents and many others up and down the line will pay disproportionately for the burden of political intransigence.
Alan Brown
Once again, I confirm that we welcome the HS2 proposals before Parliament. We certainly welcome the wider context of the roll-out of the high-speed network, as well as the Government’s commitment, alongside that of the Scottish Government, to the aspiration for a three-hour journey time between Glasgow or Edinburgh and London. That will mean a quicker point-to-point journey time compared with using Gatwick or Heathrow airports. It will bring obvious environmental benefits and, clearly, much greater choice for air travellers.
I welcome the release earlier this week of the broad options report, which was commissioned by both Governments. It is important to develop these options as soon as possible to achieve shorter journey times to Scotland. In Scotland, the Scottish Government have confirmed their commitment to rail investment with the construction of the Borders rail line, which is the longest rail line to be constructed in the UK since Victorian times. As we have already heard, the vast bulk of the existing rail network was built in Victorian times. It stood the test of time fantastically, but now is the time to reinvest in and to future-proof the rail network. That will be done through these options.
I welcome the proposals, and I look forward to the roll-out of the high-speed network and to the improvements on lines to the north to improve journey times to Scotland.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I will be brief. This has been a long process, and in many respects it has been Parliament at its best, listening to people from ordinary communities, many of whom will be badly affected by the impact of the railway. However, as a senior Clerk said to me, the last time we looked at the Standing Orders was 1946, and without taking away the right of somebody to come before the Committee it is right that we consider that process. There will be further phases of this project, and perhaps airports will come in along the line. I therefore hope that the Leader of the House and the House authorities have a good look at how we could make things a little more efficient. On occasion, we listened to people who were burning up a lot of time but who we felt were not affected, and that had an impact on some people whose farms are being cut in half and who will be very badly affected. There is an argument for reform, and I hope that the House authorities consider it, so that any future Committee that has the good task of listening to people who will be affected by such a project will do so more efficiently.
Mrs Ellman
I support the Bill, which will bring vital capacity for an expanding railway. It is reassuring to see that so many of the points raised by the Transport Committee in 2011 are now incorporated into the Bill, including maximising jobs, whether in construction or regional economic development. High Speed 2 is part of a connected railway, with plans for ensuring that lines freed by the construction of High Speed 2 can be used for passengers and freight. We must ensure that those who are not on a high-speed line or situated near a high-speed station do not lose out.
It is vital that the necessary investment in High Speed 2 does not come at the expense of investment in the classic line, but evidence to date suggests that that will not be the case. Improvements in other parts of the country, including east-west links, must be linked with high-speed rail as part of the connected rail network. When in phase 2 the trans-Pennine developments take place—now known as High Speed 3—it is vital that High Speed 2 is linked into that so that, in the words of Lord Adonis, the chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission:
“Route decisions on the northern sections of HS2 should support enhanced high speed connections within the north including between Leeds-Sheffield, Liverpool-Manchester, and Sheffield-Newcastle.”
I am sorry that we are not considering High Speed 2 as one Bill, and that instead we have it in two phases, and I hope that the end date of 2034 can be brought forward. However, I am pleased that we are deciding on the go-ahead for phase 1 of High Speed 2. This is for the future. It is about vision and confidence in the railway sector and public transport, and I hope that hon. Members will approve the Bill.
Michael Fabricant
I am not one of those who say that HS2 is a white elephant, or that there is no congestion on the west coast main line—indeed, today 5,000 people arrive standing on trains as they come into Euston. I accept the need for an additional north-south corridor, and if that can be high-speed, then all the better because there is not that much additional cost.
Before I come to my main point, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) and all his colleagues for their work on the Committee, as well as the Transport Secretary who, given the structure of HS2, has been incredibly helpful to my constituents in Lichfield.
I do not believe, however, that I can support HS2, because it is not an integrated railway. I could not understand why it was so appalling, until I heard the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) say that HS2 is a Labour project. Only a Labour project could be so unintegrated with the rest of the transport system. Lord Adonis chose a system whereby people arrive at Euston from Birmingham and then have to trek across London with their bags to get to St Pancras. The promises that were made—that people would get on to a train in Birmingham and wake up in Paris—have come to naught. When people get to Birmingham, can they get on to network rail because the train arrives at Birmingham New Street? No. That would have been too obvious. This Labour project, so brilliantly designed yet so sadly duplicated by the Conservative Administration, instead goes into Curzon Street, and people have to schlep across Birmingham to get there, too.
It is about as integrated as my old Hornby 00 railway. I put that on the carpet and it went round and round, but it did not connect with the road or other railway systems, because it was a toy. I would not go so far as to say HS2 is a toy, but it is damaging and it could have been designed better. That is why I have to say to my hon. Friends the Whips that—I am not going to make it a habit—I will have to vote against Third Reading.
Barry Gardiner
I am not against HS2. I am for trees—but not just any trees: trees that enhance our environment and improve our biodiversity. I want to pick up on two very brief points, in relation to the remarks of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), on net biodiversity loss and translocation.
It is absolutely clear that the commitment in the Government’s White Paper was not simply to no net biodiversity loss but to leaving the natural environment of England in a better state. This project will set a precedent on how to deal with the natural environment for all future major infrastructure projects. The question is whether it will fulfil the promise of improving the natural environment, leaving it in a better state for our children. National planning policy framework 118 is absolutely clear:
“planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland”.
Ancient woodland is irreplaceable.
The Secretary of State used the figure of 7 million trees when he spoke from the Dispatch Box earlier. Seven million trees, if planted at the rate suggested by the Woodland Trust of 2,500 trees per hectare, would give rise to 2,400 additional hectares. I want a commitment from the Secretary of State that they will be additional hectares: additional to the Government’s promise that 5,000 hectares of new woodland will be planted in England each year, a promise that at the moment is not being met. Some 2,400 hectares had been planted up to 2014-15, which is more than 4,000 hectares light on the existing promise. I want a commitment that the additional 2,400 hectares—the 7 million trees he spoke of—will be on top of the existing promise that is not being met.
Finally, on translocation, Natural England clearly states that an
“ancient woodland ecosystem cannot be moved”.
The Woodland Trust’s extensive research into translocation states:
“The only thing that is certain when translocation of ancient woodland soils is undertaken is that a valuable habitat will be destroyed.”
There is no guarantee that a similarly valuable habitat will be created. The idea, therefore, that translocation can be used and justified as the Minister attempted to do earlier—he is an honourable and decent man using the information that his civil servants no doubt gave him—is wrong.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
As someone who was involved in much earlier parts of the planning process, I am delighted that tonight the Bill will progress from this House to another place. That is long overdue. It is sad that, for far too many major infrastructure projects that this country badly needs, the process of getting from the beginning to the end is so drawn out.
I pay tribute not only to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for all they have done—and to the civil servants who have backed them up—but to the Labour party, which was not prepared to play narrow party political games on what is in the national interest. It has stuck by the national interest to ensure that the project will go ahead.
I accept there will be disruption and problems along the line. That is very upsetting, but I offer one beacon of hope to those people. When I first came into this House in 1987, the same arguments were being bandied about across the Floor of the House on High Speed 1. The local authorities were against it and the local communities were against it. They fought it, with hon. Members in this House, tooth and nail to try to stop it. It happened, and now local communities along the route in Kent are thrilled with the resulting benefits—the economic benefits, the regeneration, and the improvements in connectivity and capacity. I am convinced that when HS2 is finally completed, in 2033, people who do not think there will be any benefits now will come to learn that there are major benefits not only to their communities but in improved capacity.
The point about capacity is critical. The west coast main line will run out of capacity in the middle of the next decade, and it is not acceptable for any Government, of whatever party, to ignore that fact and allow our transportation system to come to a grinding halt. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will have a speedy passage through another place and on to the statute book so that phase 2, to Leeds and Manchester, can be expedited. We will thereby finally get a fit-for-purpose, modern transportation system along the spine of this country.
Jonathan Reynolds
I rise to support the Bill and to commend both Front Benches for the cross-party support on this issue. It would have been easy for the Labour party to play this for short-term political advantage in the last Parliament or this one; that we have not done so is to our credit, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).
I am a former shadow Rail Minister and was a member of the Bill Committee, so I feel confident in saying that I am familiar with this issue. I say this: this country needs HS2. The key issue is capacity—it has always been about capacity. So often the conversation has been bogged down in arguments about journey times, but that misses the point. Of course, if it takes me less time to get from the House of Commons to Stalybridge station’s world-famous buffet bar, that is welcome, but it is more important that I can do so on a train with enough seats for everyone. With the west coast main line expected to be full by the middle of the next decade, it is vital that we act now. In fact, this is the one time I can think of when this country has acted on a major infrastructure problem before it has become acute. If only our predecessors had done the same with aviation capacity!
The railways are filling up and are crying out for this investment. The statistics speak for themselves. Each day, 3,000 passengers arrive at Euston or Birmingham standing up on trains, having been unable to get a seat. The benefit of HS2 will be to address that looming capacity crunch. More powerful than the statistics, however, are the experiences of passengers—especially those who have the unpleasant experience of being on a packed train leaving or coming into London. I can still vividly remember my wife phoning me after a particularly hellish journey from London to Manchester. Eight months pregnant, she was forced to spend the two-hour journey on the floor outside the toilet entertaining a two-year-old. That should not happen on a 21st-century railway network.
The common arguments against HS2 do not stack up. Spending the money on upgrading the existing line will cost more and give us less. Building a new line that is not high speed will cost nearly as much but give us a fraction of the capacity. Saying we should spend the money on local services rather than north-south improvements fails to understand that the way to improve local services is to free up that existing infrastructure by building a new line. As for the argument that this will be a railway only for the wealthy, we simply have to apply the laws of supply and demand. The guaranteed way to price people off the railway would be to do nothing, because if demand is rising and supply does not increase, prices will go up.
I have great ambitions for what HS2 can deliver for the north, and particularly Greater Manchester—jobs, growth, connectivity, better wages, better career paths and, of course, the opportunity for hard-pressed Londoners more easily to spend time in the UK’s real first city: Manchester. I commend the Bill to the House.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I was not expecting to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am delighted.
Having sat on the Select Committee, I wish to say two things, hopefully in less than a minute. First, the hybrid Bill Committee system needs overhauling: 160 days— not for me, as I joined only after the election—and 1,600 petitions is unsustainable. Somebody needs to look at the system. Finally, we should all celebrate the fact that we have a record number of people travelling on trains, but we need more capacity. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, even though he did not acknowledge that I had been on the Committee, that we need to plan this thing properly. We must ensure that there is proper connectivity into HS2 from all the other lines and that the west coast main line and other lines can make the most of the opportunity for freight.
Andy Slaughter
I support the principle of high-speed rail and this project, not least because it allows the regeneration of the Old Oak area in my constituency—by some distance the largest development area in the country, bringing more than 24,000 homes and 50,000 new jobs to an area of severe deprivation. I support the project with reservations, and I have been happy to work with those on both sides who will be voting against the Bill tonight, because the local implications for residents, businesses and the environment have not been properly considered through this process. I say that with all due respect to the Committee, which has done an excellent job and worked incredibly hard.
In the minute left available to me, let me mention three things. First, if the issue is about capacity and not so much about speed, why are there not more stations, which would make it more beneficial to areas between London and Birmingham? Secondly, why are there not better links with HS1? I accept why the Camden link had to go, but it is ridiculous not to have those better links.
Thirdly, why can we not have a proper integrated centre at Old Oak, which would bring the Great Western line, the overground, the underground and Crossrail together? It is a huge wasted opportunity not to use that land properly. It is a real waste of public money and opportunity in that area. I urge the Government to look at that again and to work with the new Mayor, who I hope will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), to ensure that we have proper regeneration on that site.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today the British Medical Association has announced that it plans to escalate the industrial action of junior doctors planned for 26 and 27 April. Can you advise me whether you have received any notification from the Department of Health about whether the Secretary of State for Health intends to make a statement to the House tomorrow, updating us on what action he will take to avert that industrial action and bring an end to the ongoing dispute?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I have had no notification that the Secretary of State is coming forward. However, the hon. Lady has got the matter on the record, and I am sure that people will be listening to the debate that is taking place at this very moment. Let us wait and see.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Believe it or not, this is a point of order about procedure. We have just had a debate and a vote and have approved over £55 billion of expenditure. The Third Reading debate on this country’s biggest ever infrastructure project lasted just half an hour and large numbers of hon. Members were not able to be called. I would have liked to talk about the lack of investment in Lincolnshire’s railways, for example, and other points could have been made. The limits have become absurd, so will you have a word with Mr Speaker? The Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, is looking at this, but we could have a procedure by which you or one of your colleagues could have extended the debate for just another half an hour.
Mr Deputy Speaker
As you know, it is a matter for the Government how they timetable the business. As you rightly say, you have a view that you wish to express. Unfortunately, we are not in charge of the business. I am sure that everybody who reads Hansard will realise that you have raised this on the Floor of the House, even though it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have raised the issue of the procedures on the hybrid Bill process with the Procedure Committee, but because it is a private process it may be difficult for the Committee to look at those. I very much hope that the Government are going to re-examine the hybrid Bill process, and that view has been echoed in the words of many of my friends, particularly those who have served on the HS2 Bill Committee.
The process is not satisfactory from the perspective of either the House or the people most affected by the project. I very much hope that this will not take too long and you could advise me whether the House eventually could change those procedures, so that large infrastructure projects are not dealt with in such an opaque and difficult manner.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The House can invite the Procedure Committee to look into this matter, as you well know. And you know better than I do how the procedure of this House works, after so many years in this place.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether we could have a tidying-up of the procedures of the House. In the light of English votes for English laws, Health questions and Education questions, as they are termed, are actually English Health questions and English Education questions. It would be better for voters up and down the length of the current UK if they understood that.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Once again, the answer is the same: it is for this House to invite the Procedure Committee to look into the matter. If you believe there is a wrong, I am sure the Committee will make sure it gets put right.
I have now to announce the result of today’s two deferred Divisions. In respect of the Question relating to electricity, the Ayes were 287 and the Noes were 232, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the Question relating to public sector pensions, the Ayes were 287 and the Noes were 211, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 4 and 5 together, as they cover the same area.
Scotland Bill (Money)
Scotland Bill (Ways and Means)
Scotland Bill
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendment 22. If the House agrees with the amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Clause 3
Elections
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 62.
David Mundell
This is a truly significant day for Scotland. If this Bill completes its parliamentary progress, it will add to the already extensive responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament a range of important new powers. It provides even greater opportunities for the Scottish Government to tailor and deliver Scottish solutions to Scottish issues. The Scottish Parliament that returns in May will be a powerhouse Parliament that has come of age. Crucially, it will be much more accountable to the people who elect it, which is the hallmark of a mature democratic institution.
I am pleased to say that Lord Smith of Kelvin has confirmed that the Bill puts into law the agreement that the five main political parties in Scotland reached, and that the fiscal framework that was agreed means that the recommendations of his commission have been delivered in full.
Last week, the Scottish Parliament debated the motion on whether to grant legislative consent to the Bill before us today, and the agreement was unanimous. Deputy First Minister John Swinney remarked:
“The Smith process delivered an agreement for additional powers that—if they are used in the right way—can benefit the people of Scotland.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 March 2016; c. 3.]
I agree with him wholeheartedly on that.
The debate last week demonstrated the consensus among all parties in Scotland that these new powers present a tremendous opportunity for Scotland. That was clear in their unanimous vote to grant legislative consent to this Bill. This process goes to show that both of Scotland’s Governments and both of Scotland’s Parliaments can work effectively together in the interest of the people in Scotland and right across our United Kingdom.
No individual or party held a monopoly of wisdom on how the Smith agreement might best be translated into legislation. Many people, both inside and outside this Chamber, have contributed to the Bill as it stands before us today. I thank hon. Members and noble Lords for their contributions as the Bill passed through this House and the other place.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. When this important work was being done, there were obvious and big consequences for England. Which Minister or Ministers spoke for England during the negotiations?
David Mundell
My right hon. Friend has asked that question before. This legislation has been debated on the Floor of this House and on the Floor of the other place. Extensive scrutiny of the Bill has taken place. Indeed, there has been the opportunity to scrutinise the fiscal framework as well, so extensive scrutiny has been delivered in relation to this legislation for the people of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
The Bill has been strengthened by the scrutiny it has received, and I am pleased that the amendments that I will cover shortly are a positive and constructive culmination of that process.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Going back to the previous intervention, it was obvious from the voices on the Scottish National party Benches that all the other Ministers, especially those from the Treasury, spoke for interests other than those of Scotland. Is it not time to move away from this form of devolution, whereby we effectively get the crumbs from the table at Westminster, to a model that Copenhagen shares with the Faroe Islands and Greenland, in which the larder is always open and they get to choose their own powers. Instead of taking the crumbs from Westminster, we should be able to take the powers that we want from Westminster when we want them.
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues may agree with him, but I do not think that the people of Scotland do. The people of Scotland made it very clear in September 2014 that they wanted to remain part of our United Kingdom, but they wanted a Scottish Parliament with enhanced powers, which is what this Government are delivering. The hon. Gentleman strikes a rather sour note, given the consensus within the Scottish Parliament and among his colleagues in the Scottish Government—a consensus that recognises the importance of the powers that will be delivered by this Bill if it completes its passage today.
I also acknowledge the work of the Committees of both the Scottish and the UK Parliaments, including those chaired by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in this place, by the noble Lords, Lord Lang, Baroness Fookes and Lord Hollick, in the other place and by Bruce Crawford in the Scottish Parliament. The broad range of evidence and expertise they marshalled in the Bill’s scrutiny has improved it materially.
I also wish to thank the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney MSP, and Scottish Government officials for their always courteous engagement in this process. Scotland gets the best outcome when its two Governments work together.
I am truly grateful to all my officials at the Scotland Office and the officials from the 10 other Whitehall Departments whose hard work has got us to this stage. My noble Friends Lord Dunlop and Lord Keen of Elie have played an essential role in the Bill’s passage through the other place; I also commend Lord McAvoy and Lord Wallace of Tankerness in particular for their work. The origin of the Bill is the Smith agreement, and I once again pay tribute to Lord Smith of Kelvin and the representatives of all five of Scotland's main political parties for reaching an agreement that redefined the devolution settlement.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s description of the road traffic changes had me mesmerised. I could have listened to him all evening. We thank him for that.
It is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition. I am not going to pretend that the passage of the Bill has been entirely enjoyable, smooth or stress-free, but we are where we are and it has definitely been worth getting to this place. Every Member of this House and the other place should be incredibly proud of what has been achieved in such a short time. Some will say the Bill does not go far enough, and some will be disappointed that it does not contain what they wanted, but I think today marks a historic day in the devolution journey of our Scottish Parliament.
When this Bill is passed—there is no longer any doubt that it will be passed today—Scotland will have one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. That is what the Labour party has always wanted from that process. It was the former Prime Minister, the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, who devised the vow that promised more powers. Let us pay tribute both to him and to the Daily Record for publishing it at the time. [Interruption.] I knew I would get a reaction to that. If only I had said The National, the response from the SNP Benches might have been different.
That paved the way for the Smith commission, skilfully chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, who managed to negotiate cross-party agreement on the form that those powers should take. That in turn laid the foundations for the Bill before us today. It has now passed through this place and the other place. A revised fiscal framework has been agreed, crucially with the Barnett formula at its heart. As promised, the vow has been delivered, with Barnett protected. That was always a Labour party priority, as we recognise the integral role played by the Barnett formula in maintaining public spending in Scotland. That said, and as the Institute for Fiscal Studies astutely observed, during the fiscal framework negotiations it was, ironically, the SNP Government who insisted upon Barnett as sacrosanct. With the zeal of the convert, they argued vociferously for an approach
“which ensures the ongoing pooling and”
sharing
“of some proportion of ‘devolved’ revenues across the UK.”
Of course, as long-standing advocates of the Barnett formula and the principle of pooling and sharing resources that it enshrines, we gave the Scottish Government our full backing in those negotiations. I wonder whether that now means that the Scottish National party has renounced its No. 1 policy priority of full fiscal autonomy—perhaps we will hear this evening.
However, at least for the time being we have an agreement. The irony is that this Bill will wing its way to Her Majesty to receive Royal Assent, hopefully later tonight, on the eve of what would have been separation day in Scotland. It creates one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world, as opposed to the White Paper prospectus promised by the SNP in 2014.
Some of the Lords amendments speak directly to that agreement, delivering, for example, the strengthened borrowing powers and the enhanced fiscal oversight of Scotland’s public finances that this fiscal framework provides for. Now that the last impediment to the Bill has been removed, we must focus on the powers that the Scottish Parliament is receiving. As the Secretary of State has said, the legislative consent motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.
Given that today is the last day of the current Scottish Parliament, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to all the MSPs, from all parties, who have served since 2011. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will say a word or two about those MSPs, particularly Labour MSPs, who are retiring from the Scottish Parliament, having done so much in the process of getting this Bill here today. They include Hugh Henry, Duncan McNeil and Richard Simpson, who have served since 1999. There is my old university friend Richard Baker, who was first elected in 2003, and Margaret McDougall, Graeme Pearson and Drew Smith, who were elected in 2011. They all retire with our best wishes, especially Malcolm Chisholm, who was also a long-standing Member of this House. He retires leaving a distinguished record of public service to his constituents. We wish him well. It would also be remiss of me not to mention the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who is not in his place. The Scottish Parliament’s loss is this place’s gain. Are we not lucky indeed?
With the passing of this Bill and the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament, we can today lay the old arguments of the referendum to rest, alongside any doubt that the vow has not been delivered. The conversation must now move on to how these powers are used—or not used in some cases. It is worth briefly reminding ourselves what those powers are, because they are considerable, and their Lordships looked at them in great detail, for which we thank them. The Scottish Parliament has power over rates and bands of tax on all non-savings and non-dividend income. That means it can put taxes up or bring them down; it can increase or reduce the thresholds at which the different rates are paid; or it can choose to do nothing and keep things pretty much as they are, short of affording a tax break to higher earners—champions of the status quo perhaps—even if, in so doing, some people are abandoning a manifesto pledge to reintroduce the 50p rate for those earning over £150,000. That is what some have chosen to do, but that is not what we would do
I wonder how commentators have looked on that process. Owen Jones, who is often quoted by the SNP Members now beside me, called it
“a huge blow to their credentials”.
What does the Scottish Trades Union Congress think of the Scottish Government’s grand plans for devolved taxation in Scotland? It calls them
“a disappointingly timid approach to tax policy…Breaking the consensus on increasing the additional rate is difficult to fathom.”
It said it was an approach that is
“difficult to reconcile with the Scottish Government’s”
so-called
“social and economic objectives.”
For the past five years, many people had the mantra “more power for Scotland.” Today, when the Bill is passed, we will have a powerful Scottish Parliament—power not as a point of principle, but power to be used for positive, progressive change. I can tell the House, in no uncertain terms, that the Scottish Labour party will not settle for power for power’s sake. We will not settle for the political choice of austerity. This Bill goes straight to the heart of how we would do that. We will oppose austerity in the UK and we will oppose it in Scotland, and when we get into government we will reverse it. We will build a better and fairer Scotland for all, and taxation will not be our sole tool for doing so.
Lords amendment 22 strengthens the borrowing powers available to the Scottish Government, as agreed in the fiscal framework, allowing them to invest more in capital infrastructure or to smooth out fluctuations in devolved taxes.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). It is a calumny that he has been described as negative. He spent much of his time at the Dispatch Box trying to be positive about the Scotland Bill. Parts of his speech were positive and we welcome that, and we also welcome the Secretary of State’s positive comments.
The Scotland Bill is an important step in extending the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and in Scotland’s journey towards greater self-government. That journey has quickened in pace since the Scottish National party was first returned to power in 2007. The Bill follows progress including the Scotland Act 2012, the independence referendum and the Smith commission itself. As Deputy First Minister John Swinney has said, the Bill delivers additional powers that can benefit the people of Scotland, including extended powers over tax, new powers over welfare, and responsibilities for the Crown Estate, tribunals and the licensing of onshore oil and gas activity.
The agreement on a fiscal framework published on 25 February increases the Scottish Parliament’s financial responsibility, is consistent with the Smith principles of no detriment, and is fair to the people of Scotland. As the Bill, including the amendments under discussion, provides useful powers and has moved towards delivering more of the recommendations made by the Smith commission reports, and as the agreement on the fiscal framework would be a fair basis for future funding consistent with the principles agreed by the Smith commission, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament should consent to the Bill. On 11 March 2016, the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee published its report on the Scotland Bill and the fiscal framework. Although it makes recommendations on specific policy areas, its overall conclusion is that the Scottish Parliament should consent to the Bill. That is what is before us. On 16 March, the Scottish Parliament consented to the legislative consent motion for the Bill.
The SNP has, of course, governed in Scotland for nine years, and every indication is that the people of Scotland have been delighted with the governance of Scotland under the SNP. I join the Labour party spokesman in paying tribute, as I did earlier today, to every outgoing Member of the Scottish Parliament—not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—of all political parties, who have worked hard to achieve the best governance that decision-making closer to home can bring.
The outgoing Scottish Government have already acted with pace and creativity, in consultation with others, to be ready to use the limited powers—there are, of course, limits on the powers that are being devolved. That includes introducing a social security Bill within the first year of the new Scottish Parliament, to support the transfer and administration of Scotland’s new, devolved social security benefits. It also includes enhancing opportunities for employment and inclusive economic growth by improving support for people to move into employment through reform of the Work programme and linking employment programmes with training and education.
The outgoing Scottish Government have also committed to abolishing fees for employment tribunals, to reduce the burden of air passenger duty by 50%, and to promote equalities by taking early action on gender balance on public boards. They have also set out longer-term intentions for further income powers, are committed to a progressive taxation policy and have applied that to the decision on existing tax powers. Commencement of most of the new powers will take place in 2016, but new arrangements for the use of major new powers on matters including tax and welfare will not be in place before April 2017 following scrutiny of the proposals by the Scottish Parliament.
On 11 March 2016, the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee published its final report and gave its unanimous recommendation that legislative consent be given to the Scotland Bill. That was described as
“a significant milestone in a remarkable political process”
by Committee convener Bruce Crawford MSP. I pay tribute to him and his colleagues on the Committee, as I do to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, for their work. Although the Scotland Bill and the Smith commission could have delivered more effective and coherent powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Bill provides useful additional powers in important areas such as taxation and social security.
The UK Government amended the Bill to reflect some of the comments of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and its Committees. With an agreed fiscal framework that increases the Scottish Parliament’s responsibility and protects the Barnett formula, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament consent to the Scotland Bill. The final report of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee also had some important things to say:
“There are still some areas where we feel that the Scotland Bill continues to fall short of the spirit and substance of Smith…Nevertheless, the Bill has been improved during its passage through our detailed scrutiny and we welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been prepared to listen to the evidence we have presented and improve the Bill in other areas…in our view, on the basis of the information provided to date by both governments, we are prepared to endorse the fiscal framework underpinning the powers to be devolved to Scotland as part of this Bill. Therefore, on balance, we recommend that the Scottish Parliament gives its legislative consent to the Scotland Bill.”
UK Government amendments that implement more of the Smith report, including the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, are welcome. However, it needs to be said that the Scotland Bill continues to fall short of the spirit and the substance of Smith in some areas, including the devolution of employment programmes and the future operation of the legislative consent provision. It is important to understand that the UK Government can still effectively veto the exercise of devolved powers over universal credit by inserting their own date for the changes to commence. The social security provisions on discretionary payments and assistance are still subject to restrictions, notably for those who are under sanctions. The Smith report was clear that the Scottish Parliament should have complete autonomy over devolved benefits. The Scotland Bill is many things, but it is not federalism or near-federalism. Anybody who understands the powers of the German or Austrian Länder knows that to be true. It is an improvement, and it is progress.
We in the SNP thank all in the Scottish Government who have been involved, especially John Swinney. We also thank those on the UK Government side, even though—this is an important rider—I see that there is a Minister from the Treasury on the Treasury Bench, and we all know that the Treasury wanted a fiscal framework that would have made Scotland worse off by £7 billion. Thank goodness for the efforts of John Swinney and colleagues in the Scottish Government. I would like to take the opportunity to thank my SNP MP colleagues, who have worked so hard on the Bill throughout the parliamentary process. In fairness, it is also right to place on record the fact that Members in the other place spent a lot of time on the Bill.
Most importantly, I thank all those in Scotland who have believed in more powers. They did not draw lines in the sand or say, “This far, and no further”, as others have done, even in the recent past. Thanks to all those yes voters and all those SNP voters, Westminster has had to take note. This is just the latest stage on Scotland’s journey, and there will be many more. We agree with the amendments, and we wish the Bill to proceed. That is exactly what will happen today.
David Mundell
I will not detain the House for long, but I want to respond briefly to some of the points that have been made.
I add my best wishes to all Members of the Scottish Parliament who are leaving at this election, particularly my colleagues and others who were elected to the Scottish Parliament alongside me back in 1999. A number of people who have served in Parliament throughout that period are leaving, and others who are standing in the election will be leaving, although not necessarily of their own accord. We should wish them well.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993—the Maastricht Act of Parliament —there is a requirement on the Government:
“Before submitting the information required in implementing Article 103(3) of the Treaty…to report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure”. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a serious point of order to which I hope Members will want to attend. If they do not, they can always pursue their enthusiasms elsewhere. I want to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, as should those on the Treasury Bench.
Sir William Cash
As the Minister knows, that provision concerns convergence criteria, and stability and growth factors. The trouble is that the document we have been given, entitled, “2014-15 Convergence Programme for the United Kingdom: submitted in line with the Stability and Growth pact”, contains in pages 141 to 145 a detailed assessment of the position on welfare caps and other spending, including matters relating to disability benefits and personal independence payments, about which there has been a great deal of controversy over the past few days.
I therefore submit to you, Mr Speaker, that it is impossible for the Government to be able to submit that document, which has now been significantly changed as a result of the controversy of the past few days, and it is therefore inappropriate for them to proceed with this debate. What is your view?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I think I will describe as a conscientious effort at derailment of the Government’s intended programme of business. I say that not in a pejorative sense, as it is a perfectly legitimate attempt. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench, and other Government Members, are cognisant of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that they have followed the logic of his argument and the substance of his thesis. I am not altogether sure that all expressions on ministerial faces have been entirely comprehending of his point, even though it is pretty straightforward, but my advice to the hon. Gentleman is that if at the end of the debate he is dissatisfied he will have to register that with his vote. He is saying that the terms of trade have changed, but that is often the case, and he should seek to catch my eye to develop his arguments more fully in the course of the debate.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that there is really a further point of order, but as it is the hon. Gentleman, I am minded to indulge him.
Sir William Cash
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to mention the ministerial code. After all, it is incumbent on Ministers to give accurate information to Parliament, and I wish to register that point.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has registered that point, although, as he will know, I am not responsible for the ministerial code. Others are, however, bound by it, and therefore have a responsibility to it. That point is on the record.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it would be sufficient for Ministers to report orally to the House on how they propose to amend the figures, which are clearly wrong.
Mr Speaker
It is entirely open to Ministers to do that in the course of the debate. I have no desire to steer the debate as that would be very wrong, but I have a hunch that if the Minister does not provide satisfaction on that front, he might be peppered with attempted interventions from either the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) or the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). We will leave it there for now.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I beg move to move,
That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.
After four days of debating the Budget I am sure the whole House will welcome a further opportunity to debate the UK economy, given the information that will be provided to the Commission this year under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
As in previous years, the Government inform the Commission of the UK’s economic and budgetary position as part of our participation in the EU’s stability and growth pact. The convergence programme explains the Government’s medium-term fiscal policies as set out in the 2015 autumn statement and Budget 2016. It also includes the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts. As such, it is based entirely on previously published documents that have been presented to Parliament. It is the content, not the convergence programme itself, that requires the approval of the House for the purposes of the 1993 Act.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend explain, for the benefit of the House, what he understands by the meaning of the word “convergence”?
Mr Gauke
The important point here is that the United Kingdom is not obliged to converge with other EU member states. If I remember correctly, the terminology dates back to the Maastricht treaty, and this is a part of the process that originates from that. The UK is not subject to any sanctions as a consequence of our participation in this process, nor are we required to take any directions from the European Commission in respect of our economic policies.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
But surely the purpose of tabling the numbers to the Commission is that it puts it under what it calls “surveillance”? It can then make an adverse report. It is very clear that the intention is that our budget deficit should never be more than 3% of GDP. I note that, for the first time in some time, the Government will at least get the budget deficit below 3%. I am in favour of doing that anyway, but is it not the case that they have to do that because that is what convergence is all about?
Mr Gauke
It is the case that the provision dates back to the Maastricht treaty—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) can provide further details on its history—which was incorporated into the European Union (Amendment) Act 1993. That requires us to submit a report. The important point for the House is that this does not give the European Commission the ability to impose sanctions on the UK. I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend that the UK should not have excessive deficits, but that is a matter ultimately decided by this House, this Parliament and the elected Government of the United Kingdom.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I know my hon. Friend listened to what I said in my point of order, so I would like to address the point to him personally. Section 5 states:
“Her Majesty’s Government shall report to Parliament for its approval”—
on the basis that it is accurate—
“an assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position”.
It is absolutely clear, unless he can tell me that this document was prepared since the controversy of the past few days, that this cannot be accurate and nor can it be a proper assessment. To report to Parliament something that is not accurate is quite an important and rather difficult problem for the Minister, is it not? What measures will he take to correct the position, so that Parliament can approve it on the basis of an accurate assessment?
Mr Gauke
I will return to that point later, but let me address it in short now. The information provided to the Commission under this process is and has always been based on information already published. It is not a new exercise. We do not ask the OBR to go through the process once again. It is required to produce its documentation and make its assessments at the times of Budgets and autumn statements, and we do not think that our requirement under European legislation is such that we should require the OBR to go through that process again.
The essential position of the public finances remains the same. Notwithstanding the announcement on personal independence payments, it remains the case that from next year debt will be falling every year, that the deficit will be falling each and every year of this Parliament and that we will be in surplus in 2019-20. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would not be keen for us, as a consequence of this requirement—I suspect he is no enthusiast for our going through this process in the first place, but the fact is we have to go through it—
Sir William Cash
I just want to put this to bed. I have made the point that the documentation cannot be accurate—unless my hon. Friend is going to tell me the Government have changed the figures since publication—but there is a second point. It appears from the figures, which can be a bit confusing for some people, that there is a black hole. Some people allege it is as much as £4 billion and others say it is only £1.3 billion—it relates specifically to PIP—but he will appreciate that it is not possible for the documentation to be accurate. This has nothing to do with the OBR as such—it is not the OBR report being submitted—but concerns the Government’s own assessment. Will he be kind enough to get that right? It is important that we are accurate.
Mr Gauke
Our principled approach over several years has been that the documentation provided to the Commission is based on the most recent publications. I do not think it would be sensible or proportionate to rerun elements of a Budget process purely for an EU audience. That would not be the right thing to do.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
On the accuracy of the information being transmitted to the Commission, there is another matter, which has not been brought up. The figures for February’s tax receipts have led to a significant increase in February borrowing. It is therefore impossible in the final month of the financial year for the Government to hit their declared target for borrowing. It will be greater than the target—so, again, the information is inaccurate.
Mr Gauke
Again, I make the same principled point. We provide information already published in these reports—we do not seek to amendment it—although the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point: should this be updated monthly in the light of public finance numbers? I would make a second point about the public finances, however. Having been in the Treasury for a little while now, I know that public finance numbers can be quite volatile, so one should take good news and bad on a monthly basis with a pinch of salt. It is only when one steps back that one has a good view of the overall position, and that is what the OBR does twice yearly.
On the process, I remind the House that although the UK participates in the stability and growth pact, by virtue of our protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro we are required only to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits. The UK cannot be subject to any action or sanctions as a result of our participation in the pact. Following the House’s approval of the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme, the Government will submit that programme to the European Commission. The Commission is expected to make its recommendations to all EU member states in mid-May. These recommendations will then be agreed by Heads of State or Government at European Council.
Mr Nuttall
This process takes place, as we both know, every year, and we have this debate every year. What, however, is its purpose? What possible benefit is there in going through the motion or charade of submitting this document to Brussels every year? What are the benefits for this country and for my constituents?
Mr Gauke
Apart from the fact that the law requires us to do this, I would tell my hon. Friend that the UK has a proud record of structural reform. We are performing better than many other EU member states. To the extent that other such states are able to examine the measures that we have been taking to improve the performance of the UK economy and to the extent that they see it as an example well worth following, this will help to strengthen other EU member states’ economies, which might have a benefit to the constituents of my hon. Friend. The fact that we are leading the way as the fastest-growing major western economy means that we have a proud record. We should not be hiding our light under a bushel.
Budget 2016 set out the Government’s assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. In uncertain times and against a deteriorating global economic outlook, the Budget delivers security for working people. It takes the next bold steps in the Government’s long-term economic plan. The UK is forecast to grow faster than any other G7 economy this year, with employment at record highs. Against that, productivity growth is weaker than forecast, while globally the economic picture is less positive than it was six months ago.
The OBR tells us that, in every year of the forecast, our economy grows and so, too, does our productivity, but it has revised down growth in the world economy and in world trade. The OBR also notes concerns across the west about low productivity growth, and has revised down potential UK productivity growth. In the face of the new assessment of productivity and the slowing global economy, the OBR now forecasts that UK GDP will grow by 2% this year, 2.2% again in 2017 and then 2.1% in each of the three years after that.
I shall not go through all the figures that have been debated at some length relating to the deficit and the debt, and I shall not go through all the Government’s measures. What is clear is that we are restoring our public finances, heading towards a surplus at the end of this Parliament and reducing the deficit year on year. I hope that the House will, in line with section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, approve the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme. I look forward to hearing this evening’s debate.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I have to say that I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I draw the House’s attention to the wording of the motion, which states:
“That this House approves…the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement”.
Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not accept the assessments made in the autumn statement, yet we are now going off to Brussels and—if the motion is passed; I hope it is not—saying that we accept them.
I hope you will give me a little latitude, Mr Speaker, because I would like to start by setting the scene of where we are with our economy and looking at some of the history behind it. We must look at credibility. In the 2015 general election, Labour lacked economic credibility and people voted accordingly. It is true that most of the economic meltdown in the UK in 2008 was due to world factors such as the Lehman Brothers collapse and so forth. Let me try, however, to dispose of the myth to which some in Labour still cling—namely, that there were no real problems with the UK economy when the world economic meltdown occurred in 2008 and that all Labour’s economic problems thereafter were due solely to world factors.
That analysis is just plain wrong, and most people know it. Most voters know that the Labour Government did great things to improve our society and our economy, but voters also know that Mr Gordon Brown made some fundamental economic mistakes—for example, the nonsense of his slogan “an end to boom and bust”, his light-touch regulation of the financial services sector, the disaster of the private finance initiative, and large deficits in the good times. Just before the world meltdown, the UK annual deficit was 3.1% of GDP.
As I have said in the House before, Mr Brown arrogantly ignored the warnings that some of us gave him well before the crash. I am angry and sorry that he made those mistakes, because they meant that the UK economy was not as well placed as it should have been before the world crash. Even without them, the UK’s defences would have been overtopped when the financial tsunami came across the Atlantic, but not by so much. Today, our economy faces what the current Chancellor has described as world headwinds, and because of the current Chancellor’s own mistakes the UK is far worse placed to withstand those headwinds than it was in 2008, when the world tsunami hit. The national debt expressed as a percentage of GDP, for example, is far higher than it was in 2008, and it is now rising.
Sir William Cash
In the light of the strictures that the hon. Gentleman has imposed on his former Prime Minister, may I just mention that the national debt, which is currently regarded as being about £1.5 trillion, rises to between £3 trillion and £4 trillion if, for instance, Network Rail and the pension liabilities are taken into account? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is the real position?
Rob Marris
Network Rail should be included; future pension liabilities should not.
The Chancellor is fond of saying that the current Government and the last coalition Government have fixed the roof while the sun was shining, and that Labour failed to do so. Well, only 20% of infrastructure projects have been started over the last six years. Under Labour Governments we had many more hospitals and schools, and we also had the £12 billion decent home programmes for doing up social housing. As a result, there was a great deal more social housing, including housing association and council properties, than there has been under the current Conservative Government and the coalition.
I welcome the creation of 2 million more jobs since 2010—that is the jewel in the Chancellor’s crown—but it has been bought with a sea of debt, a point to which I shall return. The proportion of part-time workers in the work force has remained broadly the same for the last 10 years, but there is concern about the growth of zero-hours contracts, although I must say that that concern is sometimes overblown. There is also concern about regional imbalances between London and the rest of the country, although I am pleased to say, as a west midlands Member, that they have lessened somewhat in the last two years. However, according to the Office for National Statistics, median gross weekly earnings in the United Kingdom fell by about 4.5% in real terms under the coalition Government.
A theme of the Chancellor’s Budget statement was
“We choose to put the next generation first.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 951.]
What happened about student fees and loans in England? What happened about the abolition of the education maintenance allowance in England? What happened about the spiralling cost of housing in the last six years because the Government singularly failed to address that issue, thereby increasing intergenerational imbalance? What happened about this Government’s selling of a record amount of state assets this year? Those assets could have gone to the next generation. What happened about this Government’s carrying on with the disastrous policy of PFI? And what happened about the deficit and the national debt?
We were told that the deficit was not going to be eliminated by 2015. Well, these things happen. Is it going to be eliminated by 2020? Barely any commentators besides the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself believe that. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says this evening that we are doing better than other member states. I have to tell him that that is not true. In the G7, for example, our deficit compared with those of the other seven states is the sixth worst; only that of Japan is worse. In 2014, the deficit in Greece—poor old meltdown Greece—was less as a proportion of GDP than the deficit in the United Kingdom. In 2015, according to the International Monetary Fund, they will be the same. That is not a great example to set.
The changes, positive as they may be, with some anaemic growth and considerable growth in employment, have been bought on a sea of debt. Government spending is out of control. Let us look at the national debt. I am grateful to the economist Richard Murphy for providing me with these historical figures. In 2014 prices, the average borrowing by Labour Governments for each year in office since the war was £26.8 billion. The figure for Conservative Governments was £33.5 billion. The average borrowing, in 2014 prices, for each year in office excluding the period since the world crash in 2008—it could be argued to be unfair to the last Labour Government and the Conservative-led Governments to include that period—was £17.8 billion for Labour Governments and £20.6 billion for Conservative Governments.
Let us look at the percentage of years in which debt was repaid by Governments since the war. Part of the national debt was repaid in a quarter of post-war Labour Government years; the same happened in 10% of Tory Government years since the war. Let us now look at the total repayments of the national debt made by respective Governments, in 2014 prices. Conservative Governments have managed to pay off £19.9 billion of the national debt. Labour Governments, who have far more economic credibility, have paid off £108.8 billion. This Government’s spending is out of control. The national debt is up two thirds in six years, and this year it is forecast to increase slightly as a percentage of GDP.
It is a good thing that Mr Brown kept the United Kingdom out of the euro. Had he not done so, we would be in special measures big time under the terms of the growth and stability pact. The treaty defines excessive budget deficits as those that are greater than 3% of GDP. The current Chancellor has failed that test six years running, and on current forecasts—they could of course change next week—he is set to scrape in under the wire at 2.9% this year. The other element of the definition of excessive budget deficits under the growth and stability pact is that public debt is considered excessive if it is greater than 60% of GDP. It should also be falling by 5% per year on average over a three-year rolling period. The current Chancellor is on track to fail that test 10 years running.
The Chancellor is borrowing on the credit card to pay the day-to-day bills. He is also borrowing on a mortgage to buy bricks and mortar. That is fine for infrastructure— that is what Labour would do and it is what many families do. We borrow on a mortgage to pay for the bricks and mortar, but we should not borrow on the credit card to pay the day-to-day bills.
This Chancellor has been in office for six years and it is time that he took some responsibility. Frankly, it is wearisome, juvenile and harmful to our economy to keep blaming the previous Labour Government. I urge all Members of the House to vote against the motion tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will just point out for the benefit of the House that we have an hour and four minutes of the debate left, which should be enough.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I have already made my point about the inaccuracy embedded in the report and need not repeat any of that; I am sure that the Minister heard what I said. In a way, it is an impossible situation for him, but that does not remedy the inaccuracy, and I need to hear what the Government propose to do. It may be inconvenient or fortuitous, but the reality is that it is there. The approval by Parliament of these documents for the purposes of onward submission to the European Commission simply cannot be conducted on the basis of the documents under consideration. I will now park the issue, but I am inclined to vote against the Government this evening on account of the inaccuracy, because it just does not make sense. I will be glad if the Minister tries to put things right in some manner, even if only orally, but he may be unable to do so. It is perhaps just as well if I leave things as I have just stated.
What I really want to refer to is the question of national debt, which I mentioned in an intervention. The problem is that the stability and growth pact, the convergence criteria and the 3% are important because they are the basis upon which countries decide whether to run their economies in line with European law or to be cavalier, and there are massive problems in the European Union relating to all that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned that we are just about on the cusp of 3% at the moment, but that is simply not the case in other countries, which raises an important question. For example, the Italians are in dire trouble and are in an enormous battle to try to get some wiggle room into the stability and growth pact, which has led to extremely bad relations with Germany.
In 2003-04, however, nobody blinked an eye when it suited Germany to play around with the pact and not comply with its provisions. Italy is in difficulties and Greece remains in monumental difficulties, infringing the rule of law in Europe as expressed in the stability and growth pact and the convergence criteria, but Germany insists that everybody else obeys the rules until it does not suit it to do so. I find that difficult to accept. In fact, I do not accept it; I reject it. Either there is a rule of law or there is not. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of talk in the European Union about the rule of law, but unfortunately Germany does pretty much what it wants
John Redwood
I remind my hon. Friend that, even today, when Germany would say that she is very virtuous in having no budget deficit, she still has a much bigger proportion of debt to GDP than the 60% criterion and no obvious means of getting back down there.
Sir William Cash
My right hon. Friend is, of course, right about that, as he really understands all these things. There are massive problems with the whole of this European project, not only because of the inconsistencies but because of the laying down of requirements and obligations that are, in effect, disregarded when it suits certain countries but not when it suits others. The performance required under section 5 relates not only to the accuracy of the figures, to which I have already referred, but to social, economic and environmental goals, as set out in article 2 of the treaty, and a range of submissions in respect of article 103, which deals with economic growth, industrial investment, employment and the balance of trade.
I am happy to agree that the Conservative Government have managed to retrieve the appalling situation that faced us before 2010, but that does not alter the fact that we are talking about a debt level of £1.5 trillion when it is actually very much more than that. I have suggested that if we include the pension liabilities, it could be as much as £3 trillion to £4 trillion. One really has to take that on board, because if someone running a company conveniently parked an element of required debt, the auditors would never give them a clean bill of health. I do not see how pension liabilities can legitimately be off balance sheet, given the scale of this debt and the fact that all those public pensions have to be paid.
I want to move away from that issue, and I would be interested if the Minister would be good enough to refer to one these points in his reply, if he has time. I want to refer now to another aspect of this paper being presented to Parliament for its approval. Page 19 is headed: “Economic opportunities and risks linked to the UK’s membership of the European Union”. What follows on the whole of the page is a litany of reasons why we should stay in the EU. All the arguments of those who say, as I do, that we should leave are dismissed, and I find it tendentious. I have already criticised the three White Papers on the grounds that they lack accuracy and impartiality, which I was promised by the Minister for Europe when I put the point to him during a ping-pong between the Lords and the Commons on the duty to provide information under sections 6 and 7 of the European Referendum Act 2015. Yet, here we are, confronted with exactly the same problem. It is not just that there is inaccuracy embedded in this document, which I am bound to say I do not think the Government can get out of, but there is inaccuracy that conflicts with the provisions of those sections. There is a real list of problems here.
I should also mention the reference on page 19 to the virtues of the single market. I voted for the Single European Act in 1986 but I did table an amendment to say, in effect, that nothing in the Act shall derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Things have moved on enormously since those difficult days, because if I table an amendment now to preserve the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, you, Mr Speaker, will allow it to be debated, and the Clerks of the House of Commons will not raise the difficulties that I was faced with then. In a nutshell, I was told by the then Speaker, and indeed by the Clerk of Public Bills, that I was not allowed to move such an amendment—it was as bad as that. Mr Enoch Powell came up to me in the Lobby and said, “I see that you have put down this amendment, and I agree with you.” As in so many other matters relating to economics, he was not exactly wrong.
The reference to the single market has to be weighed against whether it has achieved its objectives. Page 19 says that the single market is full of virtue and is entirely necessary for the United Kingdom.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 241 / Noes: 180 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Sir William Cash
I wish to put on the record again the position with regard to the single market, and I would really like the Minister, for whom I have a lot respect, to answer my question, which I have put over and over again. It is based on figures from the Office for National Statistics and the House of Commons Library.
There is no disputing the fact that we run a trade deficit on current account transactions—imports and exports and good and services—of £58 billion a year, which is a lot of money. That £58 billion deficit is with the other 27 states of the European Union. We run a loss of £58 billion a year, and I do not regard that as small change. However, Germany runs a surplus of £67 billion with the same 27 member states. If someone can tell me that that is a single market that we need, I would like to hear them repeat it from the Dispatch Box, because it cannot be in our interests.
Furthermore, if we take that same criterion of current account transactions, we run a surplus of well over £36 billion with respect to the rest of the world, and that is selling the same goods and services. Clearly, therefore, there is nothing wrong with our goods and services, but such trade does not work for us in the way that it could and should when we are dealing with the European Union and the single market.
John Redwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that £12 billion of the £58 billion deficit with the European Union is the money that we have to send to it and that we do not get back? It is payment in order to buy its imports. One does not normally have to make a contribution to a country in order to import things from it.
Sir William Cash
It has been said in the past that the House of Commons is the only lunatic asylum that is run by the inmates, but I think we pale into insignificance compared with the European Union. This just does not work. I ask the Minister to make a note on the piece of paper in front of him to remember to answer my question relating to that deficit and surplus issue, because every time I raise it I get no answer. Although I agree that we will continue to trade and to co-operate with Europe—we want to do so and they want to do it with us—when it comes to this question of the need to stay in the single market, it simply does not stack up. This document is put forward for approval by Parliament, so we are entitled to an answer to that question.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
In case the Minister does not answer, let me say that a sizeable proportion of the imports that Britain takes from the EU are in fact intermediate products, such as automotive parts, that go into goods that we then re-export. We are talking about supply chain interconnection, not free-standing goods.
Sir William Cash
I can only refer to the fact that these are ONS figures. They are endorsed and verified by the House of Commons Library, and I will leave my point at that.
The argument on page 19 moves forward to a suggestion that any
“new relationship which gives the UK…access to the single market that it needs”—
that assertion continues to be made—
“would involve contributing financially to the EU”,
which we are certainly doing to the very substantial extent of about £10 billion a year, and
“accepting the free movement of people”.
The European Scrutiny Committee has been trying to have a debate on that for the best part of 18 months, but without success. I had a meeting with the Minister about it only today. That goes right to the heart of the viability of free movement and the immigration that flows from it. The argument continues:
“and adopting EU rules without having any say over them.”
I repeat: without any say over them.
Today, the European Scrutiny Committee embarked on an investigation into the influence it is claimed we have and the manner in which decisions are taken in the European Union. This document implies that, somehow or other, we have massive input. The European ombudsman is looking into the question of trilogues, but within the decision-making process of the Council of Ministers it is horrendous to observe the extent to which votes are not taken. The so-called consensus on all matters, including those dealt with on page 19, is arrived at without a proper degree of accountability—in fact, I would say no real accountability of any kind. Decisions are taken in what I would describe as a Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code” situation, in which the Illuminati—otherwise known as COREPER—make deals behind the closed doors of unsmoke-filled rooms. We do not know and cannot find out how the decisions are arrived at. There is no agenda; nobody knows who decided what and on what basis. It is an affront to the democracy of this country that the decisions that affect the daily lives of everyone in it in respect of the whole gamut of European rule making are made almost entirely without majority voting taking place, in COREPER. It is deeply offensive. It is a black hole and the European Scrutiny Committee is looking into it.
Finally, page 19 talks about productivity. All I would say on that is that, as I understand it, the OBR, whose report is contained in this document, says that the biggest problem this country has is lack of productivity.
The whole of our economic performance is being presented to the European Commission for approval under the 1993 Act and to Parliament for approval today. I will not vote in favour of the motion and I certainly will not approve this load of rubbish. I will vote against the Government because I do not believe that page 19 is true or accurate. I do not agree that the basis of the statistics relating to PIP is such that the document is sufficiently valid to be presented to Parliament. It is a serious matter. We have become far too accustomed to saying, “Oh well, it’s just a blip—just a slight mistake. Someone got something wrong. Let’s not take too much notice of it.” Well, I am going to take notice of it and I shall vote against the Government this evening on that account.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about page 19 and that is the main reason I have entered this debate. It is an unfair exposition on the opportunities and risks linked to our membership of the European Union and I do not think it accurately reflects what the OBR has been saying. I am pleased that the OBR has now spoken for itself and put on the record the important point that it does not believe that in the five-year forecast period, were we to leave, there would be a decline in economic output or activity. Like many forecasters, the OBR believes that the net impact would be quite small. Of course, in line with others it has said that there could be volatility in currency and asset price markets. All I would add is that there has been massive volatility in those markets in the years we have been a member of the EU, so it would be somewhat outrageous to claim that that would suddenly stop were we to leave the EU, but I cannot see that it is a particularly damning point.
My hon. Friend has gone on at some profound length about what is wrong with page 19. I hope Ministers will look again and realise that it is not a fair exposition of the OBR’s position. Linking the OBR’s position with Christine Lagarde’s comment, which is obviously a comment made for the “stay inside” campaign trail rather than for normal commentary purposes, gives a misleading impression.
I wish to make some more fundamental points about the figures and the document before us this evening. Let us start with why we are doing this at all. It is a completely pointless exercise, but it is legally required by the treaty and the framework of law under which we live. It is a great pity that in the renegotiation this, along with dozens of other things, was not sorted out because if, as the Minister says, the Government can ignore the advice and the policy laid down by the European Union to control the deficit and get the debt down, what is the point of the Government having to table 300 pages of carefully selected documentation, go through the surveillance procedure, on some occasions receive a report saying that their policy is not good enough or they are not converging in the way that the European Union wishes, and the Government then saying, “Well, fortunately, there is no penalty on us so we will ignore that”?
It is strange to belong to a club, accept the rules and then, when we do not like the rules, say, “Of course, we didn’t really want any of that and fortunately we have been opted out of the penalty bit of it.” It is a strange exercise. I suspect that the official machine of the Government, which goes on whoever is in office, is quite guided by all this. There is probably a wish on the part of officials to get the British Government policy and the figures closer to the convergence requirements. It is high time the European Union itself had an honest debate about the most pressing and most difficult target it has set—the target that all member states should keep their stock of debt to 60% of their national income.
Practically every member state is way above that, and some of them violate the target by having more than double the level set down by the European Union. Why does that body think it is sensible to persevere with a target that none of the member states wish to keep and none of them are trying to reach?
George Kerevan
May I add that the rule that sets the 60% target also states that member states in breach must have a rectification programme and bring their debt level, whatever it is, down by five percentage points a year, which this Government have significantly failed to do and significantly will fail to do for a long, long time?
John Redwood
All the Governments are failing to do that, and it is even more pressing and difficult for a country such as Greece, where the penalties do apply because it is in the euro scheme. Despite all the best efforts of the European leadership, the European Central Bank and others, and very cruel and difficult expenditure cuts that Members in this House would not have accepted for the United Kingdom, Greece is still miles off getting anywhere near the stock-of-debt target and it has struggled until recently to get down to the deficit target.
We need to ask fundamental questions of our European partners about why we go through this routine and what malign influence it has on some economies and some economic performances around the European Union, which should be a matter of common concern all the time we remain in that body. The Minister says this is not a new exercise and it is not much of a burden on the British state; it is just one of those things, and we send in figures that we produce for other purposes. That is not quite true. The introduction to the document clearly has to be written, the selection has to be made, it is clear throughout the document that it is written for domestic purposes and for the purpose of forwarding it to the European Union, and we try to produce figures that we would not otherwise produce in order to conform with the workings of the European Union.
Next, I would like to highlight the figure for the convergence criteria and the so-called treaty deficit on page 186 of the report. That shows that in 2016-17, if all goes well and these figures work out, for the first time in many years we will get below the 3% target to 2.9%. That makes my point: we would not have to calculate that treaty deficit, think that it was significant or use it as part of the guidance for the British economy if we were not signed up to this surveillance and management system within the European Union. The Minister has to bear it in mind that there is actually some subtle guidance in the European policy. I think that many of my constituents would find it quite surprising that we have to table 300 pages of detailed financial and economic information in order to comply, and that that is then put through a scrutiny and surveillance process.
The next figure that I would like to highlight is on page 156, which shows how much in “expenditure transfers” we have to make to the European Union institutions—in other words, how much money we send that we do not get back. We see that the November forecast for 2016-17 was £10.7 billion, which is a very considerable sum, and that the March forecast, just four months later, has gone up to £11.8 billion. Between the autumn statement and the current Budget there is an increase of £1.1 billion in next year’s expenditure transfers to the EU institutions.
That figure of £1.1 billion is very close to the figure that the Government had pencilled in for disability cuts. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would rather not have the disability cuts and not pay £1.1 billion extra to the European Union. Why can we not make those kinds of choices? The reason, of course, is that we are signed up to membership of an organisation that thinks it knows better than we do how to spend our own money. I think that people in the United Kingdom are getting very frustrated at being told that we have to be very careful about our priorities, only to discover, if they get guidance from these complex figures, that the European Union can take £1.1 billion extra off us for next year without a by-your-leave. That leaves us struggling to find that money when we try to make the Budget add up, ending up with options and choices that I am sure Ministers did not really want to make, and which Parliament, in its wisdom, has decided should not be made.
I draw the House’s attention to some very important figures on page 205 that the Government are sending to our European partners and masters about projected net migration into the United Kingdom. I was very happy to campaign with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the previous general election on a sensible and sensitive policy of controlled migration, wishing to get it down to the tens of thousands by the end of the Parliament. It was a very popular policy, because I think that people liked the idea that there would be a fair system offering sensible rules so that people could understand it before deciding whether or not to come to our country. Interestingly, the forecast that we are sending to the European Union shows that the level of migration will stay much higher than the Government’s target—it shows 256,000 in 2016, declining to 185,000 in 2021. There is also a further projection in which net migration stays considerably higher, actually above 250,000 in every year.
I think that matters, because the Government’s intentions are very clear: they would like to get net migration well below these forecast figures. Why, then, is the forecast so high? I think that it is very simple: the forecast is that high because the European continental economies, particularly in the south of our continent, are performing very badly and have created mass unemployment on an extremely worrying scale, so the UK, which has a more successful economic policy that is generating a lot of jobs, is acting as a magnet for people who are otherwise without hope of employment.
That policy is making it very difficult for the United Kingdom Government to hit their very popular target on migration. I hope that when this document is submitted Ministers will follow it up by pointing that out to the European Union and saying that they have a solemn promise to keep to the United Kingdom electors, who helped elect them to government, and that this set of EU policies, creating joblessness and therefore triggering a lot of foot-loose migration around the European Union, is making it very difficult to honour that promise.
It also leads us to worry about the quality of some of these forecasts, because I am sure that the Government wish to get the level down, but there is a great danger that the variant of a much higher level has been put in, because actually that is what they are afraid will happen. I hope the Minister will consider that when he replies and that if we are going to go through the process of submitting our homework on economic matters to the European Union to be marked—by sending it 300 pages of figures—we will also say to it, “You are making it impossible for us to meet our legitimate wish to create more jobs to mop up unemployment in our country and to get wages up, as we would like to, because your failing economic policies in many parts of the euro area are bringing a number of migrants into our country that makes it impossible for us to meet our targets.”
Those are just a few brief comments on an extremely complex set of documents and numbers, which show that, while we stay in this body, we need to engage much more and to get some change so that there is honesty in the targeting and an understanding of the damage that some of the targets and policies are creating. However, it will not be a surprise to hon. Members to learn that I think that the simplest thing would be for us to leave the European Union so that this is the last one of these documents we ever have to produce. We can then take control of our own money, banish austerity, spend the £10 billion on things that we want and leave the European Union free to get on with its political union, which is clearly what it will need to do to try to deal with the mass unemployment, the lack of cash transfers and the inadequacy of its regional policies.
I hope tonight’s debate will be of use to the general public and that they will understand that we can take back control, spend our own money, and have prosperity, not austerity. That is what we will get if we leave the European Union.
Mr Gauke
The debate has addressed both the Budget and our membership of the European Union, so I am grateful to be on my feet at this point, and not later.
Let me respond to some of the points that have been made. To come back to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about the numbers, it is important that the document is based on information that has been published in advance and that we do not produce a mass of separate information and documentation for the purposes of meeting this requirement.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) will be aware—indeed, he touched on this—the requirement goes back to the 1993 Act. We are complying with obligations in our domestic law to provide this information, and it is therefore right that we do so.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone about our trade deficit with the European Union brings me to the wider issue of our membership of the EU. I know that he shares with me a belief in free trade, and in transactions where there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, both parties benefit from the transaction. The point I would make in the context of our membership of the EU is that, whereas 44% of our exports go to the European Union, only 7% of the European Union’s exports come to the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham mentioned the contributions we make to the EU. It is worth pointing out that, thanks to the deal secured by the Prime Minister, our net contributions—whether in cash terms, in real terms or as a proportion of GDP—are in fact falling.
Let me turn to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), who speaks as a shadow Treasury Minister. For the first time in the six years I have been a Treasury Minister, we have heard an apology from the Labour Front Bench for borrowing too much money before the crash. That is something the hon. Gentleman deserves some credit for, because, try as we might on many occasions, we never got one out of Ed Balls.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the Government’s record on borrowing, but let us be clear: had we stuck with the structural deficit that we inherited, by 2020 we would have borrowed an additional £930 billion over 10 years. It is also worth pointing out that in May 2010, the International Monetary Fund forecast the UK to have had the largest budget deficit in the G20 that year. Between 2010 and 2016, the UK is forecast to have reduced its headline deficit at the second fastest rate in the G7—it is second only to the United States. The IMF forecasts that the UK will reduce its net debt as a share of GDP by more than any other G7 country between 2015 and 2020. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the problem is that we are borrowing too much money, perhaps he could explain why, time and again, the Labour party has opposed every measure we have taken to reduce the deficit.
We have had a lively debate, and I hope the House will support and approve the motion.
Question put.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Riot Compensation Act 2016
Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Act 2016
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Act 2016
Scotland Act 2016.
Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)
Ordered,
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions shall apply in respect of financial assistance to opposition parties:
1. The Resolution of 26 May 1999 relating to financial assistance for opposition parties, as codified and modified by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 152D(3) (as set out in section 2 of Annex 2 of that Committee’s report to the House of March 2015 (HC 1132)), is amended as follows with effect from the beginning of 1 April 2016—
(1) In paragraph 2.2, after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“This is subject to paragraphs 2.5A to 2.5C in the case of parties with no more than five Members of the House.”
(2) In paragraph 2.3—
(a) for “£16,956” substitute “£16,938”, and
(b) for “£33.86” substitute “£33.83”.
(3) In paragraph 2.4, for “the Retail Prices Index” (in both places) substitute “the Consumer Prices Index”.
(4) In paragraph 2.5, for “this provision” substitute “the provision set out at paragraph 2.1 above”.
(5) After paragraph 2.5 insert—
“2.5A Paragraphs 2.5B and 2.5C apply in the case of an opposition party where there are no more than five Members of the House who—
(a) are members of the party, and
(b) were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party.
2.5B If the amount found under paragraph 2.2 above exceeds the amount corresponding to 150% of the relevant IPSA staffing budget for the period (“the maximum amount”), the amount of financial assistance given to the party under paragraph 2.1 in relation to that period must not exceed the maximum amount.
2.5C If the amount found under paragraph 2.2 above is less than the amount corresponding to 50% of the relevant IPSA staffing budget for the period (“the minimum amount”), the amount of financial assistance which may be given to the party under paragraph 2.1 above in respect of the expenses incurred by the party in that period shall instead be the minimum amount.
2.5D For the purposes of paragraphs 2.5B and 2.5C, “the relevant IPSA staffing budget” for a period is the standard annual staffing expenditure budget provided in relation to the period for a non-London area Member by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.”
(6) In paragraph 2.9—
(a) for “2015” substitute “2016”, and
(b) for “£186,269” substitute “£186,073”.
(7) In paragraph 2.10—
(a) for “2015” substitute “2016”, and
(b) for “£789,979” substitute “£789,146”.
(8) In paragraph 2.11, for “paragraph 2.1” substitute “paragraph 2.10”.
(9) For paragraph 2.13 and 2.14 substitute—
“2.13 As soon as practicable, but no later than two months after 31 March each year, a party claiming financial assistance under the provisions set out at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.11 above shall—
(a) furnish the Accounting Officer of the House with the certificate of an independent professional auditor, in a form determined by the Accounting Officer, to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party received financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred exclusively in relation to the party’s parliamentary business, and
(b) publish accounts in relation to all such expenses, audited by an independent professional auditor, in a form determined by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee and in accordance with any requirements imposed by that Committee.
2.13A The requirements that may be imposed under paragraph 2.13(b) are such requirements as the Committee considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling proper scrutiny of expenses in respect of which the party has received financial assistance under paragraph 2.1, 2.6 or 2.10 above, which may in particular include requirements for the audited accounts—
(a) to contain details of such expenses during the period to which the report relates (“the reporting period”),
(b) in the case of the Official Opposition—
(i) to state the total remuneration (including benefits in kind) paid in respect of persons employed, or otherwise engaged, to assist the party (“relevant persons”) during the reporting period,
(ii) to state each relevant person’s pay band, by reference to the pay bands specified by the Committee,
(iii) if a relevant person is appointed to assist a particular Member, to identify that Member, and
(iv) to identify each relevant person whose remuneration exceeds an amount specified by the Committee and to state the amount of that remuneration, and
(c) in the case of any other opposition party, to identify the number of persons employed, or otherwise engaged, to assist the party during the reporting period who are within each of the pay bands specified by the Committee.
2.14 If the requirements imposed by paragraph 2.13 above have not been complied with within the time specified, no further financial assistance under the provisions set out at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.11 above shall be paid until those requirements have been complied with.”
2. (1) The Resolution of 8 February 2006 relating to financial support for representative business (as codified and modified by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 152D(3) (as set out in section 2 of Annex 2 of that Committee’s report to the House of March 2015 (HC 1132))) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraphs 2.21 and 2.22 substitute—
“2.21 As soon as practicable, but no later than two months after 31 March each year, a party claiming financial assistance under paragraph 2.19 above shall—
(a) furnish the Accounting Officer of the House with the certificate of an independent professional auditor, in a form determined by the Accounting Officer, to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party received financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred exclusively in accordance with paragraph 2.19 above, and
(b) publish accounts in relation to all such expenses, audited by an independent professional auditor, in a form determined by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee and in accordance with any requirements imposed by that Committee.
2.21A The requirements that may be imposed under paragraph 2.21(b) are such requirements as the Committee considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling proper scrutiny of expenses in respect of which the party has received financial assistance, and may in particular include requirements for the audited accounts—
(a) to contain details of such expenses during the period to which the report relates, and
(b) to identify the number of persons employed, or otherwise engaged, to assist the party during that period who are within each of the pay bands specified by the Committee.
2.22 If the requirements imposed by paragraph 2.21 above have not been complied with within the time specified, no further financial assistance under paragraph 2.19 shall be paid until those requirements have been complied with.”
3. (1) The House of Commons Members Estimates Committee shall—
(a) consider the provisions of the Resolution of 26 May 1999 in the light of the proposed reduction in the number of Members of this House, and
(b) before the end of the next session, report to the House its views on whether any changes ought to be made to that Resolution in respect of any period after the reduction is expected to take effect.
(2) References in sub-paragraph (1) to the Resolution of 26 May 1999 are to the resolution of that date relating to financial assistance for opposition parties as codified and modified by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 152D(3) (as set out in section 2 of Annex 2 of that Committee’s report to the House of March 2015 (HC 1132) and as amended by paragraph 1 of this Resolution).—(Chris Grayling.)
HMRC Closure Walsall
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
This is a petition of the residents of the United Kingdom, who declare that in November 2015 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the tax and revenue office, announced that the Walsall HMRC site will close in March 2017. This means that HMRC will no longer have a presence in Walsall. With the closure, over 60 permanent jobs will be lost from Walsall. There could be a loss of £1 million in the local economy. This loss will inevitably impact on businesses in the locality. The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge HMRC to reverse the decision to close the Walsall HMRC site and carry out a full public consultation exercise on this closure. A petition in similar terms has been signed by 500 people.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that in November 2015 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) announced that the Walsall HMRC site will close in March 2017; further that HMRC will no longer have a presence in Walsall; further that this closure will result in over 60 permanent jobs losses in Walsall; further that this could lead to a loss of £1 million in the local economy; further that this loss will inevitably impact on businesses in the locality; and further that a local petition on a similar matter has been signed by 500 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HMRC to reverse the decision to close the Walsall HMRC site and carry out a full public consultation exercise on this closure.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
Construction Companies (Fatal Accidents)
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
I am pleased to have secured this debate on an important subject that is all too often ignored. Construction is the most dangerous industry in the UK. Indeed, the recent unplanned collapse and tragedy at Didcot power station highlighted the dangers faced by construction workers on a daily basis. Last year, 35 workers were killed. That is more than in any other industrial sector, but amazingly it was a record low for the construction industry. In recent years, there have been an average of 50 deaths a year in the construction industry—almost one a week. It is our duty to ensure that that level of loss of life does not continue.
To achieve that, we need a Health and Safety Executive that is effective and dedicated to protecting workers, but, sadly, the information that I have uncovered reveals that in the construction industry that is not occurring. Construction is an industry with inherent dangers, but it does not necessarily have to be inherently dangerous. Deaths and accidents largely occur because safety laws are deliberately ignored or flouted. Far too many companies involved in the construction industry are willing to break or bend safety rules to boost profits. In an industry where site organisation is low and there are not enough safety reps—partially as a result of the blacklisting scandal—it is imperative not only that the HSE does an effective job, but that it is seen to be doing its job effectively. Following a construction death, if a company or individual is at fault they must be prosecuted. The HSE’s own research found that in 70% of construction deaths, management failure caused or contributed to a worker losing their life.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland we take a proactive approach to this issue, and the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland carries out surprise visits to construction sites to ensure that complacency does not occur. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we want to sharpen the construction industry up a bit and make it more effective and accountable, that is a way of doing it?
Mr Hepburn
That is also the policy on the mainland, but, as I will reveal, sadly it is not as effective as it used to be.
In 2007-08 the HSE was successful in prosecuting 51% of construction fatal accidents. By 2012-13 that figure had dropped to a mere—and disgraceful—35%. No blame should be placed on the legal system for failing to convict killer bosses. The HSE is successful in achieving a guilty verdict in more than 90% of all prosecution cases—an impressive figure. Put simply, if the HSE is failing to prosecute following construction deaths, and if there are not enough high-profile stories about the fines and penalties imposed on companies that cut corners to boost profits at the expense of a worker’s life, an ever greater number of companies will flout safety laws, safe in the knowledge that if a tragedy should occur they are unlikely to be punished. That is certainly not the end of my concerns about the HSE’s performance.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the article in the Sunday Herald from 6 March 2016, entitled “Huge drop in construction safety inspections triggers fears for workers”? An academic from Stirling University in my constituency, Professor Andrew Watterson, who is part of the occupation and environmental health research group at the university, said:
“Westminster has savagely cut the budgets of the enforcement agency, the HSE, over many years…HSE increasingly looks and sounds like a toothless tiger—a lot of noise and increasingly little action.”
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that description?
Mr Hepburn
I do recognise that description. It is the work of academics and trade unions that has brought about tonight’s debate. They are bringing these shortcomings to our notice.
There can be few worse experiences for a family than to lose a father, husband or son who has gone to work normally, like we all do, but, unlike the rest of us, has never come home. Even if a prosecution is mounted by the HSE, the agony of the bereaved family does not stop there. The delays between construction accidents occurring, then prosecution and conviction are excruciating. The problem is getting worse, not better. Families are being forced to put their lives on hold for years and years, with no hope of closure until they see those responsible for the death of their loved one brought to justice. Justice delayed is nearly as great a failure as justice denied.
In 2005, the average time between the death of a worker and a prosecution, was over two years. Ten years later, it has increased to two-and-a-half years. I must stress that these are averages, so the worst cases are a lot worse. The HSE has admitted that in 15% of cases prosecution does not even begin for three to four years. Beginning the prosecution, however, is just the beginning of the judicial process. There are many further stages that need to be completed before a conviction is achieved. In 2006-07, the average delay between a fatal accident and a conviction was 985 days. That was bad enough, but the latest figures are so much worse. In 2014-15, the average time between a fatal accident and a conviction in construction was now 1,267 days—or three-and-a-half years. I need to stress again that that figure is just an average. Delays in justice can be a lot longer.
Last week, Falcon Crane Hire was fined £750,000 following the collapse of one of its cranes in Battersea, which lead to the deaths of Jonathon Cloke, the crane driver, and Michael Alexa, a member of the public. That accident occurred in September 2006. It took nine-and-a-half years for justice to be done—nine-and-a-half years for the families of the victims of that accident to witness justice. I am sure the House agrees that nine-and-a-half years is far too long.
The Battersea crane accident might be the case with the longest delay, but it is not unique. I can give other examples. There are other ongoing cases where delays are highly significant. In January 2011, in the worst single accident for many years, Daniel Hazelton, Tom Hazelton, Adam Taylor and Peter Johnson were killed in a construction accident in Great Yarmouth. In February this year, over five years after the deaths of these workers, the case was finally referred to the magistrates courts. The eventual conviction of those concerned is still to come.
Given these agonisingly long delays, attention needs to turn to what the HSE’s response has been to the concerns that I and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, of which I am a proud member, have raised—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If there is a case before the courts, we should not comment on it. We really ought to be aware that we do not want to put the House in the position of seeming to prejudge an individual case.
Mr Hepburn
Thank you for that advice, Mr Deputy Speaker.
UCATT and I have raised concerns about the delays in prosecutions and convictions. In response, the HSE says that the delays are due to other bodies and agencies, such as the police, the coroners courts and even the justice system itself, especially if the matter is referred to the Crown Court. In other words, the HSE is saying it is not its fault.
Well, this House and the families of the victims of construction workers deserve to know exactly who is to blame. The one group certainly not to blame is the victims and their families who are being treated in such an abominable manner. It is time for the HSE to stop passing the buck and blaming others. These are straightforward cases where a worker has died. They are not major inquiries into a war, or how the Government covered up their failures following Hillsborough. They should not take this long. These cases are straightforward. If these problems are to be laid at the door of the HSE, we need to know whether they are a result of the 35% real-terms grant cuts the organisation has suffered over the last five years, as was mentioned earlier.
At the start of my contribution, I said how important it was that the HSE had a high profile in order to discourage the breaking of safety laws in construction. There is another area where its performance has been found wanting. A freedom of information request by UCATT has revealed that since 2012-13, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, the number of unannounced inspections made in the construction industry in the UK has declined by 8.7%. This decline occurred at a time when the industry was expanding and the number of sites in operation was increasing, following years of decline owing to the recession and Government cuts.
Within that overall decline were some truly shocking figures: the number of inspections in Scotland has dropped by 55%; in my region of the north-east, the number is down by 28.5%; in the north-west, the figures have declined by nearly a third; and in the south-east, where construction is booming, the number is down by 19%.
Steven Paterson
There are numbers that make this even clearer. The hon. Gentleman referred to the 55.7% drop. Some years ago, there were 1,248 inspections, but that has dropped to 552. It just shows how big a swing there has been.
Mr Hepburn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the statistics more graphic and showing how disgraceful they are.
These inspections are vital. They are the deterrent that keeps the industry honest and observant of safety laws. If companies think they will not be inspected and that there will never be a surprise knock at the door, the HSE loses all its authority in pressurising companies not to break safety laws. Laws will be flouted, workers will be put in danger and tragedies will occur. The House needs to know why the number of inspections is declining in an industry that is growing. Is it due to the cuts to the HSE’s budget, which must be affecting front-line services, is it because of the Government’s pressure to cut so-called red tape, or is it because the leadership of the HSE does not believe that such inspections are necessary?
I hope that my contribution today underlines just how vital it is that the HSE is given the resources, powers and confidence to do its job effectively. That means making sure that workplaces are safe for workers; that if laws are broken, action is taken quickly to resolve problems; that if a workplace tragedy should occur and if there is guilt, those responsible are punished and their penalties properly publicised; and that the quest for justice does not drag on indefinitely. Only by achieving these aims can the HSE properly play its role in keeping workers safe. I hope the Minister will agree and confirm that action will be taken to ensure that the problems I and others have addressed this evening are resolved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) on securing it and welcome the opportunity to respond to his concerns. I know he is very active in this area, having received several parliamentary questions on it in recent weeks, and that his interest is long standing.
The hon. Gentleman made a powerful speech. He rightly wishes to hold to account duty holders who fail to manage serious risks to their workers in the construction industry—failures that can give rise to indescribable suffering for loved ones. That is a desire we all share on both sides of the House. My thoughts go out to all the families of those tragically killed when working in the construction industry, particularly those recently affected by the catastrophic building collapse at the Didcot power station.
The House will be interested to hear that recovery operations on the debris pile of the collapsed structure at Didcot resumed at the weekend, with the aim of recovering the missing men as quickly as possible while ensuring that no harm comes to the recovery workers. HSE’s main role at Didcot is to investigate jointly with Thames Valley police the circumstances of the incident to find out what went so tragically wrong with the demolition process.
I tribute to the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who have been very active throughout recent weeks making representations on behalf of their constituents. I formally put on record my thanks to all the professionals who have been working tirelessly to try to resolve this as quickly as possible, particularly for the families still waiting for conclusions about their loved ones.
The investigation of workplace fatalities is HSE’s top operational priority. Fatal incidents are investigated by HSE to determine the underlying causes; to learn lessons and prevent recurrence; to establish whether there have been breaches of health and safety law; and, if so, to hold those responsible to account though the criminal courts. HSE’s enforcement policy statement makes it clear that where a failure to comply with the law has caused death, the expectation is that a prosecution will result.
It is clearly in everyone’s interests—especially those of the bereaved—that fatal incident investigations and decisions about any prosecution proceed as quickly as possible; the hon. Member for Jarrow made that point very powerfully in his speech. However, some investigations can be complex, involving painstaking forensic analysis, interviewing large numbers of witnesses and examining the roles and interactions between a number of parties, including workers, contractors, suppliers, architects, designers and clients, some of whom may be based overseas.
Jim Shannon
We had an event in the last Parliament that HSE and the industry attended. An issue about equipment being up to the British standard was brought to our attention. Are checks regularly performed on safety equipment such as helmets to ensure it matches the British standard, as we believe it should?
Justin Tomlinson
I shall come on to the point about proactive inspections, which the hon. Gentleman raised in an earlier intervention. I shall cover this issue. Checking against standards is an important point to highlight.
Several factors can affect the pace at which fatal accidents are investigated before any prosecution can be brought to court. The police normally assume primacy for the investigation to identify whether serious offences, such as corporate manslaughter, are involved. This can take many months, or in some cases years, during which HSE is unable to initiate proceedings. The police and Crown Prosecution Service might be in charge of the case right through to any court cases.
In the majority of cases, once HSE has primacy, a prosecution cannot start until after the coroner’s inquest. This does not always happen quickly and sometimes further evidence emerges at an inquest and HSE has to make further inquiries. Once a defendant has been charged, it can take several months before the case comes to trial, especially if it is defended in the Crown court.
The hon. Member for Jarrow has publicly raised concerns that, on average, it takes nearly three and a half years from the death of a worker to the point at which those responsible are convicted. I questioned that when I became the Minister and had my first briefings. We all agree that we want this period to be as short as possible, and HSE works closely with its partner agencies, the Courts Service and its counterparts in Scotland, to minimise any delays.
HSE has a performance standard for completing investigations of fatal incidents within 12 months of receiving primacy. Currently, more than 80% of prosecution decisions for construction incidents meet this standard, and most take considerably less time. Indeed, half of HSE’s decisions to prosecute are made within two years of the date of a fatal construction incident, which includes any time during which the police had primacy and a coroner’s inquest decision was awaited.
HSE has signed the work-related deaths protocol with fellow regulators to ensure that investigations are completed and that any decision to prosecute is made as quickly as possible, taking into account the nature of the case. There is now a new practical guide for investigators, which should ensure that all parties work effectively together and that any prosecution is brought as soon as possible. Other than in exceptional circumstances, it should be no later than three years after the date of the death. To be very clear, HSE recognises the need to maintain pace in all these investigations.
I appreciate how the hon. Member for Jarrow has raised through parliamentary questions the important issues in this area. We need to make it clear, however, that there has been no fall in HSE conviction rates in recent years; conviction rates for those prosecuted for breaking health and safety laws in construction have actually risen in recent years from 92% to 94%. The number of HSE prosecutions being approved following fatal construction accidents is not falling over time and there has been no increase in the time taken to make a decision on prosecution. The average number of days between fatal incidents and prosecution approval over the last five years has reached a relatively settled position. Average figures can be heavily influenced by the fact that a small number of complex investigations take several years to conclude, but the HSE expects the average time for inspection between its taking primacy and a prosecution decision to continue to fall in future years.
In connection with the debate, I have asked the HSE to look again at the way in which such figures are presented, and to consider whether it would be possible to produce median figures so that we could see how long a typical investigation would take. However, we must remember that we would do a real disservice to those who have lost loved ones if we introduced an artificial pressure to speed up investigations at the cost of quality, increasing the risk of prosecution failure through inadequate evidence collection and failing to learn lessons.
The HSE fully recognises the important role that investigation, inspection and enforcement play in securing improvements. However, sustained improvement requires an integrated strategic approach. That includes ensuring that the legal framework and guidance are flexible and easier for small businesses to understand. I have received positive feedback on that, suggesting that there is much more engagement on their part. It also includes encouraging all players in the industry to play their part, working with industry and others to develop practical solutions, and encouraging industry supply chains to provide help and support for small businesses. That approach has contributed to a very significant reduction in the number of fatal construction incidents over the last 15 years, which is currently less than a third of the rate in 2000-01. I am sure we all welcome the fact that the number of fatal injuries fell from 5.9 per 100,000 workers in 2000-01 to 1.62 per 100,000 in 2014-15.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out that the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland makes surprise visits. That happens here as well, and rightly so, because it is vital to keep people on their toes.
Members have given various figures for the number of inspectors in the HSE’s construction division, so let me give the House the actual figures. In 2011-12, there were 196. In 2012-13, there were 193. In 2013-14, there were 184. In 2014-15, there were 180. In 2015-16, there were 187, and the HSE is in the process of recruiting more. The position is clearly relatively settled, and numbers are currently growing.
Construction work is, all too often, an unnecessarily high-risk activity. We know that the risks can be properly managed—I do not need to remind the House of the exemplary record that was achieved during the construction of the 2012 Olympic Park—but some duty holders still fail miserably. The HSE will continue to prioritise its investigation work in order to hold the right people to account for those who are harmed by construction work, and to do so as quickly as possible.
If the hon. Member for Jarrow wishes to know more about the HSE’s work, I—or HSE officials—would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further with him, along with representatives of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. I thank him for raising this important issue this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
That the draft Renewables Obligation Closure Etc. (Amendment) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 232 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Public Service Pensions Revaluation (Prices) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 1 February, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 211 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (amendment) Regulations 2016
(8 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson.
We need a strong and efficient labour market—a market that gives people opportunities to find appropriate jobs and that gives employers access to the kind of labour that matches their skills needs—to maintain our economic growth and job creation. The recruitment sector plays an important role in making that happen by matching the demand for jobs to the demand for workers.
The sector is regulated by the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003—the conduct regulations. It is important that we reduce the regulatory burden on employment businesses and employment agencies as far as is possible, while increasing the opportunities for British workers to apply for British jobs.
Last year, the Government consulted on a package of measures, building on the previous consultation under the coalition Government, to remove a number of business-to-business regulations and to strengthen the existing legislation that prevents employment agencies and businesses from advertising jobs in other European economic area countries without advertising them in Great Britain and in English. I was inclined to skate over the specific deregulatory measures in the hope that the Committee would not be that interested in each of them, but I find myself facing the hon. Member for Cardiff West, who will have some very tricky questions for me, so I will detain the Committee with a little more detail on each of the deregulatory measures.
Regulation 9 of the conduct regulations, which is being removed, prevents employment agencies and employment businesses from claiming to be acting on one basis to the work-seeker, while stating something different to the hirer. There is little evidence that the regulation serves a useful purpose. We do not need free-standing regulations to underpin a standard that would be enforceable to some extent through contract law or, in cases of fraud, through general criminal law.
Regulation 11 ensures that employment agencies and employment businesses cannot enter into a contract with a hirer on behalf of a worker, and vice versa. The regulation applies to all agencies and businesses, but it is mainly relevant to those operating in the entertainment and modelling sectors. We are removing the regulation because there are sufficient protections in other parts of the conduct regulations, including regulation 16.
Regulation 17, which is also being removed from the conduct regulations, requires employment businesses to obtain agreement to terms with hirers. Although it is important for employment businesses to agree terms with hirers, we believe that it is a business-to-business arrangement and that the two parties should have more flexibility when agreeing such terms.
Regulation 23(1) of the conduct regulations covers situations in which more than one agency or employment business is involved in the supply of a work-seeker. We propose to remove the provision that requires agencies and employment businesses to make checks on one another. We also propose to remove the requirement for them to agree the capacity in which they are acting, which will be done as part of the business-to-business relationship, without the need for regulation.
We will keep the provisions in regulation 23(1) on sectors in which fees may be charged to work-seekers, which generally happens only in the entertainment and modelling sectors. However, we propose to amend the regulation to remove the references to employment businesses. Employment businesses—organisations that place workers on a temporary basis and continue to employ them while they are on assignments—are not widely used in those sectors. Additionally, if an agency in those sectors uses an employment business to supply a work-seeker, regulation 12 should ensure timely payment for the worker in any case.
We also propose to remove from schedule 4 to the conduct regulations the requirement to include certain particulars in the records kept by employment agencies and employment businesses relating to work-seekers. Those records will no longer need to include the date on which the application was received, details of any requirements specified by the work-seeker in relation to taking up employment, and the date on which the application was withdrawn or the contract terminated.
The final deregulatory measures that we are proposing will amend schedule 5 to the conduct regulations and remove schedule 6, thereby eradicating the requirements to include certain particulars in the records kept by agencies and businesses relating to the hirer. Those records will no longer need to include the date that the application was received; the hirer’s name, address and location of employment, if different; the terms offered in respect of the position the hirer seeks to fill; a copy of the terms between the employment agency or business and the hirer; and any document recording any variations, names of work-seekers introduced or supplied, and details of each resulting engagement and the date from which it takes effect.
Removing schedule 6 will eliminate the requirement for agencies and businesses to keep particulars relating to any other employment agency or business. The amendments proposed to schedules 4 and 5, and the removal of schedule 6, will remove the burden of unnecessary record-keeping on agencies and businesses, while having no detrimental impact on the protection of workers.
I turn to the banning of overseas-only recruitment. The current regulation 27A prevents employment agencies and businesses from advertising specific vacancies for a job based in Great Britain in other European economic area countries without advertising it in Great Britain and in English either before or at the same time. As part of last year’s consultation, we sought views on extending the regulation to apply to generic recruitment campaigns. That will close a loophole and increase the opportunities for British workers to apply for British jobs. The proposal will not stop agencies recruiting overseas or in additional languages; we are just trying to ensure that there is a level playing field for British workers by giving them equal access to work through agencies.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
We agree with that part of what the Minister is proposing. However, does he acknowledge that, in response to the Government’s consultation, only two organisations in the whole country said that they had information about jobs that had been advertised solely in other EEA countries? Is there any further evidence that there is a genuine problem?
Nick Boles
I am happy to get back to the hon. Gentleman if there is any further evidence, but even two is two too many. The measures will reassure people. Even if the loophole is not necessarily being abused a great deal, the provision will reassure people that British workers are being given a fair crack at any job opportunity that opens up in this country.
That brings me to the conclusion of my introductory comments, and I hope that the Committee will support the regulations.
Kevin Brennan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Wilson.
It is a pity that all these proposals are rolled into one. On the latter part of the Minister’s remarks, I think we all agree with the notion that if agencies are advertising jobs generically across Europe, they should obviously be advertising them in the English language and to workers in this country, so that they have the opportunity to apply. He is absolutely right about that. Although the consultation did not provide much evidence of jobs being advertised solely in EEA countries, it would be interesting to know whether there is more evidence of that happening. We would all like to hear where, how and why that is going on. The Government are making a positive and helpful addition to regulation 27A through this statutory instrument.
I am pleased that the Minister did not skate over the other regulations, because they are significant and quite controversial, even though he may not have chosen to refer to that fact. Agency workers are often the most vulnerable workers. They do not have the same protections that other workers often have. Some agency workers are highly skilled and benefit from the flexibility of agency work, but many are in insecure and low-paid jobs.
Recently, the media have often highlighted a lot of the abuse that happens to agency workers in the United Kingdom. Their employment relationship is more complicated than that of other workers because it is a tripartite relationship—an agency is involved, as well as the employer and the worker themselves. They are often vulnerable to the abuse of travel and subsistence schemes; the underpayment of national insurance contributions; and the loss of contributory benefits, including the state pension, statutory sick pay, and maternity and paternity pay. Sometimes, non-compliance with the minimum legal standards and the mistreatment of workers goes on in the agency sector. Obviously, that is not universal, but those people are more vulnerable to such treatment.
In my constituency casework, I have come across, as others may have done, parents coming in with their children who are embarking on their first jobs as adults and being mistreated in the workplace. They feel they have no redress because the jobs were secured through an agency. That is why we should be careful when we seek to unpick regulations that were put in place to protect workers in more vulnerable occupations and situations.
As the Minister anticipated, I looked carefully at what he was proposing and, in particular, at the responses to the Government’s consultation on the proposed deregulation. A different picture is painted if the proposal is looked at from the perspective of the TUC, which, as is its wont, is naturally that of the worker.
The TUC’s response to the Minister’s proposal to remove regulation 9 of the conduct regulations was that it would have a negative effect on work-seekers, employment agencies, employment businesses and hirers; so not just on the workers. Its reasoning is that transparency is particularly important in the agency sector because of its transient nature and the tripartite relationship between the employer, employee and agency.
The proposal to repeal regulation 9 will remove the prohibition on employment businesses and agencies purporting to the work-seeker to be acting as an agency, while purporting to the hirer to be acting as an employment business, and vice versa. That is what the regulation protects against. The TUC believes that its repeal will increase the vulnerability of agency workers and could lead to work-seekers being misled into believing that an agency is trying to find them a permanent post, when in fact it is arranging a temporary assignment offering worse pay, fewer employment rights and less job security.
The TUC is also concerned that the removal of the regulation might encourage unscrupulous practices by some agencies. Interestingly, it is particularly concerned about the entertainment sector. As someone who has occasionally taken a musical booking, I have a particular interest. I should declare an interest as a member of the Musicians Union, Mr Wilson.
For example, an agency could be approached by a venue that is seeking to book an act. The venue might offer to pay £1,000 for an act. The agency could go to the act and say, “I can get you a gig for £500.” The agent informs the act that it is acting as an employment agency and charges a 15% fee, which is normal practice. That is £75 it is making from the act, as a fee for arranging the booking. It can then go to the venue and say that it has found the artist and they are happy to collect the £1,000 that the venue is offering. The agency makes an additional £500 on the deal by doing that.
The TUC fears that the removal of regulation 9 could lead to an increase in that type of practice. Will the Minister respond to the direct concern that it could open the door to more unscrupulous practices of that kind?
The Government also seek to remove regulation 11 of the conduct regulations. In response to the Government consultation, the TUC felt that the removal of regulation 11 could have a negative impact on work-seekers, employment agencies, employment businesses and hirers. It has held the view for many years that up-front fees to agencies in the entertainment sector ought to be banned. Aspiring artists can often be enticed into paying a fee to register with an agency, even though there is very limited prospect of their gaining work via that agency. That is why the TUC has expressed concern about the Government’s proposal to remove regulation 11.
I would be glad to hear from the Minister whether the TUC has a point, in that agency workers often face problems when agents negotiate deals on their behalf, including difficulties recovering adequate payments for the use of photo shoots in a modelling contract, for example, and enforcing usage periods. Those artists can be prevented under the terms of the agreement from contacting the end client. They are obviously reluctant to take action against their agents, because they depend on them for future work.
The concern expressed in the consultation, as the Minister must be aware, was that removing regulation 11 would reduce transparency and accountability in the agency sector, and mean that agencies were no longer required to notify the work-seeker promptly of the terms of any contract they entered into on their behalf. The removal of regulation 11 might make things more difficult for the vulnerable people in such transactions and make it more difficult for work-seekers to enforce their rights.
The removal of regulation 11(6) would mean that agencies were no longer prohibited from entering into contracts between a work-seeker and a hirer on behalf of both parties. That could open the way for agencies to negotiate unfair deals. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to that concern, which was expressed in the consultation, and to hear why the Government feel they do not need to take it into account.
Concern was also expressed in the consultation about the removal of regulation 17 of the conduct regulations. Generally speaking, it is good practice for agencies and employment businesses to agree terms and conditions with the hirer in advance, before any assignments start. There is a case to be made that all agencies should be required to publish on their website standard terms and conditions, including any commission rates and charges. That would be a positive regulation to introduce.
However, that proposal is not being implemented. Instead, regulation 17 is being repealed. Regulation 17 requires agencies and hirers to agree the terms before workers are placed on assignments. Its removal will reduce the level of transparency. It could mean that agency workers are more vulnerable to exploitation and make it more difficult for them to enforce their rights. It could also lead to hirers and agency workers being charged unexpected fees during the course of an assignment.
Regulation 17(1)(c) requires employment businesses and hirers to agree
“the procedure to be followed if a work-seeker introduced or supplied to the hirer proves unsatisfactory”.
That is an important safeguard because it helps to ensure that agency workers are treated consistently and are not victimised. Removing that provision will increase the risk of agency workers being discriminated against because of race, sex, pregnancy, disability or even, in some cases, membership of a trade union. Again, legitimate concern has been raised about the removal of the regulation. This is not simply a matter of removing unnecessary regulation. This is regulation that provides important protection to vulnerable workers.
The Government propose to remove part of regulation 23, rather than the whole of it. Regulation 23 requires employment agencies and businesses to check whether any employment agencies or businesses to which they plan to subcontract work are suitable, which provides important checks. The Government propose to remove sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (1), which will mean that employment businesses have less incentive to carry out effective checks on their supply chains. In the absence of prior checks by agencies on the suitability of subcontractors, the onus for enforcing minimum employment rights will rest on agency workers themselves. Removing that part of the conduct regulations will mean that there is no responsibility on the agent to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why that important protection is not being retained.
I welcome the fact that the Government are retaining regulation 27, on which they changed their mind in response to the consultation. I also welcome the amendment to regulation 27A on advertising generically across Europe and only in languages other than English, which is a completely unacceptable practice, even if there was not much evidence of it in the Government consultation.
I will not refer to the schedules, because they merely give effect to many of the measures that I have described.
The Opposition are concerned that the conduct regulations are not simply an unnecessary burden on business. We want flexible labour markets, but the Government say that their intention is to retain
“those regulations required to ensure that people who are looking for work are protected against potential exploitation.”
A strong case has been made that many of the regulations that the Government seek to remove protect people who are looking for work against exploitation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response before I advise my hon. Friends which way to vote.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I do not have much to add to the comprehensive assessment of the hon. Member for Cardiff West; we come at this debate from a very similar position. I ask the Minister to reflect, and to advise us on the consultation and discussion that was carried out with the Scottish Government and Scottish agencies on this matter.
Nick Boles
I anticipated that the forensic zeal of the hon. Member for Cardiff West would not be wanting today; it has never been lacking in any of our previous engagements. As ever, he asked some extremely good questions.
We are entirely at one in recognising that agency workers are potentially vulnerable and open to exploitation. When we started this process, we asked ourselves which laws and regulations protect those potentially vulnerable workers, whether they are being enforced effectively, and by whom. We may end up discovering that the only difference of opinion is that we do not think that the regulations that we propose to repeal or amend are, in practice, necessary to protect potentially vulnerable agency workers from exploitation, because there are other, more effective protections that can be and are being enforced.
I hope that our good faith is underlined by the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman noted, although we originally proposed to remove regulation 27, we listened to the feedback in the consultation, in which respondents raised concerns that it might disadvantage work-seekers if we removed the specification of what should be included in job adverts, and concluded that we should not remove it.
Let me turn to the regulations that we are proposing to remove or amend. I will do my best to reassure the hon. Gentleman. Regulation 9 prevents agencies from acting on one basis for work-seekers and stating something different to hirers. The reason we do not believe that removing it will put work-seekers at risk is that we have not received any evidence of that through the work of the employment agency standards inspectorate or from most of the responses. I acknowledge that the Trades Union Congress took a different view, but no specific evidence has been provided that employment agencies and businesses do claim to act in a different capacity. Therefore, we do not believe that the removal of the regulation will have a negative impact.
I guess that, if there is a philosophical difference between the Government and the Opposition, it is that we do not want to have regulations that are theoretically useful, but unnecessary in practice. We want to be persuaded that regulation is necessary in practice. I am advised that there are existing protections in contract law to protect people, for instance, from misrepresentation by an agency or employment business that cover the sort of abuses the hon. Gentleman is worried about. I repeat that the employment agency standards inspectorate, which sits within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, has not given us any evidence of this particular situation arising.
Regulation 11 ensures that agencies cannot enter a contract with a hirer on behalf of a worker, and vice versa. It would most likely protect work-seekers in the entertainment and modelling sectors. The reason we have decided to remove regulation 11 is that we believe that sufficient protection already exists in those sectors through regulation 16, which ensures that an agency that is permitted to charge work-seekers a fee for finding them work must agree the specific terms with the worker, including whether the agency is entitled to act on their behalf in concluding a work contract. Given the existence and retention of regulation 16, we do not believe that the removal of regulation 11 is likely to have a significant impact.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the removal of regulation 17, which requires employment businesses to obtain agreement to terms with hirers. He raised the concern that that would leave work-seekers at risk of not being clear what terms of employment businesses had agreed with hirers. Again, we believe that the terms agreed between the employment business and the hirer are properly part of the business-to-business relationship, and that the two parties should have more flexibility when agreeing terms. The existing regulation imposes a potential criminal liability, which we think is disproportionate for such a business-to-business relationship.
The work-seeker would not be affected by the removal of regulation 17, as the terms of employment between the work-seeker and the employment business would still need to be agreed in line with regulations 14, 15 and 18, all of which we are not proposing to remove. We believe that the work-seeker’s interests are explicitly protected and that the agreements between the employment business and the hirer are, in a sense, a matter for them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the amendment to regulation 23. It may be that there is a slight lack of clarity on our part here, although I hope not. We believe that we are amending the regulation to remove employment businesses from its scope. That is because this regulation mainly affects those in the entertainment and modelling sectors, where employment businesses are not widely used. If an employment business is used in such a capacity, we believe that sufficient provision exists in regulation 12, which ensures that a work-seeker is paid, so there will not be a lack of protection, even though we do not believe that employment businesses generally operate in the relevant sectors.
I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, but I am happy for him to come back to me if not.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts asked about the extent to which there have been discussions with the Scottish Government. The consultation was public and open to anyone to respond to. As he will be aware, employment law is a reserved matter, so we believe that most of the consultation respondents, both positive and negative, including the TUC, were acting as representatives of workers in Scotland and the other devolved Administrations, because employment law is devolved. We did not specifically consult the Scottish Government because this is a reserved matter.
If there are no further questions, I hope the Committee will see fit to support the regulations.
Kevin Brennan
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and thorough response, and for the courteous way in which he has dealt with the questions from the Opposition. To reiterate, we support the proposed change to regulation 27A, although he did not offer further evidence that it was a widespread and serious issue.
The problem for the Opposition is that we do not feel that it is proportionate and appropriate to remove the other regulations, given that we are talking about members of the workforce and work-seekers who are in the most vulnerable positions. If anything, this is a group of workers that is becoming larger as the labour market and employment practices and patterns change across the country. We are not here to debate why that is happening, but I think we would all acknowledge that it is. As I indicated in my remarks earlier, my constituency casework has involved increasing numbers of people who are concerned about how they have been treated in the workplace after being employed via an agency.
Notwithstanding my gratitude to the Minister for his thorough and serious response, it is right that we register our opposition to the changes that he is proposing to the regulations, other than regulation 27A, by dividing the Committee.
Question put.
Westminster Hall
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
Burma
(8 years 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
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the political situation in Burma.
It is a privilege and an honour to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Owen.
Burma is a nation at a crossroads. It faces huge challenges, but there are many reasons to be optimistic. Recently, I was fortunate to go on a visit with Benedict Rogers from Christian Solidarity Worldwide. He is a fount of knowledge on Burma. As well as being a fantastic advocate for human rights and religious tolerance, Christian Solidarity Worldwide is an amazing source of information on that and other parts of the world.
I have a personal interest in Burma, because my father was born there. My grandfather was born in Mandalay. During world war two he served on the docks and took part in the scuttling so that the Japanese could not get in and use the docks or anything there. When I visited, I found out that when my father was a schoolboy aged 13, he was walking past the Secretariat on the day that General Aung San was assassinated. Imagine a 13-year-old boy seeing the chaos in the aftermath of that and not knowing quite what a pivotal moment that was in the country’s history.
In 1962, during the coup, my aunt was a tutor at Rangoon University when the student union was blown up, and she lost many of her friends and colleagues that day. She also lost her job. For the next two years she had to work unpaid at the generals’ behest, doing whatever they wanted, including going up and down the streets chanting to pretend that the generals had far more support than they actually did.
It was therefore an absolute privilege and honour for me to create another tiny chapter of my family’s history in 2016, at another pivotal moment in the country’s history. Following the 2015 elections, the Government are transitioning to what we hope will be a far more open, fairer and freer democracy. The visit was more than just a personal episode of “Who Do You Think You Are?”; thanks to Ben, I was able to criss-cross the country and meet a number of people to talk about religious tolerance, human rights and ethnic conflicts. I also met a number of national and regional MPs.
I joined an international delegation in Naypyidaw, which included my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is in her place, and the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), both of whom I know wanted to participate in the debate. Unfortunately, they have events elsewhere. The international delegation helped to train the new Burmese MPs, and one thing that was uncovered was that the first basic risk for the future is the capacity of the newly elected politicians. They have worked so hard and given up so much to be elected, but they need knowledge and direction to be effective at drafting and scrutinising legislation and to be able to challenge Ministers while still dealing with their constituency work to the best of their ability. We take that for granted here. When I was elected, I had support from experienced Clerks, staff, Doorkeepers and colleagues. I stepped into a mature system with people who could guide me smoothly on the way. The system in Burma was previously run by a military junta, so that barely exists in Naypyidaw. The opportunity to scrutinise is very new.
Mr Speaker has also been to Burma with Ben Rogers, and is a former chairman of the all-party group on democracy in Burma. He has already provided a lot of support and has promised more. Experienced British parliamentary Clerks are seconded over there, sharing our knowledge, and that is fantastic. Delegations of Burmese Clerks have visited here, too. Most people, when they look at my campaign to get to this place after two and a half years and a hard-fought election, say, “Paul, you worked very hard”, but I basically did a lot of simple things many times over a couple of years. I look at the Burmese MPs in awe. They have given up so much. My old sales manager used to liken commitment to an English breakfast. He said that the chicken that gave the egg was mildly interested, but the pig that gave the bacon was totally committed. What the Burmese MPs have given up is remarkable. They are eager and chomping at the bit, but it is important for them to focus. There is a huge weight of expectation, and that needs managing in the parliamentary and party structures.
Most Burmese people are tolerant, understanding and determined, but they know that they cannot change things overnight. With vision, determination and a framework, however, things can change. Aung San Suu Kyi is an incredible woman, but she cannot do everything on her own, and that is why the framework will be important. We need to enable MPs to find the right balance between their work for their country in getting the rule of law, legislation and changes in place, and their constituency work and family life. That is very difficult given the situation in Naypyidaw. The extraordinary parliamentary building that Members might have seen on the internet or television is something to behold. Even Ceausescu would be amazed by the extent of the building. Frankly, it is big enough to give MPs a desk and somewhere to do their constituency work. Not all the changes need a lot of money, which obviously Burma does not have a lot of at the moment.
The election observers I met while I was over there saw a number of cases of fraud, intimidation and threats of violence, so it was not a perfect election by any stretch of the imagination, but it was as good as could be expected, and I do not think anyone can be in doubt that it got the result that the vast majority of the country wanted to see. In that regard, it was a good result, and it was as free and as fair an election as we could expect. Will the Minister tell us what more parliamentarians and the Government can do to support politicians in Burma—we are obviously not going to be telling them what to do or how to run their country—as they transition to parliamentary democracy, which we take for granted in this country?
Members will have seen that the military has been undertaking considerable negotiations with Daw Suu on the presidency and the constitution. U Htin Kyaw, a close ally of Daw Suu, has now been appointed as President, which is to be welcomed, but the approval of the military’s choice for vice-president, Myint Swe, is difficult for many to swallow. He is a hard-liner. He was the military commander who supervised the crackdown on the saffron revolution in 2007, and he was a close confidant of Than Shwe. Ironically, Myint Swe’s son-in-law held Australian citizenship, which prevented him from taking up the vice-presidency in 2012 under the same rules that prevented Daw Suu from taking up the presidency, but the son-in-law has reportedly now renounced his citizenship. As first Vice-President, Myint Swe has a seat on the 11-member National Defence and Security Council and would serve as acting President should the presidency fall vacant for any reason. Although the transition is looking optimistic and there are many reasons to look forward to what is to come, threats and situations may arise that could bring Burma back to terrible dark times, as has happened in the past. We must err on the side of caution.
When visiting places outside of Naypyidaw, we have to look at what is going on with religious tolerance and ethnic conflict. I met a number of Muslim leaders and campaigners, including Khin Maung Myint, Wai Wai Nu and Al-Haj U Aye Lwin. The first two are Rohingya representatives. Wai Wai Nu is a phenomenally articulate 29-year-old. Her father was previously an MP, but he was not able to stand this time around because he no longer was a citizen of Burma due to the citizenship rules. Like many people I met, and despite being only 29, Wai Wai Nu had already served seven years in prison with her family, pretty well just because she was the daughter of a former MP and an activist. The people I met, albeit that they were a self-selecting community because of the human rights and religious tolerance aspect of my visit, had all been to prison, some for 14 years or 18 years. That was not extraordinary for the people I met, although those people were themselves extraordinary.
Wai Wai Nu told me that the Government’s policy towards the Rohingya in the past had led to hatred and discrimination among the community as a whole. However, despite the severity of the situation, more Burmese people are becoming more open, and misunderstandings about the Rohingya can and must be addressed. She considered that the 1982 citizenship law would need to be revised to amend the indigenous and national races list, or to grant citizenship to those whose parents were citizens before 1982.
For the internally displaced people in the area, especially women, the major problem is healthcare. They are not allowed to go to hospital freely; they need permission and have to pay bribes. Often, even when they are in hospital, they are treated inhumanely.
The source of much of the religious tension has been Ma Ba Tha, a politicised militant nationalist group of Buddhist monks who were supported by the previous Government. We hope that it will wither on the vine now that Daw Suu is in charge. One of the leaders, U Wirathu, a radical monk, has released a new trailer for an anti-Muslim video, and has promised to release the full video. There is a suggestion that the new chairman of Ma Ba Tha, Insein Sayadaw, may be more flexible, because he is a former political prisoner with a good understanding of politics.
However, we need to continue to hear the voices not only of the moderates but of people such as Cardinal Bo, Bishop Philip in Lashio and the Venerable Badata Seindita, also known by the extraordinary name of Asia Light, who is a Buddhist monk from Pyin Oo Lwin. He speaks out vociferously about the true meaning of Buddhism. Whenever I hear the words “militant Buddhism”, or “nationalist Buddhism”, I think that the words simply do not go together. The Burmese people are generally the most peaceful, tolerant, placid people, albeit very determined. They exude all the qualities that we would expect from a mainly Buddhist population, so it is extraordinary to see the extremes to which Ma Ba Tha will go to divide the population.
Christians have not been exempted from religious intolerance, either. They have not been allowed to build churches in certain areas, and they have been told that they cannot even worship in their own homes in certain situations.
I went to Lashio in northern Shan state to see the ethnic conflict. I think I am the first MP to have been up there. There are worrying developments in Kachin state, where drugs are rife. It is believed that a huge percentage of young people in northern Shan are addicted to drugs, as part of a deliberate policy by the military. Human trafficking into China is common, with little action taken. I met representatives from the Ta’ang community—a women’s organisation and the students and youth union. There are 1 million Ta’ang people in northern and southern Shan state. We discussed the conflict that has recently begun between the Ta’ang National Liberation Army and the Restoration Council of Shan State. After the ceasefire agreement was concluded, the RCSS signed it and went around Shan state to explain it. However, when it entered TNLA-controlled territory, clashes between the two armed groups began.
There are allegations that the RCSS is trying to extend its territory, and also suggestions that the military may be stoking the conflict to create divisions. Although things in Naypyidaw are hopefully being sorted and opened up, Burma is a big country with a lot of ethnic states, each with its own values, conflicts and tensions. It is very difficult for someone in the centre to be able to get to grips with all that.
The rule of law was a phrase that kept coming up time and again from every politician I spoke to. We met solicitors and other advocates in relation to various legal cases, which I want to raise briefly. Niranjan Rasalingam, a British citizen, has been in prison for 14 months without charge. He was accused of a cashpoint scam along with two Indian nationals who were not even in the country at the time the crime was supposed to have been committed. Niranjan Rasalingam is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who has taken up his case.
We also met the solicitor who is dealing with the case of the rape and murder of two Kachin schoolteachers on the night of 19 January 2015. Their bodies were found in a village 140 miles from Lashio. Investigators were able to reach the village only one month after the incident and were able to interview some villagers, but none of the 48 soldiers stationed nearby. We saw harrowing photos of the teachers’ dead and mutilated bodies. Their hands had been slashed to the bone, ostensibly with machetes, possibly by the military, to check that they were not playing dead. That is how brutal and savage such killings are. For that not to be investigated properly is an absolute scandal.
We met Robert San Aung, who is dealing with U Gambira, a former Buddhist monk who was a leader of the saffron revolution and an outspoken voice for religious freedom, who was arrested on his return to Burma for illegal entry. There are many other such cases. People have got six-month and nine-month prison sentences simply for sharing stories on Facebook, for instance. People talk about too many cases of the police abusing their power of arrest for the purposes of their own influence, and they talk about judicial corruption and constitutional abuse. Power needs to be exercised out in the villages and towns to open things up. We heard from a civil activist:
“Democracy has only reached the upper levels—the regional and township levels—but we need to reach the local level and elect local leaders.”
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He mentions democracy having reached the upper levels. Does he agree that it is absolutely essential that the Burmese people at ground level see the benefits of the transition, and that they need to see the assistance of the west in trying to deliver on-the-ground democracy and tolerance and respect for all?
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman makes a vital point. Daw Suu is insistent that her MPs work in their constituencies to make sure they are seen to be working for the people who elected them. I know that the Department for International Development is doing a lot of work on democracy building. It is fantastic that Mr Speaker and many other Members here are helping directly, and it is vital that people on the ground see that work and see how it benefits them.
As I said earlier, it is not for us to tell the people of Burma how to run their country or their legal system. However, we are critical friends, and we should raise points where we can. Imagine if the boot were on the other foot. People complain about the possibility of President Obama telling us what we might do in the European Union referendum. Frankly, I am more interested in how Narendra Modi came over here, extended the hand of friendship and talked about partnerships and working together as equals. We will have such opportunities in Burma. There can be further work by DFID and by Parliament, and hopefully there will be opportunities for trade in the future. When I was over there, it was fantastic to see Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon visiting Yangon as part of a regional tour to talk about opportunities for transport infrastructure.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am enjoying listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He is absolutely right about the rule of law. Unfortunately, Burma comes in the top or bottom quartile, depending on which way we look at it, of the most corrupt countries in the world. Although it is not up to the UK to tell Burma how to run itself, how does the hon. Gentleman think we can best help it get rid of corruption?
Paul Scully
I would look to the example of places such as Bangladesh. It is not a perfect country by any stretch of the imagination, but look at how it has moved on from being a corrupt state. Opportunities for business are starting to open up there as people realise that the level of corruption is unsustainable. A lot of investment has been coming into Burma from China, but it is starting to realise that cheap is not always best and that, frankly, China has little regard for the country—it has regard for the dollar and the kyat. Burma is looking to the west for investment and knows that for that to happen it will have to open up and tackle corruption. Hopefully we can help.
I want to put on record my thanks to Andrew Patrick, our ambassador in Burma, Gavin McGillivray, the head of the Department for International Development over there, and Kevin Mackenzie from the British Council. I also thank the many different people I met who spoke so eloquently and articulately. It gives me such hope for the future to know that a new generation is coming through. The politicians in Burma—Daw Suu and her colleagues—have been elected with their own vision. I hope that we can support them, but we must also let them deliver their vision. We should see how we can help them and then get in there and support them as partners. We want to be able to trade and do geopolitical work in that really important part of south-east Asia. I am looking forward to a constructive debate and would welcome the Minister’s comments on the points I have raised.
Several hon. Members rose—
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that I shall call the three Front Benchers for the wind-ups at 10.30 am. The Minister might like to give Mr Scully a couple of minutes to sum up at the end, if possible. A number of Members have indicated that they would like to speak. If they keep their speeches to around six minutes, we can get everyone in. Another Member has asked to speak and will be joining us later.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for securing this important debate. I also pay tribute to the Minister, who I think is the longest-serving Minister with this brief, so it is great to see him here. He has done his job very well. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), has really taken Burma to her heart and turned up at all the relevant debates.
The recent trip to Burma by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam must have been incredibly emotional. He went with Ben Rogers from Christian Solidarity Worldwide; anyone who has read Ben’s book would be astounded at how he has managed to slip into and out of Burma for so long. At least now, under a new democracy, he is able to travel freely. His book is almost like a James Bond novel.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union held a very important meeting with a top-level group of former Ministers. I am sorry that I could not be a member of the UK delegation, which was led by the former Member for Sheffield Heeley, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Norwich North (Chloe Smith.
There are lots of phrases we can use to describe the situation there, but Burma is on the edge of a new era. For the first time in more than 50 years, a civilian President has been elected, and Daw Suu is now in the Burmese Cabinet. Think back and reflect on her incredible journey. She returned to Burma to look after her mother. Both her parents are now dead. She was separated from her young children. She could not say goodbye to her husband when he was dying. Now, because of some petty little rule, she cannot take her place as President, but she is there in the Cabinet, serving her country.
Hers was an incredible journey. All of us sitting here in a democracy know we are lucky when we think of the terrible things she had to face. She was under house detention and in jail, and there were threats to her life, but she had the incredible courage to stand in front of the military—almost like standing in front of the tanks. We saw pictures beamed across the world of her confronting the military with no fear whatever—I am not sure I could have done that. She has been on an incredible journey and has now turned her country into an overwhelming democracy.
Nevertheless, the military still have that 25% of seats: it is like someone having two arms and two legs, but one arm tied behind their back. That is why the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is right that we need to support Burma, with human rights and the rule of law at the heart of its democracy, but at the same time allow it to make mistakes and to move on and form a democracy in its own way, making its own compromises. We must be careful of how we raise the issues and ensure that we are helping Burma, as we have done throughout. I was delighted when the Burmese Government’s first move was to establish an Ethnic Affairs Ministry; the President said that that will be one of the most important things at the heart of their Government.
There also needs to be a truth and reconciliation forum. Whether or not it is something that our Government could help with, and whether or not it is done under the auspices of the United Nations or the EU, it is very important to do it. Perhaps the elders have a role to play. It seemed to work in South Africa, and I think Burma needs something similar to move on. Perhaps members of such a forum could include the heads of, or representatives from, all the religions. The Rohingya have to be part of it; they have to be able to tell their story. Another major issue is that of internally displaced people. Whether they are Rohingya or other people, we have to help them to go back to their villages. Many of them are still living in poverty. The non-governmental organisations have to have an opportunity to provide humanitarian aid to all those internally displaced people.
There has been a long-standing debate, with the Burma Campaign UK raising issues that sometimes many of us who are elected find difficult to raise. Its current campaign, to which I am a signatory—I encourage all Members to become signatories—is called “Standing with the women of Burma to end rape and sexual violence”. Some 110 high-profile women have already signed up to it, and it would be nice to see more signatories.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the atrocity involving the two Baptist teachers in Kachin state. What of the grandmother, Ngwa Mi, who was sheltering in a church? They beat her and gang-raped her. She is now back in her village, but is understandably mentally unstable. How can someone ever deal with something like that? Will the Minister ensure that the UK Government direct their assistance to those women and give them help and support to rehabilitate them? They are survivors, and they are very strong. The former Foreign Secretary, William Hague, was very active on Burma. A Burmese delegation came in 2014 and we met them at a brilliant round-table event set up by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It would be nice for some of that effort and initiative to be directed to help those women.
We have an important role to play as part of the international community. We cannot stand by and see atrocities happen; we cannot stand by and see the rule of law broken or human rights abused. This is a global issue. Wherever we see injustice, we have to raise it. International pressure is important. Rather than try to influence particular pieces of Burma’s legislation, will the Minister make representations that the 2008 constitution in Burma be amended so that the guarantee of impunity for military perpetrators is removed? We also have to keep up the international pressure to remove the rule that somebody cannot become President if they have children who were born outside the country.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I were part of a Speaker’s delegation to that country, and we met some very brave women. I hope the Minister will make representations to ensure that women become an equal part of life in Burma. Whether it is in politics or through NGOs, their voices must be heard. The hon. Lady will remember the lovely children we saw going to school—that is where they should be—wearing backpacks with the United Nations logo stamped on the back. Hopefully, in years to come, we will ensure that they end up in school without needing that logo. We want those children to grow up not knowing hatred or judging people on the basis of their religion. They must have mercy and compassion for each other and use their talents for a new Burma.
Pope Francis has declared to all Christians that this year is an extraordinary jubilee of mercy. How fitting it would be for Burma to become the embodiment of equality, justice and peace.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on securing this debate, which allows us, like the hon. Lady, to celebrate this opportunity, to express our hopes and to talk about how we can help that extraordinary country with its challenges.
I want to talk about the work that I was part of in February at the behest of the United Nations Development Programme and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in association with various Departments and UK Aid. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I were led by Meg Munn, a former Member. We were part of a multinational, cross-party group of MPs from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Hong Kong and elsewhere, which helped to train the newly elected MPs in Myanmar.
The challenge of working with a military quota in that Parliament has already been mentioned, but I want to offer some optimism based on what I saw of MPs of all parties. There is a wide range of parties, given the ethnic situation, but I hope that they will be willing and able to work with each other across those divides. It will be new for them, but, as has already been said, the situation in Myanmar is almost entirely new. Although it is the second Hluttaw, or Parliament, in official terms, this is the first opportunity they have had to work together constructively, and we wish them all luck with that. We helped them to develop the skills they need to do that. We chose the themes of scrutiny, accountability and representation, which are bread and butter to us—we are very grateful for that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said, we have the privilege to take our places in an established democracy. It is an entirely different situation in Myanmar. I was glad to help those MPs to develop the skills that they require to perform their work.
Our training took place over a week and was delivered to about 400 MPs—that is, most of the MPs in Myanmar. As anybody who has done professional training knows, it is hard to train 400 people in any context. We had a blend of plenary work and speeches on the chosen themes, and we used examples from the countries represented in the delegation. To echo what the hon. Member for Walsall South said, we did not try to tell them how to do it. Instead, we offered examples of how we have seen it done in our countries. We supplemented the plenary sessions with a workshop approach. Each international facilitator worked with about 40 Myanmar MPs, which allowed us to go into a level of detail that was inspiring to me and everyone else involved. I hope it was constructive and detailed enough to encourage the Myanmar MPs to begin to think about how to apply those techniques.
We went into detail on subjects such as how a parliamentary question should be put and how constituency matters should be run, which is a brand new concept for many of those MPs. There will be some logistical challenges, but we gave them some ideas about how they can structure that work. We drew heavily on resources that are typically found in Parliaments. It is important that this Parliament continues to provide that support. The Clerks have already been mentioned, and the Library service is sharing skills, techniques and resources in a way that I hope will allow that fledgling democracy to take root.
During that week, we received a warm welcome from the Myanmar people—from the MPs and from the translators and interpreters, who were passionately keen to see the project succeed. They were touched by the friendship of other countries. They are all involved in that project. I hope that people outside those parliamentary circles will be able to draw on that friendship and support in the knowledge that others are looking at Burma and wishing it well. I hope they will be able to draw on that in the years to come.
There is great diversity and strength among that group of MPs. I am sure it will be the foundation of a thriving democracy if they can apply those skills to the country’s many policy challenges. Among the group were men and women. There are some very impressive new women MPs, who knew what they had to contribute, and young MPs. As the chair of the all-party group on youth affairs, I was keen to share my thoughts with them about how they can inspire young democrats in their country.
I am grateful to have had the chance to put on the record my reflections on that work. I hope to help the cross-party spirit in this Chamber to do more in the future.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on securing this important debate. The last time we met in Westminster Hall, we were on different sides of the debate about the Government’s threshold for the tier 2 visas, but it is clear that there is a lot of consensus today. I pay tribute to the passion and commitment that he has brought to this issue, which was reflected in his speech.
This is an important and timely debate. The National League for Democracy is preparing to take power in Burma on 1 April, following the elections last November. I will be brief, because other Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has joined us, want to speak. I want to reflect on a few issues that have already been mentioned: the opportunities following the election, the issues facing the Rohingya people and the use of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war, which the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) spoke about.
I, too, pay tribute to Aung San Suu Kyi. I remember as a youngster learning about the situation in Burma on “Newsround”. My parents had to explain the concept of house arrest to me. At the time, getting to hang around the house and not having to go to school seemed like quite a good idea. In reality, it is a very difficult situation. Aung San Suu Kyi lived with it for 15 years and remained a champion for justice and democracy throughout that time, so she deserves our respect and the tributes that have been paid to her.
In 2012, Aung San Suu Kyi was the first non-head of state to address Parliament in Westminster Hall. Mr Speaker, in his own lyrical way, described her as
“the conscience of a country and a heroine for humanity”.
That is a good way of encapsulating the fact that peaceful protest can eventually make progress to where we are today, with an elected Parliament in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi herself as an elected Member, and a new President. That should be an inspiration to others fighting for democracy and freedom under repressive regimes elsewhere.
I pay tribute, too, to others who have fought for justice in Burma, not least the Burma Campaign, which provided useful background information for the debate. The Burma Campaign was supported by my former employers, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, which has also provided support to the people of Burma. It is now providing support to refugee children in the border areas, with the Jesuit Refugee Service. Mention has been made of Cardinal Bo, and I am looking forward to meeting and hearing from him when he visits Parliament later this year, in May.
The elections are, of course, the beginning and not the end of the story. The newly elected Government now have to live up to the promise. There is a role for the military, which must respect the dismantlement of the junta and not seek to overrule the elected Government, ensuring a clear separation between the military and the state. A lot of the challenges, as we have heard, can be seen in the challenges facing the Rohingya community. The measure of a democracy is how well minorities are treated and respected, and the Rohingya people are a minority whose religion is not recognised, let alone their citizenship.
I attended an Adjournment debate led by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that highlighted the migration crisis—not something that is restricted to Europe, because there is a migration and refugee crisis in that part of Asia as well, of which the Rohingya community forms a substantial part. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch has stated that human rights violations against the Rohingya meet, in its reckoning, the legal definitions of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In the Scottish National party, therefore, we support the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK in its call for action against hate speech and the extremists, the removal of restrictions on international aid in Rakhine state, the reform of the 1982 citizenship law, and a credible independent investigation, with international experts, into the charges of ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and possible genocide.
Related to that is the broader need to tackle sexual and gender-based violence, especially the use of rape as a weapon. The continuing reports of increasing rape and sexual violence by the military are deeply concerning. Sexual violence seems to have been used as a weapon of the Burmese army for decades as part of its warfare against minority groups in the country. It has to be tackled.
I pay tribute to the campaign in which 110, or 111, women, including my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), made a declaration on International Women’s Day calling for an investigation into rape and sexual violence by the Burmese military; an end to the impunity with which it seems to be carried out; support for the victims; the inclusion of women at every political level in Burma, including the peace negotiations between the Burmese Government and the ethnic armed groups; and for Burma’s rape law to be brought into line with international human rights standards that outlaw rape in marriage.
As part of the UK Government’s preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, many countries around the world have signed up to that declaration to end rape and sexual violence in conflict. The declaration contains practical and political commitments to end impunity and promote accountability. We call on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to consider how that programme can be extended in Burma and to provide more support to the Government there to ensure that the PSVI principles make progress.
To allow time for others to speak, I will leave it at that. I echo the positive tone of optimism that we heard from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and other speakers. Progress towards democracy is clearly being made in Burma, but it needs support. I hope that today’s debate demonstrates some of that support and that, when we hear from the Minister, he will demonstrate what support the UK Government will provide.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Fifteen minutes remain and three Back-Bench Members are waiting to speak, so you can do the maths.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I join my colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on his eloquent speech and on his close and direct interest in Burma, which he has shown since he entered the House. That has been most welcome, especially by those of us who have had an interest for some years.
I welcome, too, the long-awaited democratic elections, which recently took place, and I join my colleagues in praising the bravery of millions of Burmese citizens who campaigned for decades, often at great personal cost, for liberty and democracy in their country.
I also join my colleagues in thanking the staff of this House who have been out to Burma, certainly since the visit of the Speaker’s delegation in 2013, which included me and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). We learnt, including directly from Aung San Suu Kyi, how much the Burmese wanted and invited help with such issues as library facilities and research resources. It is to be commended that some of our staff went there—at least one for well over a year, away from home and family—
Fiona Bruce
Indeed, almost two years—to provide substantial help. I want to recognise that Mr Speaker has stayed true to his word, which he gave on that delegation, that we would provide help.
I am encouraged by the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) on how much constructive help has been given to the MPs in Burma—again much needed. When we were there, they were quite surprised to hear that we went back to our constituencies every week. I remember providing a modest training session on Select Committees—again with the hon. Member for Walsall South—and people were surprised, because in this country Select Committees are not given the subject that they are to look into by the Government and, once they have looked into it, do not submit their report to the Government to be checked before it is published. I am encouraged that there has been a great deal of progress, so I commend my hon. Friend and the others involved.
As we are joyful, so we are cautious. Burma remains a nation in a delicate state. Hate speech, religious intolerance and the powerful remnant of the military still threaten to slow or prevent the next stage of Burma’s growth. As we speak, forces continue to destabilise and halt the hard-won progress to date. The delicate balance of joy and caution is summed up in the words of the moderate Cardinal Bo, who has already been mentioned in the debate. He is a greatly respected and long-standing champion of human rights in Burma. He said:
“My country is emerging from a long night of tears and sadness into a new dawn...But our young democracy is fragile, and human rights continue to be abused and violated.”
We rightly extend our support, therefore, to Aung San Suu Kyi and the new President, U Htin Kyaw, who face the challenge of nurturing the fragile democracy. Even as we speak, nationalists have been protesting against the appointment of Vice-President Henry Van Thio, because he is a Christian and a member of the Chin ethnic group. The ultra-nationalists find it an offence that a member of another religion and of a minority group should be in a position of such authority.
That is an important example to dwell on, because freedom of religion and belief has been under extreme pressure in recent decades in Burma. Minorities of all religions have suffered, as well as Buddhists, who stood up to the state-sponsored interpretations of Buddhism that we have heard about. So we celebrate the appointment of Henry Van Thio, and we hope that he will be a symbol of encouragement to many from the minorities in the country, who to date have been excluded from a voice in government.
Particularly persecuted, as we have heard, have been the Rohingya Muslims of Rakhine state. Previously, the regime promoted an ideology of hate that rejected the idea that Muslims could be fully Burmese, or that the Rohingya people had any right to live in the country. They were grievously targeted by military forces, and hundreds were killed and 140,000 reportedly displaced by violence in 2012. We need to ensure that they are given appropriate support and help.
Of comparable concern are the military offensives still being waged by the Burmese army against civilians in northern Shan and southern Kachin states. Gross violations of human rights have forced tens of thousands to flee, as we have heard. They either live as internally displaced persons, or IDPs, in dire conditions, or eke out a living as refugee migrants in other countries. In that context, I commend in particular the work of Baroness Cox from the other place and of her charity, HART, the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust.
HART has done great work to assist oppressed people in Burma and to bring that oppression and the violations of human rights to the attention of the wider world. I will refer to some of Baroness Cox’s work in more detail. In Burma, HART works to provide lifelines among the Shan, Karen, Chin and Karenni peoples. Shan Women’s Action Network—SWAN—runs health, education and women’s empowerment programmes. HART works only with local people, and through its remarkable work it is transforming in particular women’s perceptions of their roles in their communities—as the hon. Member for Walsall South mentioned, that is much needed—and enabling them to become strong agents of change. I want to extend my best to HART for that vital work in strengthening civil society.
If the good people of Burma are to realise their potential, it is critical that civil society is strengthened and encouraged, particularly at a time when concerns are increasingly being expressed about the shrinking space for it across the globe. I ask the Minister to consider how civil society can be supported. I commend him on his sincere personal commitment to Burma over many years. I know that he is a Foreign Office Minister, but may I request again that DFID looks at how it can support small charitable organisations such as HART? It receives no support from DFID and yet it reaches right to the heart of the issue in Burma, helping women in their local communities to make a real difference. There is much more that I would like to say, but time prevents that.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
David Burrowes will be followed by Mr Shannon. The Front-Bench speeches will start at 10.30 am.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for securing the debate and for giving such a personal, passionate and comprehensive speech, which really set the groundwork and showed the commitment of all of us across the House over many years to championing the cause of democracy in Burma. The path we are on is a good path. We can all take so much comfort that, at long last, there is a democratically elected Government. That brings great hope, but there are still such challenges.
As many will, I recall that, back on 21 June 2012—which interestingly was a Wednesday—Aung San Suu Kyi spoke just a few metres from this Chamber in Westminster Hall about her hopes that Burma would one day have Prime Minister’s questions like we have here, which would be more raucous and informal than is currently the fashion in Burma. Whether we really want her to have to face the full extent of Prime Minister’s questions, we look forward to the time when it is Aung San Suu Kyi at the dispatch box and she is free from the ridiculous constraints of the constitution and free to take up the formal leadership, for which obviously she already has a democratic mandate.
As has been mentioned, Daw Suu has also asked Britain to consider what it can do to help to build sound institutions needed to build a nascent parliamentary democracy. It is therefore welcome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and others have said, that our Parliament has stepped up and will continue to step up and work alongside those institutions.
When I visited Burma two years ago, I was humbled by the democratic warriors who have fought long and hard and paid the cost—some lost their liberty and others lost their lives—for the democracy that we take for granted. Those people, who have walked the walk for so many years, asked me to speak to them about how to build their democratic engagement. Their appetite for democracy is insatiable, it is growing and growing and it cannot be put back in the bottle. We need to do all we can to support them.
In the brief time I have available, I want to draw attention to the fact that my visit took me to the border areas. Burma is wonderfully diverse, but my visit revealed that what happens in Naypyidaw and the decisions taken there—indeed the influence of the NLD and Daw Suu—do not reach the border areas that have been in conflict for so long. We therefore need to recognise that, while there has been such great democratic progress, for those areas of conflict, where there is still evidence of landmine explosions, rape of women, indiscriminate killing of people and forced displacement, there is still a long way to go. Certainly, given that the Ministries of Defence, Home Affairs and Border Affairs are still directly under military authority and appointments are made by the commander in chief, we must do all we can to encourage change in that regard.
On 18 March in Geneva, the UN special rapporteur, Ms Yanghee Lee, highlighted the opportunities and hope, but also the challenges in relation to human rights. She properly drew attention to the fact that the new Government have
“an opportunity to break from the tragic status quo”.
She also recalled that 1 million Rohingya Muslims are deprived of basic fundamental rights and how progress needs to be made in removing restrictions on freedom of movement and in increasing support for groups working to build bridges between communities. We have heard about Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which is foremost in that work, but there are others and our country in particular, through DFID moneys and others, can help to support that.
I should highlight, as the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and others mentioned, sexual and gender-based violence. The PSVI initiative, championed by Lord Hague of Richmond, needs to continue. I would welcome him and others visiting again to see what progress needs to be made in that regard. There is hope and there are challenges, but we need to recognise that many in the IDP camps have been displaced for nearly three decades, so we need to see voluntary solutions for hundreds of thousands to be able to return. In the Kachin and northern Shan states, Christians have faced discrimination and persecution for many years. There are 4 million of them in those areas.
We need to recognise that the challenges also bring hope. There is an opportunity in Burma for progress in relation to respect for religious belief. It was welcome that at the UN a Catholic cardinal, a Buddhist monk and a Muslim activist stood together with one voice, saying, “We want a Burma that has equal rights for all, where all are protected without discrimination.” In the words of Cardinal Bo, who has been mentioned before:
“We have a chance—for the first time in my lifetime—of making progress towards reconciliation and freedom as a nation.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Owen, for giving me the chance to speak in this debate, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for making time for me. Members know that this issue is very close to my heart—I have spoken about it before—and I wanted to be here earlier, but I was unavoidably detained.
For decades, successive regimes and Governments in Burma have pursued a twin-track policy of impoverishment and human rights violations to attempt to wipe out the Rohingya community from Arakan state, which right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about. Human Rights Watch has stated that human rights violations against the Rohingya meet the legal definition of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The humanitarian crisis started when the Rohingya fled to camps in 2012, and senior members of the nationalist Arakan National Party continue to whip up hatred against them.
I am conscious that I can say only so much in the short time available. Under the current constitution, the Ministries of Home Affairs, Defence and Border Affairs must be filled by army representatives. I want to put on the record some of my concerns. Managing high expectations and maintaining party discipline will be a major challenge for the NLD. There is also a risk that, if the NLD Government challenge military interests too directly, army hard-liners will try to destabilise them.
The Minister is always responsive and I look forward to his comments. We have to take note of the Buddhist nationalist movement known as Ma Ba Tha, in which Buddhist monks play a leading role. During 2015, that movement managed to pass four race and religion protection laws, which are seen by opponents as highly discriminatory against non-Buddhists. The 1982 citizenship law denies the Rohingya rights, including freedom of movement and access to health and education services. There is no way that these issues can be avoided, and it would be much better for the NLD Government to deal with them at the start of their period in government, when they have a new and strong mandate and strong party unity, and elections are years away.
Members have referred to ongoing conflict between the Burmese army and ethnic armed political groups and I have to put my concerns on the record as well. The Burmese army has used rape and sexual violence against women for decades as part of its warfare against ethnic minority groups in the country. That cannot go on unspoken about. It is possible for the new Government to initiate a domestic investigation into rape and sexual violence by the Burmese army, ensure that support is available to victims, include women in peace negotiations and politics overall, and repeal the laws, such as the rape law, that discriminate directly against women. Let us do something constructive and positive about those things.
Open Doors lists Burma as the 23rd worst country in the world for the persecution of Christians. If you will bear with me, Mr Owen, I will take two minutes to give an example. Amod is a Christian convert from the Rohingya tribe. He described the double discrimination that he faces as a Christian in Burma in this way:
“The Muslims in the village still wanted to kill me. One day, they came to do just that. They attacked me but some believers shielded me from harm. Another night, Muslims surrounded my home while I was sleeping and pelted stones on our roof.”
Amod is on the run. He is from the Rohingya tribe and converted to Christianity after 33 years as a Muslim. Christians from the Rohingya tribe are doubly disadvantaged. The country refuses to acknowledge Rohingyas, saying they are Bengali immigrants. Bangladesh, on the other hand, says they are indigenous to Myanmar. In addition, the Rohingya tribe rejects Christians who have converted from Islam.
Amod applied for permission to create a church for Rohingya believers, but was refused. After that he was hounded so much that he eventually took his family to Bangladesh, but his life was no easier there. So with seven Christian Rohingya households they fled to India, where they continued to be pursued from town to town. Amod maintains his witness and pastors the families, who are now scattered. I conclude with that, and I thank Members again for the opportunity to participate in the debate.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your convenorship, Mr Owen. I commend the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for securing the debate, and for the deeply passionate and moving way in which, through his family’s experience, he brought the situation in Burma right into the Chamber. I commend the other speakers in the debate too; there has been a strong degree of consensus, and that is something that Burma’s new parliamentarians might want to pay attention to—that sometimes, when things really matter, even those whose views come from across the political spectrum and who come from a range of backgrounds and different parts of these islands can agree on the fundamentals. I think it was the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) who reminded us that, although we must respect the right of the people of Burma to settle their own future, there are issues on which there are no borders. Whether fundamental human rights are protected or abused is a question on which national borders do not exist. We have human rights because we are human. They can and must be respected equally for all 6 billion-plus of us who share this tiny corner of the solar system.
Other hon. Members have spoken powerfully about the apparent situation—incomprehensible to us—in which the constitution gives legal protection to mass rapists but does not recognise the victims even as citizens in their own country, and gives the army the right to take power any time it sees fit. The army has an absolute veto over any attempt to change the constitution and people’s rights depend on where their grandparents or great-grandparents came from, and their choice to worship whatever deity they believe in, or not to worship. We would all see those things as deeply troubling and a sign of a seriously backward society. However, we have to try to put ourselves into the mindset of those who are handing over power. From their point of view, Burma has been through a revolution in the past 10 years or so. They see themselves as having made huge concessions to the democracy movement, and we have to understand that, and recognise that from their point of view they are already reforming at a pace that some of their supporters would see as reckless. I cannot remember which hon. Member pointed it out, but some voices are being raised in Burma to say that it is unacceptable that someone from an ethnic minority should be allowed to become vice-president. Incidentally, trying to limit someone’s worthiness for public office on the basis of their ethnic origin is not nationalism, but racism, and we should not be afraid to describe and condemn it in those terms.
Rightly, much has been said about Aung San Suu Kyi, and there is something immensely inspirational about the fact that an army that is still effectively all-powerful has to change the rules to protect itself from a 70-year-old woman who does not carry a gun. It is an example that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has reminded us, is a shining light to all of us who believe in peaceful, democratic, lawful protest. Regardless of how powerful and well armed the forces of oppression might be, ultimately the voice of reason, reconciliation and peace will always come through. Perhaps, for those of us for whom this weekend holds particular significance, those thoughts are highly topical.
What do we want to happen next? We must continue to be a critical friend to the people of Burma and recognise that, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, there is a generation of Members of Parliament in Burma who do not know what a Parliament is. They got elected, and had never seen what a Parliament was and how it was supposed to behave. I am not sure that I would use Prime Minister’s questions as an example of the best of the traditions to implement, but even as a severe critic of this place I think there are aspects of the way the House operates that provide a good example to Burma and elsewhere.
We must remember that probably there is no one serving in the police force in Burma who has ever known a time when the police force was there to protect people rather than oppress them; there is no one left in the Burmese army who knows what armies and soldiers are supposed to be for. That is another way in which we and others can help to set an example. I should be interested to hear from the Minister what is happening or being planned with a view to UK and other European police and military forces helping to demonstrate, to those reluctant to hand over the reins of power in Burma, that when the army returns to serving its correct purpose of protecting rather than oppressing citizens and the police go back to upholding the rule of law equally for everybody they are held in higher esteem. There is no doubt that although the army is deeply feared in Burma, while it is not particularly feared here, our soldiers are much more respected than I suspect most soldiers are in Burma. That is not because of the power of the weapons they use, but because of the restraint with which they do not use them, and because although there are sometimes incidents that cannot be defended, the military forces in the United Kingdom and most other parts of the developed world publicly condemn any abuse of power by their serving officers, and ensure that those are investigated and the culprits dealt with under the law.
It is impossible to finish my speech without referring to the appalling abuse by the Burmese army of the human rights of a generation of women and girls. There are no words that can describe the revulsion we feel at reports that a mother is forced to watch her 12-year-old daughter being gang raped by soldiers who are effectively immune from ever being held to account for their crimes. We have to make sure that those who will be in charge of the Burmese army in the near future fully understand that that kind of behaviour cannot be condoned or accepted.
Fiona Bruce
Would the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that it is important that small charities working at grassroots level to support women in Burma, such as the one I mentioned, HART, should be supported in turn by DFID? We need DFID to look more widely at supporting small charities that make a difference on the ground.
Peter Grant
I appreciate that that is a subject close to the hon. Lady’s heart. What I will say is that there are certainly occasions when organisations at arm’s length or independent from Government, which will not be seen to be interfering on behalf of another Government, are what is needed. Also, sometimes smaller organisations can be closer to the people they are trying to support. Whether their funding is best coming from DFID or elsewhere may not be for me to comment on.
Jim Shannon
I think it is important for the House to reiterate the point that wearing an army or police uniform does not give someone the right to abuse, rape or violently attack a girl or a lady. What we need, I respectfully say to the Minister, is to put that forward to the Burmese Government and ensure that they understand that it is morally and globally wrong, and they have got to stop it.
Peter Grant
Absolutely; I do not think anyone in this House or in the other place along the corridor would disagree with a word of that. I would apply the same to Members of Parliament and those elected to high office; we should see ourselves as elected to positions of responsibility rather than positions of power or influence. That, again, may be an example that we will have to continue to present to colleagues who have been elected to serve in the Burmese Parliament.
As has been said, Burma is going into a period of enormous optimism. There will be setbacks and problems. It is not all going to happen peacefully and quietly. I hope that not only the Government but parliamentarians and the rest of civil society in the United Kingdom and elsewhere will offer a helping hand where possible, so that the next generation of Burmese police officers, parliamentarians and soldiers understand that they are there to protect the rights of a flourishing democracy, and not to oppress it.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
There is going to be a minute’s silence at 11 o’clock, at the end of this debate and before the next one begins, for those killed in Brussels. If it is confirmed that the whole House and estate are doing that, Members may stay for it.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. May I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on securing this important debate? Members may wish to know that at my daughter’s secondary school, she is in Aung house. It is lovely to be able to explain to her and the other girls why their house is named after Aung San Suu Kyi.
I, too, have met Ben Rogers; I loved his book and read it during my Christmas break. It is clear from his book and from the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide that Burma is a difficult place geographically, because so much happens in villages and it is difficult to scrutinise things happening a long way away. That presents us with a real problem in tackling human rights issues. Although we are all well apprised of what is happening with the Rohingya people, what is happening to other minority groups is less well known. Christian Solidarity Worldwide and other groups can perhaps help us understand the fuller picture of what is happening in Burma.
It has been fabulous to hear such a great range of voices today, and to hear about the trip that colleagues undertook to discuss parliamentary business. The hon. Members for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke of the training courses they undertook with local parliamentarians in Burma-Myanmar and how exciting it was to hear about the experience of new MPs there. They also spoke about how we can take over all the knowledge about how we manage our constituencies here, which enriches the work of Burma’s Parliament.
I was delighted to hear the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) about corruption. We have not really touched on that sufficiently in this debate, but perhaps there is a separate piece of work that we could undertake on it, because it is crucial. British businesses going into Burma in the coming years must be aware of the corruption problems in Burma and, indeed, other countries. Our approach to foreign policy must be balanced. It is important that we have trade at the centre of our foreign policy, but it is also crucial that we tackle difficult and entrenched issues such as corruption, human rights abuses and the repression of certain minority groups.
I appreciated hearing from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) about how difficulties with citizenship hold back Burmese members of Parliament from taking on their roles. I thank him for his speech. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the particular issues facing Christians and the testimonies of girls who have been abused in churches, which is a doubly awful situation. I have read such terrible stories myself, having been involved in the work of Burma Campaign UK to end rape and sexual violence.
It was good to hear the hon. Member for Congleton focus on the Shan women, who face particular issues that go right into the heart of their villages, and to hear the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) talk about the basics—the things that we take for granted that need to be worked towards in Burma. Indeed, the Parliament there has had the support of our Speaker for many years, and it is exciting to see the fruit of that coming to bear, with our own parliamentarians going abroad and making sense of the reality there.
I want to focus on Burma Campaign UK’s pledge to end rape and sexual violence. We have heard some stories, and we have read about the two Kachin teachers aged 20 and 21 who were raped in Kaunghka village, in northern Shan state. No one has yet been charged or put on trial for that crime. Originally, when the former Foreign Secretary, with the support of Ms Jolie, made a big push on sexual violence, it took quite a bit of pressure to get Burma on to the list of countries that were going to be focused on. I am pleased that we eventually got Burma on to that list back in 2012, but it is a country that sometimes suffers from not being in the limelight enough. That is why it is special that Members have taken such an interest in it. While many countries immediately came to mind, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it took quite a while to get Burma on to the list of countries that the then Foreign Secretary was going to focus on. I make a plea to the Minister today that he focuses on the role of women and girls, as we know from DFID’s important work over the years that educating women has a long-term effect.
The pledge to which many of us have signed up calls for an investigation into rape and sexual violence, particularly involving the military. We heard a good intervention on that from the hon. Member for Strangford. It also calls for an
“end to impunity for rape and other forms of sexual violence”
and “support for victims”. We could do a lot to provide such support, hopefully through the DFID budget—for example, helping those with post-traumatic stress disorder and providing counselling and confidence building, which we know are crucial for women who are survivors of sexual violence. The pledge supports the
“inclusion of women at every political level in Burma including the peace negotiations between the Burmese government and the ethnic armed political groups”,
between which there is tension. Finally, the pledge calls for Burmese law
“to be in line with international human rights standards to outlaw rape in marriage.”
Those are the five elements of the pledge that we have signed up to, and I look forward to the Minister confirming that he will redouble his efforts to put them at the top of the agenda when speaking to Burmese Ministers.
I emphasise the importance of a rounded foreign affairs policy. We would like to see a much more high-profile debate on human rights as well as trade. There is a triangle of national security, human rights and trade, and the last two sometimes tend to be less high-profile.
We have not debated press freedom enough today. It is difficult to put that on an agenda between Governments, because it is about freedom, but allowing press freedom is a crucial part of knowing what is happening in terms of human rights. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the punishment that is meted out to people who use Facebook. Finally, if the Minister would be so kind, I would like him to mention the anti-corruption stream.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on securing the debate. I thank him for his personal insight, which always gives flavour to a debate, following his recent and, I think, first visit to the land of his forebears. Many Members of both Houses have close personal connections to, and a close interest in, Burma; he probably has the closest connection to Burma, in many ways. Many Members who have spoken this morning have been following developments in that country for many years, which has provided a good repository of knowledge and understanding in the House—perhaps more than of any other country. I welcome that, as it helps to better inform debate.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) has also just returned, with a number of colleagues, from Naypyidaw. I was not quite sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam meant when he said that every Member of Parliament could have an office in Naypyidaw. Was he suggesting that when we come to refurbish this place, we should model it on Naypyidaw? I do not imagine he was. The chances of having a 20-lane highway while the Mayor of London is around, unless it is for cyclists, are rather small.
This debate comes at a remarkable time for Burma. Last Tuesday, President U Htin Kyaw became the first civilian head of a democratically elected Government there for more than 50 years. Next week, his National League for Democracy Government will finally take power. That is the culmination of a lifetime’s effort by many committed individuals and lobbyists who have worked tirelessly and courageously for democracy. More than 100 of the NLD MPs in the new Parliament have endured long spells in prison. Others who have supported the cause of democracy have not only paid with their freedom; some have paid with their lives.
Clearly, however, the person who has been central in this unfolding drama and in bringing Burma to this point is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. She has consistently shown courage, determination and dignity in the face of challenges that most of us would have found impossible to bear. It is regrettable that a flawed constitution has prevented her from becoming President. We are aware of rumours about what her role will be in the new Government. Such rumours are at present purely speculative until the Cabinet is officially named; we expect that announcement tomorrow.
Credit is also due to the outgoing Administration, who planned and initiated the reforms. Although there is clearly still a very long way to go, their efforts deserve to be recognised, particularly the peaceful and orderly conduct of the elections last November.
At the start of the reform process in 2011, it would have seemed impossibly ambitious to suggest that the political landscape in Burma, and the lives of millions of Burmese citizens, could change so dramatically in just a few years. I am proud of the important role that the United Kingdom has played in that. Through our policy of constructive engagement with the Burmese authorities, we have supported and encouraged positive change in many areas. We have sought to nurture Burma’s growing desire to return to the international community after years of isolation, repression and dictatorship. I very much welcome the moves by Mr Speaker, Clerks and Officers of the House and all the organisations that are helping the democracy-building process, which, as hon. Members have said, is much needed.
Some questioned our policy. Even six months ago, some Burma watchers predicted that the elections would not be allowed to happen, that they would be heavily rigged, or that the NLD would never be allowed to take power. Others dismissed our approach as the path of least resistance, but that, of course, was not the case at all. It has demanded time, effort and resources here in London, in Burma and throughout our diplomatic network, and I very much welcome and appreciate the nice, kind and appropriate comments that have been made about our ambassador and his team in Rangoon. It has required frank conversations in Rangoon and Naypyidaw, and I believe that our policy is now beginning to bear fruit.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) spoke about defence engagement. Our engagement with the Burmese military has quite properly come in for particular scrutiny and comment. Not all of it has been either particularly informed or positive, but given Burma’s history I can understand that. As I have repeatedly said, real and lasting change will only come through engaging the Tatmadaw as they move towards reform and through showing them how modern militaries should operate in a modern democratic state—not by criticising them and isolating them from afar, as we did for so many years previously. Under the NLD Government, the military will still hold a quarter of the seats in Parliament, as has been pointed out. They will continue to control three important Ministries and hold an effective veto on constitutional change, so it will remain vital to continue that engagement—indeed, to step it up—with the full agreement of the new Government.
Our work with the military will continue to focus on their role in a democratic system. We would welcome their participation in civilian-led educational courses, such as with the Royal College of Defence Studies. Our engagement will include vital education on the rule of law and human rights, and particularly on countering the recruitment and use of child soldiers and combating sexual violence in conflict. None of that will increase the combat capacity of the Burmese military.
In a written statement to the House, I said that the parliamentary elections represented
“a victory for the people of Burma.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 25W.]
They were indeed an important victory, but they do not mark the end of Burma’s reform process. The work of transformation continues and will demand our support. That is why the Prime Minister has spoken to Daw Suu since the elections and offered whatever assistance she and her Government need as they set about tackling the many serious challenges that lie ahead—not least, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, that of corruption.
Challenges remain, including consolidating the democratic transition, energising the peace process, reforming the justice and security sectors and managing the economy for the many, not the few. We are already engaging with the incoming Administration as they prepare for office. When the time comes, we will be ready to respond with practical assistance in support of their priorities.
One of the challenges facing the incoming Government will be tackling the issue of Rakhine and addressing the appalling situation of the Rohingya community there, which we have discussed an enormous number of times in the House. Although much of Burma has greatly benefited from the reform process, the same cannot be said of Rakhine’s Rohingya minority. Large numbers of Burmese turned out across the country in November to vote and to signal their desire for future democratic change. However, the Rohingya were disfranchised for the first time in a Burmese general election. That exclusion, in the face of international concern—led not least by the United Kingdom—is a stark symbol of the extent to which they have been stripped of the most basic human rights and freedoms. We do not underestimate the complexity and sensitivity of the Rohingya issue, but we are equally clear that the incoming Government must begin to address the immediate needs of the Rohingya: improved security, relaxation of the restrictions on movement and a pathway to citizenship.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about religious freedom, as he often does. As well as Rakhine, the new Government face a number of other deep-seated human rights issues: dealing with the remaining political prisoners, managing the recent increase in tensions between Muslim and Buddhist communities and, as he pointed out, the growth of nationalist organisations such as Ma Ba Tha. It is also important that they engage in a wide-ranging programme of judicial and legislative reform. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) is meeting Cardinal Bo in May, and I hope to do the same.
The challenges remain significant, and we should not underestimate them. However, Aung San Suu Kyi has consistently championed the rule of law, and with more than 100 former political prisoners now National League for Democracy MPs, the new Government will want to take early action to tackle these issues. We will continue to provide support and encouragement across the human rights agenda. We will do so directly through technical advice, programmes and projects, as well as with international partners and through bodies such as the UN and the EU.
The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) talked about conflict-related sexual violence. We will continue to promote our efforts to tackle that following the visit that we supported last year of Angelina Jolie Pitt, the special envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. When I was in Rangoon on 27 July last year, I was pleased to launch the international protocol on the documentation and investigation of sexual violence in conflict, which is something we care very much about. The hon. Lady also talked about women playing a greater role in Burma—of course they should—and said that their voices should be heard. What better way to start than at the top, with Daw Suu, probably one of the greatest female icons that there has ever been?
The peace process will rightly be another priority for the incoming Government. Outgoing President Thein Sein and his Government can be commended for the progress that they oversaw, which culminated last October in the signing of the nationwide ceasefire agreement by eight ethnic armed groups. However, we are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge facing the Government in reinvigorating that process and achieving a lasting peace. Ensuring that the remaining groups sign up to the process and agree an enduring political settlement will require considerable energy and efforts early in the new Government’s term.
I am conscious that I should leave two minutes for my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, who secured and opened the debate. This is a moment when the United Kingdom can take stock of the situation in Burma. It is not going to be easy from now on. We have come through a very difficult period. The military retain their role, and the new Government are coming in and face many challenges. Managing expectations is going to be incredibly important. We have consistently supported the process and can take some credit for getting them to where they are, but our work has not stopped and now has to be redoubled in all areas.
I am most grateful to hon. Members across the House, because this is not an issue that divides us politically, and I urge them to maintain their vigilance and their support for a country that is in a very difficult period and process.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the Minister. Mr Scully has a few seconds left to wind up.
Paul Scully
Thank you, Mr Owen. Frankly, I could have spoken for the full 90 minutes, so I thank all Members who have spoken—many of whom are long-standing campaigners for the country—for sparing you that prospect.
My visit was emotional, not just for my family but because when I was there I realised that in this transition, I can make a difference, and we, Parliament, can make a difference. That prospect is really exciting. I thank everybody very much for their contributions to the debate and I look forward to continuing support for Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the political situation in Burma.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. I invite colleagues to join me in observing a minute’s silence in memory of the victims of the Brussels terrorist attacks.
A one-minute silence was observed.
Legal Guardianship and Missing People
(8 years 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
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered legal guardianship and missing people.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I want to put on the record that all our prayers and thoughts across the House are with those affected by the horrific events in Brussels yesterday morning.
It must be devastating when a loved one goes missing without any explanation or reason. We can only imagine the trauma and turmoil that brings to their families and friends. It is the sort of life-changing event that can be truly understood only by those unfortunate enough to experience it first hand, like my constituent, Peter Lawrence, whose daughter, Claudia, went missing on her way to work in York way back in 2009.
The uncertainty of a loved one going missing for weeks, months or even years on end is in itself devastating, but the practical implications cause unnecessary stress and challenges to their families. At present, when someone goes missing there is no legal authority in place to support families in dealing with their loved one’s affairs. Ownership and control of their property is effectively left in limbo until they are found or declared presumed dead, which happens only after seven long years.
In its current form, the law dictates that a person is presumed alive until proven otherwise and they retain direct accountability for all their property and affairs as if they were not missing. There is no assumption that they have lost capacity to manage their estate. Clearly and sadly, this is not the case in reality. As it stands, the law has some very serious consequences when it comes to managing a missing person’s financial affairs. For example, families are left unable to make mortgage payments, risking repossession, and cannot cancel direct debits or ensure that creditors are paid.
If the missing person has dependents, this further complicates the matter and, as I am sure you can appreciate, Mr Owen, it is incredibly distressing to watch helplessly as the financial affairs of a friend or family member are ruined. That happens at a time of complete turmoil for the family. Understandably, third parties such as banks and other financial institutions require direct consent from their customers before they will act on their behalf. The fact that someone is missing clearly makes this impossible. We need greater clarity for families and third parties in managing these issues. I am pleased that this view is widely accepted by all parties and the Government.
Many people will be aware that last week marked the seventh anniversary of Claudia Lawrence’s disappearance, making this debate timely and an occasion to remember her and the thousands of other missing people in the UK. Claudia’s father, Peter Lawrence, has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of all families who suffer from having a mother, father, daughter or son go missing, and I think his work should be commended.
We still do not know what happened to Claudia, but Peter’s campaign to change the law to help families who find themselves in such an incredibly difficult situation is inspirational. He is in London again today, campaigning for the change. With the assistance of the Missing People charity, Peter played a key role in pressing the Government to consult on creating a new legal status of guardian of the property and affairs of missing people back in August 2014. I, with other Members of Parliament, interested groups and members of the public, contributed to the consultation.
Exactly a year ago, in March 2015, the Government published their response to the consultation. They expressed their strong support for this new legal status and committed to introducing primary legislation as soon as possible. That was welcomed by all at the time and was seen as a huge step forward in the campaign. None of us thought in March 2015 that we would be at the same point a year on. It is deeply disappointing that no significant progress has been made.
In January, I received a letter from Lord Faulks informing me that
“work is progressing on developing the draft legislation”.
That is all we have been told and we are not seeing any action.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Claudia Lawrence lived in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. As the Member for York Central, I am pleased to see her father in the Chamber today. He has been a real campaigner for missing people.
Would it not be expedient, as the forthcoming Queen’s Speech is so imminent, to bring in legislation on guardianship? We would love to see that in the Queen’s Speech to bring relief to families in sorting out the financial and property affairs of missing people.
Julian Sturdy
I agree entirely with my honourable neighbour, who is absolutely right. The debate is timely because we are six or eight weeks away from a Queen’s Speech, and that would be an ideal opportunity to see some progress on this important legislation.
[Mr James Gray in the Chair]
It is simply not good enough that, a year after promising action as soon as possible, we still have nothing to show the families who desperately need our help. Families continue to be unable to protect their missing loved one’s finances and property. It is unacceptable that no action is forthcoming and I call on the Minister today to commit to a clear parliamentary timetable for introducing this Bill.
When Claudia went missing in 2009, Peter soon discovered that he was powerless to act on behalf of his daughter. He was defeated by needless obstacles at every turn. The creation of a new legal guardianship status would allow families to act in the best interests of the missing person and give third parties the legal assurance that they need to help to resolve ongoing issues that are currently constrained by contract and data protection. The consultation paper proposed a system that is overseen by the Office of the Public Guardian and administered by the courts. Clearly, that will require detailed legislation that will need proper scrutiny before the House.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, which is very close to my heart. Richey Edwards of Manic Street Preachers fame disappeared and his sister, Rachel Elias, campaigned extensively for the Presumption of Death Act 2013, which was passed by the coalition Government. I am delighted to see Peter Lawrence, Claudia’s father, sitting here today, and I pay tribute to him for all the work he has done.
Has the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) studied the Australian model of the Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991? The legislation allows for an application to be lodged to the guardianship and management of property tribunal of the magistrates court to have someone appointed a manager to the property of a missing person. Has he thought about whether that type of legislation could be implemented here in the UK?
Julian Sturdy
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the Australian model, and that should form part of the process that I hope the Minister will follow. For me, we must ensure that we see progress—and quick progress—on the measures now. We have had the consultation. We have cross-party support. We need action.
Families have been waiting for years for protection, and the unnecessary delay in implementing the legislation will only prevent yet more families from doing what is right for their loved ones’ estates. I accept that parliamentary time can be in short supply and that many important Bills are currently progressing through the House. However, the fact remains that the Government promised to act as soon as possible. A year on, they have failed to deliver on that promise.
I quote from the Government’s own response to the consultation last year, which stated,
“given the importance of this measure and the strong support from all sides, legislation will be brought forward as soon as possible in the new Parliament.”
The proposals also have the support of the Justice Committee and the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults.
According to figures from Missing People, currently 2,215 adults across the country have been missing for more than three months. It is expected that between 50 and 300 applications for guardianship for missing people would be made each year under the new legislation. However, discussing the crisis in numbers overlooks the important impact—that behind each and every person are families and friendship groups suffering from uncertainty and the sad realisation that they are powerless to act.
It is next to impossible for me to comprehend what Peter has been through for the past seven years, as well as other families right across the country, as has been highlighted in the debate. I hope that we can all agree that it is essential that we offer every assistance we can. Disappearance can affect any family at any time across the country. It could be my family. It could be the Minister’s family. Any family in this room could go through this at some point in their lives. We all have a duty to ensure that the families of missing people do not have to deal with the additional stress and worry of not being able to protect their loved one’s property.
A year has now passed since the Government committed to creating a new legal status of guardian of the property and affairs of missing persons, yet we are no further forward in the process. The Government must now commit to a clear parliamentary timetable for delivering the changes, to help those families at a time when their world has simply been turned upside down. There is, as has been expressed, strong cross-party support for the measures, so there are no excuses. I am resolute in my view and will continue to lobby the Minister and the Government until families such as Peter’s get the change that is so desperately needed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. May I start by expressing, on behalf of the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, our condolences to the people of Belgium? It goes without saying that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them at this very difficult time.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government on this important issue. It is a technical issue when it comes to how we respond and reform the system, but one of heartfelt agony for the families who have to endure the predicament that my hon. Friend expressed so eloquently.
With that in mind, I pay tribute to those who have done so much to put and keep the subject on the agenda. They include, in the House, the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults, and the Justice Committee, which has called for reforms consistently in 2011 and 2012; and the charity Missing People, which has steadfastly campaigned on behalf of missing people and their families. I personally acknowledge the deep heartache of the many families involved, which lies beneath the technical details of the proposals that I will outline. It would be remiss of me to pass up the opportunity to pay particular tribute to Peter Lawrence and his family, who are constituents of my hon. Friend. I know that Mr Lawrence is here today, and I extend that recognition and tribute to him and his family.
Claudia Lawrence has now been missing for seven years, and I am pained every time I see or read about the case. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for her family and, of course, for others in the same position. I know that my hon. Friend and Mr Lawrence will be disappointed that we have not legislated sooner. I acknowledge that. All I can say is that we will do everything we can to progress the proposals into legislation. I am inspired by the example that Mr Lawrence and my hon. Friend have set in that regard. It is important, and I give an undertaking, to keep the case of Claudia and the many others like her whom I have learned about—and the human toll of those cases—at the forefront of my mind as we take forward the technical legal proposals.
At present, as has been recognised, the common law rather pragmatically assumes that a person is alive until proven dead. It can therefore be slow to enable control of a person’s property and affairs to be given up to another person following an unexplained disappearance. The truth is that that gives us all a degree of protection, but it also means that when a person disappears with no explanation, their friends and family are left to face the practical difficulties of protecting the interests of the missing person and carrying on with their lives, on top of the deep emotional and personal shock and the challenge of coping without that person at the heart of their lives.
Those left behind may have access to funds, perhaps in a joint account that was previously controlled by the missing person. However, without the good will of third parties, the chances are that they will not have access to, or the ability to control, the missing person’s assets, whether in cash or in kind. They may find themselves effectively in a legal vacuum or void. In practical terms, that may mean being unable to adjust standing orders with a bank, or something as simple as that. It may mean being unable to ensure proper care for dependants, or it may create complications for businesses that have to get on with their daily and monthly work. Joint mortgages may be rendered, in practice, effectively unmanageable. Lots of basic daily things become increasingly difficult to keep a handle on and to keep control of in such a legal vacuum.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing the debate. The Opposition wholeheartedly support the campaign by Mr Lawrence and Missing People. I have been through this myself. My uncle disappeared many years ago. He just walked out of our lives, and to this day we do not know what happened to him, which has made it very, very difficult to handle matters. This debate is close to my heart. I urge the Minister to proceed with the proposals as soon as possible and end the heartache.
I cannot imagine what you have been through, Mr Lawrence. My heartache pales into insignificance compared with yours.
Chris Evans
I have known the Minister a long time, and he will focus on this like a laser beam. When I was campaigning for a presumption of death Act back in 2011, Missing People said that the law is like crazy paving—that was the best way of describing it. There is no certainty, and people are looking to the Government for some form of certainty. I look for that assurance today.
Mr Raab
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the problem with which we are grappling. I understand that people want to hear assurances today, and I will do my level best. Of course, we acknowledge people’s predicament, and we want to do everything we can to help the families of missing people address the administrative problems that can make life even more piercingly difficult at such a traumatic time. It is estimated that there are a significant number of cases of disappearance each year in which there are sufficiently serious problems to make the appointment of a guardian a worthwhile option to have on the legislative table, so to speak.
The coalition Government consulted on the proposals to create a status of guardianship, and the response was published shortly before the 2015 general election. I reassure all Members that the Government are committed to pursuing the measure and getting it into law.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to the Minister. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this important debate. I understand that some 2,500 people could be helped by the proposals. I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Lawrence—Mrs Lawrence is a constituent of mine. They have kept hope alive for Claudia and they hope to help thousands of other people, and today they are hoping for a clear timetable. I know it is a question of finding time, but it is now time to make time for Claudia’s law.
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend has been a steadfast campaigner for this reform, and it is because of efforts such as his and those of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer that I believe we will be able to make progress.
I have mentioned the Government response to the consultation proposals, and the Government are committed to pursuing the measure. It is not, however, solely about creating a new status in law. We also need to be sure that, when the new system is introduced, there is a judicial and supervisory structure to support it. Putting someone in control of another person’s property is a significant and sensitive legal step that is not to be taken lightly. I am sure there is acknowledgment on both sides of the House that we need to get the detail of the proposals right, accurate and tailored in the right way to protect the interests of those directly affected—the families, first and foremost—and to preserve the integrity of the law as a whole. We need a framework in which the interests of the missing person, the families left behind and the third parties who deal with them are correctly calibrated and balanced.
It is wrong to say that progress has not been made. We are making progress, and I will briefly outline some of the key features of the proposed scheme on which we are actively working. First, guardians would be required to act in the best interests of the missing person. In that respect, there would be fiduciary-style duties. Secondly, guardians would be supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian and required to file accounts in much the same way as a deputy appointed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Thirdly, guardians would be appointed by a court on application by a person with a sufficient interest. That is important, because the appointment may be general, in which case the guardian would be able to do what the missing person could have done—they would effectively have a free hand, for want of a better technical term—or it could be limited in certain respects. It is right to have those options on the table.
Fourthly, anyone should be able to apply for appointment as a guardian, provided that he or she has a sufficient interest, which obviously would need to be carefully defined. We are looking carefully at that. We would also need to make sure that their interests did not conflict with those of the missing person. I suspect that we would envisage close family members, or professionals such as a solicitor or an accountant with the requisite familial support, being able to apply.
Fifthly, we envisage that a person should have been missing for a period of, say, at least 90 days before such an application could be made. I am interested in other thoughts on that, but we think 90 days is probably a broadly reasonable period. Finally, the appointment of a guardian should be for a period of up to four years, with the possibility of applying for an extension of another four years. That is a significant period but, ultimately, it would be a temporary provision.
There is obviously a lot of technical detail buttressing the bones of the proposals, and we will need to define in further detail the scope of the guardian’s responsibility, the imposition of appropriate duties on him or her, and the appropriate court procedures for the appointment of the guardian and for redress if the guardian’s conduct falls short of the required standards. There will need to be an adequate supervisory regime over the whole structure, capable of commanding public confidence as well as the confidence and buy-in of the families affected.
As has already been mentioned, there are precedents for such a status and model in legislation in other countries, including in Canada and Australia. Ireland is also currently considering legislation in this field, and we are carefully considering the different models on offer. Obviously, we want to tailor the proposals to ensure that we have the right regime for the legal system, the particular nature of the problems and the administrative aspects in this country. Our development and drafting work is not yet complete, but we are working to complete it as soon as practicable. Given the details that I have talked about, it is important to get it right. We are consulting parliamentary counsel, and we would not go down to that level of detail unless we were serious. I hope that gives some reassurance to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly to the campaigners and the Lawrence family.
We understand the importance of completing the legislation and getting it right, and it is worth saying that guardianship status is not the only measure that we are proposing to help those affected by the disappearance of an individual who is close to them. The Government are also reviewing the missing children and adults strategy, which was originally published in 2011. We are engaging with stakeholders, including Missing People, to update the guidance on cases of children and adults who go missing. That updated strategy will be published later this year and will include measures to help prevent people from going missing in the first place and to improve the response of all the relevant agencies.
Although I am sorry to disappoint anyone here today, I cannot give a specific date that is firmly etched in stone for introducing the legislation. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer and the whole House will recognise that the Government are committed to delivering the reform and are actively working to that end. It is vital to get the reform right, given that it creates a legal power over another’s assets. We are committed to proceeding as swiftly as we can, never forgetting for a moment the scope that it offers to ease, if only by a modest degree, the pain and suffering endured by the families who have lost loved ones.
Question put and agreed to.
National Minimum Wage: Care Sector
(8 years 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
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policy on enforcement of the national minimum wage in the care sector.
I am delighted that you are in the Chair, Mr Rosindell, and that so many colleagues are here to speak about this issue.
I am pleased to have secured this debate, although I am disappointed that it is still needed, because we had a debate on this very issue, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), back in November 2014, during which it was acknowledged that we had a real problem. That was acknowledged by all sides, including by the Minister at that time, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), because in March that year the National Audit Office had estimated that up to 220,000 home care workers in England were being illegally paid below the national minimum wage. Eighteen months on, we still have the same problem.
We could talk forever about numbers, and I am sure that a number of colleagues will cite statistics, but I think the human stories explain what the issue is really about.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I worked in the sector as a home help and represented home care workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the human stories are quite tragic? What home carers end up having to do is subsidise their employers, who do not pay them travel time. A good employer will see the value of their staff, and pay them correctly and appropriately.
Paul Blomfield
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I completely agree with her. I will illustrate that point further in my comments today.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has talked about the delay and the lack of action since the previous debate. Is not one of the reasons for that the fact that, when investigations are launched into these matters, they take an inordinately long time?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, arising from our last debate, six investigations were commissioned. I asked a parliamentary question about those investigations. They were launched in February 2015 and have yet to report. That is clearly a disgrace.
I was talking about the human stories in my constituency. I know of two local women who work for a care company that uses GPS technology to monitor when they arrive for and leave appointments. They told me their stories. The company monitors the time that they spend travelling; to be accurate, it monitors the distances that they are travelling, but it does not pay them for that time. Incidentally, the company also rips them off on the cost of travelling; it pays them 12p a mile for using their own cars, when Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs assumes for its calculations that 45p a mile is a reasonable benchmark.
One of the women, Sharon, told me that it was not unusual for her to be out of the house at 6.15 in the morning and not return until 11 o’clock at night. She gets a break, but she is only paid for seven hours’ work, which is the time she is actually at appointments. Never mind how long it has taken her to get to an appointment or to travel between appointments. Consequently, a so-called “hourly” rate of £7.52 means that, according to Melanie, who works alongside Sharon:
“A 15-minute visit is worth £1.88”.
These women have even been refused payment for the time they have spent waiting for ambulances to arrive for people in their care. Why do they put up with that abuse? As Sharon told me:
“You get in a bit of a trap, because I actually do love the work.”
We should be ashamed that tens of thousands of people like Melanie and Sharon across the country, who look after our most vulnerable, are treated in that way simply because they care.
It also makes a mockery of our national minimum wage legislation. Let us be clear that it is a criminal offence knowingly not to pay the national minimum wage. However, the situation has not improved since we last debated this issue. In fact, there are signs—
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that only 36 English councils out of 152 that are responsible for social care stipulate in their contracts that home care providers must pay for workers’ travel time?
Paul Blomfield
I do indeed and I pay tribute to those councils that are now changing their rules, so that when they commission they require workers’ travel time to be paid. Hopefully, more councils will follow their example.
I am disappointed that the Government seem to be taking this issue even less seriously than when we last debated it. Last summer, HMRC launched a new national minimum wage campaign that allows employers who have not been paying it to escape punishment. That is shocking. But it is simple: offending employers can declare details of arrears owed to their employees. They then “self-correct” and, with a cursory follow-up by HMRC, that is it—no more HMRC sniffing around and examining their practices. I do not know of many crimes where the offender escapes punishment entirely if they come forward. As I say, it makes a mockery of the increases in penalties for non-payment of the national minimum wage that were introduced under the coalition Government.
According to the Low Pay Commission, between 2011 and 2015, £1.75 million was recovered in arrears for 8,698 workers, which amounts to an average of £201 per worker. The shameful thing, however, is that that is just a drop in the ocean. The Resolution Foundation, which the Minister will know is chaired by one of his former colleagues, a former Conservative Minister, estimates that 160,000 care workers are collectively cheated of £130 million each year. The Resolution Foundation estimates that the average amount of arrears owed to care workers is more than £815, which is four times the rate at which HMRC is recovering the money.
The real scandal is that it does not have to be like this. The Government have the power to act, but they appear to lack the will to do so. Therefore, let me set out some proposals and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on them.
For a start, the Government are far too reliant on self-reporting. The use of zero-hours contracts is rife in this sector; for example, both Sharon and Melanie, to whom I referred earlier, are on such a contract. So who is going to rock the boat when there is so little job security? Following up on every call made to the helpline is all well and good, but what are the Government doing to help those vulnerable care workers who do not dare to make such a call?
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on raising this important issue. Regarding self-reporting, does he agree that the biggest single reason that employees are reluctant to do that is fear of dismissal and, if they are not dismissed, fear that there will be a cut in their hours?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I think he is right. It is the fear experienced by workers in this sector that is driving unreporting. The Government need to do something about that.
Establishing a formal public protocol to handle third-party whistleblowing would be a step forward. Currently, for example, when a union makes a complaint on someone’s behalf, it receives no feedback as to what is happening with that, and that is no way to facilitate reporting.
We also need proactive investigation into a sector in which we know abuse is rife. Following pressure from Labour that was led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East, the coalition Government began an investigation into six of the largest care providers, but that was over a year ago. What have they found out? Have affected workers been compensated? What is happening? I hope that the Minister will give some answers, because effective investigations will help to change the culture. Where HMRC investigations uncover non-compliance, why does it not then look at the whole workforce? The chances of co-workers being on the same terms and conditions and suffering from the same abuse is high, but HMRC does not follow through.
I have made a number of suggestions about how the Government might act—I will not speak for too long, because a number of colleagues want to contribute to this debate—but I want to focus on a single demand, which I emphasise would not involve the Government in significant cost, but would be transformative. It is a course of action that has been recommended by the Low Pay Commission and Unison, and it is simply to require employers of hourly paid staff to state clearly the hours they have been paid for on their payslips. We have heard how companies such as the one employing Melanie and Sharon have sophisticated technology to track exactly what their employees are doing. They already monitor the time spent at appointments and travelling for work. The proposal would be easy for companies to do and would introduce a level of transparency that would change those companies’ culture. It would also give workers the information through which they could challenge companies and utilise the helpline. Section 12 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 already makes provision for such regulation. Will the Minister work with me and his team to bring about that simple change?
All of us here know that there is a bigger fundamental problem with the chronic underfunding of the sector. Private providers are threatening to leave the market and not-for-profit providers are telling me that they cannot sustain the level of care that they want and rightly seek to provide. Vulnerable people, the elderly, those with learning difficulties and family members fearing for the life of their relative as they wait for an ambulance are all suffering as a result. That is before the national minimum wage increases to what the Government have laughingly called the national living wage. We all agree that is overdue. It is inadequate, but it is nevertheless a small step in the right direction.
We all know that the recently announced council tax social care precept is nowhere near enough to plug the funding gap, so we should be deeply concerned by the wider crisis in social care, and not only in its own right, but because of the impact it will have on the national health service. Notwithstanding that and the desperate need to address the funding shortfall, the labour market enforcement measures that I have mentioned are necessary and will be a step forward, and I hope the Minister will engage with me in taking those up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
I advise the House that a number of Members wish to speak. There is only limited time, so I urge Members to be brief and to keep their contributions to no more than three or four minutes each. I hope that then everyone will be able to speak.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I will try to be as quick and as brief as I can, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate and on his powerful speech, which compellingly made the case for urgent Government action in this vital area. I fully support the case being made by Unison and the Low Pay Commission to use section 12 of the National Minimum Wage Act to require employers to provide workers with a statement showing compliance with the national minimum wage.
As my hon. Friend said, the present situation is scandalous. There has been some improvement in some places since we, the unions and those with a concern for the social care sector mobilised pressure, but it has been not nearly enough and a lot more needs to be done. The example of Oxfordshire County Council shows that we are not making an unreasonable demand. The council, which is Conservative-independent controlled, has recently commissioned a new home care service that will come into effect on 1 May. As part of that, the council will require providers to give a breakdown of their prices; to demonstrate the hourly rate that will be paid for care workers at or above the national living wage from 1 April; to include travel time and the hourly rate paid to care workers; to pay care workers for travel expenses, as they should; and to adopt an open-book accounting method. That will enable the council to understand whether the national living wage is being paid to care workers. If the provider does not comply, it can be suspended. That is the sort of practice we need to see everywhere.
As my hon. Friend said, it is vital that that practice goes along with other measures to raise the status, training and overall remuneration of this vital group of workers. I will give a local example of just how important it is that we get it right across the country. Because of the problems of delayed discharge from hospitals, which are as bad if not worse in Oxfordshire than just about anywhere else, the local hospital trust commissioned 150 places in intermediate care and private care homes so that people could be moved on from hospitals, which are not the best place for those people to be. It is also the most expensive place for them to be. Initially, that reduced the problem of delayed discharge, but then it got worse again because the intermediate care providers could not discharge those people to their homes because of the insufficiency of domiciliary care support. As a result, the hospital trust will shortly be recruiting 50 domiciliary care workers to try to address that problem. They will be paid for out of the hospital’s budget, rather than from the local authority social care budget, which is stressed and under pressure.
We are talking about workers who are vital to crucial health and social care services. I do not believe that Government Members—it is a pity that there are not more Members on the Government Benches taking an interest in this vital issue—want social care workers to be exploited or treated badly. Instead, because of their rhetoric against red tape and regulation and their antipathy sometimes towards trade union campaigns, I think they do not understand how vulnerable these workers are, or the pressure under which they work.
I appeal to the Government to think again and to see how the measure is essential for the dignity and proper reward of vital workers and for recruitment and retention in this vital sector, as well as how essential it is in ensuring that the people whom they are caring for receive the standards of care to which they are entitled. The Government must act now and, using section 12 of the 1998 Act, bring some consistently higher standards to this vital sector.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, I think for the first time. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for securing this debate on an extremely important issue. Before I begin, I declare an interest in that my brother works in the social care sector—he started a new role on Monday—although he is not directly affected by the issues we are discussing this afternoon.
Social care is such an important feature of our society and social workers are integral to the care of people in need and those at risk. Despite that, too many social workers have suffered at the hands of unscrupulous employers—employers who have continued to flout the law and who simply do not pay the full national minimum wage. While HMRC maintains the operational enforcement of the national minimum wage, in my 10 months as a Member of Parliament I have yet to see either a coherent or sensible approach.
I will draw Members’ attention to two cases that I have seen since my election last May and contrast them with each other. The first concerns a care company in the black country. None of its care workers is paid for their travel time or when calls run over. The hourly rate therefore fell well below the national minimum wage over a substantial timeframe, but the HMRC investigation has been ongoing for nearly four years. To date, it has resulted in a notice of underpayment for only one of the employees who filed a complaint, even though the same principle applies to all the care workers.
My constituent, Debra, complained about not being paid the minimum wage in November 2012. It took 30 months before she managed to force HMRC to issue the care company with a notice of underpayment. She was forced to complain to the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and my predecessor, Chris Kelly. HMRC wrote to her in February 2013 to say that it was looking at all the care workers’ records, and wrote again following Debra’s complaint to the Secretary of State in June 2014 that the other care workers were also owed arrears for non-payment of the minimum wage. Nevertheless, HMRC then issued the notice only for her, as if she was the only worker who had not been paid the national minimum wage.
HMRC’s continuous delays have been shocking, and they have been ongoing since Debra’s complaint at the end of 2012. HMRC has also been looking at the cases of two other constituents of mine, Alison and Michelle, since at least March 2015, yet we do not seem to be any further forward than we were at this time last year. HMRC continues with what seem to be unnecessary delays and excuses—according to my case notes they appear to be the very same excuses given to Debra.
None of the care workers at the firm were paid for their travel time between calls or if calls ran over the allotted times. The company’s own paperwork—the rotas and pay slips—clearly show that they did not pay their care workers for what we would understand to be necessary working time. All the care workers were on the same terms and conditions, so the same position applies equally to all the workers.
Despite HMRC writing to Debra that it had “all workers’ records” dating back to February 2014, in a recent telephone call HMRC asked whether my constituents would be prepared to go to an employment tribunal and be cross-examined. That does not seem appropriate given the objectively verified facts. HMRC has not even calculated the arrears that the women appear to be owed. The same tactic had been used previously with Debra. HMRC does not have to mention any employment tribunal; its job is to get the evidence, calculate the arrears and issue a notice of underpayment. Only after the notice is issued can the employer force a tribunal, and an employer has only 28 days to do so following the issuing of such a notice by HMRC. Indeed, until a notice is issued the care company has absolutely nothing to appeal against.
There is clearly something very wrong indeed with how HMRC enforces compliance with the national minimum wage in the care sector. As I said, it has been investigating this care company for nearly four years, yet despite finding that not only Debra but the other care workers are owed minimum wage arrears, it has still issued only the one notice.
That case should be contrasted with HMRC’s response to another case, although it goes slightly beyond the narrow confines of the debate. At a manufacturer in my constituency, a genuine clerical error led to the underpayment of four pieceworkers out of a workforce of 240. Over three years, the underpayment totalled just under £600, or 0.005% of the total wage bill. It was clearly a genuine oversight that had not been identified in five external audits.
Despite the fact that that manufacturing company co-operated fully with HMRC—indeed, as soon as it was made aware of the underpayments, it repaid them, along with the penalty, on the next available working day—its response seems to have been very different from what happened with the care company. The manufacturer has been named and shamed and now has to deal with the resulting implications while trying to negotiate a contract with high-street retailers.
HMRC’s response has been very inconsistent. In my experience, it is focusing its energy on what might be seen as the easy cases—companies that are genuinely trying to do the right thing but may have made a mistake —while it does very little effectively to enforce the national minimum wage for companies such as the care company I highlighted, which have consistently obstructed and obfuscated and shown total disregard for HMRC and for their legal requirement to pay the national minimum wage. That has to change.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ask HMRC urgently to review its general approach to the enforcement of the national minimum wage. I will also write privately with the details of the two cases to which I referred to ask him to speak to HMRC about what is going on and how we can have a more consistent and equitable approach to ensure that all employers pay the national minimum wage.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this important debate.
My hon. Friends and I are proud that it was a Labour Government who, in the teeth of opposition, legislated for a national minimum wage. That national minimum wage is a right, not an optional privilege. At the moment, anything between 160,000 and 220,000 home care workers are still likely to be paid less than the legal minimum, collectively losing out on nearly £130 million a year, as my hon. Friend said—an average of £815 per worker. That is nothing less than a national scandal, not only because a significant minority of home care workers are being exploited—let us remember that they are low-paid and mostly women, that a growing number of them are migrants, and that they find it very hard to organise collectively because of the irregular and fragmented nature of their work—but because underpayment of the minimum wage on such a scale has a direct impact on the quality and dignity of the care provided to the older and disabled people who rely on that care.
As we have heard, there is a variety of reasons for underpayment of the national minimum wage in the care sector, ranging from hourly rates that are simply below the appropriate minimum wage rate to deductions from pay for unpaid training or business expenses. However, the most ubiquitous reason, in my experience, is that care workers are increasingly paid only for contact time. To be clear, that does not include all the time that many care workers actually spend with each client.
I worked for the Resolution Foundation before I was elected and I did a lot of work on this subject. I spoke to hundreds of home care workers from throughout the country about their experiences. I found that “call clipping” —where home care workers leave earlier than they might want to, to ensure that they are not working for free—does happen, but most stay for far longer than their contracted time. For many of the people being cared for, the care workers are the only people they see for hours at a time, perhaps for the whole day. Home care workers enjoy and value the work they do and they often stay for far longer than they need to, but the added insult for them is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, they are often not even paid for that contact time.
Melanie Onn
Is my hon. Friend aware that when home care workers overstay their allotted time they can be subject to disciplinary procedures for failing to follow their company’s rules, which stipulate the limited time they are to spend with each of their clients?
Matthew Pennycook
Absolutely—I think that happens quite frequently. The way they are disciplined relates to a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central. Increasingly, they have to clock in and out, and sophisticated technology is used to monitor the time they are with a client. Yet, on their timesheets and payslips—I have seen many of them and they are incredibly confusing—their employers cannot give them the clear detail of how much they are being paid and whether they are being paid the minimum wage. The law in this area is very clear, and yet we still have hundreds of thousands of workers denied the legal minimum to which they are entitled. So why is that happening? At its root, as my hon. Friend said, is the lack of a sustainable funding settlement for social care, which is the result of successive Governments not doing enough, and we know the 2% precept will do little to address that.
Going forward in the medium term, we need to address the funding gap, which is growing on a yearly basis. Local authorities need to do more to ensure they commission care in such a way as to protect those who deliver it, and the independent care providers who employ the home care workers need to do everything possible to ensure that they meet their statutory obligations. There are good examples in the field, but unfortunately far too many do not meet their obligations. None of that should stand in the way of doing what we and the Government can to end non-compliance in this sector.
A variety of things could be done. To give them credit, some of the steps that the Government have taken have been welcome. For example, fines have increased to 100% of underpayments owed to each worker, up to a maximum of £20,000, and they are set to rise again in April. But the scale of the problem and the small solutions that the Government have proposed are clearly not having the impact that they need to, so more could be done. We could have the six investigations report in a timely manner, and we could do more to name and shame employers. Only 13 small social care providers have been named and shamed so far using the powers introduced in 2014.
We could do more to end the over-reliance on self-reporting and ensure that low levels of arrears are recovered. When an abuse is found, we could investigate the whole workforce at that provider, which currently does not happen. However, even if we did all that, we would still be back here next year or the year after talking about what more needs to be done. The Government must seriously consider amending section 12 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 so that we deal with the problem by proactively forcing employers, putting the onus on them to prove that they are paying their workers the minimum wage to which they are entitled rather than the other way round.
The sector employs 1.5 million people and has the potential to grow by another million in the next decade alone. If our country is to have the care service that it needs and that disabled people need, the Government need to do more—and quickly—in terms of recruiting and retaining staff who care about their job and of ensuring that those workers are not exploited.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for securing this really important debate.
I looked around the room a moment or two ago and I think I qualify as the oldest person here, so this debate has a particular resonance for me. I am over 60—I will be 67 on 5 May—and I have a vested interest, so I should declare it right away. I am also very glad that, if I do require care at home, I will probably have care at home in Scotland. I do not say that everything in Scotland is perfect or that things could not happen there as well, but in the debate on securing the national minimum wage for the women—it is mainly women—who care at all sorts of levels and for paid home care workers, we are going too cheap for them; we should be looking for the living wage of £8.20 an hour. That requires political will, which I find sadly lacking in this Government. The Scottish Government have that will; they have a Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training.
We need to pay the people who look after the most vulnerable people in our society a decent wage. If we pay a fair wage, we get fair work. I was a local councillor and I am conscious of the fact that a lot of women were very much underpaid and strived for years to get equal pay with male counterparts. It is still happening in Scotland. As I said, we are not a utopian society, but the Scottish Government have committed to paying the living wage and to giving enough money to local authorities to pay the living wage to people who take part in the health and care partnership. I cannot understand why that cannot be done here in England as well. It requires political will, which is sadly lacking.
Also required is the political will of the Government to hound, harass and do whatever they can via HMRC or any other agency to ensure that employers pay the minimum that is required in this country, and they should be encouraged to pay far more. I do not want to be in a position where—I will personalise it—someone is being paid to care for me and they cut short the time that I require and am entitled to, to rush off and help someone else. It is a sad reflection on society that we treat the most vulnerable in an almost callous way. We should look at it from the other point of view: would you want your parent, mother, sister or brother to be subjected to work from someone who is grossly undervalued and underpaid?
We need to change the entire context of care for the elderly and disabled across the United Kingdom. If we do not, we are building up a time bomb for ourselves and for those we care for most.
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
There will now be a time limit of three minutes to allow everyone to speak.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I will keep my comments brief. The notion of a kindly small care home no longer exists. The person who lives in your town or village, down your street or in your community, who cycles around and gives care to those who need it, no longer exists. The small companies that we used to know so well and recognise in our communities simply cannot compete with the large corporations.
I came across Mears when I worked with Unison. I speculate that companies such as Mears provide a multitude of public services alongside their own private interests. They can bid at incredibly low levels on a per hour basis. With the downward pressure on local authorities and the amount that they can afford to pay, such corporations are winning the contracts. There is a huge gap between the corporations at the highest level and the domiciliary care that is offered to people both in their homes and in residential care. We must not forget that what is offered is the most intimate and personal care.
The corporations continually try to minimise their costs to such an extent that it falls on staff to subsidise their employment, whether that is through travel time, as has already been mentioned, or the purchase of uniforms, which happens frequently as well. I also know that many care staff have taken to buying biscuits or small treats for the clients they serve because their company had previously provided that as an option, which was something nice for the residents in the afternoon. Such things are now being taken away as margins are squeezed and companies have to answer to their shareholders much more than they have to answer to the people who receive the care or deliver it.
Simple things that mean so much to residents are being taken away. Individuals who give so much of their time and their love to their clients are being put in an impossible position in trying to create a less clinical environment. It is absolutely right to say that the people who work in the sector are mainly women, increasingly migrant workers. Why are the women who do those jobs put at the bottom of the pile when it comes to reward? Is it because there is still that traditional view that it is women continuing their household work in the wider community? If that is the only reason why it is so poorly valued, the Government must address that immediately.
Also, the large companies often do not engage positively with trade unions that wish to raise important issues perfectly legitimately and through the appropriate channels. Those workers deserve proper, full and easy access to independent support through a union, and the employers should take proactive steps to encourage their staff to become members, and support that by recognising the trade unions. Too often, trade unions must fight those corporations to achieve recognition. They cannot even get across the threshold of care homes.
I have worked alongside care workers who dared to put their heads above the parapet and who were representatives for the other workers. It did not do their careers any favours. They have been subjected to spurious disciplinary proceedings, and had their shifts reduced—they have limited-hours and sometimes zero-hours contracts. They are punished by having their hours reduced so that they do not take home as much money as they should, merely because they have tried to represent their members properly. They have been threatened with having the police called should they dare to gather outside the company’s property, which is a shameful way to treat staff who are only trying to improve the working conditions of the people who deliver the care.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate with you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate and on the excellent way in which he opened it.
I want to talk about what I describe as the funding crisis in social care. Many providers are struggling to provide good-quality care—even if they want to, as they should—against the backdrop of years of cuts to local authority budgets for adult social care. The increased costs associated with the national minimum wage and the so-called national living wage are going to place providers under additional financial pressure, and that is of great concern. The Local Government Association has estimated that introducing the so-called national living wage from April will cost at least £330 million for home care and residential care providers. There was no additional funding for that in the Budget. There is a risk that too many providers will become financially non-viable. We do not want care providers to cut staff numbers even more, threatening the quality of care.
The social care precept is not the answer to finding enough funding for what is a Government policy change. My local authority, Salford City Council, needs £2.7 million to pay for the minimum wage increases in our local care sector, but the council can only raise £1.6 million from the social care precept. The Government are not providing funding for their own wage policy. In my area, the people of Salford are finding the money, from their council tax. I am sure that there will be agreement in the Chamber that care workers should be paid the national minimum wage. Care work is a demanding job that requires skilled workers who are compassionate and who provide empathy and good-quality care. It is completely unacceptable that a job that historically has been undervalued is still being exploited today, and that those workers are not being paid the basic wage.
I give credit to Unison for its work interviewing care workers and finding out in detail the constraints on them, such as having to rush between calls and reduce the amount of time spent with individuals who are socially isolated. We are concerned about social isolation among older people, and the fact that there is no time to care. Staff sometimes work from 7 am until very late in the evening, but they have dead time that they do not get paid for; and they do not get paid for travel time. The Cavendish review highlighted the impact of non-payment for travel time on care provision:
“Some low paid Home Care Assistants and support workers will…keep going as long as they feel they are still giving good care. But the advent of zero hours contracts, fee cuts and no payment for travel time”
is really to blame because it
“is making it financially prohibitive for some domiciliary care workers to struggle on.”
The Government agreed that the statutory guidance should require councils to include payment for travel time in provider contracts, but that guidance is clearly not being complied with. There are even examples, in an excellent Unison study, of a home care worker being given 20 minutes to visit an old lady of 102, to help her shower and get dressed, make food, tidy her kitchen, give her medication and put her bins out. That is not enough time to give safe and dignified care. Tackling non-compliance should be a priority. The Government must consider the impact of their policies and act on the chronic underfunding of the care sector that I outlined.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central made a number of suggestions about how to improve national minimum wage compliance. We must have monitoring of the commissioning practices of councils; it should be a priority. Employers and commissioners could also publish, or provide employees with, a statement that they comply with the national minimum wage, increasing transparency. As he said, we must improve the protocol for supporting whistleblowers who bravely tell the story of what is happening. It is only when care staff are valued and paid adequately that service users will receive the good-quality, compassionate care they need. As he said, we should be ashamed that we trade on the good will and commitment of our home care workers.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for obtaining the debate. I will try to be brief.
The Labour party recognised the issue with the social care system prior to the last general election. In our 2015 manifesto we promised to end 15-minute visits and introduce year of care budgets, to incentivise better care in the home. We promised to recruit 5,000 new home care workers—an entirely new arm of the NHS—to help to care for those with the greatest needs at home. We promised to tackle workforce exploitation in the care sector, and to ban the use of zero-hours contracts where regular hours were being worked, improving the working lives of carers. However, that was not to be.
Figures show that up to 220,000 home care workers are illegally paid less than the minimum wage. Investigations by HMRC between 2011 and 2015 found that 41% of care providers were guilty of non-compliance. As has been mentioned, the Resolution Foundation has calculated that care workers are collectively cheated of £130 million a year.
Liz McInnes
One major way in which care workers are denied the national minimum wage, which has been referred to throughout this debate, is for the care providers to refuse to pay for travel time between calls. I had never heard of the practice, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central described, of care workers being paid a miserly 12p per hour for travel time. That, to me, sounds more like a cycling rate.
The law states that workers must be paid at least the national minimum wage for travel that is a part of their work and not incidental to it. If someone’s work consists of assignments carried out at different places between which they are obliged to travel, the time they take to do so is regarded in law as work time and must be paid accordingly. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence stated that care providers should ensure that workers have time to do their job without being rushed and without compromising the dignity and wellbeing of the person who uses the services. Not paying for travel time makes that impossible.
The BBC recently reported on a group of home care workers who are Unison members, who are owed up to £2,500 each as a consequence of being paid less than the national minimum wage—again, because they were not paid for travel time. In a recent case, which was settled out of court, a worker was paid £1,250 in compensation for non-payment of travel time.
Furthermore, in summer 2015, HMRC launched a new national minimum wage campaign, which allows employers who have not been paying their workers the national minimum wage to escape punishment. Employers who are guilty of non-compliance can now just notify HMRC of their transgression, declare that they have paid their workers any money owed, and agree to obey the law in future.
That all contradicts the Prime Minister’s August 2015 claim that
“the message is clear: underpay your staff, and you will pay the price.”
Such employers are not paying the price. We need a major change in policy if the Government are serious about stamping out that deep-rooted practice and protecting the legal rights of home care workers. The Government should make regulations, as provided for under section 12 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, requiring employers to provide their workers with a statement demonstrating compliance with the national minimum wage. The exploitation of care workers must stop; we must ensure that they get the pay to which they are entitled.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this important debate.
The care industry and, in particular, its workforce play a vital role in our society. The UK has a care sector that is ever growing, which is essential with an ageing population. It is important to ensure that, as people age, they can still live in their own homes for as long as possible. That will not only allow people to enjoy the comforts of home as they spend more time there, but will help to reduce the pressure on the NHS, which we all understand would help enormously.
Where it is not possible for people to remain in their homes, they should be provided with the best care possible in a care home facility that meets the high standards we can expect in our society. To ensure that people are given the opportunity to remain in their home as they get older, the work of home care workers, who care for the elderly and disabled in their own homes, is vital. That is why it is so shocking that so many home care workers are routinely paid less than the national minimum wage. The absence of the most nominal of payments is condemning huge numbers of home care staff to the contemporary phenomenon of in-work poverty, as well as significantly undermining care standards across the industry.
The direct effect of underpayment is that care workers are plunged into poverty, leading to much higher rates of staff turnover, with a subsequent negative impact on care standards. Too many experienced or skilled care workers are being forced out of the industry simply because they cannot afford to stay. That is unacceptable.
Due to the lack of time, I will move swiftly on and cite an example from my constituency. The Government’s lack of concern about care workers not being paid the national minimum wage is in stark contrast to the efforts of the Unison branch at Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council. The union has worked closely with the local authority to ensure that social care has remained a priority, reaffirming that care workers feel appreciated and, most importantly, that they are not being taken for granted.
The care sector in Neath Port Talbot, as in many other places, is a mixed economy, whereby the local authority directly provides around £11 million of services, and commissions about £32 million more from third-party providers from the private and voluntary sectors. Council staff are already paid at the national living wage rate, so in-house services act as a pacemaker for pay and conditions in the local care economy—that is to be commended. Were those in-house services not to exist—so with the absence of a pacemaker—we would be in danger of seeing a race to the bottom on pay and conditions, as third-party providers sought to maximise profit by decreasing resources.
A mixed economy works because the local authority uses its influence responsibly, as a quasi-monopoly purchaser of services, to ensure that workforce contracts do not cause detriment to local communities. A good and topical example is the recent decision by members of Neath Port Talbot Council to meet in full the national living wage for staff employed in private sector residential care homes, from which the council purchases a significant amount of residential care. Neath Port Talbot Council is one of the few local authorities in the UK that has decided to afford the national living wage from the outset—it might even be unique. It is important to point out, however, that the council has not simply gifted the money to residential care providers; it pays to ensure that its high-quality standards are met. If third- party providers fall below the standards, funds are withdrawn.
To conclude, perhaps that model will be adopted by the Government. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the proposal.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for securing this important debate.
As has been spelt out in the Budget debates over the past few days, the Tory Government’s stated goal is to make work pay, so I will spend a few moments examining their record, given that we are considering the 1.5 million care workers who day in, day out, do noble work caring for our elderly and disabled population.
A March 2014 National Audit Office report found that an astonishing 220,000 home care workers are paid less than the national minimum wage. The main reason that so many care workers fail to receive the national minimum wage is that, despite resounding court judgments declaring this practice illegal, hundreds of thousands of workers are still not paid for the time they spend travelling between visits. They are, disturbingly, only paid for the time that they spend with their clients. That would be unacceptable in any other line of work, but, quite wrongly, it is still common practice in the care industry. As a matter of decency, care companies should meet the amount that Parliament has legislated for as the minimum that workers should receive in their pay packet. Each and every worker should not fear that, at the end of the working week, their employer has short-changed them. The national minimum wage is simply not happening in our care industry, and that is a national scandal.
The Tory Government need to step up and take action to ensure fairness in our care sector. Thankfully, under the national minimum wage legislation brought in under a Labour Government, the Tory Government have inherited the necessary powers to take much needed and long-overdue action. To be specific, under section 12 of the National Minimum Wage Act, care providers as employers can be required to supply a written statement to each care worker, in which they should clearly set out the amount that the worker is being paid, the hours worked, and how that means that the employer is not short-changing them. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to commit to exploring the potential for introducing regulations under section 12.
At present, the work of many hundreds of thousands of care workers simply does not pay. They are still not guaranteed a national minimum wage. They are simply being short-changed, and that scandal must not continue.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for securing this debate.
In September 2015, I made representations to the Minister on behalf of a social care organisation in my constituency, North London Homecare and Support, which was concerned about its financial capability to accommodate the increase in the national living wage. The Minister, in his response, informed me that the Government were working with the social care sector to consider the overall cost of social care and funding for local government, and that the result would be announced in the spending review. In spite of commitments about further funding, however, the social care sector is still not receiving adequate investment.
According to Local Government Association estimates, the social care precept will raise £372 million, which stands far short of the £2 billion figure suggested by the Government. The majority of that will be used to cover the cost of the transition to the new national living wage. In addition, although the better care fund is expected to deliver around £1.5 billion by 2019-20, the gap in social care funding is expected to reach £3.5 billion by the end of the Parliament in 2020.
With an ageing population and an NHS under increasing pressure, it is clear that we need the social care sector.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate. One of the tricks that the Government have pulled is to shove the responsibility for social care on to local authorities. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but what the Government have not done is give them the resources to do it—they have given them about 2%. Three or four years down the road, we will reach a point when the Government come back and want to cap the local authorities, because they are spending too much—that is what the Government will say. We have had all that before. The other thing we should bear in mind is that at the moment local government is badly funded, to say the least.
Kate Osamor
I could not agree more. Those points are alarming and worry us all, and that is why we have all come to speak in the debate.
Only a thriving social care sector that is valued and respected will be able to give our NHS the support it needs to provide integrated healthcare solutions. The Minister and the Government must accept their responsibility to support social care through the transition to the national living wage and beyond to 2020. Sustainable, long-term investment is desperately needed.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare my 20 years of trade union activity for the Glasgow city branch of Unison before my election to Parliament.
There are far too many instances of care home providers who provide services for a profit ignoring or disregarding their legal responsibilities to their staff. It is particularly insidious that those who are paid the least and provide some of the most vital services needed by our society, which we will need more and more as our demographics shift, are being denied even the most basic protections by their employers. In two recent cases, MiHomecare settled a national minimum wage pay claim with one employee for £1,250 and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), in south Wales Unison colleagues secured backdated wages for 100 workers amounting to up to £2,500 each after it failed to pay workers for time travelling between clients.
A leaked document from MiHomecare sets out exactly how much workers are being short-changed by. Its internal analysis in the wake of an HMRC investigation into its employment practices revealed that 44 workers could have been out of pocket by as much as £2,000 a year each. A Resolution Foundation report estimated that as many as 160,000 care workers are receiving less than the minimum wage simply on the basis of non-payment for travelling time, to say nothing of the myriad other changes to their salary. That amounts to more than £300 million and, as a sum being withheld from some of the poorest workers in the country, I find that breathtaking.
The closure of HMRC offices across the country concerns me greatly. HMRC’s enforcement work is invaluable in taking to task the criminality that sadly some employers believe is justified. The centralisation of services and cutting of jobs will inevitably give the green light to more employers to think that they can flout the law and get away with it.
Angela Rayner
As a former Unison activist and comrade, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done in the sector? To come back to legality, is it not an absolute shame that many home carers will not be able to seek legal redress because of employment tribunal fees? It is unions such as Unison that enable carers to take cases to employment tribunals, because they pay the fees.
Chris Stephens
I agree with my Unison comrade and friend. One barrier to getting back-payments in this sector in particular is that the fees charged are often greater than the wages claimed for. I thank her for making that point.
If the green light is to be given to more employers, they will take that. In Scotland, with only two offices—in Glasgow and Edinburgh—to be retained under the proposals, it is simply not credible to suggest that, despite best efforts, HMRC’s minimum wage enforcement can continue at the same level. Given that the workforce in the care sector is female-dominated, it seems that a double whammy is created. We as a society pay women less overall and, even when a legal floor is put in place to stop wages falling below a certain level, many women are victims of their employers’ criminality and earn even less. There can be no place in a civilised society for the law-breaking that appears to be happening in areas of the care sector. A civilised Government should do all they can to stamp out that insidious practice.
Other Members have set the scene. As usual I enjoyed the contribution from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). He rightly said that the sector looks after the most vulnerable. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) indicated her personal experience and the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) was correct when he said that it is not unreasonable to demand that the national minimum wage is paid.
Barbara Keeley
Many practices have been talked about during this debate, but we have not addressed the new practice of paying care staff by the minute—minute rates. I do not know of any other group of people paid and measured by the minute.
Chris Stephens
I am not aware of that either, but it is an important point. Bad employers will try such methods. I am concerned to hear about companies that are trying to get around paying the living wage by taking premium payments off staff. That is another important point that this Parliament will need to address.
Mixed messages are coming from the Government in this regard. Ruby McGregor-Smith, the leader of a home care company that the BBC had revealed was not paying its home care workers the national minimum wage, was recently elevated to the House of Lords. In August 2015, the Prime Minister commented to The Times:
“So to unscrupulous employers who think they can get labour on the cheap, the message is clear: underpay your staff, and you will pay the price.”
Also in the summer of 2015, HMRC launched a national minimum wage campaign that allows employers that have not been paying the national minimum wage to escape punishment. The Government have been saying to companies that HMRC
“will not undertake an enquiry or investigation on your National Minimum Wage records”.
That is a mixed message.
That leaves an over-reliance on workers making complaints to HMRC. As has been revealed during this debate, many care workers fear reporting their employers because reprisals can include dismissal or having their hours cut. As was stated earlier, many home care workers are on zero-hours contracts.
Action needs to be taken. I hope that the Government will give a commitment that where a company is non-compliant, HMRC will extend its investigation to cover that company’s whole workforce. HMRC should publish results regularly, carry out assurance checks in the sector and allow third-party reporting. We have heard from many Members who have spoken so far about the vital role that the trade union movement is playing in the sector. HMRC should maintain records of the number of employees who contact it through the helpline, and there should be a formal protocol for HMRC to ensure that no action is taken against whistleblowers.
Minimum wage rates exist to protect working people and their wages, with a legal floor that stops wages going below a certain level. The insidious practice of not paying the national minimum wage must end, but it can end only if the Government are willing to ensure that compliance with minimum wage rates is monitored rigorously.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues have come to put forward cases; it is just a pity that there were so few on the Government Benches to listen to the human stories put forward by the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood).
I would like to start by paying tribute to care workers. They allowed my mum to live in her home at the end of her life, and that gave me the confidence to work here and her the confidence to stay at home. I have to say that in many instances they have the patience of saints. We rely on these people to look after our loved ones, and yet, as we have heard, so many are routinely and illegally still paid less than the minimum wage. I too would like to thank Unison for its briefing and its long campaign to support workers through all means, including legal action.
As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) said, we all have an interest in this debate, either sooner or later. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) that investigations by HMRC of care providers found that 41% were guilty of non-compliance between 2011 and 2015. The Resolution Foundation calculated that care workers are collectively cheated out of £130 million per year due to below-minimum-wage payments. The effect on care workers and those they care for is immeasurable. It plunges care workers into poverty, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees). It leads to high staff turnover and therefore a lack of continuity of care, which is so valued by the person being cared for. The care worker is not just a paid employee or a carer; they become a friend.
So how do providers get away with that? It is by not paying for travel time, which encourages call-clipping—leaving a few minutes early to minimise time spent working for free. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), many care workers do not do that because they care about the people they are working for. Effectively, they are subsidising our care system.
We heard about how the combination of cuts to council funding and the rise in the minimum wage will increase the problem. The funding is simply insufficient for social care, both now and in the future, as was so eloquently put by my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who have long campaigned on the issue, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) for their work on it.
Pressure from my colleagues led to the Government ordering HMRC to carry out an investigation into the six largest care providers. Care providers are businesses, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who spoke passionately about the large corporations and some of their actions, which are less than compassionate. Despite the Government ordering HMRC to carry out that investigation in February 2015, it has still not been completed. Why is that? When will it be complete?
Just a handful of small care providers—13—have been named and shamed since BIS commenced this policy in 2014. Of those 13 providers, eight were identified as owing arrears to just one care worker. How can that be if care workers are working under the same terms and conditions? Is HMRC extending its investigation to other care workers within the companies? If not, why not? We have heard that that is partly due to the process; HMRC recovers arrears only for the worker who contacted it, and employers are allowed to self-correct and pay back the other workers with minimal oversight. Effectively, they are shamed as bad employers that are not to be trusted, but are then trusted to do the right thing by the employees who they cheated in the first place.
The assurance process on this is minimal. It relies on workers knowing how much they are owed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) rightly highlighted, many care workers are not currently provided with a proper breakdown of all their working time. HMRC also consistently identified a very low level of arrears, with an average of £201 per worker. Should HMRC not be made to carry out assurance checks, publish the results and talk to a wider range of people about this, including the trade unions?
Some may ask why people do not report these abuses. As we have heard, there are low levels of awareness among workers that they should be paid for travel time, as well as a fear of losing jobs, of cuts in hours and of tribunal fees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) highlighted.
Mr Andrew Smith
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As was pointed out earlier in the debate, a high proportion of these workers are migrant workers. With the awful rhetoric directed at them from some sections of our society and political parties, do not those workers feel additionally vulnerable and scared about reporting such things?
Yvonne Fovargue
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Many workers in this sector are already exploited, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. They are women. They are migrant workers. They are people who do not traditionally complain. Another issue is the length of time before the judgment in tribunal cases. In 2014-15, it was on average 74 weeks before a judgment was reached.
Does the Minister feel that a voluntary statement of a national minimum wage is sufficient? In view of the widespread non-compliance, should the national minimum wage not be compulsory in this sector? As we have heard, many care workers do not know the hours they are paid for. Does he agree that we must go beyond the Low Pay Commission’s suggestion of simply having a review, and that there should be a requirement for payslips of hourly paid staff to clearly state the hours for which they are paid?
Details on the number of care workers who contact the pay and work rights helpline should be collected, as they were previously. That is vital, because it gives a sense of the levels of awareness about non-payment and the willingness to complain.
Councils’ commissioning processes should be monitored as to whether they are insisting that providers pay the minimum wage. Councils also need support to carry out spot inspections of providers’ payroll records, which should be clear, and they should carry out regular, anonymous staff surveys, in conjunction with trade unions, to identify any risks of non-payment.
We rely on care workers to look after the most vulnerable, and yet we are allowing them to be exploited and underpaid. They work in one of the most demanding sectors, caring for our loved ones, and they deserve to be looked after by all available means without further delay.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on bringing this debate to the House. It has been a very helpful opportunity to focus attention on this important area, and it gives me a chance, on behalf of the Government, to make clear our commitment to ensuring that this issue is properly dealt with. I know he is a robust champion of workers in the care sector, and I want to praise him for his work in representing them here today.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and others who have taken such an interest in this issue. Opposition Members may be surprised to hear me single out and congratulate Unison and the Resolution Foundation, which have done really good work on behalf of workers in the sector by shining a light on the complex issues and some of the completely unacceptable practices that have gone on for too long.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our nation’s 1.5 million care workers, who, as hon. Members have said, work tirelessly to provide invaluable support to some of our most vulnerable citizens. Without their support in caring for the frail, the disabled and the elderly, we simply would not be able to cope as a society with the pressures of an ageing population. Hon. Members are right that we must ensure care workers are treated fairly by their employers and receive the money to which they are legally entitled—and that is a priority area for the Government, for this Minister and for the Minister for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who leads on this within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Perhaps I could take this moment to make it clear, lest anybody watching the debate is in any doubt, that this generation of Conservatives in government strongly supports the national minimum wage. We are very proud that we have gone further and introduced the national living wage, as well as increasing penalties from £5,000 per employer to £20,000 per employee, which last year saw one investigation lead to a fine of half a million pounds.
We have also increased the budget for compliance by 50% since 2010 and strengthened the naming and shaming provisions. Let me send the strong signal that we will not tolerate non-compliance with the national minimum wage. It applies across all sectors, and the nature of the work that these care workers do, in a fragmented, challenging and geographically difficult sector, is no excuse for non-compliance.
I want to make it clear that any employer who treats the Government’s commitment to this space with contempt needs to be very careful. I am very disappointed to see that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s request for Mike Ashley from Sports Direct to come and give evidence has not been responded to. Let me take this opportunity to say that contempt for this area of law is not acceptable, and to welcome the recent court case in which Caroline Barlow successfully prosecuted MiHomecare. It led to the court ruling that she and, by implication, others should have been properly paid. I welcome that, and the signal should go out very clearly to businesses, councils and all those who employ the low-paid that they have to abide by their duties under the law.
[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]
Barbara Keeley
Most Members here would agree with the Minister about Mike Ashley, I am sure, and would applaud the Chair of the BIS Committee and the Speaker for the way in which they are handling the situation.
The key point I want to make is this: although it is good that the Minister is proud of the Government’s policy on the minimum wage, does he not think that the Government should have funded that? Is not the key problem the one that I outlined: the 2% precept will only raise £1.6 billion, but my local council will need £2.7 billion just to deal with these pressures? We cannot get to a position in which those in the care sector can pay the minimum wage unless there is funding for it, and that is the Government’s responsibility.
George Freeman
I will come on to the funding of social care, which is a major issue that we all face as a society and will require some pretty deep thinking over the years ahead. I will also describe the extra money that the Government have put in. Although there is never enough money, we have made this priority very clear.
It may help if I review how we got to be where we are today. In 1999, the national minimum wage came in. It was the first time that legislation had been introduced in the UK to ensure a minimum level of pay for virtually all workers. Its aim is to help as many low-paid workers as possible, end extreme low pay and ensure a level playing field for employers. We are absolutely clear that anyone who is entitled to be paid the national minimum wage or, from 1 April, the national living wage must receive it.
George Freeman
I will continue, if I may—I am under a tight time limit. The enforcement of the minimum wage is therefore essential to its success and we are committed to cracking down in every sector across the economy on employers who break the minimum wage law. Our approach is simple: through effective national minimum wage enforcement, we are able to support workers and businesses by deterring employers from underpaying their workers and removing the unfair competitive advantage that underpayment could bring.
George Freeman
I will very briefly, but I am going to run out of time if Members keep intervening.
Mr Andrew Smith
Does the Minister not agree that those efforts would be very strongly buttressed if the power were taken under section 12 of the National Minimum Wage Act for mandatory statements showing compliance?
George Freeman
I will deal with the right hon. Gentleman’s points, with which I have a lot of sympathy, if I am given time to crack on.
Hon. Members have rightly raised the issue of non-compliance with the minimum wage in this sector. I want first to set out the measures that we are putting in place now and that we have put in place already, before touching on some things that we may go on to do in due course. HMRC responds to every complaint made by workers through the ACAS helpline. When a third party reports suspected non-compliance, HMRC evaluates the report and investigates the employer when there are grounds to do so.
Since HMRC began enforcing the minimum wage in ’99, it has identified more than £65 million in arrears. Between April and November 2015, HMRC took action against 557 businesses, clawing back over £8 million for 46,000 workers who had been illegally underpaid. That is already the largest amount of arrears identified in any single year since the national minimum wage was introduced and is possible as a result of the increased investment and extra measures we have put in place to support enforcement.
We are going further. The Prime Minister has committed to a package of measures that are currently being implemented that will build on Government action to date and strengthen the enforcement of the national minimum and living wage. First, we are increasing the enforcement budget from April 2016, demonstrating our ongoing commitment to ensuring that the hardest-working and lowest-paid people receive the pay that they are entitled to. HMRC will also continue to promote compliance with the law and respond when employers have got things wrong.
Secondly, the Government are further increasing the penalties that employers will have to pay when they break the law. From 1 April, the calculation will increase further, to 200% of the arrears that an employer owes. By increasing the penalties for underpayment of the national minimum wage, we intend that employers who would otherwise be tempted to underpay comply with the law and that working people receive the money they are legally due.
Furthermore, under changes being implemented through the Immigration Bill, we are creating a statutory director of labour market enforcement, who will set out a single set of priorities for the enforcement bodies across the spectrum of non-compliance. That should ensure a targeted approach that addresses problems and best helps victims.
Under the Immigration Bill, we are also creating a new type of enforcement order. That labour market enforcement undertaking will be supported by a criminal offence for non-compliance. We want to tackle employers who deliberately, persistently and brazenly commit breaches of labour law and fail to take remedial action. That cannot always be done satisfactorily through the repeated use of existing penalties or offences, which may lead to the continued exploitation of workers.
Christina Rees
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he provide examples of where that happens in the care sector? He is quoting a lot of statistics overall about the national minimum wage and recovery, but they are not specific to the care sector.
George Freeman
Perhaps I can come back to the hon. Lady on specific cases—I do not have them to hand. I just want to talk about what we are doing to deal with the issues that have been raised, but she makes an interesting point.
In the care sector, we have a particularly high incidence of workers who have not been paid the national minimum wage in the right way. Other sectors are hairdressing and retail, and there is some dispute about where the worst practice exists, but the care sector clearly has a major historical problem. That is in part attributable to the fact that many of the more complex rules on calculating working time are prevalent in the sector—for example, the calculation of travel and sleeping time. On those points, although I am sure that Members will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases, I want to restate the Government’s position: when workers are performing work under their contracts, they must be paid the minimum wage.
It is also worth noting that there is no perfect measure of non-compliance within the sector, and there is a possibility that current estimates of non-compliance overestimate work time and underestimate pay, because the information is reported by workers themselves. That is why we are continuing to work with the Low Pay Commission, the Office for National Statistics and others in order to improve our estimates and better understand the scale of the problem.
On the point that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and others, the Low Pay Commission’s proposals on transparency merit serious consideration, and we are looking at those and a number of its other recommendations. We are determined to continue to drive forward and send the very clearest signal to companies and employers that we are becoming less tolerant of non-compliance, and we want them to recognise that.
None the less, increasing compliance with the minimum wage in the sector remains a top priority for us and we are taking a number of steps to promote compliance and take stronger action against those who break the law. First, HMRC continues to focus on tackling non-compliance, but that activity is no longer reliant on worker complaints and instead targets employers with the highest risk of non-compliance, based on a range of intelligence and information. HMRC can now analyse information from, for example, other Departments, trade union representatives and the Low Pay Commission, and the evidence indicates that this targeted approach in the care sector is working. From April 2013 to January 2016, HMRC opened 443 cases in the social care sector and closed 308 of those. Of the 308 closed cases, underpayment of the national minimum wage was found in 32% of investigations—for total arrears of £442,000 to 3,000 workers, with penalties issued for a total value of £100,000.
Members have also raised the important issue of affordability within the sector, given the introduction of the national living wage. That pay rise for the lowest paid could be seen to be a threat in terms of increasing non-compliance. That is partly why we are taking steps to signal strongly our commitment to clamp down on it.
With an ageing society, social care funding is a major strategic issue for the country and this Government. We are engaging closely with all the relevant stakeholders on that issue to ensure that councils recognise the need to increase the price that they pay for care in order to cover costs and to reflect rising costs and, not least, the national living wage. That is partly why we are giving local authorities access to an extra £3.5 billion of new support for social care by 2020, to be included in the better care fund. Councils will also be able to introduce a new social care precept, allowing them to increase council tax by 2% above the existing threshold. Taken together, the new precept and the additional better care fund contribution mean local government has access to the extra funding that it will need to increase social care spending in real terms by the end of this Parliament.
Barbara Keeley
I thank the Minister for giving way again, but there is a two-year gap. There is nothing from the better care fund this year, only £100 million next year, and—as I said in giving the example from my local authority—the 2% social care precept only covers about half of what is needed. Nationally as well as locally, that is the problem and that is why the Local Government Association asked the Government to bring forward £700 million.
George Freeman
I understand. These things are never straightforward or simple. As the right hon. Member for Oxford East pointed out, a lot of creativity is required from councils and the healthcare sector. There is best practice across the country to ensure that health and care are better integrated. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Opposition Members to shake their heads as if this were an easy problem to solve. It is a problem we inherited from the last Government. I am trying to be reasonable in setting out our commitment to deal with it, but it should be remembered that we inherited the problem from the Members who are shaking their heads and suggesting that it is easily solved. I hope that the measures I have set out provide reassurance that we are taking the matter seriously.
Perhaps I may conclude by framing the central elements of the package that we are putting in place. We have toughened up the sanctions and made it easier to name and shame. We have now named 490 employers, raised over £1 million in penalties and recovered over £30 million in unpaid arrears. We are now running at a 94% rate of naming since our revisions to the code in 2013.
Several hon. Members made the point about four-year delays, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). I think that that is completely unacceptable. Although we are seeing progress in the speed and rate at which investigations are being pursued, I will talk to the Minister for Skills to make sure the very strongest signal is sent to HMRC saying that we cannot tolerate such delays.
As I have signalled, we are seriously interested in looking at the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation on payslip transparency. It is important that employers are held to account and that employees, particularly when it comes to individual elements of time, can see clearly what time they are being paid for.
I want to highlight the fact that the advice available for employees is free and confidential and that we have introduced important measures to ensure that, when HMRC has information from a third party to carry out an investigation, it keeps the complainant’s identity confidential and that that should trigger a whole workforce investigation.
I also want to highlight the fact that HMRC offers a free service to any employee who believes they are not being reimbursed properly. HMRC also has powers to enforce the reimbursement of expenses. That gives me the chance to highlight the fact that all expenses properly incurred by care workers in the course of doing their duty, often in a sector that requires them to travel extensively across large areas, should be, must be and the Government expect will be, properly reimbursed.
I hope that that helps to set out the Government’s real commitment to tackling the issue. I again thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central on raising it and giving me the opportunity on behalf of the Government to set out how strongly we support cracking down on non-compliance.
Paul Blomfield
I congratulate you, Mr Hollobone, on the seamless and unnoticed way in which you assumed the Chair.
I thank all Members for their contributions, which are too numerous to cover in a couple of minutes. They have illuminated the scale of and damage caused by the problem. It is ironic that a sector that is supposed to be about care shows so little duty of care to its employees. To illustrate the cross-party concern, I cite the words of the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) that something is very wrong indeed with national minimum wage enforcement in the care sector and that has to change.
I thank the Minister for the constructive way in which he has engaged with the debate and the issues that we have raised. I do not think he covered all the points that a number of us raised. I will write to him and I hope he will have an opportunity to get back to me on those.
I want to follow through on the Minister’s suggestion that the Government may take up the issue raised by the Low Pay Commission and Unison and to ask him to indicate—he can do so simply by nodding—that he is willing to meet me, the commission and Unison to discuss how we can move forward with implementation of transparency on payslips.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister is nodding and I am pleased to acknowledge that we will be able to have such a meeting.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government policy on enforcement of the national minimum wage in the care sector.
Registration of Births
(8 years 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
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the registration of births of children of deceased people.
I am conscious that our debate may be interrupted at any moment by the sound of the Division Bell. I will start, but I presume that the sitting will be suspended for 15 minutes.
I called for this debate following a number of cases that had come to my attention. I want to make a simple request to the Government about freedom. Since I became an MP in 2010, we have had many debates about equality, and many of us were proud to support legislation to enable same-sex marriage, but many equality battles remain, and this is one. It is about bringing legislation on the registration of births into the 21st century.
Stella Creasy
As I was saying before we were interrupted by high-speed rail, this debate is about equality and freedom, because the law on equality is ultimately about the freedom for people to live their life as they wish. The freedoms we are talking about today are freedoms held in one of the most tragic circumstances possible: a mother losing a loved one just as she is bringing a new life into this world. Today I will talk about the way in which, perhaps inadvertently, our legislation discriminates against people in those circumstances.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The freedom that my hon. Friend is referring to exists in Germany and Switzerland, both of which have the sensible rule that parental information is taken when the baby is first introduced to the midwife and maternity system and the father acknowledges paternity. The legal situation is clarified at that point, rather than at the point of the baby’s birth.
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend, like me, has such cases in her constituency, hence her concern to get the law right. The legislation does not make sense in the 21st century, and our concern is that it inadvertently discriminates against women. It makes a value judgment about the mothers in question and therefore enshrines an outdated attitude towards women in the process.
I have some examples, and I am grateful that one of the people tragically affected is here with us today. My constituent, Joana, is a young mum from Walthamstow, and she already had one child with her partner, David, when he tragically had a stroke shortly before the birth of their second child, Eira. Having his role in Eira’s life recorded was therefore an important part of the grieving process for the family, and doubly important for Eira because it gives her the same rights to David as her sister. Joana has described to me the dehumanising process of trying to get David’s role in Eira’s life recorded on the birth certificate. She described turning up at the register office only to find that the registrar had no idea what to do, and she then found out that she had to go to court to prove that David was the father. She had been in a long-term relationship with this man. She shared a mortgage with him, and he had been at the National Childbirth Trust classes. He had been an integral part of the preparations for the birth of their second child. They were clearly in a committed relationship, but alas, the law includes no ability to recognise that and does not give the registrar the ability to record David’s part in Eira’s life, because of the simple fact that Joana and David were not married.
Joana is not alone. Penny’s partner Nathan sadly died two weeks after their son was born. Their son was conceived using IVF, so Nathan was clearly the father. Again, purely because Nathan and Penny had chosen not to marry, they were not able to record Nathan’s role in their son’s life on the birth certificate. Penny told us:
“Babies don’t come from wedding rings.”
There is also Rebecca, who already had a child with Mark before he tragically died in a paragliding accident when Rebecca was just 17 weeks pregnant.
All three women faced the same scenario in which their word, and even the basic evidence they could provide for the long-standing, committed relationships they were in with the fathers of their children, was not enough, so they had to go to court. They faced a court fee of £365 and possible further fees for DNA tests to prove that their partner was indeed the father. In fact, in Joana’s case, David’s father had to come to court. They had to take DNA not just from Eira but from her sister and from a family member to prove that most basic relationship, which was obvious to the outside world.
The situation was very different for Kate, who also lost her partner in tragic circumstances shortly before the birth of their son. Three weeks before he passed away they married in a hospital intensive care unit. The £27 licence meant that not only was she able to register her child’s father with no further questions asked—even though, just as in the cases of Joana, Penny and Rebecca, he was not present at the registration process—but she was entitled to a bereavement allowance of £2,000 and an ongoing widowed parent’s allowance of £510 a month.
There is a simple question at the heart of this matter. I wanted the debate because as a society we have not yet considered these issues, even though they affect how people live today. In securing the debate, the first thing I wanted to do was put this matter on the Minister’s list of things to resolve. The situation still exists only because nobody has really looked at it in the 21st century. Why do we treat Kate differently from Penny, Rebecca and Joana?
I pay tribute to the organisation Widowed & Young, which has been helping equally all four of the women I mentioned. It recognised the iniquities in the existing system. When those women’s partners were alive, all four couples were treated equally with regard to taxation. It is only in death that we see the inequality in people’s treatment. By having that marriage licence, Kate did not have to go through the indignity of having to try to prove her child’s paternity in the way the other three did.
The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 is truly from another time. I say for the avoidance of doubt that I think everyone understands that because legal rights come with parenthood, there must be a process for registering children. That process must withstand scrutiny and nobody, either male or female, should be registered if they are not a parent. But the Act is designed to protect fathers from having an illegitimate child registered. I would caution that the term “illegitimate” in itself speaks volumes of the 1950s, not the 21st century in which we live.
The existing law requires the courts to verify parentage when the parents are not married, as if marriage in and of itself verifies the truthfulness of what a woman says. There is, though, already a process in place for a birth certificate to be amended to add a name. We already recognise that it is right for a registrar to have the discretion to amend a certificate in certain circumstances—they can use their professional judgment and respond to the person in front of them—without requiring people to go to court, which can cost families thousands of pounds at the most tragic of times.
We do not, though, have the ability to correct an absence. There is no way to allow a registrar to look at the evidence that Joana could have so easily presented, at the time, of the sincere and committed relationship she was in with David, and to act accordingly. At the most difficult and sensitive time for a family, the law stands firm. It does not see the lives that people had, but simply makes the judgment that they were not married. We must change that. Turning up with a father is in itself no guarantee that he is the father, just as turning up without him does not mean that he can be verified by DNA testing alone.
Will the Minister consider ending the inequality and making sure that this part of the law does not judge those who choose not to marry, just as we seek to support those who do choose to marry? In not giving registrars the same power to correct an absence as to make an addition, we persist with the inequality of saying that some women will lie and that marriage is what makes them truthful. Why treat women who choose not to marry as somehow untrustworthy? Why not enable registrars to seek evidence, act and use their professional judgment? We are seeking a small change in the law, but it would be a big injustice for the families if we did not drag the legislation into the 21st century.
I appreciate that this might be the first time the Minister has considered the matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) pointed out, there are different processes in place in other countries. We want the Government to commit to looking at how they can make a change happen, and to recognise that this is an injustice that needs resolution. It is now too late for Joana—she has managed to record David’s role in Eira’s life through other means—but we know that many more families out there are suffering the same experience and hope the Government will act accordingly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing this important debate on such a vital issue.
We are here because of the tragic death of the hon. Lady’s constituent, David. At the outset, I pay tribute to him, to his partner, Joana, and to all the other women she mentioned—Penny, Rebecca and Kate. Joana and the others have shown incredible bravery in utterly devastating circumstances. I was deeply moved when I read Joana’s account of her family’s experience. I acknowledge the courage and determination she has shown by speaking out publicly on this issue. It cannot have been easy for her.
The hon. Lady makes a compelling case for addressing the issue at hand, which is the lengthy and complex process that Joana had to undertake to put the name of her baby’s father on her birth certificate after he tragically and unexpectedly died before the child was born. Of course, nothing can undo the devastation of these terrible circumstances, but recognising a deceased father on a birth certificate is an important step in honouring their memory.
I understand utterly the sense of frustration when the system appears to make things very difficult. It has been very valuable to listen to the points that the hon. Lady has made today, all of which I have taken on board. I hope that I can explain how the law operates and why, and how the law, the courts and the registration process provide for the recognition of fathers in such tragic circumstances, but I will also consider all the suggestions that the hon. Lady has made.
Moving away from the specific details of this case, I will lay out the general position on parentage. The two key principles in English law in this regard are the “presumption of legitimacy”, which assumes that a child born to a married woman is the child of her husband, and genetic fatherhood, whereby evidence can be used where necessary to prove paternity.
The law presumes that a married man is the father of his wife’s child, so his registration as the child’s father is automatic. The law does not give the same recognition to unmarried fathers, because currently there is not any legal framework that presumes their paternity. In ordinary circumstances, an unmarried father will consent to his registration as the father of the child and usually he will attend the registration of the child’s birth with the mother, but the registrar can also recognise the father’s entitlement to be registered if he has a parental responsibility agreement, a parental responsibility order or another suitable form of court order. However, where that is not possible, in tragic cases such as that of Joana, the law provides an alternative way for a deceased father to be recognised as a child’s father, and then to be recognised through the birth registration process.
The Family Law Act 1986 allows a court to make a declaration of parentage, and anyone can apply for a declaration to the High Court or the family court, and the final order of the court will be a declaration that a person named in the application was the parent of the child. The Registrar General is then responsible for authorising the re-registration of the birth to include the name of the deceased father, under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. This process should not be lengthy or expensive, but unfortunately that does not appear to have been the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent.
The hon. Lady rightly points out the necessary provision to prevent birth registration from naming someone falsely as a child’s father, because obviously a birth certificate could potentially be used to support a false claim for something such as nationality or the right to inherit property. Consequently, it is really important that a birth certificate generates a high level of confidence in the information that it contains.
However, a key intention of the provisions for family proceedings was to try to make the process simpler, so that people would not need legal representation, which should keep the costs down. The application form for a declaration of parentage explains all the information that is required and contains directions that enable the application to be completed successfully. However, in light of the experiences I have heard about today, I am very happy to look at the information available to people registering births and to consult with the General Register Office to see whether this process needs to be improved to make the position clearer for applicants, especially those unfortunate enough to have experienced the death of a partner shortly before the birth of a child.
In addition, I know that one of my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office is already looking at the registration process for marriage and I am more than happy to have a conversation with him to request that the registration of births is also covered. I will particularly ask that international examples are looked at to see whether they can be taken into consideration.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for her comments. Nobody is suggesting that we do not need a robust process for registering births. However, what troubles me particularly in this instance is the difference between a registrar taking on that role and seeking a court intervention. She and I may differ on whether the cost of the court fees is excessive, but the principle that the court has to be involved at all is the challenge, especially when we allow registrars to amend a birth certificate. It is registering a name in the first place that is the challenge when the father is deceased and the parents are not married.
Will the Minister commit to examining why we presume a registrar can exercise their professional judgment to amend a registration when perhaps even married people might not have given the whole truth at the point of registering a birth, but, when it comes to adding the name of a person who cannot be there for a very reasonable reason—because they have passed away—we deny the registrar’s professional expertise? The simple resolution would be to extend the use of that professional expertise to both instances, rather than saying that only the courts can add a name, but that a registrar can amend a name.
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, as I have said, I will consider that, and also discuss it with my counterpart in the Home Office, who is already considering registrations of marriages, to see whether that scrutiny can be extended to registration of births as well, particularly in cases of this kind. I would like, in conclusion, to express my sympathy to Joana, who had such a terrible experience following the loss of her partner, and to her daughters, on the loss of their dad.
Stella Creasy
For clarity, may we have a timetable for the scrutiny of marriage licences, and for consideration of extending the registrars’ powers to add a name? Now that we have opened up the matter in debate, we know that several families are in the same position, and they would welcome clarity about when they will get answers.
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, that consideration is happening in the Home Office. As the hon. Lady will know, I am a Minister in the Ministry of Justice so I do not know the timetable, but I am more than happy to get back to her with that information as soon as I have it.
Question put and agreed to.
Hong Kong: Sino-British Joint Declaration
(8 years 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
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Today is exactly the right moment for the House to consider this important issue. The debate is prompted by the most recent six-monthly report from the Foreign Office on Hong Kong, the 38th in a series of reports written every six months on the implementation of the 1984 joint declaration. One thing that I have been proud to introduce to the House since I became chairman of the all-party group on China is the fact that our group debates the reports and brings them to the House for debate, so that they are not just written, filed and forgotten. Every six months, members who are interested have the chance to discuss the reports and to express to the people of Hong Kong the objective British view on the maintenance of the joint declaration.
Today’s debate clashes, alas, with a number of other events in the House, as is often the way, and a large number of Members who said that they wanted to come and participate have unfortunately been unable to do so. However, I would not want anyone watching or listening to the debate, or reading the Hansard record later, to be confused by that and to think that there is little interest in the joint declaration or in the present and future of Hong Kong. It is a territory of huge significance to us and to China—and most importantly, of course, to its residents. It is therefore right that we should go through the exercise of reviewing what has happened, what changes there have been and whether they are broadly positive or negative.
The latest six-monthly report, which came out on 11 February, is, as so often with Foreign Office documents, a model of precision. It covers a wide range of subjects and is often as interesting for what it does not say as what it does say. I want to highlight first the overall themes of the report, secondly the areas of concern that it highlights, and thirdly the wider issue of the rule of law. The report deals with that final point in some detail, and it is what we should concern ourselves with today.
First, I want to talk about the overall tone of the report. It concludes that during the second half of 2015, the programme of one country, two systems, which the joint declaration committed itself to,
“has, in very many areas, continued to function well”,
but that there are specific grounds for serious concern, which
“revolve…around the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Joint Declaration, including academic freedom and the freedom of the press.”
The overall theme that the constitutional arrangement of one country, two systems has served Hong Kong well is repeated in the Foreign Secretary’s foreword to the report. He says that the constitutional arrangement continued to function well during the reporting period, but that there are areas of concern where we should reinforce the responsibilities on both our countries set out in the joint declaration. I will come back to the Foreign Secretary’s specific remarks on the case of Lee Po, a British citizen.
At this stage, I simply highlight the comments with which the Foreign Secretary finishes the foreword, which relate to the wider constitutional issue. He observes:
“The UK Government judges that constitutional reform will help, not hinder, the Hong Kong SAR Government…A more democratic and accountable system of government would help strengthen those rights and freedoms which have come under increasing pressure over the past two years…We encourage all parties to play their part in rebuilding constructive dialogue”.
That has to be right, because it is in our interests and those of China, Hong Kong and the wider world that Hong Kong continues to thrive and be the success that it has been in the almost 20 years since handover in 1997.
I come on to the areas of concern that have been highlighted during and since the second half of last year. I will first focus on the broader attitude to the rule of law and the separation of powers. I note from the report that on 12 September, the Central Government Liaison Office director, Zhang Xiaoming, argued in a speech
“that the existence of the executive, legislature and judiciary did not mean the separation of powers could be applied to Hong Kong in its entirety…he described the Chief Executive’s special legal position as ‘transcending’ the executive, legislature and judiciary.”
That statement is incompatible with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the one country, two systems philosophy that underpins the joint declaration. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that speech by Zhang Xiaoming, which in many ways appeared to suggest that the Chief Executive can control the executive, legislature and judiciary with overweening powers.
The Chinese response to the six-monthly report again accused Her Majesty’s Government of interfering in Hong Kong affairs. That has always been a difficult and sensitive area, and we have to address it with a sensitivity that recognises that the sovereignty of Hong Kong lies entirely with the People’s Republic of China. As the Government have been accused of interfering in Hong Kong affairs, I think it is worth recapping the importance of British interest in Hong Kong. That is partly a commercial interest, as has often been noted, with more than 630 UK companies based in Hong Kong and UK investment there conservatively valued at about £35 billion, which makes up just over a third of the total UK investment in Asia.
However, our interest in Hong Kong is not simply the interest of a mercantile nation. It stretches much wider, starting with the human involvement—the fact that 3.7 million British passport holders live in Hong Kong—and continuing with the strong education links. The UK was the top overseas English-speaking study destination for Hong Kong higher education students in 2014-15, the last date for which we have complete data, and that has been the case for a long time.
British companies based in Hong Kong are not there simply to do business with Hong Kong itself, although that is often important. They often have headquarters in Hong Kong but use it as a gateway into China. Some 126 UK companies have regional headquarters and 220 have regional offices there. It has been a frustration of mine for many years that it is impossible to quantify accurately British trade with and investment in China, precisely because so much of it is routed through Hong Kong and therefore appears in the trade statistics as being of Hong Kong origin. The total two-way goods trade between the UK and mainland China, routed through Hong Kong, as far as we can estimate it, was valued at just over £5 billion at the last count in 2014-15.
Our stake in Hong Kong is wide. It starts with a very large number of British citizens—British passport holders and British overseas passport holders. It continues through education and an important trading and business relationship, which is important not just to us and to Hong Kong, but to China. The success of the British business relationship in Hong Kong underpins the fact that the freedoms established through the joint declaration are still there. They are succeeding, and they provide the core of the reasons why British firms enjoy doing business with Hong Kong. Were that ever to be damaged, it would not only be British trade and investment that would suffer from the change in Hong Kong’s reputation; investment and trade with a wide range of other countries, which underpins Hong Kong’s success, would also suffer. That investment and trade is critical to China as proof of the success of the joint declaration and the handover of Hong Kong, and of the fact that one country, two systems can thrive and offers precedents for its diplomacy in other parts of the world.
On the accusation of interference in Hong Kong affairs, I suggest that the rule of law—the absolute conviction that the judiciary in Hong Kong is independent, will make independent decisions and will not favour businesses of one type over others, other than through the process of a legal case—is absolutely essential to the success of Hong Kong and, ultimately, to the success of China itself. I hope the Minister will comment on that. It is therefore no surprise that when President Xi Jinping ascended to the chairmanship of the Chinese Communist party, his opening speech highlighted both the challenge of the dangers of corruption, and the opportunity to strengthen the rule of law in China. He said that he was committed to that, and that it was at the heart of his mission in the leadership of that great country.
It would be curious to hold this debate and discuss the six-monthly report on Hong Kong without making reference to what the Foreign Secretary described as
“a serious breach of the Sino-British joint declaration”,
which
“undermines the principle of ‘One Country, Two Systems,’ which assures Hong Kong residents of the protection of the Hong Kong legal system.”
I refer, of course, to the unexplained disappearance of five individuals associated with a Hong Kong bookstore and, in particular, the disappearance of Mr Lee Po from Hong Kong to mainland China.
None of us in this House has access to the true facts behind that curious situation, other than what we have read in the newspapers, what the Foreign Secretary said in a meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister and the subsequent statements from the Foreign Office and the Chinese Government. An interview with Mr Lee Po, of which I have seen a translation, was shown on Chinese television. It suggests that he no longer wishes to be a British citizen and has renounced his citizenship—although clearly not in accordance with the rules for doing so.
Today is an opportunity for the Minister to brief the House on the latest situation and on whether he believes that the disappearance of Mr Lee Po, who has now reappeared in Guangdong, constitutes a serious breach of the joint declaration. What reaction has there been in discussions between the Foreign Secretary and the Chinese ambassador, my friend Mr Liu Xiaoming, here in London, and in other meetings in China and Hong Kong? Will he clarify the situation and explain how it will be resolved? Ultimately, it is about whether the freedoms that have been guaranteed are for real, and about the perception of whether China is adhering to those freedoms in Hong Kong. It is about whether this is a one-off incident that will not recur or the beginning of a seriously disturbing trend.
The most poignant thing, in a way, is how the people of Hong Kong have reacted to that issue. I received an email only an hour or so ago from a young resident of London who is a student here but is from Hong Kong. She expressed her own particular concerns. The long and the short of her email is that she has serious concerns about the future of Hong Kong and feels that the freedoms guaranteed under the joint declaration are being eroded. She wrote:
“As a Hong Kong citizen, I am concerned about the future of Hong Kong. And maybe you have heard…that the freedom and democracy in Hong Kong is deteriorating under the rule of Chinese government.”
She says that personally, she thinks that China
“have been violating the Joint Declaration and never kept their promises.”
That expression of concern is by no means unusual. There have been other letters and emails from Hong Kong citizens, resident either here in London or in Hong Kong itself. They are the future of Hong Kong. It is the young people who, with their energies, resources and commitment, will determine whether Hong Kong continues to thrive as one of the greatest examples in the modern world of a free marketplace enjoying growth and opportunity for all of its people, or whether their concerns will lead to a rather different situation—a sad, continual decline in Hong Kong’s importance. None of us wants to see that.
I am conscious that at least a couple of other Members wish to speak, so I will move on from the individual case of Mr Lee Po and touch briefly on the wider issue of the rule of law.
The rule of law in China, one of the two main driving points of Mr Xi Jinping’s leadership, has now been raised in other contexts as well as that of Hong Kong. I refer in particular to issues in the South China sea, where last October an arbitral tribunal under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea ruled that it had jurisdiction to consider the Philippines’ claim in its maritime dispute with China. I believe there will be a ruling from the tribunal soon; the Minister might want to comment on that. If there is, the reactions of all those involved will be important. Whatever the decision is, we will get a clear idea of the reactions of the Philippines, China and the United Kingdom. That will be a symbolic signpost of whether China is going to take forward the rule of law not just in the People’s Republic itself, but in a wider context and in how she engages with the world at large. China is one of the great nations of our time; of that there can be no doubt. Her aspirations and ambitions are considerable, and many of them are hugely positive things that can lead to the development of better standards of living in parts of the world, as she has enjoyed herself through the reforms of the past 35 years.
However, there are also dangers in China’s ambitions, particularly in the South China sea, where there is a risk of rising tensions over rival claims. China and other nations are strengthening their military capabilities and increasingly having clashes that could spiral out of control. We have seen another of those clashes in the past few days, this time on the edge of Borneo, or Kalimantan, involving the Indonesian Government. I believe the Indonesian Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries intends to launch a legal case against China. From Britain’s point of view, the escalation of such disagreements and China’s recent large-scale reclamation activity—it has even sited missiles on Woody Island in the Paracels—pose a serious risk of escalations that could cause greater problems. The United Kingdom would not wish to see that at all.
Will the Minister comment on the rule of law outside China’s own sovereignty and on her relationships with other nations in the South China sea? Will he also comment on how we in Britain—particularly the Government—can play a constructive role in helping with the peaceful settlement of all claims in line with international law? “In line with international law” is the part that matters.
The Minister commented recently that how China responds will be seen as a signal of its commitment to the rules-based international system. My friends in the Chinese embassy and the Chinese Government will not necessarily welcome this, but I believe that over the next five, 10, 20 years, the way in which China engages with the world, and whether it adopts rules-based international law as the starting point for its engagement with the wider world and its commercial and cultural advantages, will be the measure by which the world judges its advancement into being one of the handful of greatest nations.
In summary, today we have reviewed the most recent six-monthly report on Hong Kong, which confirms that in many ways the joint declaration continues, and that many, if not most, of the freedoms set out in it are in good shape and are being endorsed and carried out by all parties. There are, however, serious concerns to do with the rule of law, brought alive most vividly by the possible abduction of a British citizen from Hong Kong to China. The exercise of the rule of law in a wider, international context may indicate further problems with China’s adherence to a rules-based system. The House is absolutely entitled to discuss that, not least because of this country’s significant investment in and commitment to the future of Hong Kong.
China is our friend; we are in a partnership with it in a large number of fields. I am proud to be the chairman of such a large all-party group on China, with almost 400 members—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
When we were so rudely interrupted, the hon. Member for Gloucester was still on his feet.
Richard Graham
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. You are correct, I was still on my feet, but I was moving swiftly to the climax of my contribution.
I was highlighting the huge steps that the People’s Republic of China has made in so many ways. Today, its partnership with us extends across a wide variety of sectors, areas and countries throughout the world. One example of a field in which China’s advances are important, particularly to British business, is intellectual property rights, which are now better protected in China than in many other countries in the world, not least because it has an interest in intellectual property rights for its own significant intellectual property.
We all want to be reassured that, as China engages in a partnership with us that extends into areas previously considered sensitive by many countries—for instance, nuclear power—the rule of law, sticking to agreements and standing by what has been signed and agreed to will be a cornerstone of the People’s Republic now and in future. I hope that the Minister will touch on that reassurance, and that he will address the concerns about a specific breach of the joint declaration—the first, let it be said, since the handover in 1997—and about China’s engagement with the rule of law as it applies internationally.
I am grateful for your forbearance, Mr Hollobone. I hope that Members from other parties will express their views on the latest Foreign Office report and on the importance of keeping to the freedoms and rights established under the one country, two systems philosophy, and that the Minister will shed light on his latest understanding of events.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can now run to 6.14 pm. The recommended Front-Bencher speaking limits are five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Those are recommendations. In addition, one prominent Back Bencher has caught my eye—I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to be able to speak on this issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on setting a good scene and one that I agree with—I suspect that we will have consensus.
I was just saying to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), that it is Groundhog Day this afternoon, with almost the same players—perhaps fewer in number—and the Minister in his place as well. I do not say this lightly, but the Minister was most responsive in the Burma debate this morning. I appreciated his comments; I think we all did. The shadow Minister, too, made a valuable contribution to that debate. It was good to have consensus.
Here we are now, all back to look at a different subject, and one that is close to my heart. Why is it close to my heart? Some of my constituents came to stay in Northern Ireland from Hong Kong. They did not go home again, but have contacts through relatives and families and business connections even today, so I thought I should make a contribution. I was not sure whether I could fit in with the timing, but we have made sure that I could do so.
Although Hong Kong was handed over almost two decades ago, tensions and Chinese intrusion remain rife. The hon. Member for Gloucester outlined that and I think other Members will do the same. The issue is more about finding solutions, co-operating better, having a better understanding of each other and how to move forward before 2047. Despite the handover, there will always be a paternal connection between us here in the home nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the citizens of Hong Kong and the British expats who are living out there, some of whom we know and some of whom we have direct contact with.
We have a tremendous sense of shared history and a shared way of life. In many ways, the Britishness we have here is still apparent in Hong Kong. Those characteristics and personality traits are real. We have a remarkably similar system and our aspiration and drive have helped Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, in stark contrast with the socialist system in the People’s Republic of China. The issue is how we retain that for the next number of years and how we make sure that Hong Kong can develop as we want it to develop, with our relationship remaining the same, and China understanding the line in the sand that it cannot go over.
The Sino-British joint declaration paved the way for Hong Kong’s bid to be recognised as a sovereign entity by the United Nations in 2047 as part of the unchanged status for five decades from 1997. That was agreed to by all parties and it is worrying to see continuous Chinese intrusion into Hong Kong’s affairs and the consequent tensions and unease.
Over the years, we in Northern Ireland have built up strong relations with the People’s Republic of China. We see things that we can work together on. That is how it should be. We have business contacts, economic contacts, educational contacts and student exchanges. Other Members will probably confirm that that is happening in other UK regions, but in Northern Ireland our Minister and the Department of Enterprise, Training and Investment have strengthened those relations and we want that to continue.
Hong Kong was supposed to have a democratic Government and an independent constitution, but instead we have seen mass protests and, in response to that, disturbingly expansive infringements of civil liberties. Last year, as part of the all-party armed forces group, I attended the Royal College of Defence Studies. The people there were in their third and final year of the course. A Hong Kong police chief was involved and he told me—it was a year ago, of course—that there were 3,000-plus protests on the streets of Hong Kong every year and that they were always peaceful. I wish we could say that the last years have been peaceful, but they have not been. There have been clear infringements of civil liberties. In his introduction, the hon. Member for Gloucester referred to the bookkeeper and shop owner who was arrested and we must be mindful of the breach of his civil liberties, his rights and his physical liberty, which China has ignored.
The protests had some undesirable elements, as every mass protest does, but the protestors must be commended because for a movement with such numbers and such spread the discipline was fantastic and the resulting pressure on Beijing can only be a good thing. We have had perhaps more than our share of protests on the streets in Northern Ireland—I sometimes took part—and they had the potential to get out of control, but the protests in Hong Kong have only been good.
Suspicion is the key feeling among those in Hong Kong. The Sino-British joint declaration paved the way for Hong Kong to be recognised as a sovereign entity, but instead, we see over-coercive tactics employed by Hong Kong’s law enforcement officials, while the Chinese mainland authorities pull the puppet strings. We have to express some concern at that and ask China to draw back and keep to the law on the Sino-British joint declaration.
Publishers disappearing is not my idea of advancement; it never can be. In relative terms, there are far greater sins in the world, but that is not what we signed up for or agreed to. We, the British, are pulling our weight when it comes to the future of Hong Kong. The Minister, I am sure, will confirm that. It is time for Beijing to get a reality check and realise that the resolve and determination of the Hong Kong people is one that it cannot beat or break.
In 1993, China’s chief negotiator on Hong Kong, Lu Ping, had the following to say:
“The method of universal suffrage should be reported to China’s Parliament for the record, whereas the central government’s agreement is not necessary. How Hong Kong develops its democracy is completely within the sphere of the autonomy of Hong Kong. The central government will not interfere.”
Those are the words he used in 1993, but here we are in 2016. Given the experiences in 2015, things are not exactly as he envisaged. Indeed, they have changed.
What has changed? We are 20 years into the declaration’s 50-year period. Surely Beijing should be moving forward and away from its shameful authoritarian past, not moving backward and seeking to impose its undemocratic and oppressive regime upon what is clearly an independent and notably different people. Let us recognise, as I am sure we will, the independence of the people of Hong Kong, their characteristics, their personalities and their culture.
Under the Chinese Government’s one China, two systems principle, Hong Kong and Macau should continue to possess their own Governments, multi-party legislatures, legal systems, police forces, monetary systems, customs territory, immigration policies, national sports teams, official languages, postal systems and academic and educational systems. They should have all those things, but do they? Is China adhering to the law on that?
To conclude, China is committed in law to affording at least this 50-year period of autonomy to Hong Kong, but I believe that it is reneging on some of its commitments. We need to pressure China at home and abroad to give the Hong Kong people the dignity of self-determination. It is our duty in this House to speak out for those who need help, as the hon. Gentleman said, as other Members will say in this House and as the shadow Minister will say. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As I rise, I see on the green screens that the House is moving to Third Reading of the Scotland Bill; much as that tempts me to reflect upon the end of empire and last remaining colonial outposts, I shall contain the contents of my speech to the UK’s relationship with Hong Kong. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this debate and recognise his deep and long-standing commitment to this issue. He has considerably greater experience than me, and I will not speak with anything like the authority he has today.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said we are having a bit of a re-run of the cast of characters who were here this morning for the Burma debate. Front-Bench Members and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman and the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary will have heard me reflect on how I grew up hearing about the struggle of Aung San Suu Kyi and the fate of Hong Kong being a very live issue throughout the early days of my life. I do not quite remember the agreement itself being signed, but I definitely remember the deadline coming into force. It seemed like an incredibly long period in the future—some dim, far-off time in 1997—but of course more time has passed since then than between the declaration being signed and the handover taking place. It was remarkable that that agreement was made and the handover was secured with a reasonable and peaceful transition. Now a system for monitoring the success of that agreement exists in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s regular reports.
I want to touch briefly on three key themes: the importance of co-operation and mutual respect between the two parties to the declaration; the grounds on which engagement ought to take place, which are particularly with respect to human rights and the rule of law; and the message we want to put across when we are engaging, which is that human rights and equality in society are a fundamental part of achieving greater equality and economic growth, particularly in China. The ongoing commitment to work together to achieve the principles of the Sino-British declaration in a way that benefits all parties is vital and the scrutiny process is important in that.
We have heard a lot about the report’s detail, which is important to recognise, particularly when looking at the continuing progress made towards universal suffrage, but we must recognise that there is always more to do. I echo the concerns expressed about the disappearance of the individuals associated with the book store and in particular the situation that faces Mr Lee Po. Like the other Members, I hope we will hear an update from the Minister.
One of the guiding principles for engagement with China has to be around human rights and the rule of law. Last year, the First Minister of Scotland visited China and emphasised that upholding and respecting human rights in conjunction with economic growth is a twin track towards empowering people and lifting them out of poverty. Undoubtedly our countries can learn a lot from each other. We know that China is a key exporter that contributes more than £100 million a year to the Scottish economy through tourism, but economic growth and equality must be two sides of the same coin, so I stress the importance of people working together to tackle poverty and further the cause of women’s rights and equality in particular as well as human rights more broadly.
When the First Minister visited China, she made a point of raising human rights and stressing equality. I hope the UK Government will be prepared to follow that lead. Questions have been asked about whether the opportunities when the Chancellor visited China in September and when the Chinese President met with the Prime Minister here in October were fully utilised to stress the human rights agenda and the actions we discussed today. The situation in Hong Kong is a key manifestation of that. Many such concerns have been expressed by the Foreign Affairs Committee over the years, particularly when the hon. Member for Gloucester has been involved. I hope that the UK Government will continue to stress their commitment to human rights and work for the promotion of democracy in Hong Kong and across the whole of China.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate. Indeed, I recognise his record of being critical of China as regards Hong Kong and his recent intervention in the House on the case of Mr Lee Po, shortly after his disappearance.
When we balance the relationship with China, our great partner, we must recognise the importance of putting on record what we hold dear about human rights, equality and freedom. That is not always easy, but it is important to uphold. I am sure that hon. Members recognise the continued importance of Hong Kong to the UK. Our shared history, the development of economic ties and the fact that more than 3 million British citizens are currently resident in Hong Kong mean that the UK will continue to have a very special relationship with this special administrative region. With more than 600 UK businesses registered there, an export market worth £8.6 billion and a UK investment stake of more than £33 billion, the signs are clear that trade is healthy.
I will focus on two specific areas, both relating to the key issue of stability. The one country, two systems framework is crucial in underpinning confidence in Hong Kong—in the place of Hong Kong, which we all love. We all want reassurance that there is a robust and structured judicial framework and that the rule of law is upheld. The hon. Member for Gloucester is right to describe the importance of the rule of law as defined by the independence of the judiciary. He is also right to praise China for its robust approach to addressing corruption in the wider piece—not just in Hong Kong but in the wider country—and the zealousness with which corruption is being addressed demonstrates that there is an ability to uphold the rule of law where necessary. The rule of law can therefore be upheld in Hong Kong; it just takes political will to make that happen.
The joint declaration is crucial in upholding understanding and confidence in Hong Kong. We all know that many perceive Hong Kong as the gateway to the broader Chinese market and to China culturally, and it is perceived as a place where corporate structures can grow within a familiar system. The dynamic in Hong Kong and the Legislative Council is changing, and we have heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that there is a sense that whereas protest was peaceful several years ago, in the past few years it has started to become less peaceful. There is more use of police and certain tactics that are not welcome in controlling crowds, which is the sort of tone that needs to be underlined in this debate.
Equally, what we are seeing happen at constitutional level and in debates in the Legislative Council—the filibustering, the discussions, the lack of harmony—are all things that, in a sense, change the temperature in Hong Kong. They are the sorts of things that, as a partner of Hong Kong, we need to underline and draw to China’s attention. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of the current situation in Hong Kong on constitutional reform, on the peacefulness or non-peacefulness of demonstrations and on how young people feel. The hon. Member for Gloucester was right to read out an email from a young person, and I have been approached both by British-born Chinese and by Hong Kong students who are studying here. They are concerned about their future in Hong Kong, and they want to enjoy in Hong Kong the kinds of freedoms that we enjoy here.
Upholding the one country, two systems principle goes beyond ensuring commercial interests. Members are right to mention the debate we had this morning, in which I talked about our triangle of aims in foreign affairs. The triangle has three parts: first, economy and trade; secondly, security—I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the South China sea issue, because we do not speak about that as much as perhaps our partners would like—and thirdly, human rights. We cannot just have to ourselves the freedoms and rights that we enjoy here; we must hold them up abroad, too.
Upholding the one country, two systems principle goes beyond just ensuring commercial interests; it is about that triangular approach. I think particularly of our great collaborations on the rule of law. We share best practice in our legal teams with Hong Kong, and so on. The hon. Gentleman mentioned IP, but there are a number of other areas where there is so much to be shared, enjoyed and built on, and I worry that the human rights side could be slightly staining what our other excellent endeavours might achieve. We must ensure that we bring human rights and cases such as that of Lee Po to the fore so that we can all move at the same pace on the three elements of my triangle.
Richard Graham
The hon. Lady is making a number of good points, as one would expect from someone who has been engaged on this issue for a long time. Does she agree that it is important that we offer constrictive criticism as friends in a partnership between two nations, and that we highlight what more China can do to win friends and, above all, trust as she goes increasingly global? The idea behind one country, two systems and the 50-year period of the joint declaration was that by the end of that period the systems in Hong Kong and China would be so similar that there would be no need for one country, two systems any longer. Does she think that things are heading in that direction at the moment and that the systems are getting more similar, or is there a risk, in the worst case scenario, of the two systems moving further apart?
Catherine West
Indeed, and that is where we need a balance. In China, they talk a lot about harmony and balance, and that is what we have to do. We must ensure that all our work streams come together at the same time. When we work on legal relations, technological advances, business and education—our wonderful collaboration between universities—we must not forget who we are. We are determined to promote human rights, equality and so on, and so we must bring all of those work streams together, including the important one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—peace. We must maintain peaceful, open dialogue.
To digress slightly—I will be very brief, because I know the Minister wants to get away—[Interruption.] He is so busy. The tone in the all-party China group when Mr Liu was present recently was excellent. We had a very open discussion about best practice on anti-corruption and on a number of work streams to do with local business in various constituencies. We also had a robust discussion about a recent delegation to Hong Kong, and we raised our concerns about Mr Lee Po and other cases, and about the steel situation. I felt that it was a perfect meeting. Members of Parliament were able to discuss openly what we feel, and we had a wonderful conversation and dialogue. From my tiny knowledge of China—I lived there, but one never knows everything—I felt that we made progress in our dialogue. It is important to emphasise that.
In our meetings with China we must continue to be energetic in raising matters such as the cases of Mr Lee Po and Cheung Jiping and not shy from them. We must remember that Mr Po is a British citizen. Information and press freedom are crucial to democracies, so it is important that they are front and centre of our discussions. I will be grateful if the Minister can update Members on what further action he will take to investigate the nature of Mr Po’s recent public communication and whether it was genuine or made under duress.
We all want a stable Hong Kong. I remember stepping off an aeroplane there in 1974 and smelling the tropics and feeling the warmth. All of us who have been there, lived there and love that place want it to be stable. We want freedom, human rights, genuine democracy and all of those wonderful things to be kept going, and we want to maintain those international friendships. We do not want a closed Hong Kong whose young people are unhappy about their future. The joint declaration must be meaningful, and stability must allow economic life to flourish. We must also support freedom of expression, the rule of law and a peaceful future.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate and pay, once again, tribute to his valuable work through his chairmanship of the all-party group on China, as well as to his deep personal interest in Hong Kong. I agree with his opening remarks in which he drew attention to all those who are following the debate outside this place. The rather thin attendance in no way reflects the level of continuing interest in Hong Kong, in the UK and in Parliament. It is purely the result of the timing of the debate being shifted, and of other competing demands on Members’ time.
To the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), I would say that this Minister is not at all in a hurry to get off. He is at the disposal of Members, although limited by time. I am anxious only to get on with the debate, to address some of the extremely important and interesting points raised by hon. Members this afternoon.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us, Hong Kong remains of great importance to the United Kingdom. There are more than 295,000 British citizens and 3.4 million British national overseas citizens living in the city. In 2015 approximately 530,000 visitors from the UK went to Hong Kong. Our bilateral trade continues to be one of the foundation stones of our partnership. UK investment in Hong Kong, conservatively valued at £33 billion, makes up about 35% of total British investment in Asia. I was slightly intrigued to hear the comparison that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) sought to make in a rather roundabout way between Scotland and Hong Kong and England and Hong Kong. I would just point out that I believe the Scottish Government would do well to study the free market approach of the special administrative region in running a very successful financial enterprise. I have no doubt that even the First Minister, in her visit to Hong Kong last year, might have noticed the difference in the comparative financial positions of Scotland and Hong Kong.
Hong Kong is the regional headquarters for 126 British companies and, incidentally, some of the leading ones have a distinguished and strong Scottish heritage. Some 630 British companies operate in the city, reflecting its pivotal role as an international gateway to mainland China and as a global financial centre. Hong Kong also, as has been pointed out, has a key role in our wider bilateral relationship with China, where we are supporting economic growth and the rule of law.
The Government’s relationship with the Hong Kong SAR Government is also strong. I most recently visited Hong Kong in July and discussed a full range of UK-Hong Kong bilateral issues with the Hong Kong Chief Executive CY Leung, the Financial Secretary John Tsang and the Secretary for Housing and Transport, Anthony Cheung. I also saw legislators and investors, and met Fred Lam, the new chief executive of the airport authority, to explore opportunities for British companies in the third runway expansion of Hong Kong international airport. In October we welcomed CY Leung to London for his first official visit as Chief Executive. Both I and the Foreign Secretary discussed with him the importance of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, and of preserving the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Sino-British joint declaration.
The United Kingdom strongly believes that it is those rights and freedoms that underpin Hong Kong’s continuing success. The joint declaration agreed the peaceful return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty under one country, two systems, and was one of the great successes of United Kingdom-China diplomacy. Some 31 years after its signature, our commitment to ensuring the faithful implementation of the joint declaration, and the protection of the rights and freedoms it guarantees, is as strong as ever.
It is in that context that the Government remain so concerned about the disappearance from Hong Kong of British citizen Lee Po and others associated with the Mighty Current publishing house. The Foreign Secretary made it clear on 11 February in his six-monthly report to the House that
“our current information indicates that Mr Lee was involuntarily removed to the mainland without any due process under Hong Kong SAR law.”
That constitutes a serious breach of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong. The United Kingdom and 11 other countries signed a US-led statement at the UN Human Rights Council on 10 March that made it clear that the disappearance of the Hong Kong booksellers was
“violation of the high degree of autonomy promised Hong Kong under its Basic Law”.
We have raised the case of Mr Lee with the Chinese and Hong Kong special administrative region Government at the highest level. I raised the case with the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom on 22 January, and I made clear the need for the Chinese authorities to return Mr Lee to Hong Kong immediately. The Foreign Secretary raised the case with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on 5 January and in London on 4 February, and the Prime Minister raised the case with the Chinese ambassador on 8 February.
More recently, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer visited Beijing on 25 and 26 February, he raised the case with the chairman of China’s Politics and Law Commission, Meng Jianzhu. I understand that the delegation from the all-party group on China, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), visited Hong Kong from 25 to 29 January and also raised the case with the Hong Kong special administrative region Government.
As we make clear in the six-monthly report,
“we have called, in our contacts with the Chinese government at the highest level, for Mr Lee's immediate return to Hong Kong. Moreover, we urge the Chinese and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Governments to reassure the people of Hong Kong that law enforcement in the Hong Kong SAR is exclusively the responsibility of the Hong Kong authorities, and that the fundamental rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents will continue to be fully protected, and respected by all, in accordance with the Joint Declaration and Basic Law.”
Catherine West
The debate has been focused on Hong Kong, but if Mr Po is now in China, will the Minister elucidate how the UK Government will use their influence when it is a question of mainland China rather than Hong Kong? There is perhaps more familiarity with how the judicial process works in the latter.
Mr Swire
We believe that if Mr Lee Po is to face any kind of trial, that should be in Hong Kong. That is agreed by the SAR as well. I shall continue, but the hon. Lady may want to come back to me if I do not fully answer her question. I raised Mr Lee Po’s case on 16 March at an “Advancing the Rule of Law in China” seminar organised by the Great Britain-China Centre, where I made it clear that
“the rule of law has been fundamental to Hong Kong's continued economic success”.
On the issue of citizenship, I stress that Mr Lee remains a British citizen with the right of abode in the United Kingdom. Despite the formal requests that we continue to make, we have not been granted consular access. Let me be clear that the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments have been left in no doubt as to the importance we attach to this case. We call again for the immediate return of Mr Lee to Hong Kong.
Catherine West
I just want to clarify what processes there might be to have Mr Lee returned to Hong Kong if he is not currently there. What influence might the UK Government bring to bear to achieve that outcome?
Mr Swire
I have rehearsed the high-level contacts and representations we have had with the Government in Beijing, not least those involving the Prime Minister, the ambassador and the Chancellor when he was in Beijing. We have raised the case at every level and will continue to do so until such a time as Mr Lee is returned to Hong Kong.
Several Members mentioned the South China sea. We support the Philippines’ right to peaceful arbitration. I stress that we take no view on the underlying sovereignty issues, although we do believe in a rules-based international system and the freedom and movement, and we do expect all others to abide by whatever ruling comes out of UNCLOSS through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea settlement. We are concerned about the risk that some of the large-scale land reclamation in the South China sea could pose to maritime freedom of navigation and to the area’s stability.
The six-monthly report makes it clear that, while the implementation of one country, two systems has served Hong Kong well in the vast majority of cases, there are specific grounds for serious concern in some other areas, such as academic freedom and the freedom of the press. As the six-monthly report states,
“it is essential for continued confidence in ‘One Country, Two Systems’ both in Hong Kong and internationally, that Hong Kong continues to enjoy, and is seen to enjoy, the high degree of autonomy and the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Basic Law and guaranteed in international law by the Joint Declaration.”
I was asked specifically by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester about the comments that Zhang Xiaoming, the head of the Central Government Liaison Office, made in a speech. I welcome the comment by Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, whom I have met, on judicial independence. He reiterated article 25 of the Basic Law, which states:
“All Hong Kong residents shall be equal before the law.”
At the recent National People’s Congress annual session in Beijing, the Chinese Government reiterated their commitment to one country, two systems, and I welcome that.
Continuing the theme, my hon. Friend also raised the issue of an independent judiciary. Our assessment is that, while there have been specific challenges, on the whole the rule of law continues to function and the judiciary continues to be independent. We are confident in Hong Kong’s legal and judicial system, which has been and will remain an essential foundation for Hong Kong’s success.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green properly raised the issue of constitutional reforms, which we were all involved in, one way or another, in the past year or so. I remind the House that in the last Westminster Hall debate on Hong Kong, which was in October 2014, we discussed that very issue. It remains a crucial issue, both to meet the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong and to ensure effective governance. As the six-monthly report makes clear:
“The UK Government judges that constitutional reform will help, not hinder, the Hong Kong SAR Government to deliver. A more democratic and accountable system of government would help strengthen those rights and freedoms which have come under increasing pressure over the past two years…We encourage all parties to play their part in rebuilding constructive dialogue to pave the way for the resumption of the process at the earliest opportunity.”
Jim Shannon
The Minister is explaining things well, and I thank him for that. We need to have continual economic contact, but within that, how can we persuade? The shadow Minister said that we do not see much evidence of how we can move the process forward for that British citizen to be returned. I am keen to have the economic contact. The Minister mentioned the airport. It is built with stone from my constituency, from Carryduff—believe it or not, that is what has been used. There are strong economic contacts between Hong Kong and my constituency and the whole of the United Kingdom. We want that to continue, but we want liberty and human rights to be enforced as well.
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman is right. I never think these issues are binary and that it is either human rights or trade. Through trade, rules and an international rules-based system, human rights very often benefit, too. It is not about putting one of those to one side. We are very strong on human rights, which is why we produce a six-monthly report—it is not universally popular—and will continue to do so under our obligations in the Sino-British joint declaration and, further, under the Basic Law.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the protesters in Hong Kong. As we have said before, it is essential that Hong Kong’s fundamental rights and freedoms, including of assembly and demonstration and as guaranteed by the joint declaration, continue to be respected. Demonstrators should express views peacefully and in accordance with the law. Incidentally, I seem to remember saying that during my enjoyable two years as a Northern Ireland Minister, despite not coming across the hon. Gentleman at any particular demonstration during my time there.
Mr Swire
All legal, of course.
The links between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong of course remain strong. Ours is a relationship that is not only based on history but is innovative, forward-looking and dynamic, with excellent prospects for the future. We continue to build on that. In that spirit, the Foreign Secretary hopes to visit Hong Kong in the near future.
Where we identify challenges, such as the case of Mr Lee and the other booksellers, this Government will continue to raise them with the authorities at the highest level in Hong Kong and in Beijing. It is important to address these concerns and thus ensure that the principle of one country, two systems is maintained, together with the sanctity of the rights, freedoms and values that it upholds.
I am once again indebted and grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for giving me the opportunity to state the Government’s position on this important issue. He is a champion of Sino-British relations. Some may not always agree with the principled stance he takes, but he is absolutely right that, if we are to understand each other better, to learn to respect each other more, and to be partners in international trade and in underpinning the things that matter to us in terms of rights and responsibilities, we need to have these free and frank exchanges. I know that when he speaks he has the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and China at heart. So I thank him again for all his continuing work in furthering the relationship, and I am grateful to hon. Members this afternoon for adding to what has been an interesting debate.
Richard Graham
You are kind to give me that chance, Mr Hollobone.
I will simply record my thanks to those who have contributed to the debate today, and to those who have given their apologies for being unable to join us but whose voices have been heard, I think, through comments made by those who have contributed. We have reached a high degree of consensus on the importance of the issues discussed and above all on the importance of the rule of law. I thank the Minister for his remarks, perhaps particularly those at the end about the importance of this in our ongoing, wider partnership, which now stretches to many countries.
Mr Hollobone, thank you for chairing what has been an extremely helpful debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Written Statements
Performance Targets (Intellectual Property Office)
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) has today made the following statement.
As an Executive Agency and Trading Fund of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, we set targets which are agreed by Ministers and laid before Parliament. For 2016-17 our targets are:
We will complete all remaining UK steps necessary for the UPC to come into being.
We will ensure that overall customer satisfaction is at least 80%.
We will offer faster handling of patent applications, by providing an examination report with a search report when both are requested at the application date, and meeting at least 90% of requests for an accelerated two-month turnaround for search, publication and examination.
We will publish 90% of acceptable applications for national trade marks for opposition within 90 days of filing.
We will develop a robust methodology to measure and report on harm caused by IP infringement and counterfeiting to individuals, communities and the economy.
We will increase the number of businesses that better understand how to manage IP, reaching 100,000 businesses. Eighty five per cent of the businesses we talk to will be better able to understand IP and its use within their business.
We will support the export activity of UK companies by providing education, advice and specific case support to 5000 businesses by March 2017.
We will enhance the capability of our people in leadership and change by designing and running a programme which will move at least 85% of participants up one level on our leadership measure.
We will implement a new HR and payroll system
We will achieve return of capital employed of at least 4%
We will deliver an efficiency gain of 3.5%.
[HCWS641]
EU Referendum (Counting Officers’ Regulations)
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
The Cabinet Office wishes to report the entry into force today of the European Union Referendum (Counting Officers’ and Regional Counting Officers’ Charges) Regulations 2016. The regulations are the final piece of legislation which, taken together, confirm the arrangements for the referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union.
The EU Referendum Act 2015 provides for a referendum to take place on the UK’s membership of the EU. The British people will be asked on 23 June, for the first time in 40 years, whether or not they want to stay in the EU. This is a concrete step towards settling the debate about the UK’s membership of the EU.
The estimated cost of conducting the referendum is £142.4 million. This includes the expenses incurred by counting officers in running the poll, grants to the designated lead campaign organisations, the delivery by Royal Mail of campaign mailings from those organisations, and the cost of the central count. These costs have been discussed and agreed with the Electoral Commission. It is important that counting officers and the Electoral Commission have the resources necessary to conduct the referendum effectively and efficiently.
The European Union Referendum (Counting Officers’ and Regional Counting Officers’ Charges) Regulations 2016 set the maximum recoverable amounts for the services and expenses of counting officers and regional counting officers. The regulations therefore provide counting officers with certainty regarding their allocations, enabling them to plan with confidence for delivery of the poll.
[HCWS648]
Broadband Universal Service Obligation
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
In November, the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to implement a new broadband universal service obligation (USO)—heralding a step change in our ambition for broadband services and reflecting that many now see broadband as an essential service much like electricity and water.
Maintaining momentum on our commitment to implement the USO in this Parliament, I am pleased to announce today’s launch of our consultation on the first step, which is to clarify our powers in primary legislation. The consultation document explains the Government’s rationale for the USO, the proposed measures that we intend to put in legislation, and the road map that we will follow to take this work forwards.
The consultation, which runs until 18 April, is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/broadband-universal-service-obligation.
I would encourage you to respond and look forward to hearing your views.
[HCWS645]
Culture White Paper
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am today laying and publishing a Government White Paper on culture.
It is the first ever Government White Paper for all the cultural sectors together, and the first covering the arts for over 50 years.
This White Paper sets out our ambition and strategy for the cultural sectors in the coming years. It outlines the key issues facing the cultural sectors today and the role we want culture to play in our society; what the Government and our public bodies will do to address those issues; and how we will ensure that everyone can enjoy and benefit from culture.
The White Paper sets out how the Government will encourage access and opportunity across the cultural sectors, with a particular focus on children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and groups which are under-represented in cultural organisations and audiences. The new Cultural Citizens programme, which was first announced by the Prime Minister in January 2016, will provide new opportunities for young people to experience and take part in cultural activities.
Through the plans set out in the White Paper, the Government and their funded bodies will provide support to local areas to help them develop their cultural ambitions and embed culture in their plans and policies for local social and economic development.
The White Paper also sets out how the Government will use culture to build the UK’s image, soft power and influence in the world and help the cultural sectors to make the most of opportunities to promote the UK’s culture and heritage around the world.
Cultural organisations need to develop new funding models in order to grow and build resilience. The White Paper sets out how the Government will help the cultural sectors to tap into new and innovative sources of funding, and how we will ensure that our publicly-funded organisations have the right structures and relationships to enable them to support the cultural sectors across the country in order to achieve our ambition.
It is the Government’s ambition that all Government Departments should work closely together and with public bodies and other partners to ensure that our children and young people have access to the best cultural opportunities available and people of all ages and backgrounds enjoy the many benefits that culture brings, at every stage in their lives.
I am grateful to all those who took part in the consultations during 2015, in round tables, written submissions and online contributions. Over 230 organisations from the cultural sectors across the country shared their views and ideas with us. The response from the cultural sectors shows they are united in our ambition to ensure that everyone in every community can enjoy and benefit from our rich and diverse culture. This White Paper sets out how we will achieve that.
The White Paper and attachments are also available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/culture-white-paper.
I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
HCWS643]
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
I represented the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 14 March in Brussels. Commissioner Hogan introduced the first agenda item on financial instruments and invited the European Investment bank (EIB) to make a presentation. Many member states highlighted the importance of improving farmer access to money, which would support modernisation, innovation, research and productivity. The UK and Ireland called on the EIB to be more proactive with member states and for the Commission to facilitate meetings. The UK also advocated that the EIB should be able to help farmers diversify their product base to higher value products with better market prices.
The second agenda item was on the market situation and support measures. The UK broadly welcomed the package, and gained support for measures that would help farmers boost productivity. These included:
Improving the transparency of supply chains, allowing farmers to gain earlier signals on price and demand. The Commission agreed to extend the successful EU milk market observatory to beef and pigmeat, allowing the industry access to the latest market data.
Assisting farmers by reducing the cost of fertilisers. Commissioner Hogan agreed to look at a temporary suspension of import tariffs for fertiliser.
Helping farmers access finance to invest in their businesses and boost their productivity and growth.
An increased drive to open up new foreign and third country export markets.
Any other business items
The UK presented an AOB item calling for simplification on the CAP audit process. It highlighted that it should be possible to lighten the burden on administrations and farmers while maintaining prudent financial management of CAP funds. A total of 16 other member states supported the UK. The Commissioner agreed the non-paper would be analysed and discussions would continue on how to further improve the audit and control process.
Italy set out their concerns with front-of-pack food nutrition labelling scheme. The Commission noted that front-of-pack schemes could be an efficient tool to empower consumers. They highlighted the legal requirement for the Commission to review member state schemes and report back to the Council and the Parliament in December 2017.
Estonia presented the outcome of the high-level meeting on African swine fever held in February 2016. The meeting, attended by affected and bordering member states, will be held on a six monthly basis to exchange best practice on eradication of the disease.
Draft conclusions were adopted without discussion on reports by the European Court of Auditors on “EU support to timber producing countries under the FLEGT plan” and “Are the fisheries partnership agreements well managed by the Commission”.
[HCWS640]
Meningitis C Vaccine (Emergency Donation)
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
It is the normal practice when a Government Department proposes to make a gift of a value exceeding £300,000, for the Department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from making the gift until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
A minute has today been laid before Parliament setting out details of the Department of Health’s gift of approximately 157,000 doses of the Meningitis C (MenC) vaccine to the World Health Organisation to meet a request for urgent assistance to manage MenC outbreaks in the Niger and Mali. This gift has a market value of around £3.5 million pounds including VAT. Due to commercial sensitivities it is not possible to confirm the contract price.
MenC is a very serious illness which can result in death or severe consequences including brain damage, hearing and sight loss and there is a global shortage of affordable MenC vaccine. This gift will provide a valuable contribution to saving lives and reducing morbidity in infants and children in the Niger and Mali.
The risk of MenC in children in the UK is very low because of the success of the vaccination programme so far. When MenC was first introduced in 1999, around 12 million children and young adults were vaccinated as part of a catch-up programme. Because of this catch-up programme, circulation of MenC in the population declined rapidly and this low circulation will be maintained by vaccinating teenagers—the age group most likely to carry meningococcal bacteria in their noses or their throats.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has advised that children no longer need the infant dose of MenC currently given at three months of age. This is because there is very good herd protection for MenC, resulting from low rates of MenC carriage amongst teenagers and young adults. This means the risk of cases of invasive MenC disease in infants in the UK is extremely low. Also, the new MenB vaccination programme using the vaccine Bexsero® is expected to provide some degree of protection against invasive MenC disease. This change in our vaccination schedule will take effect from 1 July 2016. Children will still be offered two doses of a MenC vaccine. They will be offered a dose at 12 months of age (combined with Hib) and a dose at 14 years of age (currently combined with MenA, W, and Y). The latter dose will help to sustain the current low levels of carriage among young adults in the UK.
Due to the urgent nature of this request it has not been possible to provide Parliament with 14 sitting days’ notice of this gift. The Treasury has approved the proposal and a copy of the minute is attached.
Attachments can be viewed online at : http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-03-23/HCWS647/.
[HCWS647]
The Modern Crime Prevention Strategy
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am pleased to announce that I am today publishing the Government’s modern crime prevention strategy (“the strategy”).
Crime has fallen dramatically over the last 20 years, with previously high-volume crimes like burglary, vehicle-related theft and street violence having more than halved. Crime is also changing: previously “hidden” crimes like child sexual abuse, rape and domestic violence have all become more visible, if not more frequent, and we are developing better measures of the scale of online fraud and cybercrime.
Targeted crime prevention initiatives have made a significant contribution to cutting crime over the last 20 years. However, the changes we are now seeing mean we need to update our approach, building on the successes of the past while making full use of new tools and techniques to protect the public.
The strategy addresses what the evidence suggests are the key drivers of crime: opportunity; character; the effectiveness of the criminal justice system; profit; drugs; and alcohol. It also focuses on how we can use data and technology as powerful tools to prevent crime.
The strategy sets out a range of measures under each driver that will make crime harder to commit and less attractive to criminals. These include, for example:
Introducing legislation to ban the sale of so-called “zombie-killer” knives;
Making more information available to consumers on how secure their smartphone is; and
Keeping people safe from high harm crimes of abuse through implementing the actions in the 2016 violence against women and girls strategy
The strategy also emphasises that one of the most important lessons of the last 20 years is that neither the Government nor the police can prevent crime on their own. Crime prevention is most effective when Government, law enforcement agencies, businesses, academia, local authorities, voluntary sector organisations and the public themselves all play their part. Working together, we can continue to prevent crime even as it changes.
The strategy is available to download from the gov.uk website.
Copies of the strategy will be made available in the Library of the House.
[HCWS642]
Motoring Agencies (Business Plans)
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) has made the following written statement:
I am pleased to announce the publication of the 2016-17 business plans for the Department for Transport’s motoring Executive agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).
The business plans set out:
the services each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make;
the resources they require; and,
the key performance measures, by which their performance will be assessed.
These plans allow service users and members of the public to assess how the agencies are performing in operating their key services, managing reforms and the agency finances.
The business plans will be available electronically on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-03-23/HCWS646/
[HCWS646]
Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Business Plan)
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I am pleased to announce the publication of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s (MCA) business plan for 2016-17.
The business plan sets out:
the services that the agency will deliver and any significant changes it plans to make;
the resources the agency requires;
the key performance measures, by which its performance will be assessed.
This plan allows service users and members of the public to assess how the agency is performing in operating its key services, managing reforms and the agency finances.
The business plan will be available electronically on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-03-23/HCWS644
[HCWS644]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, midday has struck and I do not think that anyone is going to be turned into a pumpkin. However, I must remind the Committee that, in the event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.
Budget Statement
(8 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
That the Grand Committee takes note of the economy of the United Kingdom in the light of the Budget Statement.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O'Neill of Gatley) (Con)
My Lords, last week in the other place the Chancellor set out a Budget to continue the UK’s economic recovery. It was a Budget which responded to the global economic uncertainties that have grown in recent months, and made appropriate choices to insulate ourselves from those risks as much as possible.
There are many positive stories to tell about the UK’s economy. For example, last Wednesday the employment statistics showed yet another boost to employment, with 150,000 more jobs than the Office for Budget Responsibility expected just four months ago. This means that employment is at the highest level ever, and the proportion of people on the claimant count is the lowest it has been for over four decades. Last year also saw the highest annual growth in nominal and real earnings since 2008. Meanwhile, the fiscal deficit as a share of GDP is forecast to be cut this year by almost two-thirds from its 2009-10 post-war peak—from 10.3% to 3.8%. The OECD has forecast that the UK will be the fastest-growing major advanced economy in 2016.
However, there are still significant economic issues that need to be addressed. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast a deterioration in the fiscal position between 2016-17 and 2020-21, largely driven by lower tax receipts—particularly as a result of a weaker productivity outlook and a weaker outturn for nominal GDP. This reflects a common recent phenomenon of low productivity growth across the western economies, but it also comes at a time when economic turbulence worldwide has led to weaker growth forecasts for the global economy and, importantly, for global trade.
I observe that there have been three specific developments in global markets since the Autumn Statement that are material. First, until this month, there had been evidence of the US economy slowing. Secondly, as is well discussed, commodity prices and inflation expectations have continued, or did continue, to drop, resulting in nominal GDP in many places, including the UK, being weaker than previously thought. Thirdly, while in my judgment Chinese activity data has not deteriorated much further—remember that this is since November—additional policy uncertainty has raised risk premia in markets exposed to China. Against that, I would note that, in the context of the revised OBR forecasts for public sector finances, it is interesting to observe that there have been signs of reversal in all three of these trends in recent weeks. None the less, there remain many global risks—these and others—and, as an open trading economy with extremely strong links worldwide, we are by no means immune from them.
At the same time, domestically our productivity remains too low, as we have discussed many times in this House. I have spoken at length about tackling the UK’s productivity challenge. These issues have existed and been debated for decades and the solutions and better outcomes will not necessarily materialise in a matter of months. Nevertheless, the measures set out in this Budget take further important steps which, as well as helping us stick to our path for running a budget surplus, will secure growth and promote productivity increases over the long term.
With noble Lords’ permission, I will first discuss the revised fiscal figures for the next five years and then move to specific measures introduced in this Budget. In the face of the new assessment of productivity and the slowing global economy, the OBR now forecasts that UK GDP will grow by 2% this year, 2.2% again in 2017 and then 2.1% in each of the three years after that. The Government have responded to the deterioration in the OBR’s fiscal forecast and are taking new measures to ensure we keep living within our means. To help us achieve this, the Government will make further savings of £3.5 billion from departmental spending, following an efficiency review.
Although debt as a percentage of GDP is above target this year, compared to the forecast, importantly, the actual level of our national debt in cash is around £9 billion lower. In the future, debt is forecast to continue to fall as a share of GDP each year to the end of the forecast period. In 2009-10, the deficit was forecast to reach 10.3% of national income. Thanks to sustained action, the deficit is forecast to fall by almost two-thirds by this year, reaching 3.8% of GDP. The deficit is now forecast to continue to fall across this Parliament and, because we have taken decisive action to control spending and make savings, in 2019-20 Britain is set to run a surplus.
When the forecasts change, of course our plans also have to change. However, the decisions made in this Budget ensure that our fiscal mandate will be met, meaning greater resilience for our economy in uncertain times. Importantly, we have set out how to achieve this in a fair way. HM Treasury analysis published alongside the Budget shows that, as a result of actions taken, the proportion of taxes paid by those on highest incomes will increase, while the poorest and most vulnerable will continue to be supported.
In parallel, I also welcome this opportunity to listen to Members’ views on the information that will be provided to the Commission this year under Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. As in previous years, the Government will inform the Commission of the UK’s economic and budgetary position as part of our participation in the EU’s stability and growth pact. The Government plan to submit their convergence programme, with the approval of both Houses. The convergence programme explains the Government’s medium-term fiscal policies as set out in the 2015 Autumn Statement and Budget 2016, and also includes the OBR forecasts. As such, it is based entirely on previously published documents that have been presented to Parliament.
The UK economy is deeply intertwined with the economies of other EU member states. In 2014, 44% of total UK exports were destined for the EU 28, so it is in our interests that the European economy is successful and stable. It is therefore important that we participate in the EU’s macroeconomic co-ordination processes to continue to drive important messages about sound economic policy and further development of the single market. With the Budget on 16 March this year, I appreciate that the time to prepare for this debate has been particularly tight. Against that background, the Treasury has made every effort to provide early copies of the convergence programme document in advance of the debate today.
Before I turn to the measures contained in the Budget, I would like to make a few comments on one now key and topical aspect of the fairness agenda: namely, disability payments. The focus of the Government has always been on strengthening the economy in order to create a fairer society. As a result of the Government’s policies, unemployment is at a four-decade low, wages are higher, inequality, child poverty and pensioner poverty have fallen, and the gender pay gap is at an all-time low. These have not happened by chance but because of deliberate strategies to fix the economy, back business, control spending and reform welfare by incentivising the reasons to work. So although there have been controversies, the results have helped to build a stronger society.
We have also significantly increased our support to disabled people. Indeed, the sums are considerably greater than those under the previous Labour Government. However, it was clear that the reforms proposed to personal independence payments, although they drew on the work of an independent review, did not command support. That is why they have been withdrawn. Over the coming months, the Government will be working to build a system of disability support that is stronger, fairer and better integrated with our health and social services. And, to be clear, there are no plans to make further welfare savings. But there remain strong reasons to keep the welfare budget under control. Strong leadership demands taking difficult decisions—decisions that may not always be popular, but which will make the country stronger.
The measures set out in this Budget will make the country fundamentally stronger. They will encourage growth, savings and investment, boost productivity, invest in our skill base, ensure that the tax system is fair as well as being competitive, rebalance the economy, and help people’s well-being. We know that, in order to strengthen our economy, our businesses have to be as competitive as possible because that increased competitiveness will be a driver of long-term growth.
It is for this reason that the Budget cuts the rate of corporation tax even further, to 17% in 2020, giving us the most competitive rate in the G20 and benefiting more than 1 million businesses. The Budget also cuts the burden of business rates by £6.7 billion over the next five years, taking 600,000 of our smallest firms out of business rates altogether. Through a £1 billion North Sea oil and gas package, this is a Budget that helps Britain’s largest industry succeed in difficult economic times. Through cuts to both the higher and basic rates of capital gains tax, it encourages investment, which is the lifeblood of Britain’s businesses. And through the abolition of Class 2 national insurance contributions, it creates a simpler tax system and a tax cut of more than £130 for the 3 million-plus self-employed people in Britain.
Tax should not merely be competitive; it also has to be fair. The Budget sets out a series of measures designed to ensure that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax by introducing restrictions on the use of internet expenses, strengthening the rules on hybrid mismatch agreements, preventing property developers shifting payments offshore and taxing royalties payments where these are used to avoid tax. Important measures are also taken to simplify the tax system, including modernising the climate change tax system, updating corporation tax rules on losses and reforming stamp duty land tax on residential properties.
This is also a Budget that helps incomes and savings. It raises the tax-free personal allowance to £11,500 from next year, and the higher rate threshold to £45,000. It freezes fuel duty, helping families and businesses keep costs low every time they fill up. For the first time, it creates a lifetime ISA, helping people to buy their first home or save for their retirement—potentially one of the most exciting savings tools for a generation.
In this Budget, we have taken further important steps to boost our productivity, adding to those announced in the summer of 2015. On education, it commits a further £1.6 billion to education spending, gives more schools the opportunity to extend the school day, drives forward the academies programme, creates the first national funding formula for schools, boosts sport in schools, helped not least by the soft drinks industry levy, and, crucially—I am particularly pleased about this—fires a starting pistol for transforming education in the so-called northern powerhouse.
On our transport infrastructure, this Budget tackles some major existing barriers to growth: the green light to so-called HS3 and, in particular, a commitment to a Manchester to Leeds train time reduction to 30 minutes; a national plan for developing the Thames Gateway; major motorway improvements in the north, including working up a plan for a trans-Pennine tunnel; the start of the Crossrail 2 development; and two new subjects for the independent National Infrastructure Commission to study—5G and developing the Cambridge to Milton Keynes to Oxford corridor.
This Budget also continues the Government’s devolution agenda through: new devolution deals with Greater Lincolnshire, East Anglia, the West of England and the Cardiff Capital Region; the start of negotiations with Edinburgh and South East Scotland; further devolution to Liverpool city region and to Greater Manchester; and an accelerated launch of the 100% retention business rates pilot.
Over the past six years, this country has grown and strengthened its economy in precisely the way that we need if we are to continue succeeding in an uncertain world. Global circumstances have the power to blow any country’s economy off course. It is for this reason that it is so important to redouble our efforts to build economic security through sustainable growth and sensible public spending decisions. But living in a changing, uncertain world creates opportunities as well as threats. I want the UK to be in a position where we can focus on making the most of those opportunities, both here and around the world. That is what this Budget helps us do. It prioritises stability, security and sustainable long-term prosperity, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Eatwell (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before the Minister at least notionally sits down and before I begin my speech, I listened very carefully to what he had to say about disability payments. He failed to explain how the budgetary position set out in the Red Book is to be restored, given that the payment cut has been rescinded. It will be very difficult for this Grand Committee to evaluate the Budget unless he provides this essential piece of information. I am happy to give way for him to do so.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I am planning to talk about that more. I anticipate that that will not be the only comment on this topic, and I plan to respond when I hear other noble Lords make their comments. It needs to be said in exactly the right context rather than for me to respond right now.
Lord Eatwell
Very well, we will wait with interest.
My Lords, in opening his Budget speech in another place just six days ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared:
“The British economy is resilient because, whatever the challenge … we have held to the course we set out”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/16; col. 951.]
This is a remarkable statement, because neither part of it is true: the British economy is not resilient and he has certainly not held to the course. The story of a vacillating Chancellor is told in wonderfully subversive terms in table B.2 of the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The author of the OBR report explains the Chancellor’s reaction to revised OBR forecasts of changing economic fortunes:
“On some occasions, the Government has chosen to offset the effects of our underlying revisions – e.g. in November 2011, when they would otherwise have led to a target being missed. On others it has chosen to accommodate those changes – e.g. in December 2012, when despite our forecast revisions implying that the debt target was set to be missed, it decided not to offset their effect”.
So much for “holding the course”. These vacillations have not been trivial. They go a long way to explaining what has happened to the economy in the past six years, and why it is not resilient. They also help us to anticipate the consequences of the Chancellor’s last remaining target: a budget surplus by 2020.
Let us recall the economy that the Chancellor inherited from the noble Lord, Lord Darling, whom I am delighted to see here in his place. There was a fiscal deficit of a little under 8% of GDP—down from more than 10% the previous year—and the real economy was growing at 3% a year. In May 2010, Mr Osborne’s new austerity killed that growth performance stone dead. The squeeze reduced growth to zero by early 2012 and the deficit had started to tick upwards again. Something had to be done. The response, as we have heard from the OBR, was what the Chancellor calls in his speech a short-term fix. He stopped squeezing. Austerity was quietly shelved for a while. In technical terms, the cyclically adjusted budget deficit was left unchanged instead of being cut further as the growing deficit would have demanded if the Chancellor had held to the course. What was the result? The removal of the deadweight of Osborne’s austerity led to a return to growth and a falling deficit once more.
Now the vacillating Chancellor plans to return to austerity, even though, interestingly enough, that word failed to appear in the budget speech. He plans to cut the cyclically adjusted budget deficit every year for the next five years, with a huge fiscal tightening in 2019—the content of which is unspecified—all in the search of that dogmatic objective of a budget surplus by 2020. We can only expect the same outcome as that of Mr Osborne’s previous bouts of extreme austerity.
While the Chancellor has vacillated in practice, the underlying theoretical belief that drives his policy has remained constant: first, that a balanced budget is the foundation of economic growth; and, secondly, that a tight fiscal policy is necessary to provide the opportunity for an expansionary monetary policy that will stimulate the requisite growth. It is this policy mix—Mr Osborne’s policy mix—that is the source of much of the “turbulence” that he blames on others, and it is this policy mix that has seriously weakened the foundations of the British economy.
What are the markers of this weakness? The first is low productivity growth—the spectre that dominates this budget. Since 2010, the UK has suffered the largest fall in growth of output per worker hour in the G7, and now we have the lowest rate of productivity growth among the advanced countries. It is attributable, perhaps, to many factors, but predominantly to an investment rate still 20% below the pre-crisis level, with low wages and ever more easily disposable workers creating an incentive to hire cheap labour rather than invest in labour-saving capital. Low productivity growth not only undermines the possibility of raising the standard of living but undermines the competiveness of the economy.
The second indication of weakness is the UK’s sharp fall in our share of world markets since 2010. The impact of slow-growing world markets is, for the UK, doubly severe. Our markets may be growing slowly, but our share of those markets is becoming smaller, delivering what I believe in the Conservative Party is called a double whammy. The result is a record for Mr Osborne in 2015—the largest current account deficit, relative to GDP, since the early 19th century. That means that our standard of living is now funded by the accumulation of foreign debt.
In his Budget speech, Mr Osborne boasted that,
“we have doubled our foreign exchange reserves”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/16; col. 952.]
He failed to point out that Britain’s foreign debts have risen much faster, so that our net international investment position has deteriorated from around minus 2% of GDP at the end of 2010 to in excess of minus 25% today. This growing international indebtedness exposes the UK to the vagaries of the international money markets. That unhappy situation is not resilience.
What then of the expansionary monetary policy that was supposed to be one of the goals of fiscal austerity? There has certainly been monetary expansion—not just the historically low interest rates but quantitative easing, too. But apart from funding the growth in consumer demand and hence in household debt that has been the main driver of growth over the past three years, monetary easing has not produced the expected increase in investment. Instead, it has fostered the financial turbulence of which the Chancellor complains in the Budget speech. The old adage that, in the absence of the prospect of growing demand, cheap money amounts to pushing on a string has once again been confirmed. Instead of funding real investment, monetary expansion has resulted in a boom in asset prices—not just in houses and equity markets, but in the flow of funds into emerging market corporate bonds in the search for higher yield.
All these asset markets have the potential for extreme instability, as is all too evident today, and, as has been amply demonstrated in the last seven years, financial instability leads to substantial real economic loss—loss that overwhelms any positive impact that cheap money may have had. This financial fragility is the third marker of economic weakness. Very low productivity growth, deteriorating international competitiveness and severe asset market distortions that can only lead to further financial instability—that is what the Chancellor calls resilience. Yet in the face of evident policy failure, the response of the Chancellor and of the monetary authorities is more of the same: more austerity, more QE.
It will be up to future generations of economic historians to examine exactly how George Osborne managed to get things quite so wrong, but it is possible to say today why fiscal austerity and cheap money have not produced the results that were expected. In both cases, the Chancellor was expecting behavioural responses, particularly the responses of business investors, that simply did not come to pass. The proposition that a balanced budget is the foundation of economic strength and that cheap money will stimulate recovery both rely on the belief that the economy is essentially a self-adjusting system. There may be unexpected shocks, there may be what the Chancellor refers to as “a dangerous cocktail” of risks, there may be time lags and mistakes, but in the long run, markets will revert to an equilibrium of steady growth. Nothing else needs to be done. That belief was tested to destruction in the 1930s. Mr Osborne has tested it again and it has failed again. The economy is not, in any significant sense, self-adjusting. Businessmen do not respond to the stimulus of cheap money by increasing investment if they see no prospect of a future of growing demand.
So what is to be done? How is the trend to low productivity, decreasing competitiveness and financial fragility to be reversed? Here I agree, in part, with the Chancellor. We do not want “short-term fixes”, as he put it. We certainly do not need what we are offered in the Budget, described by the OBR as,
“near-term giveaways followed by long-term takeaways”.
What we need are,
“long-term solutions to long-term problems”. [Official Report, Commons, 16/3/16; col, 951.]
I believe the Chancellor is right that a simple stimulus, whether fiscal or monetary, will not work; it will just lead to further deterioration in the balance of payments and yet more foreign debt. Therein lies the dilemma. To lift the UK economy out of the hole that the Chancellor has dug requires long-term sustained investment in the productive base of the economy—in the supply-side, if you like. That sustained investment would raise the prospect of growing future demand and provide the pull on the string to validate the monetary push. Yet in the immediate future, before it delivers higher productivity and enhanced competitiveness, sustained investment will also result in a further—perhaps short-term—deterioration in the balance of payments, with the potential for yet further financial instability that will blow any business-led investment programme off course.
That is why the Government must take the lead. There are positive noises in the Budget about infrastructure, technology and skills and even a pothole initiative—though only a small one—but there is nothing on the scale required. Given that the cost of funds to the Government is today just about zero in real terms, it is difficult to understand the failure to initiate a major expansion of investment in infrastructure and the other major components of supply-side strength—skills, higher education, R&D, new technologies and creative industries. This failure is resulting in not just loss of output today but a long-term loss of competitive productive capacity.
To fund such a programme while mitigating—though not eliminating—the likelihood of financial instability, there should be a hypothecated, ring-fenced, British reconstruction fund, financed by the sale of long-term bonds either to the private market, or, if necessary, to the Bank of England—quantitative easing with a purpose, if you like. To avoid the fiscal sleight of hand to which Chancellors are unfortunately prone, the objectives of the fund should be clearly delineated and audited.
Of course, the deficit hawks will claim that this is just another government spending proposal presented in attractive wrapping paper. But what the austerity junkies fail to appreciate is that fiscal balance is the consequence of economic growth, not the cause, as the experience of the last six years has clearly demonstrated. Unless we solve the problem of lack of investment, low productivity and declining competitiveness first, the Chancellor’s financial targets will never be met.
Previous Governments have been criticised for failing to fix the roof while the sun is shining. But far from fixing the roof, Mr Osborne has been hacking at the foundations. That is why a new approach is needed, and needed now.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, there has been much focus on specific elements of the Budget Statement in the week gone by, and rightly so. Each policy should be analysed to discover whether it will be good or bad for businesses, be helpful or harmful to those on the lowest incomes and simplify or complicate the tax system. But amidst the rush to take a scalpel to the Red Book and unearth a hidden nasty, we have to remember an important big-picture fact: the Government have done a very good job of steering the economy through some choppy waters.
The deficit we inherited from Labour has been trimmed back, taxes have been cut and the direction of travel has been very favourable for business, but the job is not yet done. There is no room to be complacent, like at the last Autumn Statement, when the Government found an extra £27 billion to spend over the course of the Parliament. Times are tough, but they are necessarily so because of the mess we inherited from Labour. We have to ensure that we maintain a robust stewardship of the economy to help businesses, taxpayers and those who rely on public services.
That is why I was pleased to see so many good measures in the Chancellor’s Statement. There were welcome moves to encourage enterprise, with a package of tax cuts to boot. Reducing the headline rate of corporation tax shows that we are serious about attracting and retaining businesses. The cuts to capital gains tax will increase economic activity, too, and evidence shows that lower rates of CGT bring in higher revenues because of the additional economic activity. There is a lesson in there for the Government in other areas of taxation, most notably with the additional rate of income tax. Speeding up the increase in the 40p income tax threshold will also encourage those who want to work hard and earn more for their own families.
However, while tax cuts on entrepreneurs and businesses signalled a shift in the right direction, some fiddly changes to the structure of corporation tax and CGT will add more pages to the gargantuan tax code. On the sugar tax, for example, I appreciate that obesity is a problem—I certainly claim that for myself—and I would also say that there is some dreadful obesity in the national debt and some absolutely appalling obesity in the tax code. However, I cannot imagine anything more addictive than offering the Inland Revenue a completely new tax, which is far worse than giving a doughnut to an obese teenager.
It is said that the UK has more accountants than the rest of the EU combined, and their numbers are sure to be bolstered with more tax complexity. I have an affection for the accountancy profession, having once been awarded the “Saying of the Year” in AccountancyAge. However, I am not sure that the number of accountants we have in the UK improves our competitiveness. Changes to business rates seem positive on the surface, but it remains to be seen whether entirely exempting certain businesses simply means that their rent will increase.
There is also a legitimate debate to be had about the Government’s spending priorities. The row over welfare spending has dominated the post-Budget analysis and we should now start to seriously contemplate why we continue to implement spending reductions on in-work benefits but continue to protect all spending on pensioners. We know that it is not right for the richest pensioners in the country to be sent a cheque for their household energy bill, paid from the taxes of a warehouse worker who pulls night shifts to pay the rent. The richest over-75s should not get to watch the BBC for free thanks to the taxes of the cleaner who gets up at 4 am to do her first shift.
A poll for YouGov at the end of last week found that 44% see spending reductions as necessary, against 33% that do not. Despite all the hyperbole about savage cuts and the gloomy warnings of so-called austerity, the truth is that the public gets it. Now is a good time to think about the entire profile of spending reductions. It is not just welfare. The Chancellor’s welcome big-picture strategy is somewhat hamstrung by the decision to ring-fence certain areas of spending. Overseas aid is a perfect example, but we have also protected defence, health and education, quite often putting a wall up around waste and inefficient practices. A move towards pulling down ring-fences should be discussed in the run-up to the Autumn Statement and next year’s Budget.
Having covered the good and the bad, I should continue my homage to the spaghetti western and discuss the ugly—our complicated tax system. Indeed, the Chancellor himself once called the tax rules a “spaghetti bowl”, to stretch the metaphor. Is it a coincidence that the most dense and most incomprehensible legislation is our tax legislation—the stuff that is not improved by the attention of your Lordships’ House? The tax code now reportedly runs at over 21,000 pages, and it is for this reason that nobody trusts it. There is simply no way that HMRC can keep up with such a system, and real tax simplification should now be a strategic priority. I have a small, modest proposal. What would happen if, in another place, we required that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should read out in full the Finance Bill, and only those honourable Members who had been whipped to listen to it would be allowed to vote on it? This would require the Finance Bill each year to at the very least be readable.
The great British public voted for a Conservative Government because we are more reliable stewards of the economy. That much is clear. The last Government—and this one—have seen us through some tough times and the economy has created millions of jobs at the same time as returning to growth. However, there is still an awful lot more to be done.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, in his Budget speech the Chancellor said that he would eliminate the Liberal Democrats—by midnight. Instead, he managed a direct hit on the Conservative Party. I think he has confirmed his reputation as a man who always misses his targets. The story of this Budget is of missed targets and the utterly unacceptable cuts in public spending on the working poor and disabled people that the Chancellor chose to cover up his failures.
Can we now have an absolute assurance that the Chancellor’s agreement to throw out the £4.3 billion of cuts to PIP will not lead to cuts in other parts of welfare? I notice the phrase “no further welfare cuts”. That needs some confirmation and definition. Will the blow fall on the pensions part of DWP? The new Secretary of State did not address that. Will it mean that public services as a whole have to find the £4.3 billion in cuts? Are we all meant just to forget the £4.3 billion in cuts? In which case the Budget is shot. I wonder if the Minister could offer some clarity.
In the coalition years, the Government worked successfully with the support of a broad majority of the British people to gradually eliminate the structural deficit, better known as the cyclically adjusted current budget—intentionally excluding both cyclical support and capital spending. This is the target that the financial markets require to assure fiscal discipline and fiscal stability. Even with the OBR’s March downgrades in the economic forecast, this measure goes into surplus in 2018. I have no idea how the changes—the mystery £4.3 billion—have impacted that outcome, but I hope the Minister will be able to tell us. Cuts or tax increases beyond balancing the CACB are an ideological choice; they are not required for fiscal discipline or fiscal stability.
Will the Minister finally accept that the Government’s decision to change the whole character of the fiscal target and to require a fiscal surplus in 2020 based on the new, far more austere definition including capital spending was a mistake and should be rapidly abandoned? The contortions in the Budget to hit the self-inflicted target—shifting taxes and capital expenditure quite blatantly between years to manipulate the numbers for 2019-20—are extraordinary. Did the Government think we would not see them? Does the Minister agree that it was utter arrogance for the Chancellor to bind his own hands in a time of global uncertainty by putting his fiscal rule into law?
It was also fundamental in the coalition years that we should be “all in it together”. That is why cuts for the wealthiest, such as cuts to capital gains tax and further cuts in corporation tax, were off the table during the coalition and, while there were cuts to benefits to the working poor, my Liberal Democrat colleagues in government constantly restrained the Chancellor, as is now evident. The Chancellor carries on using the language of “all in it together” but he does not seem to understand the meaning.
Numerous noble Lords will have read the letter of the right honourable Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. I share his outrage about the cuts to disability benefits but, more importantly, the British people share it, too. Those who voted Conservative in the last election thought they were getting a continuation of coalition policies; they did not understand they were getting a hard swing to the right.
We cannot keep slashing the budget for public services and still deliver a civilised society. The UK’s demographic profile now includes so many older people, living longer and in need of healthcare and social care, despite working more years. Ordinary people are still feeling the pressure. The Institute for Fiscal Studies confirms that,
“we should expect much of the recent fall in inequality to be undone over the next five years”,
and this is especially true for those of working age, whose incomes are still below pre-crisis levels, and the young, who have suffered the most.
Some of the worst sufferers have been our public servants—teachers, nurses, doctors, police. Surely as we reach a CACB surplus, we should increase pay for them. They will leave their professions if they know that, every day, they can be paid more and treated better in the private sector. The junior doctors are not alone; it is a straw in the wind and a warning that should be recognised.
Yet as this Budget stands now, we have a £4.3 billion hole which must be filled from somewhere. The Budget includes £3.5 billion in mystery cuts to un-ring-fenced government departments. There is a further £2 billion cut to departmental budgets to fund pension contributions —that, by the way, is a huge blow to the NHS. It is in effect a cut of £650 million from what is supposed to have been protected funding to a department which needs every penny of its promised additional £8 billion if it is to survive. The schools budget does not even rise with inflation, and none of that litany that I have just given includes the plight of local government.
I fully support the cut in business rates for small businesses. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in government fought for the review of business rates and I welcome its conclusions and implementation. But the Budget seems to anticipate that the whole cut, which we estimate will be £2 billion—perhaps the Government will tell us that it is higher—will fall on local government services: the street cleaning, rubbish collection, transport and especially the social care that people rely on for a decent community. Is that true? Is this yet another £2 billion cut to local authority budgets, already slashed in previous years?
I have so many questions. Does the sugar tax come with a proper anti-obesity strategy? Otherwise, it will deliver little. Why are the Government not taking advantage of minimal interest rates to raise their ambition and speed the timing of investment in broadband, housing, renewable energy and lifelong learning—all those foundations of economic growth? Why are the Government being so timid in taxing multinationals, closing loopholes rather than restructuring corporation tax? And who is the lifetime ISA meant to help? It works properly for people who can save £4,000 a year, but there are precious few younger people who have that kind of money.
But, frankly, all that is overshadowed. We need to see a revised Budget. The coalition worked so hard to restore confidence in the British Government’s ability to manage the economy and that is being thrown out of the window. The Government may be mollified by winning the vote in the Commons yesterday, largely—by the way—thanks to so many missing Labour votes, but the public and the markets are tougher and wiser. Especially at a time when we face questions around Brexit, it is crucial that the competence of the British Government in managing the economy is unquestioned.
Pushing through a Budget with a £4 billion black hole, £3.5 billion in mystery cuts, and £2 billion in unexpected pension provisions, including a £650 million blow to the NHS and goodness knows what damage to local authorities, is not the behaviour of a responsible and capable Government. I repeat: we need a new Budget. When will we see it?
Lord Price (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, having read a number of previous maiden speeches in preparation for today, I see that there are consistencies in what an honour and a privilege it is to become a Member of this esteemed House. I share all those feelings and am humbled and, frankly, amazed to be in such a historic place and in the company of so many towering figures, such as my noble friend Lady Knight, whom I look forward to listening to later.
I have been made to feel so very welcome. The doorkeepers have greeted my requests for guidance with patience, smiles and even singing. The Clerk of the Parliaments, Black Rod and their teams could not have been more helpful in preparing my introduction, and noble Lords from across the House have been so very generous with their congratulations, time and support. I single out in particular my noble friend Lord Gardiner, my thoughtful and ever-generous mentor, who, with the noble Lord, Lord Curry, supported my introduction on Monday, my noble friends Lady Stowell and Lord Taylor of Holbeach for the warmth of their welcome, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, for a splendid introductory tea.
Which brings me neatly on to the subject of food. My last nine years have been spent running Waitrose and building an impressive waistline. The founder of the John Lewis Partnership, of which Waitrose is part, said that the quality of the staff dining rooms should be so good that anyone leaving should regret it each meal time. I rather hoped that I would shed a few pounds, but I must compliment Mr Hever and his catering team on providing food of such quality that my hopes are dashed.
From my earliest memory, I have been working in business. My father twice owned his own small businesses, in food retail and wholesale. I worked with him before school and in the holidays and was always aware that there was a direct link between his endeavours and our financial position. He preached on a Sunday, and I learned that in the eyes of God we are all equal, that doing the right thing would bring rewards and that you should stop to help those in need. Therefore, although I dabbled with the idea of a career in archaeology or as a pro golfer, it is not entirely a surprise that I have spent my entire business career—33 years—working for the John Lewis Partnership, with some charitable work and public service liberally sprinkled on top.
As your Lordships will know, the John Lewis Partnership is a unique organisation. Its founder, Spedan Lewis, said that the business was wholly and solely created to make the world a little bit happier and a little bit more decent. In fact, the supreme purpose of the partnership is the happiness of its employees, who own the business. If you own something, you care a little more, and from that flows commercial success. But the partners also have a constitutional obligation to uphold the interests of all their stakeholders, their suppliers, customers and communities where they trade—a balanced and harmonious approach built on collective endeavour. Academic evidence has shown that higher levels of employee engagement lead to high productivity, sales, profit and workplace satisfaction. I believe that driving higher levels of engagement in the workforce is a key way to address the UK’s productivity gap.
After years at the John Lewis Partnership, why then move into government? There are common themes: an appreciation for the good that business can do, a sense of social responsibility and a deep understanding of how much can be achieved by collective endeavour. I believe that business is a force for good. Business makes a key contribution to the Exchequer by paying and collecting the majority of total tax receipts. If we are to have the education, welfare and security that we want for our country, business must be encouraged to thrive, as the Chancellor has tried to do. The success of our country and our businesses are inextricably linked. That is why I am so delighted to take on the role of Minister for Trade and Investment.
During my nine years running Waitrose, we built our export business to 58 countries. We sold noodles to the Chinese, rice to India and croque monsieur to the French. I now look forward to playing my part in helping British companies to export more and bring more foreign direct investment into the country to grow jobs and prosperity.
Lord Darling of Roulanish (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Price. We last met a few weeks ago sitting together at a dinner and I do not suppose for one moment that either of us expected to see each other again in this place, but that is life for you. I know, as do other noble Lords, that he was a very successful leader of an extremely successful British business. Perhaps I should declare an interest: there is a Waitrose just round the corner from us in Edinburgh and we have a loyalty card that we keep next to our Labour Party cards. I leave it to others to imagine which one has more use at the present time. I am not planning on giving up any of them.
I wish the noble Lord success in his job. I know, having met several trade Ministers, that the task is difficult, but I am sure that he will throw his wholehearted enthusiasm into the task and I wish him well on that. I particularly look forward to hearing what he might have to say over the next few weeks in relation to what is the biggest political event in this country, which is not the Budget but the referendum on our future membership of the European Union. I am sure that, as a Trade Minister, he will have plenty to say.
Perhaps I should draw attention to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests before proceeding further.
I want to talk today about two aspects of the Budget: the Chancellor’s deficit reduction target and infrastructure, which the Minister said so much about. In relation to the forecasts, we are in the interesting position that we are here discussing the Budget a week after its presentation to the House of Commons, but it is not quite the same Budget that the Chancellor presented—it changed quite dramatically over the weekend. I have to say that it has never been clear to me why the Chancellor has impaled himself on a target to break even in 2019-20 when there is no economic need to do so. I understand the politics behind it, but there is no economic need to do so—all the more given that the target that he set himself in 2010, when the coalition Government was formed, of eliminating the deficit by 2015 was missed by a mile.
As it so happened, what the Chancellor managed to achieve then was exactly what I set out in my last Budget—namely, to halve the budget deficit in a five-year period. I did that because I thought that was realistic, so I was not surprised that that was where the Chancellor ended up. You might have thought that, having got that one wrong, he would have given careful consideration as to whether he wanted to impale himself on a target that the OBR said he has a 50:50 chance of hitting—and that was before the political difficulties that have emerged within the Conservative Party over the past week.
Everybody knows that the figures presented in a Budget in the last three years of a forecast are never going to be the figures that are actually presented when those years come to pass, because so much changes even in stable times. We have seen—as the OBR said apropos the Chancellor’s spending predictions just before the general election last year—a rollercoaster as far as these figures are concerned. When you look at how the Chancellor hits his target in 2019-20, he does so by simply shifting about £10 billion of corporation tax receipts forward a couple of years in order to have a surplus. There is about £8 billion of unspecified public spending cuts in an election year. Is it really credible to believe that any Government will go into a general election saying that they will cut public spending by £8 billion? Governments of whichever political colour do not do that.
All this is being done simply to make the sums add up on this particular presentation. One has to contrast what the Chancellor had to say last week with what he was saying in the autumn, when the sun seemed to be shining with a vengeance, he had money to give away and he was able to buy off the tax credits revolt—which, by the way, has not gone away; it has simply been postponed and we will have to deal with it when it comes back in the future.
It is now becoming clear that we are in a position where we have numbers that we cannot rely on. I know something about fiscal targets, having had to deal with a situation where they could not be met, and I would say that what matters is whether Governments and outsiders believe that the targets are credible and will be met. Over the past couple of years or so, we have seen that these targets are a moveable feast. They are moving around so much that people will begin to doubt whether they can be relied upon in any meaningful way—and that is before we deal with the personal independence payment issue of £4 billion, which will have to be accounted for somewhere else.
My second point, lest anyone misunderstand me, is that I am very clear that it was necessary to bring down the deficit, but I am also clear why it happened in the first place. I understand the rhetoric of the Tory party; the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, who spoke previously and is no longer in his place appeared to be reading a Treasury hand-out on the subject. It has to be remembered, however, that the banking crash that our country and every other developed country in the world had to deal with was more profound and more lasting than anybody thought it would be. I remember saying that at the time—not that I got much gratitude for it. We are now living with the consequences.
I know that, if we had not taken the action that we did in 2008, there was every chance that we could have slipped into a catastrophic depression. It was not just us; the same action was taken by the Americans, by the Chinese and right across the world. Incidentally, it was supported by all parties in the House at the time, though they sometimes forget about that now. It was necessary to get the deficit down, but we had to do it in a way that was consistent with maintaining economic growth and was fair across the whole population. Others have said, and no doubt further contributors will make the point, that that is not happening in the way that it should.
On the question of welfare cuts, as the Committee may recall, I was Secretary of State for what was the Department of Social Security and then the Department for Work and Pensions for some four years, so I know something about how that department operates. There is a long history of Governments coming up with a new plan that is going to be much better and much fairer and save us money, but there is an equally long history of none of that happening. These plans are difficult to implement, and often they end up costing far more than was ever intended. Personal independence payments are an example of that. Clearly, the Treasury had an undertaking from the Secretary of State that he could deliver on these things, but he simply has not done so. It was not surprising that the Treasury was going to come back and ask for more.
Similarly, with the work on universal credit, I looked at this in 1998 when I first became Secretary of State for that department because, like everybody else, I thought, “Surely there must be a better, simpler way of dealing with all these things”. The answer is, “Yes, there is”, provided that two things happen. First, the Treasury must give you enough money to buy out all the losers. If the Treasury does not do that, there will be losers, and we all know that you will hear an awful lot more from the losers, who in many cases will be losing quite substantial sums of money, than those who actually gain. The only time that you can do that is on a rising economic tide, and that is why I was able to consider that in 1998.
Secondly—this is, actually, in some ways equally difficult—you need an IT system that can deliver the universal credit. As everyone who has looked at the IT systems in the DWP will know, there are at least four different systems, which were designed at different times for different reasons and are not very good at talking to each other. You cannot run a single benefit that needs to draw information from sources that are not compatible. Again, that needs not just money but know-how, and no British Government have a good record on that. I fear that universal credit will be years behind schedule, will not be delivered in anything like the way that the Government intended and will be another thing that will come back and bite this Government. I suspect that, unfortunately, there will be others who will suffer as well, if this is not looked at. You need a grasp of detail in that department, and I just wonder who was attempting to grasp the detail at the time—it is very curious.
I also wonder how it was possible to score the savings from PIP, because you can only do that if it is government policy, whereas over the weekend it was not clear at all whether it was the policy—you cannot have it both ways. That is very odd indeed, but perhaps we will hear what happened, if not immediately, in someone’s memoirs in years to come.
On the question of infrastructure, let me say right at the start that I very much welcome all the announcements that the Chancellor has made on the expansion of roads and railways over the last six years—not least because I announced many of them myself when I was Secretary of State for Transport. That perhaps illustrates the problem, because announcing these things is very easy. Indeed, if we could add to GDP for every announcement made, our economy would be motoring at the moment. We are overflowing with announcements, but we are not overflowing with actual spades in the ground and progress.
However—I point this out, because I was a member of the Government at the time—we can actually do it: Crossrail is nearing completion. We signed that off, and it is now being delivered. It took 20 years and was put forward in the teeth of Treasury opposition, until one day the ex-Secretary of State for Transport arrived in the Treasury and said that, no, he would not overturn the decision previously made by the Secretary of State. That is being delivered. The west coast main line has also been delivered, and has made huge differences.
However, if you look at what has been announced over the past few years, road after road has been announced and has not been built; the Midland main line out of St Pancras has been announced, but it is now on hold. So I look at all these northern powerhouse announcements with a degree of scepticism, especially when a lot of the announcements are about money for a feasibility study. Feasibility studies are very easy to announce, but they do not always—actually, in some cases, seldom—result in a tunnel or road being built.
I publicly said a number of years ago that I think HS2 is misguided, and I wholeheartedly endorse the conclusions of the Economic Affairs Committee of this House that the case has simply not been made. What we desperately need instead is to be spending money on what is wrongly described as HS3—the roads and rail links from the north of England to the east of England. That was identified in 2005, but it has not been acted upon. If the Government are going to do it, we need to do it now. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is doing a very good job bringing forward these proposals, but we need a delivery mechanism to make sure that they actually happen. Otherwise, when we are debating a Budget in 10 years’ time, we will simply be saying the same things.
Two big infrastructure projects perhaps illustrate the difficulties we have. The first is Heathrow. In 2003, the then Government published a White Paper which said that we should build a third runway at Heathrow. That was 13 years ago, the project is on hold, nothing will be said before the referendum, and by that time we will no doubt be into a leadership contest and we know what the stakes are there—I am not optimistic. However, in the mean time, this country’s future depends upon us having good air links to other parts of the world, and I still believe that Heathrow is the right solution. I know that it is controversial, but we need to act on it.
The other example is nuclear power. Again, in 2006 the Government published a White Paper that advocated a mix of energy sources, and that has been endorsed by successive Governments. The nearest we have got to building a new nuclear power station is Hinkley B. This may run counter to my whole argument so far in relation to delivery, but we seem to have entered into a deal with the French and Chinese Governments, because EDF is the French Government and the Chinese company we are dealing with is the Chinese Government. We will be paying two to three times more for the electricity this thing will produce than what we currently pay, and we are using a design which, once again in the great annals of nuclear history, appears to be breaking new ground rather than using existing technology. Perhaps as a country we need to ask ourselves, “Aren’t there cases where the Government, which is underwriting this risk anyway, might as well do these things itself and take on that risk rather than trying to price a risk which is pretty difficult to price and passing it on to consumers in the future?”. I say that having been a member of a Government who endorsed PFI and who were very happy to do deals with the private sector. However, no one can possibly say that a nuclear power station is an economic proposition—it is not. If we want it, we will have to ask ourselves whether it might be better, cheaper and quicker to do it ourselves.
I will leave it to others to deal with a broader critique of this Budget. I will say only that growth in our economy is welcome; I still think it is fragile but as I said at the very start, the biggest threat to our recovery is the prospect of us leaving the European Union. However, that is for another day.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, it is wonderful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Darling; this is the first time I have taken part in a debate with the noble Lord since he joined us. I remember very clearly leading a delegation to India as the chairman of the UK India Business Council, accompanying Gordon Brown, who was then Chancellor, and the noble Lord, Lord Darling, who was then Secretary of State for what is now BIS. I remember saying at one of the speeches I made there, “We have with us possibly—probably—the next Prime Minister and the next Chancellor”. Of course, on 27 June 2007 that came true. It is wonderful to have the noble Lord with us as well as the noble Lord, Lord Price, whom we welcome. I say this not just because Waitrose is a very good customer of Cobra beer. The noble Lord is a hugely respected established figure in the food and drink and retail industry—that feeling is unanimous; I have never heard a bad word said about him—and we are very lucky to have him with us.
Looking ahead, there is huge uncertainty. We have the election for the Mayor of London, the EU referendum, the Iraq inquiry report, the decision on Heathrow and Gatwick, which the noble Lord, Lord Darling, mentioned, which has been delayed until after the mayoral election, the American elections, and the Middle East situation and Daesh-IS. There is wretched, awful terrorism in places such as Paris and Brussels. What a backdrop for a Chancellor to produce a Budget against. Just look back to November, when the Chancellor was riding high—there was £27 billion extra and a rosy outlook—then within weeks he was backtracking because the outlook for the global economy was weaker, and the UK is not immune to slow-downs elsewhere.
This Budget has some excellent measures in it. Capital gains tax, which I have talked about time and again—which used to be 18% under the old Labour Government, increased to 28% and should go back to 18%—is down to 20%. That is wonderful news, and with the basic rate going down from 18% to 10%, that will help wealth creation, which I will come back to later. Entrepreneurs’ relief has also been extended, which is also fantastic. On business rate relief, 630,000 small businesses will pay no business rates at all next year, and reforms to national insurance will abolish class 2 contributions. That is all good news.
Cutting corporation tax down to 17% is absolutely tremendous and I will come to that later. Improved loans for doctoral students and loan systems for postgraduate students are also great. They are not quite where they should be but it is great progress. I declare my interest when I say that beer duty being frozen is very good. On a serious note, it is good for the pub industry, jobs and the consumer. There is investment in infrastructure—whether you agree with it or not—such as Crossrail 2 and HS3. I think that is terrific. There is also investment in roads.
However, the Government have made serious mistakes in the Budget, for example with the PIP. The IFS calculated that 370,000 people were affected by the change to the PIP criteria, and that it worked out to an average loss of £3,500 per person per year. The comments of my noble friend Lord Low on this issue have been vindicated as the public have agreed with them and the Chancellor has had to backtrack. As regards our complicated tax system, as a member of the Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee, I know that a huge overhaul is needed vis-à-vis tax simplification, and I will come to that later.
The most important point concerns the uninspiring efforts to improve productivity, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. The OBR pointed out that productivity will be a serious issue. Chris Giles of the Financial Times said that the OBR had “flip-flopped” by giving the Chancellor,
“a £27bn windfall to play with over five years in the Autumn Statement”,
but that the OBR,
“has now removed £56bn in these Budget forecasts”.
Does the Minister agree with that?
The director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, Mark Littlewood, described the Budget as “slow, steady” and “rather unimaginative”. I think that is rather unfair. However, he went on to say that,
“at least the Chancellor hasn’t thrown out his target of a Budget surplus for 2020, even if he has almost no margin for error in hitting that target”.
What he said about the increase in the 40% threshold is very good. However, on the capital gains tax, he says:
“The old top rate of 28% was actually losing the government income—high CGT rates damage economic growth by encouraging individuals to hold on to assets that would be better off under different ownership”.
Therefore, I congratulate the Government on that once again.
KPMG’s chairman referred to,
“a variety of measures aimed at the more traditional butcher, baker and candlestick-maker across the country but also the digital age ‘kitchen table’ entrepreneurs”.
Robert Chote, head of the OBR, says that the OBR has revised down productivity growth, meaning that,
“the cash size of the economy is about 3 per cent smaller … than we predicted in November”.
I ask noble Lords to keep that figure in mind—3% smaller than a few months ago. Robert Chote also said that the public sector net borrowing situation was £11 billion worse than previously forecast, and that weaker GDP growth means that debt to GDP ratio would rise, rather than fall, this year. Does the Minister accept that?
The Institute of Directors—not surprisingly—welcomed the measures that will help SMEs but also questioned how the Chancellor aimed to achieve the budget surplus he has promised by 2019-20 given the downgrade in the economic forecast. Simon Walker, the director-general, said:
“The UK faces risks on many fronts, and much heavy lifting will still be required to get rid of the deficit by the end of the Parliament”.
Does the Minister think that there is a realistic chance of doing this?
The Government have had the guts to do a lot but they have not had the guts to reduce the top rate of income tax down from 45% to 40%. That is what it was under a Labour Government for many years. They have reduced CGT; they should reduce the top rate of income tax down to 40%. That would make us more competitive. Does the Minister agree?
Government spending as a share of GDP touched nearly 50% under the Labour Government. It was at 45% of GDP by 2010. The Government want this to go down to 36.9% of GDP by 2020. Is that realistic? Given that the NHS and so many other areas are ring-fenced, does the Minister really think that we can get government spending down to 36.9% of GDP? The OBR forecasts are changing all the time. The Government are relying on them when it suits them. Now it does not suit them. It is like the Governor of the Bank of England bringing in forward guidance. What a ridiculously ludicrous idea. Of course, he has had to backtrack on that completely.
The Office of Tax Simplification is an oxymoron. The Government should be simplifying tax, not complicating it, but the Office of Tax Simplification does not have the powers it needs. I would ask the Government to look into giving it more powers and consulting it more, which they are not doing at the moment.
I congratulate the Government on security, about which the Minister spoke in his remarks. We have now finally agreed to the 2% defence spending, which is the NATO commitment and is wonderful, particularly given the environment we are in. Also, the SDSR 2015 is a huge improvement on the SDSR 2010.
We should keep things in perspective. This little country comprises less than 1% of the world’s population yet we have 4% of the world’s economy and 7% of the world’s welfare spending. That cannot really go on. We have seen welfare reform that was desperately needed, but on the other hand the reforms need to be fair or we will see headlines like that in the Sun, “Beware the IDS of March”. The disability benefit proposals were a huge mistake on the part of the Government and I think that the Chancellor now regrets that. Reducing corporation tax is great, but capital allowances are not as attractive as they should be. Does the Minister agree that they also need to be more attractive?
I turn to productivity. We are caught up in a short-term, five-year election cycle when what we really need more than anything else to improve our productivity is to invest in our universities. As a percentage of GDP our spend on universities is way below that of the United States, way below the EU average, way below the OECD average, and yet along with the United States we still have the best universities in the world. Cambridge University with its 92 Nobel Prize winners has won more than any other university in the world. Just imagine how much better we could do if we were to spend the equivalent in proportion to our competitors.
Linked to that is investment in R&D and innovation. We have great research papers and amazing fundamental research, and yet as a percentage of GDP we underinvest on R&D and innovation compared with the EU and the OECD average and are way below the United States; even South Korea invests more as a percentage of GDP on R&D and innovation than we do.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said that when the forecasts change, our plans have to change with them. Perhaps we should rename the noble Lord as John Maynard Keynes:
“When the facts change, I change my mind”.
The facts have changed and they are going to continue to change, but will the Government be able to adapt quickly enough to be able to cope with that? The Minister also mentioned the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. That is brilliant news. The corridor will create a golden triangle between London, Oxford and Cambridge that will help with R&D and innovation and the university excellence that we have.
I conclude by saying that last week I was in Delhi in my new role as a food champion for Britain, having been appointed by Defra. We went to launch a food festival in Delhi. It was a curry festival—taking coals to Newcastle. British curry chefs were flown out to the ITC Maurya, one of the finest hotels in India, to serve British curry—chicken tikka masala and Balti, dishes that do not exist in India—to Indians. In my speech at the opening of the festival I said that we should just look back to the 1980s. Britain was the laughing stock of the world when it came to food. British food was sneered at. Today, this country has some of the finest cuisine in the world, and indeed London is the restaurant capital of the world. In the 1980s, this country was looked upon as the sick man of Europe, but today we are the envy of Europe. In the 1980s, this country looked down on entrepreneurship—Del Boys and second-hand car salesmen—but today we celebrate it because we are one of the centres of the world. We have the best of the best capabilities in every field that can be imagined, whether it be architecture, entrepreneurship, universities, the City of London, the creative industries, or culture and sport, we are the best of the best.
The Budget is there to help us, but Governments make mistakes. I think that the Chancellor has lived up to one of my favourite sayings: good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment. So, a fair and competitive Budget.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, I know that some kind friends have made their way into this Room for this debate and I thank them. I apologise to noble Lords that I did not know that this Committee did not start at 12.30 pm—that was the information I received when I telephoned yesterday. I came here as quickly as I could.
This is my farewell speech. I am conscious of the time as I know that some noble Lords are keen to get away and start the Easter holidays—I do not blame them—and do not want the speeches to go on too long. I also know that some noble Lords want to make their points in a very important debate. I am well aware that time is important and noble Lords have only a few minutes to talk about the facts of the Budget and their opinion of them.
If I may, I want to recall a day that will never go out of my mind, and I think there are some here who feel as I do. That day was 15 March 1979. It followed what we came to call the Winter of Discontent. Some people may remember that. It was pretty much a winter when we were all discontented, but that day will be in my mind for ever. Many will remember the details of the awful Winter of Discontent. Everyone was on strike. Buses and trains ran very slowly indeed, or not at all. There was no rubbish collection—the streets were piled with rubbish, as people remember. Schools were on strike and so were gravediggers. If someone died you had to realise that you had better go out and dig the grave yourself, which was not a pleasant thing
I also remember a man called Red Robbo, who managed to just about finish the car industry in Birmingham. I represented part of Birmingham myself. I knew all about what was going on in Birmingham and some pretty tremendous stories were told. Others will remember them. Car making was really the major industry in Birmingham—although jewellery was a good one—and whether a factory was working or not the council imposed a high charge. We had a terrible time at that time because of trouble in the car industry. Birmingham Council decided that whether you were working or not a tax would be levied and you had better jolly well pay it. Well, they decided that the best idea to keep going was to take the roofs off, so they took the roofs off. I well remember, too, the business of driving around Birmingham, which as a Member I was always doing, even though the sky shone right through those awful missing roofs. They were all gone, and when it rained, it poured in. It was a ghastly sight and it upset a lot of us.
I remember how those roofless ruins upset all of us, but there was not much we could do about that, except Margaret Thatcher, who was on the scene at that time and decided that maybe there was something that could be done. She planned a change of Government. If we could get a general election, and it came out right, we thought that we could change all of this. But the only way for the change to come about was to win a vote in Parliament.
Of course, there was no confidence at that time in the Government. All day there were rumours about what would happen. They were not pleasant rumours. So and so was definitely going to vote against the Government if there were to be a general election. Somebody else who was hardly ever in anyway—he came from Ireland—stood up on the very day of the vote and said, “I’m not voting”, but he turned up on the day and said, “I’m here to show my obvious objection to what’s happened”. He was on the other side, so we were a bit surprised. Although we knew that the Labour Government had a majority of four, there was a good chance of winning any election that happened then because the people were so fed up. He told everybody that he had decided to vote for the other side. Time went on and rumours were all over the place—“I’ve just heard so and so is not coming in”, and “I don’t believe so and so is voting for us, you know”. This went on. Rumours and suggestions came hot and fast.
Anyway, finally the day came when the vote was to be taken. We all rushed to our seats—both sides. It was, as usual at that time, at 10 pm—that was when we voted in those days, more often than at any other time. The vote was soon over. I am glad to say that I managed to get my name down and spoke in that very important debate. When 10 pm came, we rushed to vote and then rushed back to our seats. Our hearts were beating far faster than they normally did as the vote ended. Both sides were so impatient to know what had happened. The minutes crawled by. As we were all watching keenly, Labour’s Chief Whip came into the Chamber with a very happy smile on his face. Margaret, who was on the Front Bench, turned as pale as a piece of paper. We were all thinking, “Now what?”.
About a minute later one of our senior Whips, Anthony Berry, came in. Some noble Lords will remember him very well. Anthony was later killed by the IRA in that terrible trouble at the conference—I know that no one will have forgotten that. As he walked in, we could see that he was holding up the fourth finger of his right hand. We had won by one vote. That was a day that no one who was there will ever forget. The Speaker announced the result: 311 votes to 310. You can imagine what feelings that brought about in the Chamber.
I want to talk about just one more thing. We shall soon have another vote about the European question. What is going to happen we do not yet know, but there is something that I would like to say to my colleagues. Every politician knows perfectly well that when a party quarrels internally, the electorate hates it. It does not put electors in a very good mind. I would ask my colleagues to remember that, because there is no doubt that experience has taught us this. Whatever we think about Brexit, we ought to be together. I hope that everyone will.
If I was not quite together with everyone at the beginning of my speech, it was because I was quite nervous, having called the House on Sunday. I was informed that we would be meeting not at half past 12 as I thought, but at noon. I am sorry that I was a little late. I am sorry to leave all my noble friends because I love you all. Many of my friends are not from the same party as me, but we are good friends. That, too, we should remember. Goodbye to you all.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Knight of Collingtree and I have been working in this building for 50 years and therefore I regard it as a great privilege to be able to congratulate her on her valedictory speech. But of course, much more than that, I congratulate her on a lifetime of public service both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. My noble friend mentioned that people are anxious to get away for the recess. I think that she should look behind her because it is standing room only. Noble Lords have come here to express how very much they honour the way in which my noble friend has behaved as a parliamentarian over many years during a career that has extended across both Houses. My noble friend has played an important role. She referred to a number of events when we were together in the House of Commons. We both served for many years on the executive of the 1922 Committee and I can remember a number of occasions when her point about the importance of being together rather than divided was very relevant—certainly at that time in relation to Europe and now perhaps again.
Having said that, my noble friend has, in some ways, a unique achievement. I did not realise until the other day that she had succeeded in getting through no fewer than four private Bills. All of us know how very difficult it is even to get one through. To get through four, on a range of issues from nationality to copyright and child welfare, is something of which my noble friend can be justifiably proud.
A few days ago, I had the good fortune to meet a number of my noble friend’s former constituents. There is no doubt that they hold her in great affection. It is also the case—as we see by everyone assembled here today—that she is held in very great affection in this House as well. All her friends will miss her very much, but we also wish her a very happy retirement. It could not be better deserved and we therefore join together, I think, in saying that my noble friend should be congratulated and we wish her every success and happiness in the future.
I come now to the Budget. My noble friend and I have survived more than 50 Budgets and a great many of them turned out to be rather controversial. However, it is quite difficult to remember a Budget quite like this one. The late Iain Macleod used to say that a Budget looked good on Budget day but it very rarely looked good by the end of the week. That has certainly proved to be case as far as this Budget is concerned.
I am rather puzzled by the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. When I first heard about it, I came to the view that he must have resigned because the proposals which he was in favour of were being watered down. I remain unclear as to whether he is in favour of those proposals or not. In all events, it raises a number of difficult issues—referred to by the spokesman from the Labour Party and others—as clearly in the light of these changes we are left with a rather large black hole. Something needs to be done to fill that hole but my understanding is that the Chancellor will contemplate on what has happened and then make decisions in the Autumn Statement.
I want to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Darling. It is important to have targets for deficit reduction because, as he well knows from trying to cut public expenditure in the Treasury, if one does not have a fairly clear view of what one needs to do and achieve, then one will run into real problems in getting anywhere near the target. On a 50:50 basis of being likely to achieve the present target, I think the Chancellor should stick to his guns, but it is going to require a number of very difficult decisions.
In that context, I make just one point. There has been some question lately of whether one should look at the ring-fencing of pensions. It is very important that that framework should be maintained. For many years I represented the constituency of Worthing, where it is said people come to die and forget what they came for. There is a very large number of pensioners there. They have suffered very badly in recent years because of what has happened to interest rates. They have all saved carefully throughout their lives and hoped to have a happy retirement, and then they find that the return they are now getting on their savings is absolutely minimal. Therefore that needs to be taken into account in any question of whether anything should be done on pensions to offset the hole which has been left by the change in policy on welfare payments generally.
I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Darling, said about the general approach to taxation and public expenditure. It is certainly the case that those who lose shout a great deal louder than those who benefit from any change cheer, and that needs to be taken into account. However, we also need to consider not just the fiscal framework but the monetary framework. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in his place, with all his knowledge of Keynes; for some years we have gone along with the combination of Keynesian views and those of Milton Friedman, or what Paul Samuelson used to call the neoclassical synthesis. We do not have any theory now to deal with a situation where there are negative interest rates. We need some theory for that because the effect of the negative interest rates will be very important. I therefore hope that we will succeed in thinking that through collectively.
The overall situation is very difficult. We will have to contend with a situation where we have to maintain our determination to cut the deficit, otherwise we can never get back to a situation of normal demand management where we run a deficit if the economy is depressed and a surplus if it is overheating. Therefore we have to take a general view on that. Overall, however, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the Budget includes a number of very good proposals with regard to reducing taxation. We will need to look at this matter again to see where we go from here. However, the overall approach is right, and the Government should stick to their policy. We should continue to aim at the present target, otherwise we will find ourselves in a situation where the overall balance of the economy has still not been put right. We have a long way to go.
I conclude by quoting from one of my successors as chairman of the Treasury Committee, Andrew Tyrie, who on the question of whether the Chancellor should resign said very clearly that we should be grateful to him for leading us out of the worst economic crisis we have had in modern history. He has done that; he is the right person to continue to manage our economic affairs. While the situation is clearly very difficult, none the less we have achieved a great deal since he became Chancellor and we must continue to pursue the policy he has maintained throughout that time.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and others. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Price, on his excellent maiden speech—I do not think he is in his place at the moment—and on his wise stewardship of John Lewis and Waitrose over many years. It is an example of an outstanding business. Like others, I have a vested interest because a Waitrose has opened in Helensburgh in my former constituency. I hope that this message reaches the noble Lord because the supermarket has a two-hour parking waiting limit. My family say that that was totally unsuitable for my wife, who loves to go and meet her friends there. If the noble Lord, Lord Price, could intervene to ensure that her car is not clamped after two hours, it would do me very well.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, not only on her speech but on her sterling service in Parliament from 1966 to 1997. I shared more than a decade with her in the House of Commons. She was always pithy and relevant in her comments, sometimes rather controversial—but we will leave out the controversial aspects today because it is a lovely day. She served her constituents and Parliament exceedingly well. I think that she is in the record books as being the first Member of Parliament to be succeeded by another woman Member of Parliament for her constituency, so I offer her many congratulations on that, too.
I made a speech on the Autumn Statement in December, just over four months ago, and said then that,
“we have had four Budgets and Autumn Statements but all they have done is to serve to confuse, not clarify. My first plea is: let us stop the nonsense of this plethora of set pieces for the Chancellor and go back to the time when there was one Budget per annum. Then we might have some sense in our debate”.—[Official Report, 3/12/15; col. 1209.]
If the Chancellor had listened to that, we would not have got into the jam that we are in today. My prescience on the matter might best be described as the unimportance of being correct.
One of my favourite authors is Joan Didion, the American author. She wrote a stunning and very moving book, The Year of Magical Thinking—I do not know whether any of your Lordships have read it, but it is a fantastic book. It is focused on the story of a year spent wishing. I thought of the title of that book when we had this Budget because the Chancellor did not get even one week of thinking or wishing as a result of it before the Budget dissolved. Some of his own colleagues have called it nothing other than a fiddler’s charter.
I have been thinking about the Budget in terms of being a customer of a bank, where I would put the moneys into thousands rather than the billions that the Government mentioned. I would walk into my bank and ask the bank manager for £55,000, which is the black hole in the Government’s figures at the moment. But I would tell him, “By the way, I’m giving away £4,000 of that £55,000. And, by the way, my income over the next five years is reducing because the economy is getting smaller. And, by the way, I’ll not be working as hard because my productivity will be down”. That is what the OBR has told us. I feel that a wise bank manager would show me the door pretty readily.
My noble friend Lord Darling has asked already in an excellent speech who would believe that a £21.4 billion deficit in 2018-19 could become a £10.4 billion surplus in 2019-20. Contrary to all recent history, the Chancellor would be inflicting an incredibly painful fiscal tightening one year before an election. It does not make sense. By the way, the national debt at that point is estimated to be £2 trillion. It is okay if the national debt increases when the economy is increasing, but the economy is decreasing. Here we have a debt of £870 billion which the Government inherited from the Labour Government in 2010 which has now increased by 130% to £2 trillion. The IFS is very clear that the economy was £18 billion smaller than expected in 2015. It went on to say that if the forecasts for economic growth and productivity from a few months ago in the Budget are correct,
“we should all be very worried”.
So there is lower wage growth and a smaller economy, and productivity is bombing. In terms of productivity, the ONS is clear that the current estimates suggest that the absence of productivity growth in the seven years since 2007 is unprecedented in the post-war period. That would be okay if it was predicated on sound economic forecasts, but the £3.5 billion tax breaks for small business and higher personal allowances for income tax are based on what the OBR calls “highly uncertain” projected revenues from tax-avoidance measures.
These are measures to collect tax from those funnelling cash into tax havens. The Government estimate for that was £1.05 billion, but the OBR has said that there is a £780 million shortfall because just over £200 million has been collected with 80% of the estimate being uncollected. I suggest that noble Lords would not organise a day at the seaside for their local community club on that basis because if you got to the seaside, you would certainly be hitchhiking on the way back as a result. In the space of four months from November, a £27 billion windfall has become a £56 billion black hole. As Robert Chote of the OBR said,
“for every pound the chancellor found down the back of the sofa in November, he has lost two pounds this time”.
Mention has been made of the fiscal rules. Two out of three have been broken. The welfare cap was broken last year. The rule for debt to be falling every year as a share of national income has been broken. It is only obeyed by the Chancellor bending the rules on corporation tax with a one-off batch of payments in 2019-20. Policy decisions, not changes in economic forecasts, will increase borrowing by £7.5 billion in 2017-18 and by £4.8 billion in 2018-19. Then, magically, policy decisions in 2019-20 will reduce borrowing by £13.9 billion. That wipes out the £13.4 billion deterioration in the underlying public finances created by the OBR’s less optimistic economic forecasts.
The Chancellor should have known better because he unwisely criticised the previous Chancellor, my noble friend Lord Darling, in 2010 when the Labour Government introduced their fiscal rule. What the Chancellor said then is worthy of repeating. First of all, he declared that it was the “biggest load of nonsense”. Secondly, he declared that it was vacuous and irrelevant. He had the temerity to quote Willem Buiter of the MPC. I know the Minister knows him very well. Willem Buiter said
“Fiscal responsibility acts are instruments of the fiscally irresponsible to con the public”.
The Chancellor has well and truly conned the public today as a result of that.
The Chancellor’s forecasts rely not on strong growth in the economy but on strong growth in household debt and a buoyant housing market given a further boost by government subsidies. Having warned about the consequences of debt-fuelled growth, the Chancellor is now relying on it. The OBR expects household debt to continue to rise over this Parliament, and in 2020 the household debt to income ratio will exceed its previous peak of around 164%, close to the peak at the 2007 financial crisis. My question for the Minister is this: is this level of debt sustainable in an environment of possible rising interest rates?
This is against the background of a 4.4% savings ratio in the third quarter of 2015. The last time it was so low was when we heard “Blowing in the Wind”—yes, in 1963, when Bob Dylan released his famous song. That sums up precisely what the Chancellor is doing. He is blowing in the wind and his own party is generating a hurricane for him coming from within his Cabinet.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned my successor, Andrew Tyrie. He was scathing in his speech on the Budget last week about the balanced budget rule. In fact, he said quite clearly that this Government’s record is worse than that of any other previous Government. He pointed—this is my last point—to the profound weakness of the banking system.
In the past couple of months I have had the privilege to chair sessions with Martin Wolf, John Kay, Philip Augar and Mervyn King, when he launched his book The End of Alchemy in Glasgow just last week. I have also had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. To sum up the situation, there is a weak banking infrastructure and these learned individuals are telling us that the Government have sold the pass on reforming the banking system. At best, Martin Wolf has said, it is the old system with a few bells on it. The question now, they say, is that if and when the next financial crisis comes—and no doubt it will come at some time—we have to hope that we have individuals who can tackle the problems correctly and quickly. At the moment, the Government have stood back and the political impetus to change the system has gone. We need to change the system because it is not serving the best interests of the country. I could refer to my successor’s remarks on the Budget last week when he said that the issue of small businesses and banking is still a huge one. Long-term strategic interests are being ignored but, more importantly, the contemporary issues regarding business and growth still have to be addressed. With that in mind, I hope that the Minister will respond to those comments.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, in contributing to this debate and responding to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Budget Statement last week, to the subsequent events and to the debate in the other place, I welcome some proposals, express some surprise, and register disappointment—indeed, shock—at some of the measures announced. First, it is good to congratulate the Chancellor and Government on the intention to raise the tax free personal allowance to £11,500 this time next year. Lifting about 1.3 million people out of income tax is, of itself, welcome, although there are some potential drawbacks to which I will return a little later.
The decision to extend the period in which the 3% stamp duty second-home premium can be reclaimed is a real encouragement to those to whom I have previously referred, particularly elderly people, who want and need to downsize for their own well-being and comfort—and who, in doing this, also release a family home—but for whom the challenge of moving out and in coincidentally, or close to it, is too demanding and stressful. The pay first with reclaim up to three years later approach is not ideal and is hardly an encouragement to downsize, but it deserves some welcome.
The commitment to HS3 between Manchester and Leeds, the road tunnel between Sheffield and Manchester, the widening of the M62 to four lanes, and the backing for Crossrail 2 in London are all to be applauded as significant investments in infrastructure for the country. The announcement of a further £20 million over two years for the First World War centenary cathedrals repair fund has been enthusiastically received. Both my See city’s cathedrals have benefited from this fund already; indeed, 54 of the 59 eligible English cathedrals have done so. A grant of more than £680,000 went to my own Cathedral of St Thomas of Canterbury for essential work on the tower and south transept, in particular.
I was surprised, though, to read in the Red Book’s announcement of an examination of cathedrals’ financial sustainability, that these 59 glorious places of worship are described as a “sector”. Cathedrals are not a sector of the economy like SMEs, banks or the leisure industry, but the vibrant and active heart of dioceses, cities and communities, with growing congregations, witness and service, as the statistics show. They do not form a sector either of the economy or indeed of anything, and while I recognise that a collective noun for cathedrals is not easy to find—suggestions are welcome—it demeans their present and our faith heritage to call them a sector.
My second surprise was the announcement of a consultation on the provision of and facilities at crematoria made in the Budget, of all places. While issues about the number, location and size of crematoria are important, they cannot be addressed in isolation from others involved in ministry and provision at and around death, such as churches, ministers and funeral directors, if the stated aim is to be fulfilled, responding sensitively to relatives and to people of all faiths.
Our surprise at the announcement that all schools must become academies was again that it was made in the Budget, but there is now clarity on the timescale, albeit that it is challenging for everyone. The Church of England, as the provider of 4,700 schools and the largest provider of academies, will use its expertise and its collaborative partnerships to ensure that no one is left behind, especially small rural and coastal schools where the challenge is greatest. Our foundation for educational leadership will help to deliver what is most needed: leaders with vision and skills.
I turn to the disappointments. Sooner or later, a Chancellor must address the issue of pensions. It cannot be skirted, avoided or ignored. In particular, I draw the attention of the Minister to a consequence of the raising of the income tax threshold which, by removing people from paying income tax, also removes the tax incentive to provide for their pensions. These are issues that will not disappear and must be addressed. Ten times in his Budget Statement the Chancellor used the word “generation”. It is clear that he is not unaware of generational issues, but every reference was to the next generation. Intergenerational considerations are ones of morality and equity. Each person in each generation of every age is of value and is a full member of society with privileges and responsibilities. It is not right to ignore the generational issues that confront us not only with regard to our children and their children, but which are the responsibility of those of us who are near or beyond retirement age. We are specifically protected, insulated and exempt from the austerity that has characterised recent Budgets. Protection, insulation and exemption all have their place in national economic policy, but burdens must be borne fairly.
Members of the Government have frequently echoed the words of the present Chancellor in his first Budget—that those with the broadest shoulders would bear the greatest burden of austerity. Not for the first time after recent financial statements I have examined the tables, both official and those in the newspapers, which detail how much various individuals, couples and families would gain or lose from the Chancellor’s decisions. This time, the tables are more striking and chilling than ever. In the Times table, for instance, of 72 different sets of circumstances only eight households face a decline in income, and that of just 37 pence per week. Every other individual, couple or family gains up to more than £400 per year. However, we know that there were, and are, losers.
The outgoing Work and Pensions Secretary, responding to Andrew Marr on his Sunday morning show—I need with haste to clarify that I viewed it on iPlayer, as I was otherwise engaged on Sunday morning—said that he was not in the business of morality; he left that to churchmen. Although I disagree because ethics and morality are for us all, I respond to his challenge and invitation.
It surely behoves us to examine not only the gain and loss tables but our consciences. Given our circumstances and ages, I doubt that many Members of this House will be worse off through the Government’s proposals. The tortuous saga of the last week finally led yesterday to a clarification—that is the politest term I can use—from the Chancellor that the Government had intended that the losers would not be those with the broadest shoulders, but the vulnerable or disabled. That decision was morally indefensible. Having accepted the error, I trust that all of us will be willing to set our course—and the Government their economic course—with a stronger moral compass.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, I was very impressed with the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, about her successful career in both Houses. I wish her good luck and a long life. All noble Lords can learn a great lesson from her.
I thank the noble Lord for securing time for this debate. As any businessman will tell you, cutting taxes is one of the best ways of generating growth in small and medium-sized enterprises. I still remember the 1987 Budget from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and the positive effect of its tax cuts.
A tax on profits is, in my view, an extremely distorting tax. From the employer paying wages to the profits of a private firm, money is taxed by VAT, income tax, various levies, national insurance, business rates and many other minor taxes. Corporation tax is another unnecessary layer of complexity. Profit is not a dirty word. It allows employers, like me, to invest in more productive capital. It lets me pay wages and take on new staff and cut unemployment. The Chancellor’s consistent cutting of corporation tax is the correct course of action and I can only hope this will continue until the tax shrivels away altogether.
Productivity is another area of concern. Across the rich world, there appears to be a post-crash trend rate of growth well below what would be expected at this point in the business cycle. The easy gains have been made already and the Government will need to do more to generate rises in productivity. Without this, the rapid acceleration of living standards that we have all enjoyed is in danger of shuddering to a halt. I welcome some of the new measures introduced this time last week.
Academisation has a proven track record in improving the standards of schools. I have been a supporter of the devolution agenda for this very reason; namely, that service users and employees often know better than service providers. Allowing headmasters to hire staff and set pay scales is far better than using local authorities. Combined with an extra hour at school, I hope that this will provide employers with a better educated workforce, which is what we need if we are to own the industries of the future, like biotechnology.
I will finish on this point. We have a referendum on the European Union coming up. For all its faults—and there are many that the renegotiation did not address—we must vote to remain. The EU is the biggest single market in the world, with 500 million people to buy our goods and services. Almost half our exports go to the continent. We now have opt-outs from the euro and Schengen. Our European partners have accommodated us to the extreme, and we must appreciate what they have done. It may be the case that we are now the fastest-growing major European economy, but when we joined, we were the sick man of Europe. Times change, and working with allies is the only proven path to achieving success in an ever more globalised world.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, normally the Budget is a curiosity for around 24 hours, and by the next day everyone has forgotten about it and we carry on as normal. This is a unique Budget because it refuses to go away and it keeps changing its shape. I follow on from what my noble friend Lord Eatwell said. We would really like to know what the Budget is now. Which calculations are now prevalent since the Government blew a big hole in their own Budget?
The Order Paper suggests that the last business today is something that the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, is going to do with the Budget under the European Communities Act. He said that the Government’s assessment is set out in the Budget report and Autumn Statement, but I do not know which Budget Statements he will be talking about, because what we have is now not true. I think that we are owed some kind of explanation.
What I next want to say is this. Given how many times the OBR has had to revise its forecasts, what that reflects is a great deal of uncertainty about the economy, especially when it comes to the numbers. Economics is one of those rare subjects where we do not even know quite what has happened in the past, let alone what will happen in the future, especially when considering the numbers around our real income. We were sure that we had a double-dip recession, but the diagrams suggest that there was no double-dip recession.
My proposal, although it might not be that constructive, is that in future the Government ought to produce fan diagrams of all their Budget calculations. They should show what they intend to spend, but they should also show what they do not quite know and produce their confidence interval both on revenue and on the spending side—in which case you cannot actually make point forecasts of the targets. Point forecasts of targets are just a nonsense. Any statistician will tell you that no such number is completely accurate; it has to have large errors around it. Something that the Government ought to examine, either with the OBR or without the OBR, is a more sophisticated approach, if I can call it that, to Budget making. Ultimately, accountants want numbers to balance, but I think one can say that the deficit would be either this or that or anywhere in between, because that is the best we can say—we cannot separate the numbers.
In the same direction of argument, I lost a lot of friends during the last Government by supporting the Chancellor because I thought he was doing quite well. After all, he was implementing my noble friend Lord Darling’s policies, and he was succeeding in that. Who can blame him? However, I think it was wrong of the Chancellor—I have said this before—to have a budget surplus as a target for the last year of his Government. Apart from anything else, when Roy Jenkins achieved a budget surplus we lost the next election, so having a budget surplus is not a popular policy. Apart from Roy Jenkins, the only other two Chancellors who have achieved a budget surplus are Nigel Lawson and Gordon Brown, but the surpluses were so tiny you could hardly see them without a microscope. This idea of achieving a surplus should be laid aside. The Chancellor’s job is to ensure that the economy prospers and people do not suffer very much. He should not worry about these narrowly defined targets of deficits and surpluses.
One question is worth discussing and perhaps the noble Lord can answer it—how will the Government fill the gap? My own view is that, since they have blown a hole in the Budget, they may have to come out with a slightly new set of calculations. I see that the Minister has a troubled face. If the Government had known that they could not cut off this £4 billion, would they not have raised the fuel duty? Not raising fuel duty is an immoral act, apart from anything else. When the price of oil fell, the Government of India gave only half the gain to the consumer and pocketed the other half. That is a perfectly sensible thing to do. There is no reason why the entire gain from the price cut should be passed on, given that there are other urgent tasks that the Chancellor has to perform. It would be perfectly normal to say, “We had to do something, and this was the least painful”. I declare an interest in that I do not have a car and have not had one for 50 years since I have lived in London. I have absolutely no sympathy with car drivers—I have slightly less with bicycles but I will not go into that. The action I have described would be doable.
The raising of the threshold for the 40% income tax payment was too generous. There was a time when we had inflation and fiscal drift, as it were, and people thought it was unfair that they should pay extra tax given that nominal incomes were rising but real incomes were not. We do not have high inflation, so I think that going from a £42,000 threshold to a £45,000 threshold—or whatever the Government have done—is far too generous. If they had decided to introduce this over two years or defer it, as with the corporation tax for big businesses, they could have clawed back some money that way.
I very much welcome the sugar tax. I am a friend of high taxes, and the sugar tax is a good thing. I definitely argued for it. Some soft drink producers have asked, “Why us? Why not introduce a chocolate tax?”. I thought that was a good idea and that we should levy the sugar tax on solids as well as liquids and have a progressive sugar tax which would claw back some money. I have argued before in your Lordships’ House that I prefer taxing consumption rather than taxing income because, if you tax people while they are having fun, they do not notice it. Therefore, it would be perfectly normal to introduce a more comprehensive sugar tax. I also welcome the fact that, after all these years of the Treasury not agreeing to a hypothecated tax, we now have hypothecated taxes. Hurrah! Long may we have a practice of saying that this particular tax is for this particular expenditure.
Finally, quite a lot of noble Lords have said that there is a need for infrastructure spending. Fiscal orthodoxy says that we cannot do that because the Budget numbers will go down. I have read Tom Bower’s book on Tony Blair. I think Gordon Brown invented PPP and built 80 hospitals and not a single number showed up in government debt. I think you have to find a similar trick: set up some nice corporations that will build affordable houses and do it in such a way that not a single number appears in the Budget. It cannot be difficult for the Treasury—it has done it before; it can do it again.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I want to address three topics that have arisen from the Budget—the productivity collapse, the overreliance on OBR forecasts and the failure to distinguish between capital and current spending. I know that noble Lords have spoken on the first two but the third one is also important and was briefly alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
Productivity is really a disaster. Before the crash, productivity growth was about 2% a year. In the last eight years it has been 0.2%. These figures should alarm the Chancellor. It means that he can expect no help to growth from productivity and that a lot of our present growth is bubble growth, which will subside when the balloon is pricked, together with the bubble revenues it brings him. The belated recognition of this fact has led the OBR to revise downwards its growth forecasts, leaving the hole in the Budget to which many noble Lords have already alluded. Near-zero productivity growth also means we can expect very little improvement in living standards over the next few years. The Iron Chancellor will have presided over Britain’s longest period of stagnation in a century.
No one has a completely convincing explanation of why productivity has been so poor, certainly not the Bank of England, which has written a couple of reports on the matter. In the most general sense it must be because of the way our labour markets and financial system have worked during the recovery from the recession. What new jobs have we created? In his Budget speech the Chancellor claimed that the economy created 2 million “good” jobs in the last Parliament,
“90% … in skilled occupations ... three quarters … full-time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/16; col. 953.]
The view from chez Corbyn was, understandably, very different. He referred to,
“nearly 1 million people on a zero-hours contract ... the highest levels of in-work poverty on record”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/16; col. 971.]
This means that this has been a jobs-rich, skills-poor, recovery—in marked contrast to both the great depression of the 1930s and the recovery from the 1980s. The labour-intensive nature of the recovery has shown that Margaret Thatcher achieved her goal of creating the flexible workforce dreamt of by the Chicago economists, but only by drying up the springs of productivity and thus real wage growth. From 2008-14, the median real wage, which had been growing by about 2% a year in the 1980s and 1990s, fell by an average of 1% a year. Real weekly wages still have not reached their pre-crisis peak; this is not what a recovery should look like in a “high-wage” economy.
We can discern two trends from this: a further shift from manufacture to services; and within the service sector, a shift from higher paid to lower paid jobs—from local government to hospitality, personal services and retail. Our new service economy is starting to look like the Victorian servant economy, with the difference that the services are now outsourced rather than in-house. However, to explain the increase in the labour intensity of employment we also have to look at the financial sector. Capital investment has fallen off, with investment as a fraction of output having been consistently 1% or 2% lower than its pre-crash level. The effects of this continued underperformance of investment, accumulating over time, has left us with an anaemic capital-labour ratio that continues to drag on our productivity.
Why has investment been so sluggish? This, we must remember, has been despite all the efforts by the Bank of England to stimulate fresh investment by keeping interest rates at zero, and, of course, pouring a lot of money into the economy. Is it because we have a damaged banking system or because we have a banking system which is less interested in helping small and medium-sized enterprises than in churning money around itself? Is it because the demand for loans has fallen off? It is probably some combination of the three. Much of the new money has been hoarded. Some of it has gone into asset speculation. Two-thirds of bank lending goes into mortgages to buy existing houses—which is speculation in a fixed asset. All of which is a far cry from the textbook idea of banks as intermediaries which channel public savings into real investment. Therefore, on the one hand an increase in labour intensity and on the other hand an increase in what the noble Lord, Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, calls “financial intensity”—an increasing share of financial actions taking place within the financial sector itself. I argue that the interaction between the two explains our productivity collapse. The conclusion I draw is therefore pretty clear. If the private sector will not invest in the economy, the state has to do it.
My second topic, which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Darling, is about the over-reliance of the Chancellor on OBR forecasts. We know the picture. In November the OBR gave the Chancellor a £27 billion bonus and more recently it discovered a £4.4 billion hole. Targeting deficit reduction over a medium-term period became fashionable in 2010 to give fiscal consolidation credibility. In 2010, the noble Lord, Lord Darling, announced that he would halve the budget deficit over four years. A few months later, the Chancellor said that he would eliminate the “cyclically-adjusted” current spending deficit by the end of the 2010 Parliament. Labour now follows the same path. John McDonnell says that a Labour Government will balance the books every five years. All these targets depend, as noble Lords know, on growth forecasts which are bound to be wrong at the time, bound to be wrong—as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said—even about the past, and are bound to be even more wrong in the future. Today no one knows how much the economy will grow over the next five years, yet the Chancellor still has a target of an overall surplus in 2019-20. The combination of point targets and variable forecasts is a mad way to do budgeting. No wonder the Chancellor has revived his talk of headwinds. I can see that having these medium-term targets gives some assurance of fiscal discipline. However, it also means that policy is just shuffled around between the front and back of the sofa according to the latest OBR forecast. The one thing this vacillating method fails to provide is a credible policy of fiscal consolidation.
The larger problem underlying all this is that the Chancellor’s Administration has been trying to achieve a balanced budget for a given state of the economy rather than trying to use the budget to balance the economy. Unfortunately, this restricted view is shared by Labour. It means that the current debate largely revolves round the fairness of the cuts—the distribution of the sacrifice—rather than challenging the logic of the cuts in the first place. We therefore need a lot more thought about that.
My final point is about George Osborne’s failure to distinguish between capital and current spending. This goes back some way, and he is not the first to fail to do that. One of Gordon Brown’s achievements was to revive the distinction between debt incurred to finance capital formation and debt incurred to fund consumption. The basic idea is that the Government should cover all current spending by taxes, but can borrow for investment. Had that distinction taken root, the spending that needed to be balanced by taxes would have been much smaller and the budget deficit consequently less alarming than has been shown to be the case in public debate. The problem, of course, is the difficulty of defining investment. Building a new school or hospital is surely an investment, but because it does not produce a calculable prospective revenue to service and pay off the debt, it creates a lot of wiggle room to borrow for current spending.
In reaction, the Treasury now treats all public investment as current expenditure. When the Chancellor says that he aims for a surplus in 2019-20, he means a surplus on public sector net borrowing. Since any investment financed by borrowing increases the deficit, that is in effect a veto on government borrowing for investment in the foreseeable future. We need to do a lot more work on this.
I am reminded of something that Keynes wrote in 1942. He said:
“We need to extend, rather than curtail, the theory and practice of extra-budgetary funds for state operated or state-supported services … [It is important] to associate as closely as possible the cost of particular services with the sources out of which they are provided … This is the only way to preserve sound accounting, to measure efficiency, to maintain economy and to keep the public aware of what things cost”.
I do not deny for a moment that there are some thorny problems here, but unless we make a determined effort to relate the cost of particular services with the sources from which they are financed—I have been a long-standing advocate of a national investment bank—we will never escape from the deficit trap, at least except by destroying what is left of social cohesion. That is the course, I am afraid, on which the Chancellor has embarked. But as the resignation of his Work and Pensions Secretary shows, it will bring him little joy.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, this Budget promises more austerity. I join my noble friend Lord Eatwell and many others in feeling that we are becoming victims of austerity as practised by this Government. Much of the Budget is designed to put right the low investment in infrastructure, training, the disappointing exports, disappointing tax receipts and poor productivity —caused by austerity. Alan Milburn pointed out in his recent report on child poverty and social mobility that much of this falls unfairly on generation Y. With welfare now added to the many areas of expenditure that are closed to the Chancellor for cuts, he may be forced to find the new approaches suggested by many noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred to a rather large black hole.
The Minister spoke of the need for resilience. Economic security is not just a matter of accountancy and government bookkeeping. The Government and other noble Lords continue to tell us that the economic crisis was caused by excessive public expenditure and public debt during the Labour Administration, but endless books, articles, learned papers and research tell us that the crash was all to do with global banks extending huge amounts of credit to inappropriate borrowers—banks with insufficient capital of their own to cover these and their own speculative losses. Internal bookkeeping will not protect us from these pressures. We have to raise our game in the financial industry and a robust and properly regulated financial system is required to protect us from outside financial pressures. My noble friend Lord McFall told us how weak the system is. What are the Government planning to do about it?
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said that the most significant observation from the OBR was the slow-down in the growth of productivity. The Minister reminded us of this and so have many other noble Lords. The Minister has said that the Government are going to deal with this through investment in education and infrastructure. In support of this the Government speaks of the roads, railways and flood defences that are on the way. My noble friend Lord Darling told us that what the Government do not tell us is that much of this expenditure is on feasibility studies and design, on organisation and preparation—all essential, but not for now. It is for the next generation but one. For the next generation are the many small and local projects that are essential to cut bottlenecks and to help local businesses. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out, starved local authorities are struggling to support this. Instead we hear about the promised prestige projects that are a long way off in the future. What efforts will the Government make to help local authorities to carry out these small but urgent projects?
Government investment in science and engineering is key to raising productivity and, yes, there are several welcome signs of this investment all across the country. At last, there is even investment for studying the feasibility of building mini nuclear reactors. Also welcome is the decision to make loans available to many more adults training in further education, particularly for science and engineering. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, pointed out, compared with other areas, this is not nearly enough. Nor is it adequately managed. A few days before the Budget, the National Audit Office was strongly critical of the quality of the information used for the Government’s investments in science capital projects. I hope the Government will pay proper attention to that. These projects must be properly planned and funded from start to finish and not from Budget to Budget.
One of my major concerns is that the Government do not seem to understand the way that the world of work is changing and the impact that this has on productivity. We have long argued that the Government are giving insufficient attention to those less tangible investments. We now have an important ally in Sir Charles Bean. In his recent report he, too, points out that intangible investment is not properly reflected in our figures. He gives some interesting examples: go to a travel agent and book a ticket and that becomes part of our GDP because of the investment in the travel agent, but be more efficient and book it over the internet and it does not appear. If you travel by taxi, this is in our GDP because a taxicab is an investment, but if you travel by Uber it is not, because you are probably riding in somebody’s privately owned car. Many small businesses and self-employed people now use websites, platforms and apps to sell their services and products. Where do they appear? We have to get this right. The Bank of England’s chief economist, Andy Haldane, warns us that up to 12 million jobs in Britain are at risk because of these powerful tools to raise productivity.
I welcome the increased minimum wage. My noble friend Lord Eatwell pointed out that many firms have said that they will pay for the increased minimum wage with less hours, less overtime and fewer benefits. So we are not going to see much growth in earnings. This increase in pay should be financed by increased productivity. If the means of achieving this are not recognised, all we will get is a race to the bottom—as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, indicated—which is an outcome that none of us wants. When will the Government bring us into the 21st century? I put it to the Minister that in failing to understand properly what is going on we are in danger of solving yesterday’s problems, not today’s. The Minister laughs, but I think it is a very serious matter.
Many noble Lords have spoken of our complicated tax system. What this means for business taxation is a lack of a sense of constant strategic direction, and it makes us nervous. The Minister welcomed the cuts in capital gains tax. Like many other noble Lords in this Committee, I spent much of my working life building a business—a business that I am pleased to say supplied John Lewis, so I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Price. During that time—some 30 years—the tax we would have to pay on selling out our businesses varied between 45% and 18%. Indexation was introduced and then withdrawn. From time to time, the definition of business assets was changed. Our strategic concern was to achieve success. The Minister may say that the Government’s intention was to encourage investment, but it has not happened. Others could interpret this as tempting us to enjoy the fruits of success rather than continuing to invest in the business. And yes, in this Budget the rules are changed again, so I put it to the Committee that this is a wrong strategic aim in a country such as ours which depends on people like us building long-term, successful businesses. I agree with others that this is where continuity and reform are needed.
We need Budgets that understand the economy, build a robust and secure economy and which invest in long-term business, industry, the environment and skills and services—not Budgets designed to deal with the self-inflicted damage of the Government’s version of austerity.
Lord Lupton (Con)
My Lords, I want to talk about two matters in the Budget, one of which has had little publicity to date but to my mind signals a significant and welcome policy development. Before doing so, I want to make one general observation and remind the Committee of my declared interest as chairman in Europe of a global corporate advisory firm, some of whose clients may well be affected by the Budget.
In my first few months sitting in your Lordships’ distinguished company in the House, I have come to the conclusion that the opposition parties have learned little from the depressing tale of recent economic history. Reckless mismanagement of the economy in 13 short years, most of those years in the boom period before the crash, brought this country almost to its knees in 2010, requiring the Conservative-led coalition in that year, now a Conservative majority Government, to take decisive action to reduce a double-digit deficit.
It is apparently perfectly acceptable, when we have a deficit still running at more than 3%, to table amendments costing the country literally billions while criticising in a knee-jerk way any tax cut, even when there is good evidence that such a cut may produce more revenue. I am sorry to say that there is something sickening about listening to the sheer hypocrisy of Labour Peers criticising a so-called “black hole” of £4 billion opening up over the next five years on PIP when they dug a 10% deficit cavern in 2010—a Wookey Hole compared to a PIP pothole.
Lord Skidelsky
My Lords, can we just get some accuracy on the figures? The deficit when George Osborne took office was 8.3%. Let us not talk about double digits.
Lord Lupton
As the noble Lord well knows, the economy is a supertanker that does not turn around in six months, as indeed the evidence over many economic cycles shows. None the less, just to recall, all of that generated in 2010 the famous billet doux from the Treasury: “Good luck. There’s no more money”.
I want to talk about the proposal to cut capital gains tax from 28% to 20% from next month. In 2010, the Adam Smith Institute produced a compelling report on the effect of capital gains tax rises on revenues using data from the USA dating from 1955 to 2006. I apologise in advance for bombarding noble Lords with numbers, but when the tax rate was raised four times between 1968 and 1976 from 20% to 35%, total capital gains tax revenues fell by 21%. When the 35% CGT rate in 1978 was then progressively cut to 20% by 1984, the CGT take rose by 46% to $41 billion. When the rate was increased again in 1986 to 28% from 20%, revenues fell by 13%, and when the rate was cut from 20% to 15% in 2003, CGT revenues almost exactly doubled to $110 billion. Noble Lords will get the drift: there is a clear pattern of inverse correlation between the two. Professor Paul Evans of Ohio State University found in an important piece of research carried out in 2009 that a 1% reduction in the marginal tax rates on CGT in the US might trigger a 10% increase in revenues.
There have been fewer changes to CGT rates in the United Kingdom so it is more difficult to draw evidence-based conclusions, but I note that the rate cut in this Budget is possibly the only cause for my being in agreement with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. He reformed CGT in his first Budget in July 1997, cutting CGT on long-term investments from 40% to 24%, and again in 2003 he cut CGT on business assets to a rate of 10% for assets held for more than two years. Thereafter—guess what?—CGT revenues in the UK increased by 35% to £3.2 billion. Since much of capital gains tax is a voluntary tax in that you can often choose when to realise a profit, this feels intuitively right.
I applaud the cut in the rate of CGT, not least for basic rate taxpayers who will now pay only 10%. With entrepreneurs’ relief at 10% now extended to all long-term investors in unlisted shares—quite often start-ups—there is already anecdotal evidence of a further surge in entrepreneurialism which will, based on strong historical evidence, particularly in the United States, increase revenues from this tax to the Exchequer—and hence my reason for applauding it.
I would also like to say a few words about the introduction of the interest deductability cap which, perhaps unsurprisingly given its name, has had little coverage in the press. The Budget imposes what to my mind is a sensible cap on the amount of interest which can be deducted from taxable profits at 30% of those earnings in the UK with a de minimis threshold of £2 million of net interest expense to avoid harming smaller companies. This represents a very important policy shift. While a key driver of this measure seems to be restraint of tax shifting by international companies away from the UK, sections of the investment community, some of whom I represent in the UK, will no longer have such a powerful personal motive to leverage the companies their firms buy.
This provision will force a change on the private equity business model in the UK, requiring, I believe, greater prudence and greater concentration on genuine business improvement rather than overreliance on pure financial engineering. That is a good thing and I am sure that the private equity industry will rise to the challenge.
The great financial crisis was littered with carcases of companies where the so-called “tax shield” of carefully constructed legal structures with double dipping and excessive debt went wrong when the profits of the company stumbled. From talking this week to some of the major players in the private equity world, my feeling is that this OECD-wide initiative, which our Government are now pioneering, is regarded by them as an inevitability, with the result that lesser personal rewards will be available from what, in aggregate—that is the point: in aggregate—became the taking of major systemic risk through excessive leverage. Excessive, and even abusive, use of interest rate deductions incentivises the use of debt over equity, overleverages corporations, thereby increasing their risk, and increases systemic risk in the UK banking sector as a direct result. Change is long overdue—a fact the Chancellor recognised with prescience when he called for such change in opposition. I applaud this move, with the cautionary note to the Minister that when interest rates eventually rise, the Government may need to be flexible on whether 30% is then the right threshold for the cap.
This is not only a pro-business Budget but one which is pro-market, pro-new entrant, pro-small business and pro-entrepreneur too. Under the bonnet of this Budget, small businesses and entrepreneurs are being helped the most and large companies are being held better to account to behave responsibly and pay their fair share. Growing, successful businesses create jobs. Higher employment improves the economy, reduces the deficit and enables us to take care of the most needy in our country. We should trumpet the success of UK business in recent years. I am confident that this Budget will build an even more vibrant business economy.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, it feels quite like old times, not just to be sitting alongside my noble friends Lord Eatwell and Lord Desai but to be sitting opposite the noble Lord, Lord Lupton, although previously we did so on other sides of the negotiating table in our roles as corporate finance advisers. I wear as a badge of honour his suggestion that I am a member of the hypocritical group of Labour Peers on these Benches and I will come back to some of the points that he made on capital gains tax changes.
I welcome the chance to debate the Budget measures and the implications they have for the economy, but I regret that this debate is not taking place on the Floor of the House but here in the Moses Room, whatever the charms of this room may be. I regret that particularly in terms of the exceptional maiden and valedictory speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Price, and the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, respectively, and in the context of the separation of this debate from the Motion which will take place as last business in the Chamber today, to which my noble friend Lord Desai referred. Perhaps it is an unworthy thought that this room is being used not just because of the pressure of legislative business in the Chamber but, rather, because the Government remember their good friend and supporter the late Lord Hanson, who made a practice of always holding the annual general meeting of Hanson Trust on one of the days between Christmas and the new year, while denying that that was done in any way to discourage the attendance of troublesome shareholders.
As the last Back-Bench speaker and having heard so many powerful comments about the macroeconomic scene—I support entirely the contributions of my noble friends Lord Eatwell, Lord Darling and Lord Desai—I propose, even before hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lupton, to focus on one or two areas of specific tax policy, particularly capital gains tax, relating to entrepreneurial activity.
The Minister referred to the problem of low productivity, as did my noble friend Lord Eatwell and many other speakers this afternoon. Of course, the linkage between productivity and technology, innovation and entrepreneurial activity is complex and what we see in the US reflects many of the issues that we struggle with here. But notwithstanding the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Lupton, like all my colleagues on these Benches in both Houses, I strongly recognise the contribution of small and innovative businesses to the increase in productivity.
The Minister referred to the CGT changes as a measure to encourage investment. He also said that tax should be not just competitive but fair. That last statement reminded me of something written by the excellent Financial Times political commentator Janan Ganesh—indeed, the biographer of the Chancellor —when he wrote last year:
“A country’s tax code is not just a mesh of rules and rates—it is a secular bible of moral signals”.
Although Ganesh was writing principally about inheritance tax in that particular article, which I will refrain from addressing at least today, his argument is compelling on a broad view. I will quickly examine the CGT changes and indeed the related pre-existing tax treatment of investment in smaller companies, and ask whether this achieves the aim of stimulating productive investment and at the same time sends the right signal of fairness.
The noble Lord, Lord Lupton, took us through a long history of the changes in CGT rates. He rather glossed over that it was the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who as a Conservative Chancellor raised the CGT rate to the same level as the marginal rate of income tax, which I think we can see now as a triumph of intellectual purity over practical efficacy. We then went through the period that he described of taper relief. It was then my noble friend Lord Darling who simplified the system, removed in large part the separate taxation of business assets, private company shares and so forth from other assets, and introduced a single rate of 18%. At the same time he introduced entrepreneurs’ relief at a 10% rate capped at £1 million in any entrepreneur’s lifetime. The current Chancellor, both during the coalition Government and subsequently, significantly raised the CGT rate to 28% but at the same time substantially increased entrepreneurs’ relief in two stages to £10 million.
The changes in this year’s Budget Statement bring us back to a basic rate that is very similar to that introduced by my noble friend Lord Darling, but with a further broadening, in effect, of entrepreneurs’ relief and the reintroduction of a two-tier system. There may be a reasonable argument, as is made by Hamish McRae in today’s Independent, that 20% as a general CGT rate may be optimal from the point of view of raising tax revenue. That may have influenced my noble friend Lord Darling when he pitched the rate at 18%. But do we need ever-growing concessions to small and private company investment? In 20 years of advising and investing in early-stage companies, I have never seen any evidence that a capital gains tax as low as 10% makes any difference to the quality or quantity of investment in these companies, let alone the effect of the income tax breaks that apply through EIS and VCT investment. What are the Minister and his colleagues doing to try to assess the total cost of concessions to private company investment, both the pre-existing ones through income tax and other CGT breaks and the newly introduced ones? Will he give an assessment of whether the taxpayer gets value for money from that? If we do not, surely we are falling into the trap that Mr Ganesh referred to in the FT of sending the wrong moral signal.
I should emphasise that these Benches strongly support the activities of small companies. As I have said, I have devoted most of my working life to working with them. But we need to be rigorous in the way that we examine what allowances are really needed as opposed to currying favour with the small business lobby.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate, not least because it has enabled me to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Price. I was very struck when he quoted the John Lewis motto that its aim was,
“to make the world a bit happier”.
I hope he takes that motto with him into his ministerial role and attempts to fulfil it as successfully there as he has done at Waitrose. It was also a privilege to hear the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight. It is sobering to think that when she was first elected, I was only 13 years-old. When I think of the changes that I remember in my lifetime, and that she has been an active participant throughout that extremely turbulent and rapidly developing period of our history, she has had a remarkable career. I have one final comment on speeches that do not flow in the main body of my speech. I have a suggestion for the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I would have thought that a see of cathedrals might be a good collective noun.
The Budget has been a drama in two acts. Act I was the Budget itself and it lasted until about 24 hours after the Chancellor had sat down. The Budget exemplified the aphorism that to govern is to choose because the Government certainly chose a number of very stark priorities. First, they chose to have a budget surplus by 2019-20. Nobody believes that that is necessary for any economic purpose; it is a piece of economic posturing by the Chancellor, which is important to him and his credibility but almost certainly not necessary in terms of the long-term future of the British economy.
Secondly, the Chancellor decided to achieve this by increasing the pace of deficit reduction in the last year of this Parliament. For the next three years, the deficit reduction will go on at a rate of about £17 billion a year, and then suddenly in 2019-20 it increases to £32 billion a year. Can the Minister explain the economic rationale for that acceleration? The Chancellor decided to achieve this Budget surplus largely by regressive measures, from the now disgraced PIP changes to cutting public expenditure by £3.5 billion in 2019-20, in as yet unallocated measures. Whatever they are, given the budgets that are likely to be cut, it is highly likely they will be regressive.
Capital gains tax has been reduced. We can argue about whether the optimal rate in terms of overall revenue is 28%, 20% or something else, but for many affluent individuals that cut is a great benefit.
There are two changes to the ISA limits—the overall annual ISA limit goes up to £20,000, which is greatly above any increase justified by the rate of inflation, and can benefit only extremely affluent individuals. Having £20,000 of free cash to put away a year is beyond the dreams of the vast majority of the population. The lifetime ISA allows young people to put away up to £4,000. I accept that there is a big problem in getting young people to save for their pensions, given the short-term pressures they have with housing costs, repaying loans and many other cash calls. However, we are just in the process of introducing automatic enrolment for pensions across vast swathes of the economy. We are saying to people, “We want you to join your company scheme because if you do the company will then make a contribution and this is a wise way of saving for your pension”. Now, young people are being told, “Hang on a second, you have a new ISA”. What advice would the Minister give young people, such as my sons in their late 20s and early 30s, as to whether they should join an auto-enrolment scheme if they have not already done so or should put any spare cash they might save into a lifetime ISA?
Overall, the effect of these changes is that the poorest do worst and every other group does increasingly better. This was graphically demonstrated by the IFS but not by the Government, whose own distribution tables for the first time did not cover the effects of this Budget. They covered a decade’s worth of effects, which meant that you could not tell what the effects of this Budget were. That was why the Education Secretary was tripped up on television because she had read only the Red Book, which would not tell her that, and the distribution tables produced by the Government. She had not seen the IFS report.
Another feature has been the stunts and smoke and mirrors tricks so beloved of Gordon Brown. Three stand out. The first is deferring bringing forward the payment of corporation tax for large groups for two years, which is revenue neutral over the Parliament but backloads a large amount of cash coming in in the last years of this Parliament. The second is bringing forward capital spending in 2017-18 and 2018-19 and then reducing it by an equivalent amount in subsequent years. Given the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Darling, graphically illustrated of getting this money spent on time, can the Minister first tell us on which projects an extra £760 million is to be spent in 2017-18 and an extra £970 million in 2018-19 and then which projects will have £1,585 million less spent on them in 2019-20? The final bit of smoke and mirrors, which is damaging to the economy and the public sector, is raiding the public sector pension funds at a cost, as my noble friend Lady Kramer said, of £650 million to the NHS and more than £400 million to schools, but which miraculously pops up in the Budget figures as a gain of £2 billion to the Government.
Overall, the Budget as presented is regressive and gimmicky. It is devoid of economic rationale but dripping with political calculation. In the absence of the restraining hand of the Liberal Democrats, the Chancellor has driven a stake into the heart of one-nation conservatism and heralded the return of the nasty party.
But not so quick—that is just the end of Act I. Suddenly, 24 hours after the Budget, the curtain rises on Act II. A Back-Bench Tory rebellion reverses the PIP policy, at a cost of £4 billion, a number of VAT changes are made, IDS resigns, chaos reigns. However, yesterday the Chancellor says that we should not worry, he has seen the error of his ways, he will not make any further benefit cuts, and that IDS was a nice chap really. Can the Minister give any example in the last century when a major plank of a budget has been withdrawn within 48 hours because of a rebellion in the governing party or for any other reason? Where do the Government’s plans now stand, and in particular, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, given that the Government are now about to send a Red Book to Brussels, will it be amended? We know that the Red Book no longer reflects the Budget judgment of this Government, and there is a legal requirement to send an estimate to the EU jolly quick, so it cannot wait until the Autumn Statement.
On plans unravelling, the Minister will be familiar with the mayoral devolution deal, which the Red Book claims has been agreed for East Anglia. The Minister is no doubt also aware that last night Cambridgeshire County Council rejected the deal by 64 votes to one. It did so because the proposal would have simply dropped a mayor for East Anglia on top of the existing structure of parish, district and county councils and because it believed that this would blur transparency of who was responsible for decision-making. Given this near-unanimous view of Cambridgeshire, on what basis did the Government claim in the Red Book to have got their agreement—the word “agreement” being used? Do other counties in other areas which are to get similar deals share Cambridgeshire’s view, and in the specific case of Cambridgeshire, what plans do the Government have to resurrect the deal?
One lesson from the Budget is, as we have discussed today, that hard and fast fiscal rules are a folly. We remember the painful contortions over Gordon Brown’s golden rule, and the noble Lord, Lord Darling, as he pointed out, legislated to halve the deficit over four years. Given the way the Labour Party excoriated the coalition Government for achieving that, I suspect that had the noble Lord or one of his Labour successors still been in government, that target would probably not have been met and another one would have been required.
The current Chancellor has already broken two of the three fiscal rules he had set. To cap it all, Labour has set a fiscal credibility rule. Leaving aside the fact that you use a word like “credibility” only in a context when you have none, this rule is completely undermined by the views of the Shadow Chancellor, who in the Commons said:
“As someone who still sees the relevance of Trotsky’s transitional programme, I am attempting not to salvage capitalism but to expose its weaknesses ”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/11; col. 1317.]
I am not sure that Trotsky’s transitional programme was very hot on fiscal credibility. The only lesson I learn from all these broken or ridiculous rules is that there should be only one fiscal rule, which says: “You shall have no fiscal rules”.
The final point, which I will briefly touch on, is on the discussion we have had on targets. A number of noble Lords have pointed out that at one level targets which go far into the future are ridiculous because the only thing you know about them is that they will not and cannot be met. The challenge here is that without some kind of quite detailed projections you lose credibility. However, the challenge on the other side is that Chancellors put far too much emphasis on the detail of them and will trumpet the fact that they expect a £10 billion or £20 billion this or that in five or six years as a major triumph of policy-making when clearly, whatever happens, those exact targets will not be met. It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, a mad way to do budgeting, but I think that we need a more nuanced view of the target culture.
When historians look back at 2016, I think that we can be pretty certain that the decision that we take on 23 June will be seen as vastly more important than this Budget. That does not mean that this Budget is not regressive, unrealistic and, now, shot through with holes, but it does put it into perspective.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, my first duty is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Price, on his maiden speech. Had the Opposition had their way, it would have been made in the proper place, in the Chamber, but I hope that he will at least be encouraged by the reception that he has had today to engage in our next economic debate, which will be in the Chamber and which—I understand from the assurances of the Government—will not be too far off. I also could not miss this opportunity to thank him, on behalf of my wife, for opening a small store fairly close to our home. It is close enough for me to be trusted to go on my bike and get the light shopping; I would never be trusted with the more serious shopping that is done on other occasions—so I am grateful to him for that.
Turning to the Budget, what has been laid bare is the Chancellor’s failures over these years: even before the fiasco of the personal independence payment started to unravel, and even before Iain Duncan Smith wrote the first line of his resignation letter, this Budget revealed itself to be a shining example of what happens to an economy when it is deprived of investment. My noble friend Lord Eatwell opened the debate from these Benches by identifying with great accuracy and very fully just why we had suffered such low investment—of course, the cuts are the other feature of this economy which we deplore and which I will come on to in a moment—and just why these have been wasted years and we are doomed. They have been unsuccessful years; we have to remember, after all, that the Chancellor was going to clear his deficit this last year. It will take him twice as long as he said. He is going to go for a surplus almost as fictitious, I have no doubt, as the rate at which he was able to clear the deficit over the previous five years.
There is no doubt that there is only one crucial figure that has come out of the Budget: the Institute for Fiscal Studies emphasised very clearly and several key contributions in today’s debate have subscribed to the point—the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, devoted nearly the whole of his speech to it—that we have depressingly low productivity, which lies at the heart of our economic failure. If we are going to progress, it will not be by hitting the targets of a Chancellor who is continually having to row back from very short-term decisions; it will be by how we set about successfully improving productivity in this country. We know the Minister is well equipped to address this issue. We all recognise how difficult the issue is, but it is not helped when the whole direction of policy identified by the Chancellor seems to put such low store by this crucial issue.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that if the OBR predictions on productivity and this low growth come to fruition, we should all be worried. It will lead to lower wages and living standards, not just lower tax revenue to the Treasury. This is lower wages and lower standards of living following on from six years in which the country has suffered from this position. It is also a reflection of the fact that growth is much lower than it ought to be. As my noble friend Lord Darling reminded us, it is lower than the position he achieved two years after the great recession.
As for the contributions which have emphasised how the Labour Government led us directly into these disasters, I cannot remember that it was a socialist Government in the United States under George Bush which produced the first stages of this catastrophe. I cannot recall the fact that the first bank to go down was British—it was American. Indeed, it was also the case that the economies of the whole of Europe fell into the same real decline at the time. So let us not have too much on those lines.
Of course, the Chancellor has just begun to recognise that there are external forces. He actually commented on the fact that there has been a slow-down in the world economy. He is not too confident about the rate of American expansion and he is very pessimistic about the Chinese position. That is just a reflection of a fact that we all know: our economy operates within a wider framework of the world economy, and that is why it is so important that the Budget should be accurate in its predictions and on its strategy. But, of course, this Budget has already unravelled in considerable detail.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has described the UK’s downgraded productivity as the most significant part of its report, and yet the Chancellor seems to be unable to pay attention to that fact. What does it mean in practice? How are people around the country experiencing low productivity? It means that they are going to earn less, they will see their living standards failing to improve, and they will be less likely to be in a job and to pursue a career which utilises their talents. Of course, the strain that is put upon families by these failures is quite enormous, as well as the strain on the economy as a whole.
Let us consider the factors which are crucial to driving productivity—the problem is plain to see. I will take one obvious example. The Government continually boast about their apprenticeship programme and the numbers involved. In many cases the programme is paying little regard to the concept of apprenticeships, which were always used in the British economy in the past. Someone is employed and trained by a company so that they can develop the capacities and skills to do the job for that company. Many of our current apprenticeships are just another word for internships—an introduction into a company and the possibility that one might sustain a role there. As for apprenticeships in more general terms, it is the case that an awful lot of youngsters are going into apprenticeships which are clearly below their educational level. People with degrees are taking up apprenticeships that provide work that is only to A-level standard. Others who have completed their sixth-form education are going into apprenticeships that we used to regard as very low-skilled opportunities indeed.
The economy needs to work better for young people, for households, and of course for our regions. For young people, of course, the Budget merely continues a most depressing scenario. The Chancellor said last week and reiterated yesterday that the Budget was designed to put the next generation first. That is a somewhat late conversion given that the Government have spent the last six years undermining, overlooking and at times even demonising young people. Look at their programme not only in terms of apprenticeships but also in terms of educational opportunities. Further education colleges, which are meant to be crucial to the development of skills in our young people, are closing down. Many of them are facing bankruptcy. Yet the Government dare to suggest that they are offering to young people greater opportunities. This is an appalling track record.
Young people have been hardest hit by the Government’s dismal record on home ownership. Many know that they will not have the earning power to come anywhere near the deposit level required to make their first step on to the housing ladder. As has been well demonstrated, the Government’s new lifetime ISA will have limited appeal for many people for whom saving at the rate envisaged is not something they can aspire to. What is the Minister’s response to the OBR analysis which states that the new ISA is likely to push up the price of housing and, in so far as it works at all, increase demand against provision which is already part of a most depressing bubble? It is a reflection of the fact that asset bubbles are one of the characteristics of this economy and it is why we remain so very vulnerable. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the Treasury has done any analysis about the number of people who think the new ISA will assist them. I put to him that, once one takes into account the amount that many young people have to spend on essential living costs, on rent and on paying off debt, there is not much for them to put aside for saving.
This is also a Budget which is detrimental to households. The Resolution Foundation has found that, by 2020, the poorest 30% of households are set to lose around £565 a year, while the richest 30% of households are set to gain around £280 a year. How can the Chancellor justify this distribution of resource? Has he not come to terms with the gross disparity in incomes and growing inequality that are the feature of the western world? Of course, it shows in our companies; we have all seen the statistics. We know the enormous difference between what is earned by the person on the shop floor and what is earned by those in the boardroom —and particularly the chief executive of a company. And yet the Chancellor has found ways to ensure that those who have resources should be blessed by him and that those who are poorly off get little out of this Budget.
In the last Parliament, cuts to tax credits and benefits meant that low-income households with children were the biggest losers—and the Chancellor had to learn his lesson about that in terms of fairness. This time, we have had it with regard to the disabled. How on earth can the country have confidence in a Chancellor with a record like this?
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has stated that the Government’s tax and benefits changes have resulted in significant losses for those of working age, especially those with children in the bottom half of the income distribution. The Budget does little to break the country’s reliance on household debt as a source of growth, and we know how insecure that base is in terms of the economy as a whole. Let us consider rising levels of household debt alongside the increase in the number of people in insecure employment—and zero-hours is insecure employment all right; it means that the employer tells you the number of hours that you are going to work during a set period, with no guarantee attached beyond it. How can people make intelligent decisions about their very limited resources against a background of such crucial uncertainty?
Finally, on the regional economy and infrastructure, my noble friends have already identified in this debate how many infrastructure projects there are—my noble friend Lord Darling stated that we are still thinking about starting up on projects which he signed off in their origins a decade ago.
Many worthy projects have been identified but so little has been achieved. After all, the biggest single achievement is Crossrail, which was started more than a decade ago by a Labour Government. When it comes to London Heathrow, we cannot make up our mind year after year. We cannot get a decision from the Government. I know the difficulties arising from the politics surrounding Heathrow, but we all know that the south-east must have some increase in airport capacity. However, all we get is dither. Meanwhile, in the north of England—the so-called northern powerhouse —the Government reel off a whole string of wonderfully attractive—even essential—infrastructure projects, but there is no date attached to any of them. Indeed, High Speed 2 will take a decade to get as far as Birmingham. That does not have much to do with a northern powerhouse.
It is also clear that when it comes to the actual distribution of real resources, the northern powerhouse has not made much of an impact on the Government. What we see in local government allocations of resources is that the wealthier counties of the south-east get the lion’s share while the authorities in the north, with their colossal problems in terms of the communities they serve, receive much less. Therefore, it will not do to say that this Chancellor has a grip on the nation’s finances and he knows where he is going. He has missed every target he set in 2010, and some of them by a country mile. The only target we can guarantee that this Chancellor—if he stays in office—is likely to achieve is to reduce government expenditure as a percentage of GNP to below 40%, because if there is one target which an ideologically committed right-wing Government have, it is to reduce the role of the state, essential though it is to some of these big infrastructure projects. That is how they mark out a good society. However, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth argued, we should have a concept of morality in what we do. It cannot be right that this Budget increases inequality in our society. It rewards the wealthy and condemns the less well-off to an uncertain position and limited resources. That is why we are critical of it.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I do not know whether it is the intimacy of this Moses Room—it is my first time here—but, as with each debate on economic and financial matters in which I have been involved, including the third Budget-type debate within a year, it has been a genuine pleasure to listen to the remarkably insightful and broad comments of noble Lords with their vast experience and wisdom. Again, I do not know whether it is the intimacy of this room, but the debate seems to have come with a lot more humour than I remember from some others I have taken part in. That is also very pleasurable.
I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, on her marvellous valedictory speech. I had been thinking until I saw the number of people exiting the Room when she finished that they were all here for the Budget debate, but clearly not. Whatever we think about the complexity of our democracy it is quite extraordinary to be able to celebrate somebody who has been in Parliament for 50 years. It is more than the lives of some of us—I think of the young people sitting behind me in that regard.
The noble Baroness mentioned 15 March 1979, and I have heard a deeply pessimistic tone from many noble Lords. I was coming towards the end of my master’s degree year at Sheffield University around that time. I do not know why I find myself thinking this, but during those days of horrific strikes Orgreave Colliery—as I am sure many people know—was at the centre of many of the disputes. One of the most enjoyable things I have done in my relatively short time as a Minister was, along with the Chancellor, to sign the devolution deal for the Sheffield city region. The deal was signed at its advanced manufacturing centre, which I had to point out to a number of people is on the very same site as that event 50 years ago. It is a sign of the way the world can change.
I also congratulate my new noble friend—but my previous normal friend—Lord Price for his speech. It sounds like there is an enormous amount of support for his preceding life in business. Along with some of the amusing comments, it sounds as if food might need to be an important part of his drive to pursue the simple challenge of boosting our exports. If we can sell curries to India, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, maybe his challenges are not as tough as some people typically presume.
Let me turn to the remarkable substance. Again, I apologise that it is going to be impossible in the remaining 17 minutes I have to respond to everything noble Lords have said. I had planned—as I try to do—to respond to each of the 19 important contributions but I have decided to try to do it on a thematic basis. Having said that, I will start by responding to the interesting comments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Briefly, before I do that, I want to respond to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. He made a very important comment about simplification and the speed with which words can be used. I will certainly take that note back to my colleagues and I hope that is something we can address in the future. Among many points, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, mentioned devolution and the Cambridge deal. It is not the role of the Government and completely against the spirit of devolution for us to tell any region whether it should be part of it. It is up to them. If Cambridgeshire for whatever reason decides, rather oddly in my opinion, that it does not want to be part of it, then so be it. It would not be first place in the country where that issue is valid.
Let me turn to the broad summary. I do so in response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on the presumption that he reflects a lot of the comments from the opposition. Lack of investment and productivity, of course, is one of my themes and I will come back to that.
As I have said before, if you go to the 40,000-feet level, the big and welcome surprise of the last Parliament and the worst days of the recession was how few jobs were lost, in contrast to the expectations. The noble Lord, Lord Darling, talked eloquently about the interesting days when he was in the middle of before the coalition came in. As I have reminded people previously, nobody would have dreamt of the scale of employment created over the subsequent five years of that coalition. Whatever the ins and outs of the other issues I am going to go on to, we should be careful not to confuse attempts to boost productivity with anything that reduces jobs and opportunities, particularly the number of jobs being created for young people. I say that because, while I do not believe it was in the Government’s manifesto, the decision by the Chancellor to acknowledge the productivity challenge right at the start of this Government, and hence why I was invited to become part of the Administration, is a recognition of its importance.
I want to make two further points in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, before I come to the thematic areas. On the topic of inequality, on which I am a little surprised more was not said—in some ways I am pleased about that—and as I tried to address very specifically in an Oral Question recently, based on the existing objective measures of these issues, it is the case that inequality today is less prevalent than it has been for the past decade. What I probably did not say within the considerable amount of evidence that I cited during that brief Question—that is why debates such as this one are much more useful because one can say more that is of real substance—is that while there may have been aspects of rising inequality within different income groups, on all the internationally accepted measures of income both before and after tax, inequality is lower today than at any time in the past 10 years. When it is adjusted for wealth, which is the result of house prices, that is not the case. That is why it is appropriate to put so much effort into trying to do something about the tremendous housing challenge we are facing.
In the spirit of how I began, which is that the world is not quite as gloomy as it seems, something that so many people believe innately in their veins, it is important for everybody to realise that global inequality has declined and continues to decline at a pretty considerable rate. The United Nations achieved its goal of halving world poverty, without even realising it, five years sooner than it originally stated. One has to be careful of making such overwhelming summaries.
Let me turn to the thematic issues. It is most important that we start with the personal independence payment. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, challenged me to be clear about it, so it is appropriate that I should start with PIP. The most important thing to say, in my opinion—here no doubt I risk upsetting some of my colleagues as well as many others—this is what I would personally describe as a Q times A equals E problem. Many years ago I learned that if you are trying to pursue an idea or a policy, the quality of the idea times its acceptability equals its effectiveness. I shall come on to this in terms of the frankly quite ridiculous, albeit amusing, things we have heard about black holes. The prime purpose of that policy initiative was to try to stop the degree of gaming and abuse of beneficiaries, which sadly in the way it has been portrayed has not been able to be done successfully. That in my limited understanding is why the issue came to our attention and generated the policy behind it. It comes down to making sure that the people who are in need of government support are those who get it, and rightly so, and those who are not in need do not get it. I am sure that this issue will be addressed again.
On the £4.4 billion, let me first point out that total government expenditure in this year’s Budget will be close to £700 billion, so the idea that £4.4 billion spread over five years is going to put a black hole into the Government’s finances is really not worthy of me pursuing in any great depth. While I am going to come back to this as a separate theme, a number of noble Lords have quite rightly talked about the volatility of the forecasting environment we are in. On the OBR’s forecast change, one noble Lord—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria—referred to the four-month gap since the Autumn Statement but it is actually not much more than three months. The forecast is £55 billion different from what it was. That is the context in which one should think about this so-called black hole. By the time we get round to the Autumn Statement, one of the few things I can guarantee for Members of this House is that the OBR’s forecast will change again, and I suspect that it will be considerably more than £4.4 billion.
Theme number two is on the environment, what I just said about the OBR and on forecasting in general. As noble Lords will know, I spent many years of my life—far too many—in the dubious world of economic forecasting. There is a slight dilemma in that the Government have, very importantly, introduced the power of an independent entity, the OBR, to constrain the actions of the day by providing these forecasts. Partly due to the incredible uncertainties of the world economy in general but also to the circumstances over the past three months, this is a very large change in forecast. In my old life, where I managed a large number of economic forecasters, I would not encourage people to change their forecast that frequently. However, if that is the process which has been brought about by the existence of the OBR, it needs to be respected by the Government. It is an independent entity and we need to set our policies in that framework.
I will finish on that topic, although I could talk about it all afternoon. Robert Chote said to the Select Committee yesterday that he thinks there is a 55% chance that the Government will achieve a fiscal surplus by the end of this Parliament. Again, as someone who has been steeped in economic forecasting for a large part of my life, while many noble Lords might not think it, that is not a bad probability of a good outcome. I used to joke to people that 60% right would allow most people who presided over it to be lucky enough to be well off enough to own their own Caribbean island. I encourage those noble Lords who question the value of such statements—I will come on to that in a second—to think again.
That takes me to theme number three on the issue of fiscal policy and the right framework. A large number of noble Lords have somehow again raised the idea that there is no economic purpose to having a fiscal surplus. Unless international economic theory and best policy has changed dramatically in the three years since I was so immersed in it, on the contrary, it is widely accepted that when countries are at or close to full employment they should run a fiscal surplus or very close to it. One can argue about the dates but the goal of trying to achieve a fiscal surplus in normal times is an extremely sensible economic policy to pursue, not least because if you luckily achieve that in not normal times, it gives you the fiscal leeway to do something about the immediate needs of the weak cycle that one would focus on.
I will go from that theme directly into the very important issue of productivity. I do not at all have enough time to respond to the many powerful things noble Lords have said. To those noble Lords who seem to enjoy a more pessimistic way of thinking, I say that one should not dismiss another reason why it is important to focus on fiscal policy. If the productivity data were genuine—I have considerable doubts which I have expressed before and will do so again in the future—it may well be because of a large level of public debt as a share of GDP that has been accumulated both here and in many other parts of the developed world. To take it back to the purpose of fiscal policy, there is a reasonable amount of evidence that public debt as a share of GDP somewhere below 60% of GDP, and especially if it is below 40%, generally creates a much better environment for private sector productivity. One could argue about the scale of some of these numbers but the notion of not trying to pursue a fiscal surplus in a time of full employment—and we have the highest employment for 40 years—is, in my judgment, mistaken.
There were some very useful comments on productivity more generally, and I apologise that I do not have time to go through them all in detail; I want to focus on one or two areas. I am surprised more was not said about education. I spent a considerable amount of time today, as I have done in the past, looking at globally comparable indicators for factors relevant to productivity. If you try to identify those that the UK seems weaker in as compared with the rest of the world, it is education that sadly comes out as one of the most identifiable. That is why it is a feature of this Budget. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made comments about higher education and I think other noble Lords made similar comments. My surprise came because in my judgment, doing more about education and skills, particularly for younger people, which is what we have tried to focus on in this Budget, is probably the single most important thing in terms of improving—adjusted for measurement error— our long-term productivity.
On taxes, a considerable number of interesting things were said as time went on, and I want to touch on two or three. First, I personally think that the sugar tax is a very courageous move. As many noble Lords may be aware, in addition to my responsibilities as Treasury Minister, I am chairing a review into antimicrobial resistance where I have to think a lot about the role of taxes, subsidies and incentives. What has been introduced is an important step for policy-makers to think about for further development, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, implied with her question.
More broadly on taxes, some interesting comments were made about taxation with respect to private businesses. This links again to the review that I am leading. A major peculiar aspect of our time is that private sector investment spending both here and elsewhere in the world is very low despite enormous levels of cash. There is quite a bit of growing evidence that private sector entities that are not subject to some of the challenges of public accounting are better at investing. One purpose of the policies taken was to encourage—particularly for start-ups—more risk-taking in an equity sense for private investment. The comments by my noble friend Lord Lupton and others about capital gains tax should be seen in that context. We suffer from weak productivity and investment, and the measures that have been seriously thought about from a micro-economic perspective to try to stimulate them further are very important.
I have run out of time; I knew that I would and I apologise. There are many other things I would like to have said. Let me summarise by saying that I believe the UK still has a brighter economic future than I have heard in the tone of what many have said today, notwithstanding the challenges we face. As we have discussed, this Budget has come at a time of significant downward revisions both here and elsewhere in the world. At some point in the future, who knows when, it is quite possible that those revisions will go in the opposite direction. Against that background, it is important to note that this Budget prioritises long-term growth potential and investment, tries to support business, builds up young people’s skills, gives another tax cut to workers as well as business, and tries to help more people to get on the housing ladder.
The submission of the convergence programmes, which was touched on briefly, should not be affected by the fuss about PIP for the reasons that I have outlined. The submission by euro-outs and stability programmes by euro area member states provides an important framework for co-ordinating fiscal policies. A degree of co-ordination across countries can be beneficial to ensure a stable global economy, which is in the UK’s national interest. The UK has always taken part in international mechanisms for policy co-ordination, such as the G7, G20 and OECD, and it should continue to do so.
The Government’s fiscal strategy remains that the UK should live within its means by running a surplus in normal times, which is a reliable way of ensuring debt reduction that will continue over the longer term, leaving the country better placed to withstand future economic shocks as and when they appear. This Budget sets out the policies that will help our economy to succeed in the long term, and I am delighted to commend it to noble Lords.
House of Lords
Companies: Remuneration
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to legislate to introduce secret ballots for all employees to ratify decisions made at a company’s annual general meeting on the remuneration of that company’s directors and its five most highly paid employees.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no such plans. The remuneration of company directors is primarily a matter for the company and its shareholders. Comprehensive reforms to the reporting and governance of directors’ pay in 2013 have boosted transparency for shareholders and given them a binding vote on companies’ remuneration policies. All company directors must have regard to the interests of employees in discharging their legal duty to promote the success of the company.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, my question starts, “Does the noble Baroness know?”. However, does the noble Earl know that the UK now has very high income inequality compared with most other developed countries? Further, does he know that, even with the coming living wage increases planned over the next few years, it is possible that the wage gap will still be the same by 2020 as it is now and as it was in 2010? Is it not time, after a decade of stagnation, that we had some thoughts about how we can try to bring about a narrowing of that gap? Will the Minister please go back—or at least give an indication that he will go back—and come forward with some ideas about how we will narrow it?
The Earl of Courtown
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He raised a number of points, including the national living wage, which is about to come into force. We must also remember that the national minimum wage has had one of the biggest increases in its history. We take into account all the matters that he raised. He referred also to employee engagement and how important that is in the workplace.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, at a time of fast economic growth for several decades, the ratio of remuneration from the top to the bottom in companies—as a member of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth I remember the numbers going back to the start of the 20th century—came down from 100:1, to 90:1, to 80:1, to 70:1, winding up at 15:1 or something like that? Would he not agree with the Labour Party’s manifesto that there should at least be workers’ representatives on boards’ remuneration committees?
The Earl of Courtown
At least the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, has asked me a question that I can answer. The answer is, of course, no. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of Exchequer has been working throughout his period as Chancellor to reduce inequality.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, there is always more that can be done and we hope that, with the policies we have introduced, inequality will reduce.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend think that many people in the country agreed with that proposal in the Labour Party manifesto last May?
The Earl of Courtown
We all remember what happened at the general election in May. I, by the way, was in Kuala Lumpur at the time. I will not bore noble Lords with what I was doing there, but I do, of course, agree with my noble friend.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Let us get back to the Question. This raises important issues about transparency and equity. In 1980, to back up what my noble friend was saying, the median pay of directors of FTSE companies was £63,000 and the ratio to the average wage was 11:1. In 2013 that ratio had risen to 130:1 and median board pay is now £513,000. You have tried transparency, it does not work. What plans have the Government really got to regulate those who abuse their position by taking excessive pay and whose warped judgments prioritise short-term gains instead of long-term growth?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, regulation of pay throughout the banking sector, the high pay and the differences between all these subjects—I am sorry, I have lost track. Basically, it is important that there is equality in pay, and regulation of various sectors is so important in this area. I will write to the noble Lord. I apologise for that answer.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, in the interest of the transparency and effective democracy to which the Government constantly refer, will the noble Earl ensure that, in all private organisations, when it comes to the forthcoming discussions about party funding, no individuals will find themselves contributing to the funds of a political party they do not support?
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in an earlier answer the Minister made a somewhat surprising statement to the effect that his right honourable friend the Chancellor had been working throughout his tenure to reduce inequality. Can he tell the House how things would have been different if he had not?
The Earl of Courtown
Inequality is reducing, my Lords. As I said earlier, we are working hard on the national minimum wage increases, which are the highest ever, and we have the national living wage coming in in April.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
What conversations do the Government have with the Welsh Assembly? GDP in Wales is only 67% of that throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, mentioned the situation relating to Wales. There are always continuing relationships between the Assembly in Wales and the department here in London.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, given that fewer than one in four eligible voters voted for the Conservatives in the election, does the noble Earl have much confidence that the majority of voters also approved of the Conservative manifesto’s proposals?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I did not quite catch the last bit but I caught the first bit. An awful lot more voted for the Conservatives than they did for the Liberal Democrats.
Property: Shared Ownership
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, under their shared ownership scheme, a property owner can let out a room to another person, and if not, why not.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, shared ownership has an important role to play in helping those who aspire to home ownership but may be otherwise unable to afford it. Grant-funded shared-ownership leases do not allow subletting, other than in exceptional circumstances, to prevent any use for commercial gain and to ensure that affordable homes are there for those who genuinely need them. However, individual shared owners are still able to take in a paying guest or lodger.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer but would like some further clarification on why the subletting cannot be done up to a maximum of £7,000 a year. We have young people in London working in the public sector who are totally unable to afford the overheads of facility costs and council tax but who are keen to get into shared ownership.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Shared-ownership leases prohibit subletting by the leaseholder, as mentioned earlier, to protect public funds and to ensure that applicants are not entering shared ownership for commercial gain. Landlords can make an exception in exceptional circumstances and they have to consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what proportion of homes in Great Britain today are under shared ownership? I wonder if the Government are doing any research to find out how successful this sector is. I know, for example, that when you want to move it is no simple matter. The legal attitudes to this are really quite difficult. Can the Minister inform us what research the Government are doing into this?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, indeed. I will have to write to the noble Baroness with the actual statistics but we are looking at this as one of several serious options for ensuring that young people get a hand on the housing ladder. The noble Baroness may know that a shared owner can come in and purchase a share of between 25% and 75%. We are following up on the current statistics but this is a future policy that we are working on.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, if the Minister cannot tell me now, will he write to me with information about the current rate of shared ownership in London and the south-east and the Government’s prediction of what it will be in the light of their housing policy? Is the Minister aware that many people, such as nurses and police officers—lots of people working in the public sector—despair of being able to take jobs that are available in London, and that staff recruitment is very weak?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Indeed, this is the very thinking behind our policy, which is to enable those who do not earn too much to get a hand on the housing ladder by buying a share. This would include the very people who the noble Baroness has mentioned, such as teachers and particularly those who work in the very important healthcare and NHS sector. It is exactly what the policy is about. It is obviously more expensive in London—we have had many discussions on that in the housing Bill—but we believe that it is possible. If someone bought a 25% share of a two-bedroom house in London the deposit they would put down would be £3,800, which I understand could still be quite high, but is possible.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
Will the Minister clarify the position with regard to the actual term “lodger”? Even the Revenue now has a special provision and has increased the amount you can have if you have a lodger. I would have thought it logical that everyone would want people to be able to afford these properties. Can he therefore explain the position, and whether the point to which he has just referred will be amendable in the housing Bill?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I mentioned that people who take a share in a house in a shared ownership scheme can take in a lodger, but I will answer the noble Baroness’s question by saying that there is no statutory definition of a lodger. The term is known in case law, where the test as to whether someone is a lodger or a subtenant is determined by the degree of control retained by the householder over let rooms.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the House’s understanding of the care with which he has approached this issue of home ownership and the question of shared space, and how it contrasts with the way in which the Government introduced the bedroom tax?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I think the noble Lord will know that the Government’s main aim is to increase the supply of houses across all tenures. We are focusing today on one of many aspects of our policy, which is to ensure that more people, particularly young people, are able to get on to the housing ladder. It is an urgent and important part of what we are doing.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, in the rent-a-room scheme, to which the Minister referred earlier, there is a cap. Is that cap costing the Revenue very much; and if so, how much is it actually costing?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I do not have a figure for the cost, but the noble Lord might like to be reminded that the income cap for this shared ownership policy has gone up from £60,000 to £80,000 in England, and I am pleased to say that it has gone up to £90,000 in London. That means that we are allowing 175,000 more households to have access to shared ownership.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, is the fact that London houses are going up in price by £500 a day, according to the January figures, likely to have an effect on how many people can afford even a shared home?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Obviously when prices go up it has an effect. However, we have put a lot of thought and research into this particular policy, in conjunction with other policies, and we believe that it is affordable. In London, for example, we look at a two-bed house costing £275,000, and we believe that the figures show this to be affordable.
Palestinian Authority Television
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Polak
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Palestinian Authority following the broadcast of programmes on official Palestinian Authority television encouraging violence against Israeli citizens.
Lord Polak (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and give notice to the House of my non-financial registered interest as president of CFI.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, we regularly raise incitement with the Palestinian Authority. The Minister for the Middle East, Tobias Ellwood, did so during his visit to the region in February. The UK’s consul-general to Jerusalem last discussed incitement with President Abbas on 17 March, including our concerns about television broadcasts. We also raise incitement with Israel. We encourage the revival of a tripartite committee on incitement to address precisely these issues.
Lord Polak
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Since September 2015, ironically, 34 Israelis have been killed in terror attacks and there have been 206 stabbings, 83 shootings and 42 car rammings. Is the Minister aware that only three weeks ago—on 1 March—on a programme on the official PATV called “Children’s Talk”, a young girl recited a poem which included the line: “To war, that will smash the oppressor and destroy the Zionist soul”? Can the Minister be certain that this sort of appalling incitement is not supported directly or indirectly by the British taxpayer? On the day after the atrocities and shocking acts in Brussels, where another 34 innocent lives were snuffed out, will the Minister join me in condemning incitement and terror, wherever they occur?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I do indeed join my noble friend in condemning incitement and terrorism wherever they occur. It was a mark of respect from this House that at 11 am today we had one minute’s silence in memory of the appalling events with the murder of those in Brussels. I know the Prime Minister has said that we will do all we can to help there. I also note that both President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed their opposition to the terrorism that had taken place in Brussels.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, if I may just answer the mainstay of my noble friend’s question, he asked about expenditure by the British taxpayer. No expenditure by the British taxpayer supports any form of incitement or terrorism, either in Israel or in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We support projects that support peace, such as the project by the NGO Kids Creating Peace, which brings together young Israelis and Palestinians to learn why peace works.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, we have plenty of time to go around the House. The House was not indicating who it wanted to hear from next but I suggest that we go to the Labour Benches, if among them they could decide who they would like to go first.
Lord Winston
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have a film clip on my computer—I am happy to show it to her—which shows a little girl aged three and a half saying on Saudi television that she hates Jews because they are apes and monkeys, and this is what is repeated in the Koran? Then, straight to camera, the announcer says, “Is Allah to be praised that, Bismillah, this little girl, has such supporters after her?”. This was broadcast across a whole range of Arab countries. Will the Minister perhaps join me in condemning this kind of broadcast quite publicly? I am happy to send her the film.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, noble Lords around the House have made me aware of matters of incitement that have been broadcast, not only on television and media outside the Occupied Territories and Israel but within both. We give no equivalence to incitement, whether it is against those who are Israelis or those who are in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. What we say is that incitement is wrong.
Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, I am reluctant to enter into a tit-for-tat argument but is the Minister aware of a devastating report by two Israeli organisations into the recent abuse and torture of Palestinian prisoners at the Shikma interrogation facility in Ashkelon? If so, will the Government consider joining our European partners in making appropriate representations to the Israeli Government?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, our diplomats in Israel make regular representations of concern about events there. As I have already said, we draw no equivalence with regard to incitement and activity. We say that it is important for those who want to achieve peace to ensure that they work together. It is only by negotiating a peace that we can achieve it; incitement is an enemy of peace.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, the Minister has mentioned the consul-general in east Jerusalem and our diplomats there. Can she tell the House what representations have been or will be made to the consul-general following the International Women’s Day message on the official Palestinian Authority TV channel on 7 March this year, which urged Palestinian women to remember the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi who led the lethal coastal massacre which killed 38 Israelis, including 13 children?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am able to give a little detail about the most recent contacts, which might help the noble Lord. In January, Her Majesty’s consul-general in Jerusalem met Fatah Central Committee member Jibril Rajoub, who had called the recent attacks there “heroic”. Our consul-general also met the Minister of Health, Jawad Awwad. The ministry had issued a statement praising the Tel Aviv New Year’s Day shooter, Nashat Melhem.
As for television, the director of pro-Israeli NGO Palestinian Media Watch describes decades-long propaganda campaigns on PA-sponsored children’s programmes which depict Jews and Israelis as enemies of God. Her Majesty’s consul-general in Jerusalem has raised this with the Palestinian Authority as part of broader lobbying on incitement since this Question was tabled. I thought it would be helpful to update the noble Lord on that.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, raising the matter of incitement, to use the noble Baroness’s word, does not seem to have had much effect. Will she remind the House of the amount of aid that we give the Palestinian Authority, both directly and via EU projects? Will she consider saying clearly to the Palestinian Authority that it is quite unacceptable for it to be taking British public money on the one hand and, on the other, using its own resources to subsidise networks that produce the propaganda in favour of terrorism that we have heard quoted in the House today?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to point out that, through DfID, we provide significant humanitarian aid to the people who are suffering in Gaza. It is conditional on the basis that it goes only to people in need. The Palestinian Authority should make best efforts to resume control of Gaza and re-engage in discussions with Israel about how peace may be achieved.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, there is no justification for terrorism or for the actions that we saw yesterday. We unequivocally condemn them. The Minister is absolutely right. Our focus is on keeping the two-state solution and hopes for peace alive. We need to invest in interfaith, intercommunity activity. Will she commit to doing more of this because, at the moment, it is extremely limited?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I whole- heartedly agree with the noble Lord. During the early part of this year, we reopened bids for the Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy, which is FCO-based. It has been doubled this year to its highest ever level. We will welcome bids if they qualify for support. The noble Lord is right; we need to do more to help.
Army: Helicopter Pilots
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many army helicopter pilots are being required to repay wages apparently paid in error; and how many have resigned as a result.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, in 2012, the MoD discovered that a number of Army pilots were being overpaid as the result of an inconsistent interpretation of policy over a prolonged period. That resulted in 146 personnel receiving incorrect pay. In accordance with standard government practice, arrangements have been made to ensure personnel now receive the correct pay and recovery action for overpayments has been initiated. Since notification of the recovery action, we are unaware of any linked resignations.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. In view of the fact that, in public at least, some 200 personnel have apparently been involved in this matter, what steps are being taken to maintain the operational effectiveness of the Army Air Corps, both for the present and in the future?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Army has done several things. Most importantly, it has implemented a comprehensive manning strategy for building and sustaining the Army Air Corps. There is also now a financial retention incentive for Army Air Corps pilots which has resulted in an 81% take-up rate, including from personnel affected by the recovery of previous overpayments. In addition, a more flexible—and therefore more attractive—career as an aviation specialist will be available, including recruiting some direct entry, senior other ranks aircrew and improving the return on initial training investment.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
First, and less importantly, is the noble Earl aware that admirals have been overpaid? That is an interesting point. More importantly, will this impact at all on the increased number of naval pilots that we need to recruit and train for the new Sea Lightning aircraft that are coming in? We have been promised that they will be ordered, and we will need those pilots, so this must not impact on recruiting and training.
Earl Howe
Let me first make it clear that the overpayment referred to in the Question has not affected Royal Navy air crew, nor indeed RAF pilots. I can give the noble Lord the reassurance that he seeks, because the action now being taken is in the wake of mistakes made in the past. The system is now working correctly.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I served as Colonel Commandant of the Army Air Corps from 2004 to 2009, and many of the pilots involved came under my control and command. Will the Minister accept that, although remedial measures are being taken, stories such as the one that has given rise to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, are enormously damaging to morale? Will the Minister commit to publicly refuting these stories and getting a much better message out there? In the context of the regular Army having been reduced from 102,000 to 82,000 in the lifetime of the coalition and Conservative Governments, and now having fallen to a strength of around 79,000, such damaging stories are extraordinarily destructive of morale and do not help the safety and security of our country.
Earl Howe
I can only agree with my noble friend—these stories are damaging. At the same time, the Army is very aware of the need to retain and, indeed, recruit skilled personnel of this level. It has been careful to adopt a case-by-case approach when overpayments have occurred, taking account of people’s individual circumstances when they are brought to its attention; certainly, that includes hardship where necessary. What we are now hearing in general from Army pilots is that they like what they see in the package available to them, in terms not only of pay but how their skills are being used. Many are signing up now for five years.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, when I served as a Wales Office Minister, officials came in to tell me that a Harrier jet had crashed into the sea off west Wales— a very expensive piece of kit was lost but a more expensive pilot was saved. The point is that we invested more in the pilot than in the plane. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government would be prepared to lose some of our most experienced and expensively trained Army helicopter pilots over this overpayment issue. I hear what the Minister has said and hope that the Government will use some common sense and, if necessary, write off this debt rather than lose these very skilled servicemen—or perhaps the Government will prove that my late mother’s advice to me when I was young was correct. She told me that in life, I would find that sense was not that common.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I take the noble Lord’s point about common sense. At the same time, he will realise that this is public money; it cannot simply be written off in bulk. Having said that, each debt will be dealt with individually and recovered over a long period. Recovery from serving personnel commenced in January, less those that have submitted an objection to recovery, and we have not seen anyone cite this issue as the reason for leaving the Army Air Corps since that recovery process started.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, we are where we are as a result of human error. In just over a week, the new employment model commences for the Armed Forces. Why should we be confident that the transfer will be error free?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the pay system that is now in place is mature, and people have got used to using it. There is far less scope for error, although I cannot obviously give a guarantee that no errors will ever occur. More generally, running in parallel to this is a five-year tri-service review of flying retention pay, which is currently being staffed and should put in place a sustainable and more retention-positive remunerative package for the air crew of all three armed services.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) (Bankruptcy) and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2016
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22 and 25 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 March.
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, I take this opportunity to apologise profoundly to the House for missing the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and to thank my noble friend Lord Courtown for answering in my stead. I would be very happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to discuss the issues, if that would be helpful. I beg to move.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 March.
Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 March.
NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill
Housing and Planning Bill
“Code of practice for subterranean development works
(1) A local planning authority may promulgate a code of practice on the excavation and construction of a subterranean development with a view to lessening the adverse impact of the excavation and construction on adjacent properties and their owners and occupiers and on the wider neighbourhood.(2) The code may include, but need not be limited to, the provisions listed in Schedule (provisions in local authority code of practice for subterranean development).(3) Local planning authorities shall take account of any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in drawing up such a code of practice.(4) If a local planning authority has promulgated such a code, it may make the granting of planning consent for a subterranean development conditional on the developer undertaking to abide by the code or specified elements of it.”
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. If I can make a slightly irrelevant comment, if the EU working time directive were to apply to Ministers in this House, the two Ministers who are dealing with this Bill might be better treated than they are now. That is a dig at the Chief Whip.
There cannot be many occasions when an amendment commands the support of all parties in this House and of most Members of Parliament, would command widespread support from many parts of London and possibly other parts of the country where people are affected and which, were the Minister to agree to the amendment or something like it, would mean that she would be serenaded in the headlines of the Evening Standard. That is a pretty good win-win, and there cannot be many of those around, so later on I will give the Minister a chance to say that she accepts this amendment.
If I were a Minister, I would not understand why officials were advising me not to accept the amendment because there is nothing wrong with it. It is absolutely right in terms of local democracy for local people to have a say and right in terms of good governance in the benefits to London and other parts of the country. It is a total win-win for the Government. I should have kept this amendment until there was a Labour Government, and they could have benefited from it, but I have generously given it to the Minister today.
Given the widespread support, outside people have got on to me. I pay particular tribute to the Ladbroke Association and its chair Sophia Lambert who has been extremely helpful and has given me and other people a lot of advice. The amendments in this group are actually a complete Bill. If the Minister were to adopt them, or much of them, her officials would have been saved a great of work in drafting something. Not only has there been widespread support, but there have been many previous instances in this House when Members have put forward legislation with similar proposals. I am thinking of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, Lord Jenkin of Roding, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who have all tabled amendments to Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, has also tabled an excellent Bill himself with the help of surveyors from the Pyramus and Thisbe Club. In the Commons, several MPs have put this forward as well, including Karen Buck, MP for Westminster North. Essentially, this proposal goes across parties; I hope that the Government will feel able to support it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, I discussed this at Second Reading and his amendments here are a great improvement on what I have commented on before, but there are still one or two things that certainly need to be ironed out before Report.
In his first amendment, Amendment 101BB, there is no mention anywhere—unless he is planning to put in a code of practice—that there should be no weekend work in these places. Without doubt people require a weekend to recover from a heavy week’s work. Many areas allow work only from 7 am to 1 pm on a Saturday, but even that should not be permitted, as it will really cut into your one quiet time of the week.
On another important point—and having looked at every detail of these words I am not sure whether I have missed the point—there should be no work permitted before the granting of permission. Often, neighbours where I lived told me that they woke up to find someone breaking through their wall. That is not something that you would want or expect.
I have one real objection to the noble Lord’s second amendment, Amendment 101BC. That is to the word “presumption” against subterranean development. I do not like a presumption about anything. Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, commented on whether a family felt that it needed something more, which was a very subjective assessment. Fortunately he has now removed this and made it much more objective. That is good. But I do not like “presumption” and do not want to see it. It is far better for things to be either in law or not in law, but just to be presuming that something is there worries me.
“Notice to adjoining owners” in Amendment 101BD is interesting, but I move on to Amendment 101BE. That is about the surveyors holding a sum. I thoroughly approve of that. When work went on behind me before I moved house that is exactly what happened. In fact, there was no need whatever to draw on the amount, because the work all went quite well, but it is important that it does go well; the security of having a deposit held is important.
I recall cases, one in Montpelier Square and another in St John’s Wood, where people went bankrupt, leaving a giant hole in the ground, which filled with water and turned into a disastrous pool under the house. Because the people had gone bankrupt, no one ended up with any liability for it at all. It is very important to determine a sum to be held. I was surprised at the amount required to be held, for what was only a single basement going in near me, but it was right that it was a large amount, because it should relate to the area and the cost of the works that would have to be done to make the place liveable again.
I do not know whether more could be done to deal with bankruptcy cases, to help people to get out of that hole, but that could be looked at.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is definitely on to something here. What one reads about in the Evening Standard and elsewhere being done to basements is amazing. I do not know whether anyone else here watches the “Grand Designs” programme, but being an addict of property porn I watch it from time to time. Recently, there was an example of a small, typical mews house in a mews area of London, where the owner decided that he wanted to have a ballroom in the basement and, underneath that, it could be collapsed into a swimming pool. This was constructed, after immense difficulty affecting the local inhabitants. Unfortunately, a subterranean stream was discovered when they dug down into the basement, which flooded the whole area. That is the sort of thing can happen as a result of the megalomania, frankly, of some people. One billionaire in London wanted to show all his 24 Jaguars in an exhibition space in his basement. This is absurd and should not be allowed; it will have consequences.
Secondly, the noble Lord is absolutely right: party wall agreements do not protect people at present. I live in Hammersmith and Fulham, and I know from personal example that the noise is horrendous. My noble friend Lady Gardner is quite right: you want some relief at weekends from the noise. A friend of mine has had to vacate her property in Piccadilly, where someone is constructing a huge bar and God knows what in the basement, to live somewhere else at her own expense, because she cannot live with the noise at night: it is horrendous. That is all-night work, never mind at weekends.
So London is experiencing a real problem at the moment, and not just in rich areas. As a former MP for Orpington, I could give examples of what is happening there. Although I understand that the amendments may not be perfect, as my noble friend Lady Gardner said, I hope that the Government will be sympathetic. It is a widespread problem in London, and the Government should look at it with great care.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, with whom I have had the pleasure of discussing the issue, for arriving slightly late. I was actually delayed on the District line; I hope that it was not by some underground development in South Kensington, where we were held.
I was at one point tempted to sign the noble Lord’s amendment because, like my noble friend, I think that he is very much on to something. Before my noble friend on the Front Bench was a Minister, and over several years, there have been talks between local authorities, particularly in London, and the department. There have been various efforts—my noble friend Lord Selsdon was trying to get something moving for a time—to propel a response from the Government. Time and again, we are told that Article 4 directions are the answer. We spoke a little about Article 4 directions last night. I marvel to see my noble friend here on the Front Bench after her efforts after midnight last night. Article 4 directions are not the whole answer here. It is the strong view of local authority leaders in London, across party, that there needs to be a statutory response here. The fact is that in many cases one is dealing with extremely wealthy people who will stop at nothing to push through. It is nothing to them to spend thousands of hours and tens and hundreds and millions of pounds in pushing these things. Frankly, communities need defence here and I think some statutory response is needed at the end of the day. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on and thank him for bringing this issue before Parliament.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord said about my noble friend, who managed to survive yesterday’s long sitting. He hoped to get on before midnight, but unfortunately that was not possible, or perhaps fortunately because otherwise we might have been there until 2 am instead of something like a quarter to one. My noble friend has devoted a lot of time and energy to what is clearly a pressing issue.
There seems to have been an outbreak of megalomania in certain circles in London, in particular. From a distance, one is not as involved with the process, but every so often, just reading the Standard, one hears of case after case of absurd would-be developments. I have friends living in north London where similar idiotic adaptations are made to buildings. We warmly support the amendments and I hope the Government will acknowledge the real problem here and agree to deal with it. While they are doing that, could they protect the block of flats in Balham where I have a flat from the underground workings for Crossrail, which is likely to cause certain problems to me and to lots of other people?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord opposite in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on his tenacity last night; not leaving until, I think, gone midnight. My heart sank when I realised that he would not get on to have his say.
The noble Lord was one of the first people I met when I came into this House and we share a common interest. I have great sympathy for anyone who suffers some of the things he talks about. We have discussed the Death Star basement in this House, and the collapsing mansion, so I am not in any way denying that these issues exist and I thank the noble Lord for bringing them to the House’s attention. But of course I am going to disappoint him because I am going to tell him that the powers that he has described already exist. In fact, in some cases they are being implemented.
Local authorities are already able to prepare codes of practice for subterranean works in their area, and many prepare area-specific guidance to help owners ensure that they carry out the works legally and safely with a minimum impact on neighbours. As this amendment replicates powers that already exist, it is unnecessary to include it in the Bill.
I turn to Amendment 101BC. Local planning authorities are able to bring forward specific local plan policies limiting the scope of basement development if they consider that such developments are a particular issue in their area. In such cases, any planning application should then be determined in accordance with that policy. Basement development is not an issue in most local authorities, although I accept what the noble Lord said—that it is coming to an authority near him. But we know that local authorities in areas which are particularly affected by basement developments, such as Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster, are already in the process of introducing appropriate local plan policies to mitigate the impacts of such developments.
We have looked at a graph of how the trend appears to be going. What we are seeing now—to put it in context—is the hangover from previous permissions that are nevertheless causing distress in the area. I would be very interested to see how things look in, say, six months to a year from now. The amendment is therefore not necessary for the same reasons that I have explained for Amendment 101BB.
With regard to Amendment 101BD, the Party Wall etc. Act provides legal protections to owners of adjoining properties, but it is not in place to protect owners beyond next door, as there is unlikely to be damage to properties beyond the current distances set out in the Act. Similarly, introducing a new offence, as this amendment proposes, would not provide any greater protection to adjoining owners. In any case, there is no evidence of significant numbers of cases where notices required under the Act are not being given in respect of subterranean developments.
In addition, the amendment before us would introduce a new liability that goes beyond those currently imposed under the Limitation Act 1980. It would be difficult to justify singling out subterranean development over other forms of development for this enhanced liability. The Party Wall etc. Act applies to most subterranean development work and already provides for security for expenses to be covered by the award between the parties. Therefore, Amendment 101BE is also not necessary.
The noble Lord made the point that noise is not usually dealt with in planning permission. However, local authorities can consider local impacts, including noise pollution, when granting planning permission. The NPPF deals with noise, stating that, where relevant, it should be considered by the local authority in its planning decision. The noble Lord made the point that the GPDO allows basement development, but it is for individual local planning authorities to determine if development is within the scope of national permitted development rights.
The noble Lord also made the point that the Article 4 process is too burdensome and bureaucratic, and so local authorities are unlikely to follow that approach. It can take six to 12 months, but it is not particularly burdensome or bureaucratic—if I had eyes in the back of my head, I would probably see my noble friend behind me shaking his head—although I accept that this is a particular problem in particular parts of the country.
I turn now to Amendments 101BF, 101BG and 101BH. As I have already set out in response to the noble Lord’s previous, related amendments, and as I have just said, basement developments are not an issue in all local authority areas. Existing powers are in place which enable local authorities to adopt an appropriate local approach to mitigate the impacts of such developments where necessary. Similarly, existing legislation protects adjoining property owners from the potential impact of such developments. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate. I know that there are others who, because of the timing this morning, were probably not aware we were doing this now and would otherwise have been here. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for what she said and I very much agree with her. Amendment 101BH suggests a schedule of provisions for a local authority code of practice, in which one of the issues is,
“the hours of construction and excavation, and ... particularly noisy types of construction and excavation”.
That could deal with both the time of starting and weekend working, although it may need strengthening. I agree entirely with the principles that she put forward about weekends and the starting time. I think she had a third point, but I am not quite sure what it was. I am sorry.
Lord Dubs
Yes, presumption. Frankly, if the Minister were to accept the principle, I would be happy to drop the word “presumption”. I put it in because of the sheer frustration felt by people who approached me saying, “For heaven’s sake, just stop all these things”. Most people would like that presumption, but if it made for better law, the word would not have to be there. I think local authorities would understand what they could do.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, for the examples that he has given me, and to the noble Lord, Lord True, with whom I have had a discussion on this. He speaks with the authority of being leader of an important London borough. If he feels that his powers are insufficient to deal with the problem, I have to say, with due respect to what the Minister said, that we have to listen to local authority leaders. They are the ones in the firing line and who want to do best for the people in their community. That is what they are elected for. I mentioned earlier that I bumped into the leader of Camden Council, who said the same thing. She said that, despite the powers that the Minister said local authorities have, there are not enough: they need more powers to deal with these things. I asked whether I could quote her and she said yes. That conversation took place at about 10 am this morning, so it is hot off the press.
To deal with the comments that the Minister made, clearly her view is that powers already exist. Frankly, they do not. She said that local authorities could prepare codes. Yes, they can, but they are not enforceable. The point of the codes in my amendment is that they are enforceable. Local authorities can have these codes, but they cannot make them happen. I do not want to get into a long debate on the Party Wall etc. Act. All the advice that I have had is that it is insufficient for this purpose. It does some good things, but it does not deal with all the problems I described. I have to act on the advice that I have been given from people who know more about it.
Lord True
The noble Lord is quite right about the code. We have a code, but the question is enforcing it. I should have made clear on Article 4, which he has not mentioned, that using Article 4 directions, in any case, is chasing the game, in football parlance, and takes time. You then cannot charge a fee, so in many cases you immediately lose the ability even to charge a fee for processing the planning application, which is then necessary under an Article 4 direction.
Lord Dubs
I am most grateful. That deals with most of the other arguments.
I hate to put it this way but I think that the Minister has been trapped by her civil servants. I have been a Minister; I know what happens. Sometimes you just have to say, “No, I’m not happy, you’re pushing me into a position that I don’t want to be in, because in my heart of hearts I believe in a modification of policy”. That is what I said. I cannot help thinking that, if the Minister were to reflect, she would say that the weight of opinion is entirely against her and against the advice that she has been given. These are not things that I have invented. Local authority leaders are individuals of substance. They are elected to represent their areas and they want to do what is best for them, so this is not some political fantasy. It goes across the party divide. It is not something that the Labour Party has invented. In fact, far more Conservatives have approached me than Labour people. So I am not being at all partisan on this.
I would just like the Minister to think again, otherwise we will have to have this debate again on Report. I would much rather we debated a proposal from the Government. Then I would be happy to say, “Fine, that’s good”. I am happy to give way.
Lord Dubs
I am so sorry. We are all a bit tired after yesterday evening. I misunderstood that.
I am not happy about this. The weight of opinion is against the Minister. I deeply regret the line that she is taking. I hope that she will pause to reflect over Easter, otherwise I will have to bring this back. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 101BGB. We are moving on to Clause 142, which is about planning obligations—Section 106 and so on.
This clause sets up a new procedure for resolution of disputes and there is a new schedule in the Bill which forms new Schedule 9A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It sets up a new and quite complicated procedure for resolving disputes on Section 106 obligations when the local planning authority and the applicants are having difficulty coming to a conclusion. My amendment simply applies this to Section 106 agreements in relation to housing, rather than Section 106 agreements as a whole.
It is generally true that there are two types of Section 106 agreements. The first relate to housing and affordable housing. They are often very controversial and difficult to reach conclusions on; indeed, consideration has recently been given to ways in which they can be lifted, or their alleged burden reduced. These are in a wholly different category from normal Section 106 agreements, which simply provide necessary local infrastructure, nowadays closely related to the actual site of the application. This procedure seems long, convoluted and complex compared with ordinary, simple Section 106 agreements, and may result in applicants dragging out discussions longer than is necessary in the hope that they can get away with paying a bit less.
There are perhaps more important amendments in this group; however, it seems to me that the Government want to use a sledgehammer to crack what are in fact quite small nuts. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 101C and 101D. I can be brief because we discussed the issues from which these two amendments derive during our consideration of the housing elements of the Bill earlier in Committee. Amendment 101C makes it clear that the Bill should be about all tenures of housing, not just owner-occupation. Amendment 101D would leave out lines 6 and 7, which give the Secretary of State the power to define affordable housing however he wants to define it. That power is a problem and those words should be removed from the Bill. I hope the Minister will concur.
We discussed in some detail the definitions of affordable housing and affordability. I am concerned that the Government muddle the two terms. We have a statement right at the beginning of the Bill that starter homes are to be defined as affordable homes, but for many people they are not affordable at all. Given all the evidence we have had from organisations such as Shelter, it seems to me wrong to use terms that cannot be justified. It seems even more wrong to give the Secretary of State the power to redefine terms which are already wrong. “Affordable” and “affordability” have clear dictionary definitions, and whichever dictionary the Minister cares to consult in the Library, the definitions are always the same: they relate to people having the resources to pay the bills. Given that many people cannot pay the cost of a starter home, it is wrong to define a starter home as affordable.
I hope the Minister will be able to respond, but these amendments will probably be brought back on Report in a form that joins them to other concerns about the nature of affordability.
Lord Beecham
I take the noble Lord’s point, and I think many of us would agree that the Government’s notion of affordability is far removed from that of most other people, but the thrust of the amendment is surely right. What alternative is in the noble Lord’s mind to ensure that there is a definition that he, I and many others would regard as being related more to the circumstances and means of those who wish to occupy these properties?
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We discussed this at a much earlier stage in Committee, in the context of the fact that affordability ought to be defined in relation to people’s incomes and median incomes, and that is the point with which I entirely concur.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to raise an issue that I touched on at Second Reading and again in the debates we had on the right to buy for housing associations and the impact of Section 106 agreements on the voluntary agreement with the National Housing Federation, which says:
“Every housing association tenant would have the right to purchase a home at Right to Buy level discounts, subject to the overall availability of funding”.
A large number of housing association properties have been built under Section 106 agreements. In the pilot scheme currently under way, properties built under Section 106 are excluded from the right to buy. The question I pose to the Minister—she may not be able to answer it today—is whether the powers given to the Secretary of State by Clause 143(2) to make regulations concerning Section 106 could be used to lift any restrictions that may exist on Section 106 developments, which would then enable the right to buy to be exercised by tenants, which at the moment may be precluded by the agreement between the housing association or the developer and the local authority.
Unless something is done about the current restrictions on Section 106, a very large number of housing association tenants, who may be looking forward to exercising the right to buy, may find that it is denied by Section 106. So the question is whether Clause 143(2) can be used to lift those restrictions and enable the expectations of the housing association tenants to be realised.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has given me yet another argument for why we should reject Clause 143. Amendment 102B is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. It also has the support of my noble friend Lady Warwick, chair of the National Housing Federation, who cannot be in her place today. I also declare my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 143 stand part of the Bill.
In rural areas, housing associations build good-quality small-scale developments in partnership with local communities, providing much-needed affordable homes. Of the 281 homes built in four years by Two Rivers Housing in Herefordshire and the Forest of Dean, 109 were delivered through Section 106 agreements, many on small sites of fewer than 10 units. For Two Rivers, as for so many housing associations, Section 106 is critical to the delivery of affordable homes.
Yet in 2014, the Government attempted to exempt developments of 10 homes or fewer from having affordable housing contributions levied on them. The Rural Housing Policy Review recommended that the Government’s policy on small sites should be reversed and:
“Local Planning Authorities should require all sites, whatever their size, to make an affordable housing contribution”.
It was, of course, absolutely right. There is clear evidence —for example, from the Gloucestershire Rural Housing Partnership—that when the Government removed the threshold, opportunities to deliver much-needed affordable homes in small communities were lost.
Several councils took the Government to court and won, overturning the policy change. There was a huge sigh of relief, but the Government now appear to be giving themselves the power to make this change through Clause 143 of this Bill. Clause 143 gives the Secretary of State the power to impose restrictions,
“on the enforceability of planning obligations entered into with regard to … affordable housing”.
It gives the Secretary of State the legal power to make the change in relation to small sites and affordable housing contributions. The clause should be deleted.
Indeed, Clause 143 is simply not needed because the NPPF already requires that LPAs meet their objectively assessed needs for a range of housing and set contributions which mean that schemes are viable and deliverable. The policies already respond to local circumstances, such as the land supply and the local housing market, which the Secretary of State is simply not in a position to second-guess. Overruling these local policies would have a devastating impact on the delivery of affordable homes in rural areas, where sites of fewer than 10 units are the main source of development land. Last year, these small sites provided well over 50% of new affordable homes in communities with a population of less than 3,000.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 102B, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Parminter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. This amendment aims to ensure a continuing, even if very modest, supply of affordable homes in rural areas.
I chaired the Rural Housing Policy Review, which reported a year ago. We engaged with the full range of rural housing practitioners and our report set out a number of recommendations for easing the severe housing shortages that face the younger generation in rural areas. Top of our list of 12 recommendations was the reversal of the policy announced by the Government at that time aimed at the removal from local authorities of the power to require affordable housing on sites of 10 homes or fewer.
Why did so many of those making representations to our review make this issue their number one priority? The reason is that removing the Section 106 affordable housing requirements on small sites would be likely to reduce annual rural affordable housebuilding by some 50%. It is through this medium of placing a requirement on housebuilders to include affordable homes in their developments that councils have been able to make sure that developments in villages include homes for local families and do not just comprise “executive homes” or housing for commuters, second-home owners, retirees to the country and so on.
Our review heard the arguments for lifting the requirement on housebuilders to provide a percentage of new homes for those on lower incomes. It was said that although affordable homes for rent or shared ownership would be lost, more homes would be built overall. This would happen, it was argued, because it would be easier for developers to get planning consent, the development would be more profitable, and smaller builders—such as those that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has mentioned—would be encouraged to return to development, after leaving the field in the wake of the banking crisis.
We did not buy those arguments. Removal of a planning obligation to provide some affordable housing would raise the price of the land and the extra value would go not to the small builder but to the owner of the land. SME builders would still miss out to larger housebuilders, which might well phase their developments with a series of several developments of 10 homes in place of one of, say, 30 homes. We were doubtful whether small and medium-sized builders would be enabled to do any more than they could before and, very significantly, we thought that without the inclusion of homes for local families, housebuilders of whatever size would face much more intense opposition to any development in the village.
The reason why new housing is acceptable to the community around it, as demonstrated in the neighbourhood plans that are gaining public support in different parts of the country, is that there is a growing understanding of and sympathy for the housing problems facing younger households who were brought up and/or who work in the village. Take away any obligation to include housing for those less affluent local people and intense opposition—which is likely to mean fewer homes built—seems inevitable.
Our review highlighted the likely loss of new homes overall, as well as the obvious loss of affordable rented accommodation in rural areas which would follow from the Secretary of State deciding to overrule local authorities and remove their power to require affordable homes on smaller sites. After the courts rejected the Government’s previous attempt to make it impossible for councils to require some affordable homes, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the fear is that Clause 143 would present the opportunity for this unfortunate policy to be reinstated. Amendment 102B would insert the necessary protection against this eventuality.
Statistics from Jo Lavis, who advised the Rural Housing Policy Review, make it clear that 55% of new affordable homes in communities with a population of fewer than 3,000 were on sites of fewer than 10 homes last year. In Shropshire, the figure was 80%; for Hambleton in Yorkshire, it was 89%; and for rural district councils in Derbyshire it was 85%. In some of these cases, the local authority accepts a cash payment—a commuted sum from the builder—in lieu of payment in kind, and this funds rural housing on another site. This technique has raised £2 million in Derbyshire Dales, £1 million in the New Forest National Park and so on. The money cross-subsidises rural housing which would not otherwise be viable, making up for the reductions in social housing grants, which have seen grant rates fall from about £40,000 per house in 2011 to just £22,000 four years later. In a survey of 39 rural local authorities, Jo Lavis discovered that two-thirds of those councils used commuted sums from builders to fund affordable rural housing at no cost to the taxpayer, so current arrangements are working.
A number of us have expressed concern about the Government’s plans for rural exception sites, where planning consent would not normally be available but development is permitted because it comprises affordable homes for local people. Now the plan is for the new starter homes to be built on these special sites, replacing affordable rented or shared ownership homes. We have been concerned that the starter homes will not be within the reach of those with relatively low earnings in rural areas—attention was drawn to this by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. In any case, starter homes can be sold after five years on the open market to quite different people. At the same time, we have expressed our considerable anxiety that sales of high-value council houses, which would be required to raise the money for discounts to housing association right-to-buy purchasers, will be disproportionately damaging in rural areas because council homes there are particularly valuable.
Amendment 102B is an urgent attempt to prevent yet further deterioration in the position for those who genuinely need affordable housing in rural communities. It would allow the local authority to continue to obtain a quota of affordable homes on smaller sites, where the council believes that this is needed. It represents a vital protection for rural communities that could otherwise lose over half the supply of affordable housing that they currently insist upon. It is important for government, too, because only with an element of affordable homes for local families will parish councils, neighbourhood forums and local communities at large accept new development in their villages. I strongly support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I support Amendment 102B which has been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I also wish to speak on the removal of Clause 143 from the Bill.
As has often been noted during the passage of the Bill, the House is being asked to vote on clauses that are essentially empty, their content to be defined in regulations by the Secretary of State at some future date. I appreciate the effort that the Minister has made in the last week to put more information before the Committee, but I think we can all agree that there are still some gaping holes.
Clause 143 is a prime example of an empty clause, handing as it does sweeping new powers to the Secretary of State with regard to the control of Section 106 requirements but providing no detail of what these regulations would look like. Without the content of these draft regulations being made available, the Committee can only speculate as to what the Government intend to do with the new powers handed to the Secretary of State in Clause 143. Luckily, as other noble Lords have already made clear, we have good grounds from which to speculate, given the Government’s attempt last year to remove Section 106 planning obligations on developments providing fewer than 10 new houses. It was overturned, of course, on judicial review.
With this in mind, I want to make two brief points about the proposed legislative changes. First, there is the long-established principle that local authorities are best placed to decide planning obligations to ensure the provision of affordable housing in their areas. Such a principle is directly in accordance with the Government’s stated localism agenda. We have been told repeatedly by this Government that devolution of power, not centralisation, is the way forward. Indeed, only yesterday, in response to a supplementary question I asked on the Floor of this House, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, batted back a reply, saying:
“The entire point of our devolution revolution is that all authorities will have the power to set their own policy agendas and target their spending priorities to match. Local leaders know best what is right for them”.—[Official Report, 22/3/16; col. 2227.]
But here we are presented with a clause that would allow the Secretary of State to ride roughshod over the needs and concerns of local planning authorities. I recognise that there is a legitimate concern that the burden of Section 106 requirements can make small developments unviable for some developers. Where this is the case, central government needs to work with the local planning authority to facilitate an equitable compromise. Blanket exemptions cannot be the way forward.
Provisions for independent dispute resolution in Clause 142 will, I hope, be a good example of how government can better facilitate local authority needs with regard to affordable housing. Clause 143, however, removes the discretion of local authorities to judge how best to serve local needs and places the power in central government hands.
More important than a point of principle is the fact that any future removal of Section 106 requirements from smaller developments is likely further to imperil the provision of affordable housing in many parts of the country. This was made clear by the Government’s previous attempt at policy change. The needs of local authorities regarding Section 106 requirements on small developments can vary immensely from one local authority to another. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has already helpfully quoted the examples in Shropshire, where 80% of new housing developments are built on sites of fewer than five units, and Hambleton, where 89% are on developments of fewer than 10. There can be no doubt that the removal of these developments from Section 106 requirements would drastically undermine the provision of new, affordable housing, particularly in rural areas where there is already a critical undersupply.
I hope the Government will think very carefully about this before they decide to proceed. More important is for the Minister to provide us with further details about the proposed content of these regulations before Report. It would seem a gross dereliction of duty for this House to approve sweeping new powers for the Secretary of State without some sort of idea about how the Government are hoping to use these new statutory powers.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, I, too, wish to speak briefly in support of Amendment 102B. As always, I draw attention to my interests, in particular that I am president of the National Association of Local Councils. There is no question but that parish councils are deeply concerned about the removal of the ability to require some affordable homes, when viable, to meet local needs—and we should remember that Section 106 can be contested on viability grounds. The reasons for that have been well expressed, but I shall add a couple of points at least.
First, I strongly believe that it is in the Government’s interest to recognise the particular issues that there will be in smaller rural communities if there is a blanket policy removing affordable home requirements on sites of under 10 units, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Best, spelled out. In many communities that would be a typical site—in fact, in some it would be quite a large site. But even where there are sites of maybe 20 or 30 units that could be brought forward, this policy will encourage them to be brought forward only in small fractions of less than 10, to achieve the higher number of market-value homes and the profitability that will go with that, which alone will slow down the delivery of homes that are much needed in these communities.
Secondly, there is no question but that small villages were the first to come alive to the severity of the housing problems that we have in this country around affordability for people on working wages in those communities. Rural incomes for those who live and work in rural communities average 20% below the national average right across the country. Commuters may bring up the wage levels in some villages, but rural wages are typically low. People are needed to live in those communities, who will work in the shops and do the work of the land and in schools, on those relatively low wages, and they desperately need a home. In the nature of villages, those communities came alive very quickly to the unaffordability issue, because it is much more obvious there.
The response has been for those communities to be very often surprisingly positive about bringing forward appropriate small-scale development, provided that it provides at least some homes with a clear tie to local need and affordability in perpetuity. To remove that would be immediately to remove a lot of that neighbourhood support for the delivery of homes. As somebody who currently chairs a neighbourhood plan, I have to say that the community is very much alive to its own particular needs. I happen to be in a very poor community, where some of those affordability issues are not as great as some of the needing to improve the community in other ways. We happen to be a community in which the affordability pressures are not there, but we know exactly what the community needs. There is a desire for self-build, for example, which we are building into the neighbourhood plan. To remove the ability of communities at local authority and neighbourhood plan level to respond to that on sites that may be brought forward makes no sense to me.
Finally, I think the Government are seeking to help smaller building companies to access land for development. I do not know what the situation is in some parts of the urban environment—I know it less well than the rural one—but I know that in the kind of rural communities and housing schemes right across the country that I visit regularly, through work and in my former role as chairman of the National Housing Federation, the simple fact is that these sites are relatively valuable. A small site for eight or nine units in a well-off village with high house values should be immensely profitable to bring forward, and landowners will get very substantial money if they can bring those forward, compared to the agricultural values that those sites might otherwise be worth. So there is no lack of incentive for the landowner.
The problem is that they are highly desirable for quite large housebuilders as well. There are good profits to be made, there is easy delivery, there is certainty on sales and the numbers are not so large that they could in any sense depress prices, so the sites are highly appetising. If the affordable home requirement is removed, it will be easy for national and regional players to look for the 20% to 25% profit margins that they would come in on with high house prices. The requirement for affordable housing helps depress those prices but, perhaps more importantly, it depresses the ability to get those very high margins. Local small builders will work to builders’ margins, which may be as little as 10%. In my part of mid-Cornwall, Restormel Borough Council pioneered releasing sites for affordable housing in the form of housing where the sale price was related to local earnings levels in perpetuity. Those houses were not built by the big regional and national players, but by local builders who were more than happy because they could make their margin within that price cap and get sites at low cost because the landowner knew that the price would be low, the community knew it would be affordable for the community in perpetuity and the builders were still able to make the margin they needed and knew that the community would support the development going forward.
I do not think the Government will achieve their objectives in rural areas this way. They will lose, not gain, numbers. They will lose, rather than gain, opportunities for smaller builders. They will lose community support for the housing that is desperately needed in those communities precisely by the people who allow them to be living and working communities but who cannot otherwise afford a home on local wages.
Lord True
I shall not follow on Clause 143 in particular, although it is an extraordinarily important debate. In a sense it reflects the tension that runs through the Bill. The Government have a clear commitment to provide 1 million homes—starter homes—and to get the country building. On the other hand, in doing that, they want to remove what they perceive, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, as obstacles. That tension runs right through the Bill and underlies this clause because one is naturally suspicious that some of the things that have been said here might have the effect of letting this clause go forward without understanding what precisely it means. The Explanatory Notes say that an example of what the Secretary of State might do would be to place conditions relating to sites of certain size, which is the point just discussed.
I hope the Government will be sensitive about affordable housing. It is extraordinarily difficult to do, not just in rural areas. I do not want to repeat something I said in an earlier debate, but in high land-value areas, it is very difficult to deliver affordable housing. It is really on the margins. Often in those areas, sadly one is dealing with communities that do not really want what they call social housing. The council has to take those people on and look them in the eye. It also has to take on developers and say, “We need to do this”. We need a few tools in our hands to be able to do that. In going forward and, I hope, giving us a lot more information about the regulations, I hope the Government will be sensitive to that side of the argument. I understand all the suspicions that have been expressed, although the Committee has to understand the imperative for the Government to deliver building.
Clause 142, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who unerringly draws our attention to every clause, is a massive clause with a massive schedule underlying it. It looks well intentioned. The right reverend Prelate said that if it helps resolve disputes, that would be good. I am all for arbitration. If the sense is that two sensible people come together and resolve the matter, of course, we would all want that to happen. But we do not have here soft arbitration, we have hard statute. This hard statute is backed up in Schedule 13 by a very lengthy set of things that will happen when this person, whoever it is, could be called in by the Secretary of State without even waiting for either the applicant or the local authority to call them in. He or she might be called in under new Schedule 9A(1)(4) in Schedule 13 to the Bill, when
“a person of a prescribed description, requests the Secretary of State to make an appointment”,
of a person, and,
“any prescribed requirements as to the consent of the … authority are satisfied”.
Then there is a whole set of Russian dolls—clause after clause providing what this process might do. So this is not soft arbitration; it is almost like creating a new inspectorate—it seems to be separate from the inspectorate at Bristol—to arbitrate in cases of Section 106. It may be the same as the inspectorate at Bristol—I know not. Then a whole lot of things have to happen. It looks a bit like quasi-justice. Quasi-justice is not necessarily always quick and it is certainly not cheap.
The interesting thing about planning—as anyone who deals with it knows—is that planning creates its own precedent. Planners have to take note of what inspectors have said in the past. They have to take note of past decisions as well as the law. These unknown persons are going to be dealing with cases, perhaps at the request of the Secretary of State, according to the Explanatory Notes taking into account,
“any template or model terms published by the Secretary of State”.
We do not know whether they will be in regulations or what they might be. They will then give judgments on the Section 106 negotiations. It even says in the Explanatory Notes that they can,
“consider two or more planning applications at the same time if the same or similar issues arise”.
So we have what is effectively a hard, quasi-statutory system of making assessments. These judgments will lie on the record. It may well become, in my judgment, a bit like the decisions of the inspector, something which the next arbitrator will then take notice of in a similar case—not the same case, as they can consider similar cases. The freedom of negotiation between local authorities and applicants is potentially trenched into by this process.
The clause looks well intentioned, but a little too elaborate. It is a classic way in which Governments go about making law. They say, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea to bring discussions quickly to an end”, because they want to get things done quickly. They think local authorities are always holding them up so they want to force them to go this unknown person to impose a decision. Once that report is issued, the local authority must comply—that is what is written in the regulations.
I would like to think a lot more about this going forward as a statute. It is good practice to consider arbitration, but it is very tough. We have just had a debate about basement development in which we were told it was not necessary to put stuff on the statute book as we have codes of practice and everything can be done in a soft way. Here this arbitration has to be legalistic and hard—it has to be on the statute book. I worry about that.
Section 106 negotiations are tough—they are meant to be. I went to a topping-out ceremony in my borough a few weeks ago with some people from one of the hardest-negotiating developers in the country. We had a good old time and they said, “My goodness your authority was tough in negotiations”. I said, “Yes, and so was your business, but look what we’ve got: 300 new houses, affordable housing, community theatre and a community place in this town, which we got as a result of that negotiation”. If that had gone to the person in Bristol, Peterborough or wherever who might be appointed under this system, I wonder whether any of that would have happened.
I asked my noble friend to reflect on this very elaborate, albeit well-intentioned, system. The Government are absolutely right to call on local authorities to try to cut negotiations short and do them as fast as possible, but we have far too much rigmarole of regulation, law and diddle-daddle in this country already, and this looks like more of that on the way.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord True, about that provision. I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lady Royall and others have said about Amendment 102B.
Frankly, I am puzzled by Amendment 101D. I had an exchange before with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about this, but it still does not seem to make much sense. If one is concerned about the definition of affordability—and I think many of us are concerned about what is currently described as affordable— then to take out from the Bill a provision that as it currently stands would allow the Secretary of State to modify the definition would be puzzling. If the amendment had suggested that, for example, the Secretary of State should by regulation determine what is affordable in relation to household income, for example, that would have been a more positive way of dealing with the issue. At the moment, there is no apparent connection between affordability as it is currently treated by the Government and what ordinary people would understand as being affordable—that is to say, within their means.
Lord Shipley
Perhaps I can explain what the issue is, although I thought I had done so previously. The amendment relates to the planning part of the Bill. At the very beginning there was a debate, and amendments that I think the noble Lord himself moved, about the definition of affordability. We had a long discussion about that. The context of the amendment that the noble Lord is criticising simply relates to whether the Secretary of State should have the power to define a word that is clearly expressed in any dictionary that the Secretary of State may wish to consult. On “affordable” and “affordability”, the Government are muddling their terms, and I believe that that is happening deliberately to make it appear as though housing is affordable when it is not. The Government define the words “affordable” and affordability” differently, but in the dictionary they are the same thing. They relate to the ability of people to pay. All I said when I spoke to the amendment was that I thought we had to go back to amend the Bill at the beginning of its housing element so that the definition of “affordability” was better stated, but then not to allow a Secretary of State to make a change by regulation to the meaning of a word that had a clear meaning in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I do not want to prolong this dialogue, but surely it would be better to tie the Secretary of State down to making regulations related to, for example, an indexed figure in connection with household income. That would be a more sensible way to do it than simply taking out the clause.
Lord Shipley
To avoid any doubt, I am very happy to do that, as I said 15 or 20 minutes ago. The question is whether the Secretary of State, having defined what “affordable” and “affordability” are, should then be allowed by regulation to alter them, which I think he or she should not be.
Lord Beecham
The point would be to circumscribe the Secretary of State’s ability to regulate it by linking it to an index. However, we are not voting on that amendment and I will not take matters any further.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government are committed to increasing housing supply. More homes are now started every year than at any time since 2007. The total stock of housing in England is now almost 800,000 higher than it was in 2009. In the spending review we announced investment of £8 billion to deliver 400,000 affordable housing starts by 2020-21. This includes £4.1 billion for 135,000 shared ownership homes, £1.6 billion to deliver 100,000 affordable homes for rent and £2.3 billion towards delivering our starter homes manifesto commitment.
In order to further support housing delivery, we need measures to avoid Section 106 planning obligations preventing or delaying new homes being built. Clause 142 inserts new Schedule 9A into the Town and County Planning Act 1990. The new schedule sets out a dispute resolution process to speed up Section 106 negotiations in order to help housing starts to proceed more quickly. Dispute resolution will be available on a broad range of cases, including where affordable housing is in dispute or particular infrastructure is needed to make development acceptable in planning terms. However, as with any effective dispute resolution process, we anticipate that it would be used only as a last resort. The speeding up of Section 106 negotiations is part of a wider package of measures that the Government are introducing to make the planning system simpler and more streamlined. We anticipate that its existence will encourage all parties to work constructively together and agree planning obligations earlier in the planning process.
We are also working with stakeholders to understand the particular issues caused by negotiating affordable housing provision. So far, we know that problems include the time and expense of viability negotiations, the lack of clarity over affordable housing requirements and the difficulty of getting housing associations to take only one or two units on a site. These effects can be felt more acutely by smaller developers, which are more likely to focus on building on small sites. We are consulting on some of the detail of the process and we will bring forward regulations in due course. Clause 143 allows us to address some of these issues by providing a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the enforcement of planning obligations for affordable housing. The clause provides flexibility depending on the size, scale or nature of the site or of the proposed development so that we can target regulations appropriately.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked when we were going to consult on the powers. We are already engaging with key partners to identify those measures that would best support the delivery of new housing, and we will consult on our proposals in due course. Restrictions or conditions will be introduced through affirmative regulation, so Members of both Houses will have a chance to scrutinise any measures that we introduce. That means we can bring about a more consistent approach to how Section 106 agreements can be used in relation to affordable housing provision. It will reduce a key element of uncertainty for developers and, in doing so, support housebuilding.
The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked how we anticipate using the power in Clause 143(2)—would it be used to restrict right to buy, and what about the rural aspect? The broad power proposed allows for a distinction to be made depending on the size and nature of the proposed development, such as rural sites, where restrictions may not be appropriate, and the distinction in relation to the types of affordable housing that may be restricted. This is intended to focus any restrictions where they would have the most likely benefits in encouraging housing development more broadly, rather than, as the noble Lord says, restricting it. For example, we could use this power to address the particular problems faced on small sites, as I have said, and we are working with stakeholders to identify how we can best use the power to address the issues and support the delivery of new houses. I should also say that the restriction provision would not apply to existing Section 106 agreements.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, is concerned about the Government not supporting rural areas. As I say, this provision gives us the flexibility to target our regulations in a way that would best benefit overall housing delivery. For example, as I said, restrictions or conditions could apply differently depending on the type of sites, such as rural areas.
Amendment 101BGB limits the use of Section 106 dispute resolution, to be introduced through this clause, to affordable housing disputes only. It is not necessary for Amendment 101BGB to be introduced to implement this change. Schedule 13 of the Bill allows the scope of dispute resolution to be restricted through regulations, which could include limiting dispute resolution to cases involving affordable housing. We are presently seeking views on the scope of dispute resolution through our planning technical consultation, but dispute resolution would be a very useful tool for resolving disputes on applications without affordable housing as well as on those with.
Moving on to Amendments 101C and 101D, I do not think that they are necessary to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, because they would hinder our ability to address the issues that local planning authorities and developers tell us are caused by negotiating affordable housing obligations. This clause allows the Secretary of State to restrict the use of Section 106 planning obligations for affordable housing. The clause, therefore, goes on to define what is meant by affordable housing in this context.
The definition of affordable housing included in this clause focuses on housing that meets a particular need: for example, people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market. It also specifically includes starter homes, which are defined in Chapter 1 of the Bill. It does not restrict provision to meet the needs of any specific tenures. Indeed, we consider that the definition is broad enough to encompass all forms of tenure. Restricting the use of planning obligations for affordable housing across all tenures would not support the objective of addressing the specific issues caused by negotiations on particular types of site.
The clause also provides the Secretary of State with the power to amend the definition of affordable housing through regulations. Removing the power would affect the Government’s ability to take account of new forms of affordable housing provision that are being developed. This would limit the effectiveness of how Government can use this clause to support housing development. The power to amend the definition of affordable housing under this clause is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise any amendment of the definition.
Amendment 102B, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Parminter, inserts a new clause that would enable the Secretary of State to empower local planning authorities to require affordable housing contributions, in cash or kind, from small-scale developments and in rural areas. However, I do not think that it is necessary. Local authorities can set affordable housing policies in their local plans, which will take account of local housing need. Section 106 agreements can then be used to secure affordable housing delivery. They can also be used to agree financial contributions in lieu of on-site affordable housing contributions. Indeed, there is evidence of local planning authorities making very good use of this, including seeking contributions from small-scale developments and in rural areas.
The use of this power will allow us to bring about a more consistent approach to how Section 106 agreements can be used in relation to affordable housing provision. This could include conditions on how planning obligations are sought for affordable housing on particular types of sites. Such conditions could help address the problems that affordable housing negotiations can cause for particular types of sites, such as those identified in this amendment.
I will finish by saying that the Government will consult on the approach to any restrictions or conditions brought forward. Measures implementing this power will be set out in regulations. These, including any amendments to the definition of affordable housing, will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and noble Lords will have ample opportunity to scrutinise any amendment to the definition. I hope that, with those words, the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate and I thank everybody who has taken part in it. Most of the debate was about issues that I was not personally raising, but I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord True, who made a speech similar to one I thought of making. It is clear that the noble Lord is less intimidated by the Government Chief Whip on these matters than I am and feels able to make such a speech at length, putting forward the localist view which he has done so well so many times in this Committee.
Lord Beecham
“Planning obligations for student housing
Upon commencement of this Part, the Secretary of State must incorporate planning for student accommodation into the National Planning Policy Framework so that it is planned for and included in local and neighbourhood plans and taken into consideration in planning decisions where appropriate.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy deals with an issue which is close to home for the Minister, whose daughter—she told me the other day—lives in a student house just opposite friends of mine in a residential part of Newcastle. It is a fact that in Newcastle and many other cities there are very large numbers of students. In Newcastle, I believe that the two universities have between them some 45,000 students. Some of them of course will be local and others will not necessarily be living in the city. Nevertheless, substantial areas of the city are now given over to rented-out student accommodation, which not infrequently is jammed full of students living in not particularly attractive conditions and also somewhat changes the character of the area. Increasingly, we find areas virtually totally dominated by students. Recently I had the misfortune to canvass not far from where the Minister’s daughter lives, and I encountered house after house occupied by students, many of whom, I am sorry to say, expressed the intention of voting Conservative, because on the whole Newcastle attracts large numbers of better-off students. They are not quite mature enough to realise that they are taking the wrong course politically, although they may come to realise that in due course.
However, what we are now seeing in the city—and, I suspect, elsewhere—is rather different and in some ways rather better: large purpose-built places for students to live in, not in residential streets but in purpose-built complexes. That is a good thing in a way because, one hopes, it will free up family-sized accommodation and perhaps bring back more permanent occupation of residential areas, which is desirable. On the other hand, sometimes these buildings are thrown up in close proximity to residential areas and the behaviour of those in the residential blocks is not always appealing to the local community. However, perhaps that is another issue that needs to be looked at.
Amendment 102A simply raises the issue and seeks to get the Secretary of State involved in ensuring that the National Planning Forum takes an interest in what is a growing concern in many areas. The amendment would ensure that it offered some guidance and, in collaboration with local authorities and indeed with universities and student bodies, sought a way of balancing the needs of universities and their population with the local population. On the whole, this works tolerably well. In the area where the noble Baroness’s daughter lives—not necessarily in the same street, although there have been some difficulties there—things are not always satisfactory. There is a good deal of late-night carousing and the like, which some noble Lords may be young enough to recall from their earlier days but is not at all appealing to local communities.
This is a matter that has not really played much of a part so far in national policy formulation, and I hope the amendment will begin a process through which it can be properly developed. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 102C. With the emphasis on affordable housing, there is a danger that the infrastructure and support to make developments into communities will be sidelined. Many people have talked about what constitutes affordable housing. A £450,000 home after discount in London may be a good buy but you have to be able to afford the deposit and the mortgage payments. Putting aside my concerns about what constitutes affordable housing, this amendment makes the assumption that we can have a building bonanza but we need to ensure—this is my reason for tabling the amendment—that the funds are not diverted from libraries, schools, community culture, public transport and indeed the multiplicity of activities that make a community. This has historically been effected by Section 106 planning gain money, to which many noble Lords have referred, but the position has been further complicated by the new community infrastructure levy, which no one seems to have mentioned. This levy, which has not been welcomed by some local authorities, can be imposed by local authorities on new developments in their area.
The levy is said to be designed to be fairer, faster and more transparent than the well-tried Section 106 system of agreeing planning obligations between local councils and developers—that is what it says. I therefore ask the Minister, when responding to this amendment, to report on how she sees the community infrastructure levy and/or the Section 106 planning gain funds being protected and enhanced. Can she reassure the Committee that the other provisions in this complicated and convoluted Bill will not militate against the local services that maintain housing developments as communities and not purely, as my old favourite Pete Seeger said in 1963, little boxes of different colours which are all made out of ticky-tacky and all look just the same?
Lord Greaves
Does my noble friend agree that Pete Seeger did not say that at all? He sang it.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
I would be happy to do that, but I have tried to let the Committee off that treat.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I think the main concern that many of us had was that the noble Lord was going to sing it.
I want to intervene briefly on this group because quite an important set of principles is involved here. Making communities work in the context of new developments is quite a skill, which local authorities develop over time. For example, there is a difference in nature between student accommodation and other types of what would no doubt be considered to be affordable accommodation. You are usually talking about one-bedroomed units designed for young people. It is a very different sort of accommodation. However, planning for that and for all the other facilities and so on in the local area can be determined only at a local level by people who know the areas concerned and know how it is going to work.
It is right that there is recognition of the importance of student accommodation and that it is taken into account, but it has to be acknowledged that often those in the local area will be best able to determine how to make it work so that the different communities in a particular area will be able to co-exist and complement each other. I am conscious of a number of developments where the arrival of student accommodation has been very important for the regeneration of that area and has benefited other communities. As opposed to hostility to the noisy nocturnal dwellers that students often are, these developments have been a catalyst for enabling other things to be placed in that area, to be viable, and to work extremely well.
Having listened to the exchange between my noble friend and the Minister about her daughter, I recall a discussion I once had with somebody about my son. He was strip-searched in the airport, which was news to me—as a parent you do not hear about that—and I was worried that, in terms of what goes on in the back streets of a no doubt very comfortable part of Newcastle, my noble friend was going to stray into that territory.
It is important to understand the value of student accommodation in many local communities and the fact that what will work is best planned locally. At the same time the different nature of student accommodation should be recognised in the planning process.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am pleased to be discussing these amendments today, particularly in the light of the conversation that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I had yesterday. For a horrible moment I thought that my daughter actually lived next door to his friends. Thank God that she lives across the road. Nevertheless, it was a very weird conversation. The noble Lord’s wife and I went to the same school, and we found out yesterday that in so many things, in terms of our background, we were far closer than we thought. My daughter is indeed one of those pesky individuals who votes Conservative.
I also get the broader point about the changing face of communities. Jesmond has over the years changed remarkably as the community has become fuller of student properties. The local authority and the university are making huge moves to create more purpose-built accommodation for students and to ensure that Jesmond starts to restore to itself the very nice community feel that it once had. The Government recognise this need as well, encouraging local authorities to provide much more purpose-built student accommodation.
While I fully support the intention of the amendment I do not think it is necessary, because we already have in place the mechanisms to deliver it. Our NPPF is clear that local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area. It encourages local authorities to identify the accommodation needs of different groups within the community and to plan proactively to support them. This includes recognising the needs of students. This is supported by planning guidance. In March 2015 we strengthened our guidance to re-emphasise to local planning authorities their duty to plan for sufficient student accommodation, whether it consists of communal halls of residence or self-contained dwellings, and whether it is on campus.
The amendment would also require local planning authorities to give higher priority for student housing than other groups in society. There is no need to adopt quite such an approach. It is important that local planning authorities plan for a mix of accommodation, including for the student population as well as for the needs of all residents and different groups in the community. That is what the NPPF expects. If they do not make adequate provision, they risk having an unsound local plan.
Amendment 102C on planning and community development seeks to ensure that local authority funding is available for community developments and is taken into account when carrying out its duty to promote starter homes. The noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, drew attention to the need for funding to be made available for community developments and I thank them for doing so. I do not disagree that local authority funding should be used for new community developments.
As a key objective of national planning policy, local planning authorities need to plan positively for the infrastructure needs of their area, which would include community development projects. I reiterate what I said earlier in Committee that nothing that we are doing to promote starter homes will fundamentally change the importance of having good infrastructure in place to support new development. Planning decisions for all developments, including those that contain starter homes, will still need to be made in accordance with local planning policy, subject to the starter homes requirement and other material considerations. Infrastructure considerations that can be taken into account as part of the decision-making process will clearly need to be issued.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned the community infrastructure levy. The Section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy provide mechanisms for local authorities to secure funding for infrastructure, including community developments. As I have mentioned, we intend to exempt all starter homes from the community infrastructure levy. However, for the starter home element of any new development, local planning authorities will still be able to secure Section 106 for site-specific infrastructure improvements that might be required. Where there is a proposed development involving market housing and starter homes, the local planning authority is still able to use the sale on the market homes element to help fund the infrastructure required to support the development, assuming of course that it has a charging schedule in place.
With those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord True
Briefly, I welcome what my noble friend and others have said about student accommodation. It is not easy. We have expanding universities and noble Lords are right to say that there is usually strong opposition from local people when they hear “student housing”. However, a friend of my daughter’s is still at university and is rather more concerned that her local launderette might be turned into a house.
Lord Beecham
I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. I hope that the matter can be taken forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In so doing, I encourage noble Lords interested in the Housing and Planning Bill to keep an eye on the annunciators to see when the Committee will resume.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Election of Mayor with Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2016
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft order laid before the House on 1 February be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft Tees Valley Combined Authority Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 11 February. We will also be considering today the amendments to the Motions in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I would simply say for now that the various wider local-government funding matters that these amendments touch on are wholly separate from what these orders and the devolution deals are all about. These deals are about promoting economic growth and prosperity for the area, providing investment and giving local places the powers to decide what to invest in and where. That is quite different from how local services are funded.
If these orders are approved and made, they will deliver significant milestones in fulfilling our manifesto commitments to implement the historic devolution deal between the Government and Greater Manchester and to devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to places that choose to have elected mayors. We want a shift in power from central government to local government, with decentralisation bringing power closer to local communities. We are committed to devolving powers and budgets to Tees Valley, to Greater Manchester and to other areas. We are committed to this so that places can achieve their potential and take control of their own growth, and so they can play their part in rebalancing our economy, including building the northern powerhouse: a powerhouse which has massive potential to add an extra £37 billion to our national economy by the next decade.
If approved and made, the Tees Valley order will establish a combined authority with functions in relation to economic development, regeneration and transport across the Tees Valley. It provides for there to be rigorous scrutiny arrangements, with the chairman of any scrutiny committee required not to be a member of the majority political party. This puts on a statutory basis the close working which already exists between the five constituent authorities and their partners, including the Tees Valley Unlimited local enterprise partnership. This close working will enable the Tees Valley to work together even more efficiently and effectively to promote economic growth, to secure investment and to create jobs.
The order is laid under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. As the statute requires, before laying the order, the Secretary of State has considered whether the proposal for a combined authority satisfies the statutory tests. I can confirm that they have been unambiguously met. The Secretary of State considers that establishing this combined authority is likely to improve the exercise of the statutory functions, and in reaching the decision to lay the draft order, he has had regard to the impact on local government and communities.
This order is the first step towards devolution in Tees Valley. Further orders will be laid later this year to create the position of mayor—to be elected in May 2017—and to confer on the combined authority and the mayor the additional responsibilities set out in the devolution deal, including powers for a mayoral development corporation.
I turn now to the order for Greater Manchester, where there has been a combined authority since 2011. This order takes further steps in the devolution journey by creating the position of a directly elected mayor for Greater Manchester, with the first election to be held in May 2017, and specifying that the first mayoral term will be for three years, with the next election in May 2020, with four-year terms subsequently.
The order also specifies that the Greater Manchester mayor will exercise the functions of a police and crime commissioner, cancels the May 2016 elections for a Greater Manchester police and crime commissioner and extends the current police and crime commissioner’s term of office until May 2017, when the mayor will be elected. To hold an election for a police and crime commissioner who would hold office for just one year would make no sense, either democratically or in terms of value for money.
Both orders are laid before Parliament following the statutory process specified in the 2009 Act, as amended. As required, all of the constituent councils have consented to these orders being made, and the Government have laid the draft order having considered the statutory requirements. As required, we are now seeking Parliament’s approval before making the orders.
The other place has approved each of these orders, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has indicated publicly his support for devolution, for devolution agreements with Greater Manchester and the Tees Valley and, indeed, for the orders, which the regret Motions before the House in his name welcome.
I turn to the amendments. In essence, they focus on—regret—two matters. First, they assert that the devolution agreements were conditional on there being an elected mayor and that that is to be regretted, and that resources for these deals are inadequate. Secondly, they regret the Government’s policies on the broader issue of local government funding—that is, regret the measures that this Government have had to take to put right the economic chaos that the coalition faced, with a deficit of more than 10% of GDP.
As to mayors and the devolution agreements, there are simply two points which have been made on many occasions in this House. First, nobody has been required to have a mayor. Secondly, it would be irresponsible of any Government to put in place devolution of the scale and ambition as in Tees Valley and Greater Manchester without the clear, single point of accountability that an elected mayor can bring. As for resources for these deals, the devolution agreements provide funds for investment which the Government are absolutely committed to deliver. Devolution is an ongoing and iterative process, and we are committed to continue to discuss with places such as Tees Valley and Greater Manchester what else would help meet the needs of the place.
As for the funding of local government, when local authorities account for a quarter of public spending, they must carry their share of reducing the remaining deficit. To date, I must say that they have played their part in deficit reduction with great responsibility, so that public satisfaction with their services has been maintained or even improved.
The Government are clear that we have delivered a fair settlement to every part of the country, while giving councils greater financial independence so that they can deliver sensible savings while protecting front-line services.
The settlement, including the transitional grant, means that no council receives less than we announced in the provisional settlement. The settlement is broadly flat in cash terms between now and 2020. Resources are distributed fairly, taking into account the main resources available to councils. The gap in spending power between urban and rural authorities continues to reduce. We have given councils the multi-year budgets they have asked for and helped to transition from the old, centrally funded world to the new one of localised income. We have responded to their request for support for the elderly by providing £3.5 billion through the social care precept and the better care fund.
However, as I said, this is all a separate matter from what the orders are about. They are about delivering devolution, about giving local authorities the power to set their own policy agendas, the power to target their spending priorities to match, the power to drive growth, and power supported by investment funds, to which we are committed in the deals. I commend the orders to the House. They are a milestone on the devolution journey leading to greater prosperity, a more balanced economy, and economic success across the country. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
As an amendment to the above motion, at end insert “and that this House welcomes the principle of devolution, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority Devolution agreement, and the draft Order; but regrets the lack of adequate resources allocated to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority; is concerned that funding is being cut whilst essential services are being devolved; notes that a transitional grant is available to local authorities to ease the pace of funding reductions but that out of the ten constituent member local authorities of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority only three member local authorities will receive this funding; and regrets that the Agreement was conditional on having an elected Mayor”.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the concept of devolving power to cities and regions is admirable. The councils in Greater Manchester and Teesside are to be congratulated on the way that they have worked together to negotiate a deal with the Government with the object of assuming greater control over the services, policies and destinies of their respective areas. My amendments welcome the principle of devolution, but draw attention to two aspects of the situation which are far from satisfactory: both deals were conditional on having an elected mayor, and large questions remain over funding.
Astonishingly, the Minister claims that there has been no requirement, no compulsion, to have an elected mayor. That is perfectly true, but of course, if you do not have an elected mayor, you do not have a deal. That is a strange position. We continue to oppose that requirement. There have, of course, been referendums in several authorities on the mayoral issue under the present system, several of them ordained by the Government. My city rejected the concept, despite the best efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to persuade the electors of Newcastle to support it, while I am happy to say that his successor as leader joined me in the campaign against it, as did Manchester. As to the latter, I remind the House of the claim by Nick Boles that the only route back for the Conservatives in Manchester was to have an elected mayor. Naturally, no such motives could possibly have influenced the Government in imposing this requirement on the deals for greater Manchester, Teesside, and, indeed, anywhere else that opts to take them up.
Of course, there have also been referendums to dispense with elected mayors, as in Stoke and, interestingly and more relevantly for the purpose of this debate, in Hartlepool, which is part of the Teesside authority. They had an elected mayor, but disposed of him—well, not of him, but of the post. A referendum to do likewise is in progress in North Tyneside, which is a member of the proposed north-east combined authority currently in the throes of deciding whether to sign up to a deal.
However, I suspect that for most people, the key factor will be what benefits devolution might bring. These will depend on two factors: the nature and extent of the power to take local decisions on key areas of public policy, and the extent to which adequate funding is available. The two geographical areas that we are considering today have, as is proper, taken different approaches to the first of those questions. Greater Manchester has opted for an ambitious range of responsibility extending from the local economy to transport and police to health and social care. Recently, a further significant area has been added to the original deal: involvement with the criminal justice system including, as I understand it, probation. Teesside has taken a different approach, concentrating, as well it might in the aftermath of the disastrous closure of the Redcar steelworks, on the local economy, with transport and skills at the heart of its programme. In some ways, of course, this represents a return to the former Teesside county borough.
However, there are big questions about the extent to which enthusiasm for devolution extends beyond the Treasury and perhaps the DCLG, not least in the light of recent events. There is nothing new in this. Under the Labour Government, regarding the Local Government Association’s concept of total place—under which local councils and a range of government departments were to work together on a range of policies and programmes affecting individual localities, not least in regard to their financing—there proved in effect to be no real buy-in other than from the Treasury and the DCLG itself. What is different this time? During the passage of the cities Bill, the Minister convened a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Prior, the Department of Health and interested Peers. It was attended by the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse —or poorhouse—who left after 25 minutes without uttering a word. More importantly, it was apparent that the Department of Health, certainly at that time, had had little if any engagement with the process.
Can the Minister tell us how much involvement other departments from the Treasury down have had in the agreements which today’s orders enshrine? More especially, can she say what structures are in place, or will be in place, to secure their continuing engagement so that a cross-departmental perspective is included in the work of the new authorities? There are precedents of a kind, including the inner-city partnerships of the 1980s, in which I recall serving alongside a number of Ministers at what was then the Department of the Environment, several of whom are or have been Members of this House. This is all the more necessary given, for example, the parlous financial state in which all the member councils involved in today’s orders find themselves. Their cumulative loss since 2010 occasioned by funding cuts and unfunded cost pressures amount, on an annual basis, to no less than £180 million in Teesside and over £700 million in Greater Manchester, with Manchester’s loss alone amounting to just under £197 million to date. That is the annual loss that it will have to carry from now on, and it is, of course, rising. The current round of budgets will push those figures to an even higher level, with more to come over the next few years.
Strikingly, only one of the councils in the two areas—Stockport—received any transition grant under the recent government announcement. I suppose it should have considered itself lucky to have received anything, as it is not a Conservative council but one with no overall control. Even so, the £2 million it received is only 5% of its annual loss so far.
Here is the key issue. How much certainty will there be about the level of funding for the key areas where responsibility is being devolved, let alone the services which remain with the individual councils, and whence will it come? The Government are committed to pouring vast amounts of money into Crossrail and HS2, about which many of us north of Birmingham have considerable doubts, and a modicum into what they misleadingly call HS3, which will improve the appalling rail link between Manchester and Leeds—though not, incidentally, extend to Teesside—but this is capital expenditure. What guarantees are there about the revenue budgets of the combined authorities and separately of their several numbers and of the capital funding for other programmes which will be necessary to make a reality of the claims to be promoting a northern powerhouse or any other substantial economic improvement elsewhere?
What will be the impact of the Chancellor’s £6.7 billion cut in business rates recently announced? Can the Minister inform us how and to what extent councils will be protected from this loss of revenue on which, given the demise of revenue support grant, they were supposed to rely? I assume that the Treasury has now briefed her following her understandable inability to answer questions about this matter last week—I do not blame her at all for that. I understand that whereas hitherto the DCLG has used its share of business rates to ensure a modicum of redistribution to authorities with a low business tax base, it is now scrabbling round to find a method of securing some equalisation when they will not be receiving any business rates. Can the Minister tell us what they are looking into, how far they have got and when we might expect an announcement? Is it true that, in future, increases in the business rate will be based on CPI rather than on RPI as hitherto? That would represent a further erosion of the value to local government of the business rate.
Moreover, how does the Government’s effective removal of democratically elected councils from the provision of education—which the councils have supported though not controlled, as the Government and media constantly assert, for many years—fit with the concept of devolution? If one is looking—as certainly Teesside and I suspect Manchester and other authorities are—to enhancing skills, extending links with further education and opening up employment opportunities to the next generation of young people, because the current generation has not had those opportunities, how can that possibly be reconciled with what is in effect a nationalisation of the education service and the exclusion of local government from it?
What other incursions on local council responsibilities are being considered in the Treasury or other government departments which might extend to the new authorities and their members? Can the Government give any assurance that the new authorities will not go the way of metropolitan counties, which in many ways foreshadowed these new structures? Those were invented by a Conservative Government in 1973 and abolished, along with the GLA, by a Conservative Government 12 years later.
Finally, may I mount again a hobbyhorse that I confess to having ridden in a number of debates? Will the Government abandon remote control and engage effectively with the new combined authorities and other councils through the well-tried and successful mechanism of regional offices, engaging relevant departments and agencies at the local level? In fairness, this was a product of a previous Conservative Government. It worked very well, providing an invaluable two-way conduit between Whitehall and the locality. If that was good enough for Margaret Thatcher, it should surely be good enough for her successor.
Perhaps I may raise one other question, not directly in relation to Greater Manchester or Teesside but possibly to other areas which are considering a deal. There seems to be the opportunity, or temptation, for a backdoor reorganisation of local government to take place in areas where counties with shire district components may find themselves in a difficult position in relation to adjoining former metropolitan county areas. I cite for example the position in South Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, where for some purposes those district councils may become part of the combined authority, but not for others. However, once they start getting into the health and social care combination that is going to pose extreme difficulties, because social care is provided by the current shire counties. There is a suggestion in the air that the Government may be looking in this way to promulgate a further reorganisation of local government, creating more unitary authorities and changing the map completely. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to comment about that today. If not, perhaps she can write to me. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, first, I welcome the two orders, each at a different stage of the devolution process. I understand there will be a further order in respect of the Tees Valley later this year about a mayoral election next year.
I listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and to his amendment to the Motion. It is true that the financial context is important. I also subscribe to his view that having some system of government offices linked particularly to combined authorities would be a hugely helpful conduit or communication channel.
However, I noticed three things that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, missed out of his amendment. The first was the opportunities for councils through a combined authority structure to share services and thereby cut costs. Secondly, there are the opportunities for public service reform across all public services, which can be delivered only by closer co-operation across council boundaries. Thirdly, there are the opportunities to create strategic policy in areas such as transport and regeneration which transcend council boundaries and would give the combined authorities a role in devising what policy should be rather than waiting for Whitehall to start a process and attempt to define that policy.
I also accept the noble Lord’s comments on business rates, which need to be examined very closely. However, the implications of business rate devolution suggest that councils must come together geographically to make the best use of the powers that they will have, particularly to encourage business rate growth.
Greater Manchester has the benefit of having all three major parties involved in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and I pay tribute to its leadership, cross-party working and clear sense of what devolution could mean in terms of benefits for Greater Manchester as a whole. However, first, I have doubts about the following assertion, at the very end of the order:
“A full regulatory impact assessment has not been prepared as this instrument will have no impact on the costs of business and the voluntary sector”.
In fact it will have an impact because this order is about transferring police and crime commissioner functions to the elected mayor model, and there would be powers of precept and so on. If business rates are then to be set locally, there is a clear implication that there will be an impact.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I make a short intervention to welcome the Tees Valley order. I first went to work in Stockton-on-Tees over 60 years ago and have lived in the north-east of England ever since. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, constantly referred to Teesside. He is absolutely right to do so, and I hope none of your Lordships who go to the north-east and visit the area from Darlington down to Middlesbrough expects to be in a valley. It is not a valley: the Tees falls under 200 feet from Darlington, which is about 20 miles inland, to the mouth at Middlesbrough and Hartlepool. I very much hope that one day the mayor, whose creation I fully support, will promote a change back to the name of Teesside instead of the mistaken appellation of “Valley”.
I have one other regret, which is that County Durham has gone north instead of staying where it should be. My 60-something years there tells me that the three places named in the order—Darlington, Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees—always look towards the city of Durham. Indeed, Durham University is now split because there is a college in Stockton which is part of the university. This is a matter of regret because there is a big problem with identities in what I call Teesside. The history and the identities of Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Stockton particularly are very different. Middlesbrough was, in 1820, a hermit’s chapel on the banks of the Tees: there was nothing else there at all at that time other than a ring of villages down to the south. Beyond Stockton-on-Tees, the tidal river goes up to Yarm, the heart of the wool trade, and so on. I will not go on about this, but the historic identities of these five places are very different from each other. That will present a huge challenge to the mayor in terms of how to provide the leadership to bring this combined authority together.
Ab initio, I worked in Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Stockton, to name but three places. I remember somebody called Darlington Jack, who was a very good worker and worked in Stockton-on-Tees at the same place as me. The Stockton-on-Tees lads came to me one day and said, “I think it’s time you got rid of Darlington Jack, he doesn’t come from here”. I hope that this authority is a great success, but it will be a tremendous challenge to the mayor and his staff to create the identity that means it will really pull together.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, intervene mainly on the Tees Valley order. I have great sympathy with what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said. I note that he talked about coming from the north-east. A real problem in all of this is that the previous Secretary of State did not want to hear the words “regions” and banned it for a while. Nobody was allowed to mention a region. In doing so, he broke up the north-east.
That leaves us with significant problems. One problem in the Tees Valley area is that there is one police authority and one fire authority for some of the Tees Valley, but Darlington comes within the Durham and Darlington fire authority and the Durham and Darlington police authority. This will present Tees Valley—and, I suggest, the Government—with a little bit of trouble, because there will be one mayor and one police commissioner not covering the whole of the area. There is a split there that I do not think the Government have worked through. They have brought it upon themselves by the daft things that were done in getting rid of the regional development agency in the north-east. But there you go—history often comes back to bite us.
The Tees Valley order is essentially about how to get a greater economic drive in that area. Of course, we and the local authorities in that area fully support that. There is huge ambition, but there are huge challenges. On its own the closure of the steelworks means that there will be at least £10 million less per year coming into the local authority from business rates, let alone all the other economic challenges from the closure of the steelworks. The financial settlement that goes with the combined authority deal simply does not address the enormous challenges.
Another challenge that is not mentioned in the order, but certainly if Tees Valley goes the way of Greater Manchester it will become an issue, is that there is a large workforce in the Tees Valley area involved in social care. I confess that I have not yet been around all the authorities, but in either the north-east or the Tees Valley area I have not yet come across a local authority for which the amount it will be allowed to raise through the 2% additional levy on council tax will even cover the increase in the minimum/living wage. The amount that those authorities will be able to take in will be much less than in other authorities, such as Surrey, because they have more houses in the lowest council tax bands. They will be able to raise less, but the north-east and the Tees Valley also have the highest proportion of people needing social care who are entitled to public funding. When you put those two things together, there is a catastrophe waiting to happen. I have been asking the Department of Health what the way forward is on this, because the authorities will not be able to raise the money to meet the costs. As a very quick example, Surrey, which will be able to raise a lot through the 2%, has 1% of its elderly care population dependent on public funding. In Newcastle, more than 80% is dependent on public funding; as I said, it is unable to raise even what the rise in the minimum wage will cost this year.
These are incredible challenges. The Government have not addressed them and just keep saying, “It’s up to local authorities”. Local authorities are not miracle workers. The people in the north-east deserve better. The Government need to put their attention to this—I think their collective attention, because when I have talked to different people in government they do not know that this is going on and that this is likely to be an effect. They have not thought about it. I plead with the Minister: we are all in favour of more devolution and of the combined authority concept, but that has to be done in a way that does not disadvantage the people of these areas even more. At the moment, government policy—I am quite prepared to accept by mistake—will make their task virtually impossible. That is not fair. When the Minister talks about fair funding, she needs to think of these other things, which will really have an impact on Tees Valley’s ability to get the economic drive that it is working so hard to see.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Shipley in welcoming the Tees Valley order. I sympathise with those who prefer to call it Teesside as well. I note in particular that Liberal Democrat councillors and party chairmen in the Tees area have firmly and publicly stated how much they want to work together with others to make a success of the combined authority and associated arrangements.
I also say in passing that I share the view expressed in several quarters that making an elected mayor a condition of deals of this kind is a very unreasonable position for the Government to adopt. I say that when I look at what would happen if we had to have an elected mayor covering an area from Berwick to Sunderland—an area of very diverse differences. It would be a very inappropriate governance arrangement.
I turn to the Greater Manchester order because of a little-mentioned positive aspect of it, but I am not clear how far it goes. It is what was referred to at paragraph 1.279 of the Budget statement, on criminal justice:
“The government has also agreed a further devolution deal with Greater Manchester, including a commitment to work towards the devolution of criminal justice powers”.
That is rather weak wording: “to work towards” is what Governments sometimes say when they are making concessions and are in difficulty. I do not think that that is the origin in this case. As far as I am aware, there is a genuine government commitment to achieve some devolution of criminal justice powers. Will the Minister, in responding to the debate, say just a little more? It was barely mentioned at the opening. It is a new development and unique to the Greater Manchester deal.
There is tremendous scope to be had from developments of this kind because at the moment we have a distortion in our system that means that, whereas the prison system is funded nationally, all other disposals arising from sentences tend to depend on local funding and extremely variable local provision of services for alcohol addiction, drug addiction and so forth. Greater Manchester is one of the areas that has tried to grapple with some of this. When, in my former capacity as chairman of the Justice Committee, we visited Stockport, we found there determined co-operation between magistrates, the local authority and the probation service, the development of something more like the problem-solving court, and the bringing together of various public bodies to deal with the problems that a case identifies that could lead to the ending of a pattern of offending behaviour. That requires a lot of co-operation between different bodies. Similarly, making logical use of alternatives to custody in sentencing depends on having a financial structure in which the commissioning is not done by completely different bodies.
There is a lot of scope here, and there will be even more scope if national spending on criminal justice is increasingly devolved to local areas. If that is done, we have a much better chance of ending up spending money on preventing crime, rather than on keeping people in prison for crimes that should never have happened. I see this as potentially important, and not something that we should allow to be forgotten in the Greater Manchester deal.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with pretty well everyone who has spoken, particularly my noble friend Lady Armstrong. Everyone was in favour of devolution and of decisions being made as locally as possible. I wish there was a bit more of that thinking in the Government as far as education is concerned, but I suppose there are inconsistencies in all government policies. I still feel a sense of foreboding about these orders and they are not entirely removed by my noble friend’s amendments, although I think it is infinitely desirable for the amendments to be carried.
The foreboding comes, at least in part, from the sense that we are developing in an almost ad-hoc way. I do not want to use the word “hotchpotch”, but it is the nearest thing to the truth. We will have different forms of local government in different parts of what is still, certainly geographically, quite a small and homogeneous country. We will soon reach the stage when a member of the public will need a doctorate in public administration to know what kind of system they live in, who does what, where and how, when to vote and all the rest. That will particularly be the case when people move around the country, as they do, of course, from one part to another. I do not think that it is the only principle governing constitutional change, but I think that intelligibility should be one of the principles.
We are in increasing danger, as these orders come through, of forgetting that principle and making a very complicated system of local and regional government public administration. I say that despite the fact— I am very conscious of the fact—that some people I admire enormously in local government, friends of mine, have been involved in the various negotiations and the conclusions that have been reached. It is something that should cause us concern. We should at least keep a watchful eye on how these things are developing.
I confess to a prejudice in all this, in that I think one should always be a little wary of Chancellors who say they are here to help. Chancellors of the Exchequer have a fair bit of power and a fair bit of money at their disposal. It is never quite an equal discussion when they come and negotiate with local leaders, who have tremendous knowledge of their area but nothing like the same capacity to implement decisions for their area that people in national government quite rightly have.
However, my main concern with these changes remains, as it was when we were taking the Bill through, about this business of directly elected mayors being compulsory. Let us not throw weasel words around any more. I do not like using language like that, but it is using weasel words to say that this is an optional addition to devolution agreements—that it is optional as to whether you have a mayor or not. It is not. It is quite clearly an absolute requirement for the Chancellor. It is something that should not just pass in an order without us at least registering our concerns, as others have.
I will not repeat things I said during the passage of the parent legislation, but I did not expect that on the leader page of the Daily Telegraph I would find an article by a Conservative writer with whom I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly. The headline in last Friday’s Daily Telegraph was: “Voters don’t want them, but the march of the mayors is now unstoppable”. It is not me saying this, though I find a great affinity with it. The article says that four years ago:
“George Osborne … asked 10 cities, in a referendum, if they’d like a directly-elected mayor. Nine said “no”. It was the wrong answer … It’s hard not to admire his audacity. Soon, all nine of the cities which rejected the offer of a mayor in a referendum will have one anyway”.
We know the history of this. It was introduced by a Labour Government, I acknowledge that, but then the impetus for an elected mayor had to come from below. Then the Conservative Government said, “Well, this isn’t moving fast enough, so we are going to force these 10 local authorities to consult the people”. They did consult the people and the people said, “No, thank you very much, we do not want one”. So what do the Government do? In the finest traditions of the European Union, I have to say, if you do not like the first result you have another go until the electorate come to their senses. That is essentially what has happened. Fraser Nelson goes on to say:
“Since 2001, there have been 50 mayoral referendums, of which just 15 agreed to mayors. Many have come to regret it”.
We know two, of course, where there has been a vote to get rid of it.
I know that it is whistling in the wind now to say this, but we are setting up a quasi-presidential system as a model across the country. This is not yet at a national level, thankfully—because I think that a parliamentary system is infinitely preferable—but that is what is going to happen. It will inevitably mean different systems in different parts of the country. We are still in the very unfortunate situation, as far as I can see, unless the Minister can correct me on this, where unlike in any quasi-presidential system anywhere in the world there is no limit on the number of terms a mayor can serve. That is a great fault in the system. Parliamentary systems get rid of leaders when they are not keen on them, but mayoral systems do not have that mechanism. I should have thought that eight years—two terms—should be a maximum, but that safeguard does not exist.
I have no sense of joy and exhilaration at a wonderful new experiment. I do not think that that was detected in any of the three Front-Bench speeches; I may be misinterpreting them. I hope that as this process continues—it now seems inexorable—care will be exercised to ensure that we do not develop a system of devolution across our relatively small country which no one without a double doctorate can understand.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I shall open my remarks by reflecting the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the process of devolution being iterative and evolutionary over time. Those were very sensible words. I shall address some of the issues that were brought up that I did not address in my opening remarks.
Several points were made about referendums for different types of mayors being held under different processes. It is probably quite important to distinguish between the different provisions at different times. It is quite misleading to link referendums about whether there should be an elected mayor for a local authority area and the proposed combined authority mayors. The latter mayors are very different from local authority mayors—that is probably one reason Greater Manchester saw fit to have one. They have wholly different and novel roles and are closely interconnected with the devolution of new, wide-ranging powers for areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked how much agreement there was from other departments in doing these deals and implementing them. The departments concerned have all signed off the deals, which have been collectively agreed by Ministers. The implementation process is both local and across Whitehall, led by a director-general and a cross-Whitehall group involving all departments involved in the specific deals.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about impact assessments. I hope it comforts him that when we confer functions on the combined authority to be exercised by the mayor, there will be, where appropriate, a regulatory impact assessment. This will be done in future orders that will be considered by this House.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, talked about Durham moving north, which was interesting, and the identity in Teesside. The naming of the combined authority was a matter for the local area. The Government have recognised the historic boundaries but this combined authority is about strengthened, joined-up working and building on strong relationships across boundaries, recognising local identities.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about the certainty of funding, particularly in relation to HS3. The Government have committed to HS3 and the Chancellor announced in last week’s Budget that £60 million will be available to bring forward HS3 between Leeds and Manchester, reducing journey times towards 30 minutes, which will increase the jobs market for people in both Leeds and Manchester and improve links between the north’s other major cities. The Government are absolutely committed to this.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I do not propose to test the opinion of the House. We have had an interesting debate, which will continue for some time. I will look very carefully at what the Minister said about the business rate element, and other matters as well. No doubt we shall return to these issues because presumably there will be a string of orders over the next few months. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment to the Motion.
Tees Valley Combined Authority Order 2016
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft order laid before the House on 11 February be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Beecham
As an amendment to the above motion, at end insert “and that this House welcomes the principle of devolution, the Tees Valley Combined Authority agreement, and the draft Order; but regrets the lack of adequate resources allocated to the Tees Valley Combined Authority; is concerned that funding is being cut whilst essential services are being devolved; notes that a transitional grant is available to local authorities to ease the pace of funding reductions but that out of the five constituent member local authorities of the Tees Valley Combined Authority no local authorities will receive this funding; and regrets that the Agreement was conditional on having an elected Mayor”.
Brussels Terrorist Attacks
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made earlier today by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the terrorist attacks in Brussels, our response, and the threat we face from terrorism in the United Kingdom.
The cold-blooded attacks in Brussels yesterday morning have shocked and sickened people around the world; 14 people were murdered and 106 wounded when two bombs exploded at Brussels Airport. A further attack at Maalbeek metro station an hour later killed 20 people and wounded more than 100 others. Four British nationals are among the injured and we are concerned about one missing British national. Their families have been informed and they are receiving regular consular assistance. We are working urgently to confirm if any other British nationals have been caught up in these attacks. The investigation into the attacks is still ongoing. These figures may change and it will take some time for a fuller picture to emerge. But we know that Daesh has claimed responsibility.
These were ordinary people simply going about their daily lives: families going on holiday, tourists visiting the city and workers making their way to their offices. They have been attacked in the most brutal and cowardly way. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to the victims, their families and those who have been affected by these events.
In Belgium the authorities have increased the country’s terrorist threat level to four, the highest level available, meaning that the threat is serious and imminent. Yesterday I spoke to my Belgian counterpart, Jan Jambon, to offer my condolences and to make it clear that the UK stands ready to provide any support that is needed. Belgium is a friend and an ally, and we work closely together on security matters. Following the attacks in Paris last November, we deployed police and intelligence services resources to Belgium to support the ensuing investigation, which last week resulted in the arrest of Salah Abdeslam.
This is the 14th attack in Europe since the start of 2015. In January last year, gunmen killed 17 people at the office of Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in Paris. In February, two people were shot dead at a synagogue and café in Copenhagen. In August, an attack was prevented on a Thalys train en route to Paris. In November, 130 people were killed and many more injured in a series of co-ordinated attacks in Paris. There have been further attacks in other parts of the world, including Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt and Tunisia—where 30 British holidaymakers were murdered. More recently, a suicide bomber killed at least five people and injured more than 30 in an attack in the heart of Istanbul.
There continues to be a threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism. The murder of prison officer Adrian Ismay on 15 March was a stark reminder of the many forms of terrorism we face.
In the UK the threat from international terrorism, which is determined by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. In the past 18 months, the police and the security services have disrupted seven terrorist plots to attack the UK. All were either linked to or inspired by Daesh and its propaganda. We know also that Daesh has a dedicated external operations structure in Syria which is planning mass-casualty attacks around the world.
Following yesterday’s attacks in Belgium, the Government took precautionary steps to maintain the security of people in this country. This morning the Prime Minister chaired a second meeting of COBRA, where we reviewed those measures and the support we are offering to our partners in Europe.
Border Force has intensified checks at our border controls in Belgium and France, increased the number of officers present at ports and introduced enhanced searching of inbound tourist vehicles. Further measures include security checks on some flights and specialist search dogs at certain ports. The police also took the decision to increase their presence at specific locations, including transport hubs, to protect the public and provide reassurance. In London, the Metropolitan Police has deployed additional officers on the transport network. I can, however, tell the House that neither deployment is in response to specific intelligence.
As I have informed the House on previous occasions, since 2010 the Government have undertaken significant work to bolster our response to the threats we face from terrorism. Last year the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act provided new powers to deal specifically with the problem of foreign fighters and prevent radicalisation. We extended our ability to refuse airlines the authority to carry people to the UK who pose a risk. We also introduced a new power temporarily to seize the passports of those suspected of travelling to engage in terrorism. This power has now been used more than 20 times, and in some cases has led to longer-term disruptive action, such as use of the royal prerogative to permanently cancel a British passport. A week ago this House debated the Second Reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill, which will ensure that the police and the security and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to keep people safe in a digital age.
Through our Prevent and intervention programmes we are working to safeguard people at risk and challenge the twisted narratives that support terrorism. This includes working with community groups to provide support to vulnerable groups and deliver counternarrative campaigns. Our Channel programme works with vulnerable people and provides them with support, to lead them away from radicalisation. Furthermore, as we announced as part of the strategic defence and security review in November last year, this year we will be updating our counterterrorism strategy, Contest.
In addition, we have protected the counterterrorism policing budget. Over the next five years we will invest £2.5 billion in a bigger, more capable global security and intelligence network. This will include employing over 1,900 additional staff at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, and strengthening our network of counterterrorism experts in the Middle East, north Africa, south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
Together, these measures amount to a significant strengthening of our domestic response. But as the threat continues to adapt and morph, we must build on our joint work with our international partners. As this House is aware, the UK enjoys the longest-lasting security relationship in the world, through the “Five Eyes” partnership with our allies the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. That relationship allows us to share information, best practice and vital intelligence to disrupt terrorist activity, prevent the movement of foreign fighters and stop messages of hate spreading.
Following the attacks in Paris last November, our security and intelligence agencies have strengthened co-operation with their counterparts across Europe, including through the Counter-Terrorism Group, which brings together the heads of all domestic intelligence agencies of EU member states, Norway and Switzerland. Through this forum, the UK has been working to improve co-operation and co-ordination in response to the terrorist threat, and to exchange operational intelligence.
We are also working bilaterally to increase aviation security in third countries, because, as I told the five-country ministerial meeting in February, defeating terrorism requires a global response and we will not succeed by acting in isolation. The United Kingdom has intelligence and security services that are the envy of the world, and some of the most enduring international security relationships. Together with our allies around the world, we must act with greater urgency and resolve than ever before. We must continue, as we already do, to share intelligence with our partners, to be proactive in offering our expertise to help others, and to encourage them to do likewise. We must organise our own efforts more effectively to support vulnerable states and improve their ability to respond to the threat from terrorism. We must also do more to counter the poisonous and repugnant narrative peddled by Daesh and expose it for what it is—a perversion of Islam built on fear and lies.
This is the third Statement to the House that I have given following a terrorist attack in just over a year. Each horrendous attack brings pain and suffering to the victims and their loved ones. Each time the terrorists attack, they mean to divide us. But each time they fail”.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the House of Commons earlier today. We share fully the abhorrence and condemnation expressed in the Statement about the attacks in Brussels yesterday, which were in reality yet another attack on all Europe. We support the Government in confronting this threat. Our thoughts are very much with the families of those killed and of the missing British person, with those injured and their families, and with the people of Brussels and Belgium—and indeed the people of Ankara and Istanbul, who have also been the subject of attacks in recent days.
I have a few questions and points to raise. Can the Minister say what guidance is being offered to our citizens who were intending to travel to or through Brussels over the holiday period in particular? Can he say more about the collaboration that is taking place with Belgium and other European partners, including the support or expertise that had already been given or offered to Belgium prior to this attack? If ever the case still needed to be made for closer working and collaboration and sharing of intelligence to combat these acts of terrorism, this is it.
On the issue of border security, we welcome the steps that have been taken to step up checks at our air, sea and rail borders with Belgium and France, and security on our own transport network. Are all passports now being checked on exit from the UK, as the Government said they would be by the end of last year, and were 100% passport checks in place between the UK and Belgium in advance of yesterday’s attacks?
Border Force operates juxtaposed controls at, I believe, six locations in France, covering ferry services, the Channel Tunnel and Eurostar. As I understand it, however, in respect of Belgium juxtaposed controls cover only Eurostar foot passengers and not ferry terminals. Is that the case and if so, will there be a review of our borders with Belgium with a view to strengthening them?
Further cuts are coming following the spending review. The Border Force has faced years of cuts and is already stretched. Are further cuts to the force going to be made in 2016-17? Surely now is the time to strengthen our borders, not to go in the reverse direction.
We know that a number of terror plots have been foiled in the past year and we take this opportunity to express our gratitude to all those in the police and security services who work so determinedly to keep us safe. The public, however, will want reassurance about our ability to thwart a Paris or Brussels-style attack. We know about plans to improve firearms capability in London but there is concern about the ability of cities outside London to cope. Last year a Home Office report on police firearms capability found that the number of armed officers had fallen by 15% since 2008, including a fall of 27% in Greater Manchester and 25% in Merseyside. Have the Government reviewed the ability of all major cities to respond, and can they provide reassurance that, if there were a Paris or Brussels-style attack outside London, our police and fire services would have the necessary capability to respond?
In his statement on the strategic defence and security review, the Prime Minister promised a new contingency plan to deal with major terrorist attacks, with up to 10,000 military personnel available to support the police. Can the Minister update the House on those plans and say when the full 10,000 military personnel will be trained and in place?
We know that at moments like this, great anxiety will be felt in the British Muslim community over fears of reprisal attacks and hate crime as a result of the acts of terrorism in Brussels—which are simply that, and a perversion of Islam. Do the Government recognise that concern, and will they send an unequivocal message that anyone who seeks to promote division or hate on the back of these attacks will be dealt with severely?
Will the Government also condemn the ill-informed comments from Donald Trump on UK television today and take this opportunity to distance the Government from them? Mr Trump appears to have suggested that Muslims do not come forward to report concerns in order to assist our security authorities in combating potential acts of terrorism. Generalised slurs, from whatever source, on all Muslim people, who have the same revulsion over what happened yesterday as everyone else, serve only to drive a wedge between the Muslim community and the rest of our diverse country. This is a time for maximum unity among people of all faiths—and none—in rejecting those who preach extremism. We stand together as a united country, and we stand with our neighbour Belgium in its time of need, determined that whatever it takes, and however long it takes, we will face and defeat this threat to our way of life together.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if I may start on a personal note, while watching the television report on the Istanbul attack I noticed that it took place only a few days after I had walked down that street between meetings in Istanbul. To see the pictures of Brussels, where my wife was walking through the site the day before this happened, is to make one feel that we are not cut off from all this. This is part of our world. I find it despicable that the Brexit campaign should have tried to suggest that we could cut ourselves off from the world and that what happens 100 miles away from London, in Brussels, is no concern of ours. This was, after all, an attack by Belgian citizens in Belgium. We should recall from the IRA campaign in Britain that what was in many ways a domestic terrorist campaign also included cells and co-operation in Spain, Gibraltar, France, Belgium and Libya and that, in dealing with a series of global terrorist threats, we are forced to co-operate with others as closely as we can.
Perhaps the Minister would care to confirm this: if we were to try to secure our borders completely, we would have to return to the sort of controls that we had in the 1960s. I first began to travel between Britain and France then; all bags were opened and it often took 10 to 15 minutes for each person to go through passport control. Given the enormous increase in cross-border travel between Britain and the continent, it would be a severe disincentive to all our citizens—and, incidentally, an intense inconvenience to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in travelling each week between his home in France and the House of Lords. It would also be very difficult given the large Middle Eastern presence we now have, particularly in London. There are not just people from the Middle East working here and living as refugees but rich Arabs from countries from which money flows, unfortunately, to mosques and madrassahs in Britain to support a radical version of Islam. We all have to be deeply concerned about that.
I second everything that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said about visible co-operation and contact with our Muslim community. I was extremely proud to take part in a service in Westminster Abbey some months ago in which an Imam read from the Koran, as a representative of one of Britain’s faiths in one of our national Christian institutions. I suggest to the Government that they need to do more in demonstrating how far we accept British Muslims as part of the British community, and the moderate version of Islam as the appropriate representation of their faith.
Can the Minister say a little about the importance of the Prüm convention and British participation in it, in terms of the rapid exchange of information among different services across Europe on suspected terrorists and others? I noted the reference to the counterterrorism group in the Statement which, as the Statement recognises, brings Britain together with other EU members and with Norway and Switzerland, as all are concerned with this. Can he say a little about further moves that we think may be necessary towards the closer exchange of intelligence, information and co-operation among national police and security agencies with our neighbours, all of whom are also members of the European Union?
Lord Bates
I thank both noble Lords for their remarks and I agree very much with their points and observations. Let me start with that point about the Muslim community. Following the experience of previous attacks, we have sadly seen an increase in Islamophobic-style attacks around our country. One of the things which we put in place to retain confidence, as part of the counterextremism strategy, was to ensure that the police are visible in those areas and offering some protection and reassurance, particularly at sensitive spots within those communities.
I also make it clear to those overseas in the United States who wish to intervene in our affairs that in this area, as in many others, a little knowledge would be helpful because the police have gone straight on the record to point out that in so many of the cases which we have had success in disrupting, the intelligence and information has very much come from within that community. It is an absolute partnership—an essential partnership—that we have with that community and anything which drives a wedge between it and the wider community in the UK will serve only to weaken our security. We do not want that to happen. I know that my noble friend and ministerial colleague Lord Ahmad, who leads on the counterextremism area and sits in the Home Office and in the Department for Transport, is working on a daily basis in that respect.
Let me go through some of the points which were raised, in order if I can. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the travel advice. It has already been updated for Belgium and while it does not advise against travel, it is stressing the importance of maintaining vigilance in that area. We will continue to keep that under review and change it if necessary.
On broadening the number of locations, these special juxtaposed controls which we have are of course a tremendous part of our defence. The Channel is an important part of our defence but the juxtaposed controls are a crucial part of our security at our borders. The Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, has had meetings with his Belgian and Dutch counterparts about the possibility of strengthening relationships, particularly at some of the ferry terminals, in the light of intelligence. We hope to have more to say on that in future.
In relation to the Border Force, I know that the story is in a sense running because we have not yet announced the final budget for that. We will need to come forward with that very quickly indeed. But I hope that all noble Lords will be reassured that when we have talked about putting an extra £2.5 billion into the intelligence and security apparatus and recruiting another 1,900 people to the security services, and when we have protected in real terms the police and security budgets and announced uplifts for firearms, we are not going to do anything which would do other than strengthen these crucial front-line capabilities in the face of the threats that we receive.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about Prüm. We did opt in to Prüm, which again is an important part of our co-operation with our European colleagues in this area. We have so many areas in which we co-operate with them, such as on criminal information networks and in Schengen information sharing. Prüm was very important because it has those elements of sharing data on DNA, on vehicle licensing and on fingerprints. We have signed up to those elements and they will be ready in 2017-18. Without tempting members of the Home Affairs Sub-Committee of the European Union Select Committee, if it is represented here, to leap to their feet the committee wrote a strong report saying that we need to go further and faster on that. In fact we organised a meeting with the very people who are introducing this at the Home Office, from a technological point of view. They have promised to come back with regular updates for the House on how we are doing.
I was asked what more could be done through counterterrorism. There are some items on the agenda. The Home Secretary has said that it is very important that we have passenger name records, not just for flights from outside the EU area but within it. It is vital that that happens; it was supposed to be on the agenda of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which was to meet this week. Understandably, it has either been pushed back or, potentially, postponed. I thank noble Lords for the concerns in their questions.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement, particularly its emphasis on the fact that this is a global threat that we are all facing, which requires a global response—not least in the form of intelligence sharing. In that context, I was glad that the Statement explicitly referred to the vitally important and long-standing Five Eyes agreement with the United States and three other non-European countries, and to the European counterterrorism group, which again includes countries which are members of the European Union and countries which are not. Bearing all this in mind, does my noble friend not agree that for anybody to suggest that our security and co-operation would be at risk were the British people to choose to leave the European Union is baseless scaremongering and to be deplored?
Lord Bates
My noble friend is absolutely right to point out that the United Kingdom has a unique set of international relationships, whether through its position on the Security Council, in the Commonwealth or in the “Five Eyes” that I have talked about. A crucial part of these relationships is of course with Europe. The sharing of information within Europe must go on. It is absolutely integral to our ongoing security. We are not, for example, part of the Schengen area, but that does not stop our signing up for the Schengen information system and these are crucial data for us. It is important that we maintain the strongest possible links because this is a global problem and it requires us all to work together internationally and within this country.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, first, I express my condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives and to those who have been injured. Would the Minister reconfirm that the threat to this country remains at the severe level and it is highly likely that there will be a terrorist attack at some stage? In that context, is it not the case that our support and assistance to Belgium—or others who find themselves the victims of these tragedies—is not just a moral and political obligation but self-interest, since we may wish to see it reciprocated at some stage?
Secondly, on information sharing, can the Minister comment on Europol? Only two months ago, the head of Europol suggested that, although there were 5,000 returnees from Syria to Europe, they had received details on only 2,000 from individual EU members. This leaves a very large percentage. What are we doing to encourage people to supply information there?
Finally, can the Minister give an estimate of the number of Syrian would-be jihadists who have returned to this country? How many of them are under surveillance and how many are on deradicalisation programmes? I understand that he may be constrained on the last point, but it would be helpful if he could give some indication.
Lord Bates
I think the noble Lord was Home Secretary at the time of the 7/7 attacks and therefore knows absolutely what must be going on and the vital part played by our international networks in tracking people down and keeping others safe. He is right to ask about what specific help has been given. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about that. The type of help we have given the Belgians includes CCTV analysis, forensic device investigation, bomb scene management, exploiting social media and body recovery.
On the Europol counterterrorism point, I do not know specific numbers. I know there are some 800 foreign fighters who have returned to the UK. We have made it clear that anyone returning can expect to be the subject of interest to the authorities and to be contacted by them. Where it can be shown that they have been engaging in criminal acts abroad, they will be—and have been—prosecuted and that will continue to be the case.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that those who blame the EU and Schengen for terrorism are completely and outrageously wrong? Indeed, since the apparent perpetrators lived in Brussels, where the attacks were committed, Schengen is irrelevant. Does he also agree—as I think he does—that it was evidently right to opt back into the 30-odd EU police co-operation measures, including the Schengen information system and now the Prüm regulations? That would not have happened without contributions from a lot of people, including the Liberal Democrats. If the Eurosceptics—including those in the Conservative Party—had had their way, we would not now be taking part in these essential European co-operation measures. Although Norway is in Prüm, it has no right to contribute to its further evolution. It is essentially an observer.
Lord Bates
First and foremost, and particularly at times such as this, the prime responsibility of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens and their borders. This has to be our top priority. It transcends and takes over from any other factor of domestic debate. It just does not counter it. As I have outlined, there are some major international relationships that are very important to us in sharing information. Among these are those we enjoy with our European partners. We believe these ought to be strengthened and deepened at every opportunity.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement. As it says, there is a twisted narrative here. We have to remember that this twisted narrative is a many-headed monster. If it does not spring from Daesh, it will spring up wherever law and order have broken down. That must be combated.
I was particularly encouraged, therefore, to hear what the Minister said about keeping increasingly close relationships with the Muslim community in this country, from where so many sources of our information come. In response to the recent report from the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life, chaired by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the Government have called a meeting of major officials across all departments to discuss its implications. There is a whole range of issues—in particular, the sensitivity of language. The Government have become increasingly sensitive to the proper use of language on these security issues and I commend them for it. The Minister sets a wonderful example. I encourage the Government to continue to have these meetings with leading organisations from the Muslim community, to receive advice on a whole range of security issues.
Lord Bates
The noble and right reverend Lord is absolutely right. Of course, these meetings will be ongoing. I know, from having an office next door to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that he has a constant flow of visitors and meetings and a very full diary of engagements. This needs to continue and be developed. It is not something that just comes down from government; it also needs to come up from within the faith communities themselves. Some of the most effective means of countering these ideologies are ones that do not have a government fingerprint anywhere on them but come from within communities. We must all encourage more of this going forward.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend said that the Prime Minister attended a meeting of COBRA this morning. Bearing in mind the tremendous importance of sharing information, is there not a case for a European equivalent? Nobody should attempt to bring these desperately serious issues into the European referendum debate. However, should we not recognise that, if there is a change on 23 June, although it is crucial that co-operation should continue, its context would be altered?
Lord Bates
That may be so. What I said in repeating the Statement was that we have the counterterrorism group, which is a very important part of sharing intelligence across EU member states. The headquarters of NATO are also in Belgium. NATO plays an important part in our security because it includes Turkey, which is crucial in the fight against Daesh.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Wallace, for their comments. My heart goes out to all those who lost their lives in Brussels and Ankara; the list given by the Minister is endless. I welcome his comments, particularly on building and developing a greater relationship with the Muslim community in particular, but also on having wider interfaith networks. I declare my interest as an adviser for the Tell Mama organisation, which will concur with the Minister about the increasing rise of attacks against women in particular. I am keen to ensure that the Minister takes on board the discussion with a wider network of men and women within the Muslim community, not just those to whom government approvals are available. Please can the Minister respond and tell us what plans the Government have to ensure that the numbers of organisations and individuals to which they are talking are widened to accept even the most marginalised voices in the community?
Lord Bates
We have the Prevent and the Channel programmes, but we also have them in the very helpful context of the counterextremism strategy, which was published at the end of last year. That will probably lead fairly shortly to some legislation coming through this House, which will flesh out some of the points that the noble Baroness raised. But I return to the point that some of the most effective means of combating this distortion and perversion of a great faith in this country come from within the communities themselves.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
Does the Minister agree that it is a disappointment that the same group which killed over 100 people in Paris on 13 November was able to kill more than 30 people in Brussels yesterday? If that is right, does he agree that the welcome co-operation that has taken place between the intelligence agencies of the Five Eyes and the European countries other than the United Kingdom should be re-examined so that we have the technical abilities, including surveillance capacity, required to ensure that this is not repeated in yet another European capital, which might be our own?
Lord Bates
That is absolutely correct. Of course, that is one of the prime drivers behind the investigatory powers legislation—but the noble Lord will notice that, when we talk about the global fight against terror, the sophistication of the Daesh communications, with the use of social media as a way of communicating, is a completely new challenge for the security services. That is why we are putting the resources into GCHQ. Because Daesh is based in Syria, we need to make sure that we take the fight to it and destroy its capabilities there before it has the opportunity to destroy our way of life here.
Viscount Slim (CB)
My Lords, we have to admit that our island—land, sea and air—is rather sieve-like, and those who really want to get into this country do so. In the front line that the Minister so ably talks about, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, put his finger on an empty space at the moment. I refer to the Border Force, which I support very strongly. It is a matter of better tasking; better direction, command and control; better selection and recruiting of its members; training; and a rapid reaction force available day and night. We have 200-plus airfields unattended at night. We have coves north, south and east where it is quite easy to arrive at night undetected. People are a bit forgetful of the west coast; people are entering more from Ireland at the moment. I would class our Border Force as just average at the moment. I do not believe that the Government are giving it proper support, and the sooner it is got up to a high operational level to take part in the front line the better. The Government are missing a trick here.
There is one little suggestion that I might make. The Government have kicked out 25,000 military—good recruiting ground. They know how to work at night in the darkness, and that sort of thing. With immigration, so many people say that we are not taking enough and that we ought to be swamped a bit. The sleeper, the activist and the bomb-maker can all come in that way, and are coming, and we have to be very careful. We need a Border Force worthy of the front line, and the Government must do something about it.
Lord Bates
The noble Viscount is right to refer to the Border Force. I can speak only for the people whom I meet, who have the highest professionalism and resolve. It has changed over the past few years. The National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 referred to that, saying that there was a case for better intelligence-led security. That is where we need to strengthen up—on the connections between the National Crime Agency and between the police and Special Branch and the security agencies. Receiving that signal and human intelligence is also very important. We cannot hope to have border posts in every cove and field across the country, as the noble Viscount suggested. Therefore, we have to rely on intelligence and on partnership with the communities as well.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that the Government are tightening up passport control and are seizing and cancelling British passports under royal prerogative when appropriate. But does the Minister remember that last week in a Written Answer he said to me:
“Records are not held centrally of persons holding both a UK passport and foreign passport”.?
Surely it is now urgent that Border Force officials should be able to scan a British passport and know what other passports that person may hold. Otherwise, they may be able to skip out of the country. Recently, somebody actually on bail for a terrorist offence did exactly that.
Lord Bates
Of course, that is also one of the reasons why we have in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act the ability to seize passports, which are the property not of the individual but of the state that issues them. So we can seize those passports. We need more information on identity. On the point that the noble Lord makes about having two passports, we have changed the passport form to make sure that people can declare when that is the case. We have in place exit checks. All that is working in the general direction in which the noble Lord wants us to go.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, for how much longer are the British Government going to resist the introduction of national identity cards with full biometric data, on the same basis that other—indeed, nearly all—European countries have introduced such a system? I understand that in recent weeks even the Japanese are doing the same. They all justify it on the basis that it improves their national security arrangements. Why do we not just do it and stop dithering over it?
Lord Bates
Brussels has a compulsory ID system, and that is not something that guarantees security. From our point of view, we say that intelligence and working with communities is what has disrupted the seven attacks planned in this country in the past 18 months. Of course, we need to tighten security at every level, but we do not believe that compulsory ID cards are the way forward.
Housing and Planning Bill
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
“Limitations on planning obligations
Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (further limitations on use of planning regulations) is repealed.”
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, this is a small issue, in a sense. It is a kite-flying amendment not directly related to what is in the Bill, like many other amendments we have been discussing. However, it is an important issue for local authorities that are affected by it. Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations refers to Section 106 agreements. When the CIL regulations were brought in, it was tagged on to them, almost without anybody noticing—although I complained about the regulation when it came to be approved by this House.
I am challenging not the regulation as such but the bit of Regulation 123(3)(b) that restricts the number of Section 106 agreements within the area of one local planning authority to five,
“which provide for the funding or provision of that … type of infrastructure”.
That means that a local planning authority can have only five Section 106 agreements in place anywhere within its area for one particular type of infrastructure. I hope that the Minister will understand the very specific point I am making. I will come to it in a minute.
I want to be clear that I am not objecting to the requirements of Section 106, which nowadays have to be site specific. It used to be that you could have a planning application at one end of an authority and get some money for a playground miles away at the other end of the authority. That was quite rightly stopped. Agreements have to be site specific—in other words, related to the particular planning application or piece of land, as the Minister said earlier. I am not objecting to the restrictions on pooling Section 106 contributions to build up a pot for large schemes, and there is a limit to how far that can be done. It is just ordinary, small Section 106 contributions that are typically connected to retail developments, housing developments and so on. Again, I am not talking about the affordable housing things that we were talking about this morning.
The limit to five schemes is not logical for four reasons. First, there may well be more than five separate schemes that are relevant or appropriate to particular developments, even though they are of the same type. For example, it may be that Section 106 contributions are being used to support a local bus service—the kind of bus service which is subsidised or supported by the local highways authority under the Transport Act—and a contribution may be made in order to extend the route to serve a particular housing estate or so that it serves the supermarket or whatever. I have had a lot of experience in past decades of helping to support local bus services through this means, at the same time providing public transport to new housing developments or new supermarkets.
It may well be that a Section 106 agreement is required for a public open space, and it is silly to say that you can have only five open spaces if you have seven developments that would benefit from this provision. So there is no logic to it. It came in as part of the restrictions on making Section 106 agreements site specific and stopping people building up big pots, but it is not now necessary.
The second reason is that, because Section 106 agreements are now site specific, there is no reason to limit the number. Logic says that the number should be determined by the number of appropriate developments and appropriate schemes. Thirdly—and here I am talking to some extent against a small authority such as my own—the limit applies per local planning authority, however big or small. So it is five for a huge area such as Northumberland or Cornwall, five for a little authority such as Rutland, five for small district councils and five for big cities. It is an arbitrary number and there is no sense to it.
Finally, it causes particular problems where a local authority has no CIL contributions. Where the level of CIL has been assessed as zero, it cannot be levied. The kinds of councils I keep talking about during this Bill, including my own in Lancashire and lots of other councils in Lancashire and the north of England, cannot levy a CIL because if you levy a CIL, it takes developments completely over the border into being unviable. In areas where developments are only marginally viable on the best greenfield sites, you cannot levy a CIL.
Therefore, the contributions for local infrastructure that come from a CIL are not available in areas of that kind, and those areas are by their very nature probably poorer in different ways than the more prosperous parts of the country that can levy a CIL. So poorer areas do not get the infrastructure levy. Therefore we have to rely on what we can get from Section 106, and this restriction on Section 106 is arbitrary and illogical. I hope that the Government will take it away and have a look at it. They do not have to bring it back in this Bill; they can simply make a minor change to the CIL regulations. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendment. The Government introduced the pooling restriction in Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 in order to ensure that planning obligations are used appropriately. The regulations have encouraged 107 charging authorities to bring forward the levy, which provides greater certainty for developers about the cost of developments and helps those authorities provide certainty to their communities about how their infrastructure needs can be met.
Pooling restrictions limit the use of Section 106 to no more than five for a specific infrastructure levy type or project, as the noble Lord said, but this has helped to incentive the adoption of the levy. Adoption nearly trebled in the year prior to the pooling restriction taking effect in April 2015, and it has continued to grow since. While acknowledging that Section 106 still has a role to play in site-specific infrastructure, the Government launched a review of the levy last year to ensure that it provides an effective mechanism for funding infrastructure. The review is considering, among other matters, the relationship between the levy and Section 106 planning obligations. I shall be happy to ensure that the panel is aware of the noble Lord’s thoughts on the repeal of the regulation. With that in mind, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
I am grateful for the last sentence of that reply. I am talking not about pooling Section 106 contributions for bigger projects but about the limit on the number of small projects that can be funded directly linked in a site-specific way to particular developments. The perfectly justifiable intentions of the Government to stop Section106 being an alternative to CIL has caught the small schemes and small contributions in a way that was not intended. That specific point ought to be looked at.
Having said that, the other point is that it is okay having lots of incentives to levy CIL—but not if the consequence of levying CIL is that no development at all takes place. Remember, I come from an authority where getting into three figures of new starts or completions a year is proving very difficult indeed. In one recent year it was in single figures and that is not for the lack of trying to build as far as the authority is concerned. Indeed, in one recent year when 50 or 60 completions took place, they were almost all built by the authority. The private market hardly exists—or has hardly existed in the last few years.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, we now move on to the part of the Bill that is about housing development linked to applications for development control under the 2008 Act for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This series of amendments probes the provisions which will take the housing element of such projects—where they are linked to infrastructure projects—out of the hands of local authorities and allow people to make the application for development consent under the infrastructure system and to include the housing provision within that application.
The purpose of tabling these amendments is to ask some related questions. A very useful briefing note from the Department for Communities and Local Government, called the Housing and Planning Bill: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Housing, does answer some of the questions I had in my mind when I tabled these amendments. Nevertheless, some questions remain, and one fundamental issue has a big question mark against it.
Amendment 102CA would name the housing projects which are linked with the infrastructure projects “subsidiary”, which seems to me an appropriate word. It is important that they be seen to be subsidiary or ancillary and not a major part—even if they are 30% or 40% of the reason for the development. Housing ought not to be the reason for the development. Infrastructure projects are the reason for the development.
Amendment 102CC, to new subsection (4B) of Section 115 of the Planning Act 2008, states:
“‘Related housing development’ means development which … (a) consists of or includes the construction or extension of one or more”,
new dwellings. I take it that “consists of” is okay—it “consists of” housing or “includes” housing. What else is there? That is the question. I take it that the “what else” is not the infrastructure, but something else. Therefore, why do things other than housing need to be included?
Amendments 102CF and 102CG challenge the geographical reason for allowing people to include housing in an application for development consent. The briefing note on page five sets out clearly that the Government intend that there will be two reasons for allowing housing development. The functional need ought to be allowed. Paragraph 17 states that:
“Where housing is being provided on the basis of a functional need”,
the limit for the number of houses can be up to 500, which seems rather a lot, even for a functional need. Perhaps the Government can tell us under what circumstances an infrastructure development might also require 500 houses. But paragraph 16 states:
“Where housing is being provided on the basis of geographic proximity to an infrastructure project, the maximum amount of permanent housing that could be granted consent”,
is also 500 houses. I do not understand why the Government are going to allow a national infrastructure project to be put forward with up to 500 houses when the only connection between those houses and the project is geographical proximity: either adjacent or, as my Amendment 102CD puts it, “close to”—the briefing note says up to a mile away.
It seems that the planning permission for new housing estates of up to 500 houses—perhaps most are smaller—is being taken out of the hands of local planning authorities just because the estate in question is next to, or within a mile or so of, a new infrastructure project. I cannot understand the logic of this. I can understand why landowners might want to link them together and perhaps fund one out of the other. Five hundred houses, by any standards, is a big new housing development. It ought to be in the hands of the local planning authority. The guidance sets out that the Secretary of State, in making his decision on the application for development consent, will have to take account of the local plan and the national planning policy framework, and whether it is in a national park or ecologically significant, for example. All these things will need to be taken account of. Local planning authorities do that all the time. However, issues such as design, the relationship between the new development and the existing communities, local highways issues, access, or even Section 106 agreements for new bus services ought to be in the hands of the democratically elected local planning authorities, not put into the hands of the Secretary of State.
There are very good reasons why the national infrastructure planning system exists for national infrastructure projects. There are reasons that I can understand for housing being part of the project—when it is directly related to those projects because it is for people who are going to work there—and it is sensible to put in a planning application for development consent. However, I see no reason at all why local authorities should have this decision seized from them by the Secretary of State simply because a project is next to a new national infrastructure project, even if none of the people living in those houses is going to be associated with, connected with or working at the new development. It seems to be a step too far in the centralisation of the local planning functions of local authorities, and yet another move away from localism to centralism. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name is associated with Clause 144 stand part, and I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Greaves has said. I regard this as a very important issue because it effectively cuts out local authorities from the planning process on a nationally important infrastructure decision. Simply permitting an applicant to go straight to the Secretary of State to secure approval seems to me to be the wrong approach. What my noble friend said helps us to solve the problem.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the basis of his amendment. This clause will allow the Secretary of State to grant development consent for housing that is related to a nationally significant infrastructure project. I hope I can reassure noble Lords about the Government’s intentions and the protections that are in place to ensure that this provision is appropriately restricted.
Clause 144 allows consent to be granted for housing where the housing is functionally linked to an infrastructure project—for example, housing needed for employees at the project. It also allows housing to be consented if it is close to the infrastructure. Any housing that is granted consent within the nationally significant infrastructure regime must be secondary to the infrastructure by satisfying the requirements of being appropriately linked by function or location. The clause will not allow projects that are housing-led.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, indicated that he felt that responsibility for granting consent for such housing should lie with local authorities, not the Secretary of State. We believe that this would inhibit developers from realising some significant benefits. For example, a key aim of the Planning Act 2008 was to provide for a single consenting regime. This clause will mean that developers do not have to make a further separate application to the local authority for housing as well as their application to the Secretary of State for consent for the infrastructure. We believe that this strikes the right balance between the two.
It is very important that we recognise that the development of infrastructure projects may well bring important new opportunities to develop housing that were not previously available. A new road or a rail project, or improvements to existing projects, can make land available for housing development that might not previously have been suitable. Although there are only a limited number of nationally significant infrastructure projects that seek consent each year—49 projects have been consented since 2010—the clause offers an opportunity to provide a small but important contribution to the provision of new housing.
The Government have ensured that safeguards will be in place so that existing local and national planning policies will not be undermined. For example, as the noble Lord said, we have made clear in draft guidance that the amount of housing that is likely to be consented will be limited to 500 dwellings. As I have said, we believe that that may be appropriate if some infrastructure projects create new opportunities for housing. Existing planning policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework—for example, those that may limit development in designated areas, and policies set out in local plans—are likely to be important and relevant considerations that will be taken into account by the Secretary of State when decisions are taken.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords that local authorities and interested parties can play a full role in the process leading up to any decision by the Secretary of State under the Planning Act regime for deciding nationally significant infrastructure. In particular, local authorities can produce what are known as local impact reports, which set out the impacts of the development in their area. Such reports are specifically identified as something the Secretary of State must have regard to when taking a decision.
The noble Lord asked why we say “includes housing”. “Includes” means that related development can include local infrastructure. The nationally significant infrastructure planning regime already requires significant local engagement in consultation, as I said. Applicants are required to engage with and consult local communities and local authorities from the outset, and developers will be expected to engage with local authorities on the housing element of their scheme in the same rigorous manner.
I hope that my responses have provided reassurances to the noble Lord, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the Government’s position in great detail. Having heard it again, I am even more sure that it is wrong. Sorry about that, but when you find out what things actually mean, sometimes you think they are okay but sometimes it confirms your view that they are wrong. The idea that 500 houses are a minor part of a development, in any area, is nonsense. In terms of their impact on a community and how it operates, 500 houses anywhere are a lot of houses. I accept that if such a development is directly associated with the infrastructure scheme and required for it in a functional way, it is reasonable for one application to take place. However, the only real argument that has been put forward is that it is a good idea to build next to a new infrastructure because new roads and access will be put in. In planning terms, it might be a good idea, or it might not be. In planning terms, it might be a very bad idea because of the disadvantages of living next to whatever the new infrastructure is. Or it might be a very good idea. That is a decision that ought to be taken by the local planning authority. It just seems unnecessary to say that 500 houses that are not related to the infrastructure scheme at all, but are simply next to it, ought to be taken away from the decision-making of the local authority. The only argument that I can think of is that it is again just more convenient and easy for the developers. That is the second time today that I have said that too much of this Bill seems to be about making life easier for developers and blow the consequences for everybody else. I am unhappy as I think it is the wrong decision. We might bring it back on Report; but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Duke of Somerset
“(7A) Guidance referred to in subsection (7) must include a requirement for the developer to pay development value for land that is compulsorily purchased for housing as part of any nationally significant infrastructure project.”
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. I do so on behalf of my noble friends Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Lytton, who are unable to be here today. We have had suggestions for some of these amendments from the CLA, of which I declare my membership.
For a long time, compulsory purchase in this country has been a messy compilation of many pieces of legislation and is well overdue for reform. As time has gone on, it has become ever more unbalanced in favour of the acquiring authorities and the agents of the state. Indeed, many privatised utility operators have gained compulsory purchase powers—and apparently, at the last count, there are 172 of them.
I turn to the amendment. I mentioned in our Second Reading debate my concern that it was unfair for an acquiring authority to be able to purchase land for housing as part of an NSIP at current use values. Last week, the Minister made a strong case in resisting an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who wanted an agricultural use valuation for local authority compulsory purchases. He spoke of land being valued by the “no-scheme world” and said that market value took into account the effect of planning permission already granted and thus “hope value”. I therefore feel that it must follow that once an NSIP has been granted planning permission, then the value of adjoining land for housing is substantially enhanced by the very existence of the scheme. Thus, development value is established and should be applied where the proposed land for housing within one mile of such a scheme is valued. It is the same as if the land had been purchased on the open market. Will the Minister explain to the House why an NSIP should make the principle of fairness so different? It is still confiscatory. Is it the Government’s intention that the retail purchasers of the new houses should benefit from this largesse, or is it for the benefit of the acquiring authority? I find Clause 144 rather offensive.
I turn now to Amendments 103BC and 103BD. There are normally two imperative concerns for farmers and landowners faced with compulsory purchase. The first is the effect on the smooth continuation of their businesses: perhaps the splitting of the land, for example. Their second concern is how much and when they will be paid. In the past, payment has routinely been late and after entry. This is unfair and needs to be changed. Farmers already have to cope with supermarkets’ delayed payment exploitation. Moves are afoot to improve this, so why should we not legislate properly now—and in the same spirit—to establish the principle of payment in advance of entry for compulsory purchase? In these circumstances, owners face extra costs and need promptly to replace assets lost in order to continue in business. Why should they have to delay or borrow—through no fault of their own—to continue their businesses?
The Government have proposed to improve the interest rates applicable, but I do not believe that they are realistic or raised to the commercial rates of lending. The CLA has suggested rates in line with late commercial payments, and those are similar to those set out in Amendment 103BD, which I support. I believe that the Government are consulting on this, and I await the outcome. Nevertheless, the principle must be payment in advance or no possession, with proper interest rates applicable for failure to follow that. At any rate, it should be cheaper to do this, as landowners will be disinclined to fight the order knowing that they will get a fairer price for their assets. Of course, if the primary principle is adhered to, there should be no need to invoke the 8% penalty rate that is mentioned in the amendment, as the standard 4% rate should encourage the authority to pay promptly.
Acquiring authorities are in a strong position while negotiating, so Amendment 103BF in this group is consequential. It would help to prevent bullying by introducing a new duty of care to ensure fairness between the parties by setting out guidelines on behaviour. This is in effect a good-practice clause, which is needed as acquiring authorities usually have the upper hand in negotiations against the landowner, who is thus in a weaker position.
Other amendments in this group in the name of my noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are intended to tidy up a series of procedural anomalies and have been suggested by the Compulsory Purchase Association, of which I am not a member. Amendment 103BAA is necessary to safeguard the acquiring authority’s position where—even though it exercised due diligence in seeking to identify those interested in the land and entitled to a notice to treat—after serving notice of entry it becomes aware of a previously unknown person with a relevant interest in the land to be acquired.
Under the current provisions of the 1965 Act, if new interests come to light between serving a notice to treat or notice of entry and taking entry, a new notice needs to be served, resulting in 14 days’ delay. This does not give rise to serious problems at present with only 14 days’ notice of entry but it would become a significant problem with the longer notice period of three months proposed in the Bill.
Acquiring authorities rely on information provided by claimants as to who has a relevant interest in land. I am told that it is quite common to be provided with incorrect information, such as trading names rather than company names or the names of individuals. If an acquiring authority has acted in good faith in serving the notices, such as relying on information provided under Section 5A of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981—the questionnaire requiring information on legal interests—it should still be entitled to proceed, which is what this amendment would facilitate.
Another material adverse side-effect of the Bill’s provisions as drafted is that those served with notices could effectively ransom a promoter by creating a new interest every time a new notice was served. Controversial projects could simply be prevented from ever acquiring land by opponents to the scheme using such a device. This amendment would therefore also prevent acquiring authorities potentially being ransomed by the creation of a new interest in land after service of a notice of entry.
Amendment 103BG relates to circumstances where a claimant considers that the land proposed to be compulsorily acquired cannot be taken without material detriment to the remainder. This is sometimes referred to as the “all or nothing” provision and it is already contained in the compulsory purchase rules under Section 8 of the Compulsory Purchase Act. The amendment is necessary to ensure that, subject to adequate notice, the acquiring authority is able to take possession of the land originally proposed to be acquired, even where the owner has served a counter-notice requiring additional land to be taken. This is the same as the current position and it works quite effectively without any prejudice to landowners who contend that the acquiring authority should also be obliged to acquire more land than that initially proposed to be acquired. However, paragraph 5(a) of new Schedule 2A in Schedule 17 to the Bill provides that on service of a counter-notice, all notices of entry relating to any interests in the land proposed to be acquired would cease to have any effect. As such, this would have a seriously deleterious effect on the timing and costs involved in compulsory purchase and on implementing a project. This would not arise if the Bill were amended as proposed.
Finally, Amendment 103BH is necessary to give effect to paragraph 5 as amended in the way that I have just proposed. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to exhaust the patience of the Committee but once again I draw attention to the fact that the problem of high housing prices in this country stems from the cost of land. These amendments, clearly promoted by the Country Land and Business Association, which represents the interests of landowners—the people who will benefit from the exorbitant and inflated prices being paid for land in the United Kingdom—should be opposed by the Committee. I oppose them, and anyone with any sense will oppose them, as will the great majority of the British people.
One day we are going to have to deal with the problem of inflated land prices in the United Kingdom, which are almost unique in the world outside of the great capital cities, and we are simply ignoring it. This situation cannot carry on as it is. We are removing the right of millions of people—whole generations—to own their own home, unless they are prepared to take on huge mortgages, simply to fill the pockets of people who own land. I object, as no doubt do the great majority of the British people.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 103BB deals with a minor but to some people significant point, which is the compensation to be payable when land is acquired by a development corporation. The amendment simply provides that the Secretary of State may by order set out a formula for determining fair compensation to the landowner in those circumstances. That seems a reasonable proposition.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I turn to the detail of the compensation amendments, Amendments 102CK and 103BB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but spoken to today by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset.
I will outline briefly the principles of compensation for land taken by compulsion. These points have arisen in an earlier amendment in Committee. The compensation code is underpinned by the principle of equivalence. This means that the owner should be paid neither less nor more than his loss. The code provides that land shall be purchased at its open-market value, disregarding the effect of the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase.
The land is valued in a construct called the no-scheme world, whereby any increase or decrease in value that is due to the scheme is disregarded. Land will always have its existing-use value but market value also takes into account the effect of any planning permissions that have already been granted and of the prospect of future planning permissions. This is generally known as hope value, as the noble Duke eloquently pointed out. In the context of compensation for compulsory purchase, this is assessed according to the planning assumptions in the Land Compensation Act 1961, which require the valuer to assume that the scheme underlying the acquisition is cancelled. I remind the House that these were extensively revised and debated in the Localism Act 2011.
In some situations, there will be no hope value, because the individual claimant could not have obtained planning permission for some more valuable use. For instance, the land might be in an isolated rural location where permission for development would have been unlikely to be granted in the absence of a comprehensive scheme requiring compulsory purchase powers. In other situations, perhaps where land is acquired near an existing settlement, there will be pre-existing prospects for development on the land. In lay man’s language, that is development potential that existed prior to the scheme. The strength of those prospects will be reflected in the market value of the land.
On Amendment 102CK, it has been said that land acquired for housing by means of a development consent order should always attract development value. If the land had development potential in the absence of the scheme underlying the development consent order, that hope value would be reflected in the market value and the compensation to be paid. But an increase in the value of the land that is solely attributable to the scheme would be disregarded under the compensation code.
I turn to Amendment 103BB. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, have suggested that there is something unique about the land taken for new towns that requires the Secretary of State to provide a formula for compensation. New towns may well fall into the class of case 1 mentioned earlier, where there is no pre-existing hope value, as there is no reasonable prospect of development in the absence of a comprehensive scheme requiring compulsory purchase powers. In this situation, compensation in the no-scheme world is likely to be at or close to agricultural values. Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation Act 1961 makes it very clear that for new towns any increase in value that is attributable to the development of other land in the new town must be disregarded, where that development would not have been likely to be carried out had the area not been designated as a new town.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for the amendments spoken to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. I suspect that your Lordships will not be very keen to be further enlightened this afternoon by a technical debate on these particular matters. However, we shall look carefully at what the noble Duke said, and I shall write further to him and the noble Earl before Report about these matters.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Minister said that he will write to the noble Duke. Can we all see a copy of that letter, and can we have an assurance that there will be no movement, no concession made to the CLA, in this area?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am not in a position to make any guarantees this afternoon, but I will certainly include all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
I turn to the compulsory purchase policy elements and Amendments 103BC to 103BF. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl for raising these important matters, again spoken to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. They concern the matter of ensuring that advance payments of compensation are not only paid, but paid on time. This links to the equally important question of the way that acquiring authorities should treat claimants when land is being purchased by compulsion.
Starting with Amendment 103BC, having considered the responses to the spring 2015 consultation, the Government think that penal rates of interest on outstanding advance payments are the most appropriate sanction, and we are providing for this in Clause 174. Taken together with the new arrangements for making claims and obtaining further information in Clauses 172 and 173, we think that the prospect of a penal rate of interest will sufficiently concentrate the minds of acquiring authorities, so that advance payments will be made on time.
I now turn to Amendments 103BD and 103BE. The Government think that setting interest rates in a Bill is too restrictive. Provision to set both rates is available in secondary legislation. Coming to the detail of the amendments, the Government think that it is premature to decide on the punitive rate of interest for late payments of advance payments of compensation—as proposed in new subsection (1A) of new Section 52B in Amendment 103BD. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will know that the Government published our consultation paper on phase 2 of our compulsory purchase reform programme on 21 March. The good news is that the paper proposes that 8% above the base rate should be the punitive rate for late payments of advance payments.
The second part of Amendment 103BD—proposed new subsection (1B)—would overtake the existing provisions in Section 32 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 to set the rate of interest for compensation unpaid at the date of entry. This rate is not punitive, as there are often legitimate reasons for some compensation to be unpaid at that date. The final claim for many businesses, for example, cannot be finalised until their relocation has been completed.
Noble Lords will recall from the spring 2015 consultation that the Government consulted on increasing this rate of interest from 0.5% below the base rate. The Government confirmed in their response to consultation that the rate would be increased to 2% above the base rate. The Committee will be interested to hear that new regulations are in preparation by the Treasury and will be published in due course.
The new rate of 2% above base is intended to achieve an equitable and fair settlement between the claimant and the acquiring authority. The interest on unpaid compensation from the date of entry is not the same as the interest on commercial lending. It may be helpful if I say that it is more likely that it will be based on a formula which will compensate the claimant for interest which he or she would otherwise reasonably be receiving, had the money been otherwise invested. We can have a separate debate on that, I am sure.
I now turn to Amendment 103BF, which focuses on introducing a statutory duty of care to be owed by acquiring authorities to claimants. There is no doubt that claimants should be treated with fairness and courtesy and kept up to date with developments. This is best practice, and all competent professionals should be advising their clients to act in this way. The Government believe that a new statutory duty of care for compulsory purchase is not necessary and would not help relations between acquiring authorities and claimants. The kind of assistance which should be provided by an acquiring authority may differ depending on the circumstances. A broad duty of care may be imprecise in nature and difficult to enforce. The professionals working in compulsory purchase suggest that clear guidance on good practice would be a better way forward.
The recently updated compulsory purchase guidance, published on 29 October 2015, makes it clear that acquiring authorities should make reasonable offers of compensation in the context of overall project costs. Acquiring authorities should also be prepared to engage constructively with claimants about relocation issues and mitigation and accommodation works where relevant. The guidance also urges acquiring authorities to offer those with concerns about a compulsory purchase order full access to alternative dispute resolution techniques, from the planning and preparation stage to agreeing the compensation payable for the acquired properties. With these explanations, I ask the noble Duke to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot see what attitude the Minister is taking towards the CLA amendments, as was raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. Will he please set it out very simply ?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Of course, I believe it will be best for me to include the technical details in the letter that I am already writing and will place in the Library of the House.
The Duke of Somerset
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full reply and the two noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Some of what we heard was good news; some of the rest not so good. I am sure that the noble Lords who tabled the amendments will, like myself, take great care in reading the reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, knows that the Committee has debated on a number of occasions his feelings about acquisition values. May I repeat what has been said on other occasions? Expropriation simply means that less land will come forward. It has been tried twice before and each time the development land tax has been a failure and has been withdrawn. Basically, any gains made through the sale of development land are taxed through the normal tax system. Finally, a lot of community benefit is funded out of the market value of these developments. I therefore do not go along with his hypothesis.
I look forward to hearing more about the consultation and thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
“( ) A local planning authority may only be specified under subsection (1) if it so consents.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, at last we arrive at perhaps the remaining flashpoint in the Bill. I rise to move Amendment 102CL and speak to my other amendments in the group. There are two other very useful amendments from noble Lords in the group.
Clause 145 is a major, very controversial innovation. It may be the first step towards the privatisation of development management and yet it was dumped on the Commons on Report. There was a very short explanation by the Minister, one speech by Clive Betts MP at 1 am and the Minister refused to answer his questions—there was no reply from the Minister.
Here we are in the Lords at the very end of the Bill, at the end of the afternoon on day nine of nine, and we must try at least to give it some intelligent consideration. I have no doubt that the issue will come back on Report anyhow. The Government are saying that this is intended to be a pilot, but the Bill appears to give the Secretary of State untrammelled powers to introduce this provision to any extent he or she wishes at any time in the future, so the question of how it can be limited is an issue that the Committee ought to look at.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I respectfully adopt most of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord in his critique of this very unsatisfactory set of clauses. After the triumphant successes achieved with the privatisation of services such as prisons, probation, aspects of the NHS, electronic tagging, work capability assessment, residential care and so much more, we are now asked to endorse the involvement of the usual suspects—G4S, Serco, Capita, Sodexo et al—all in the name of efficiency in the planning process.
Many councils have found outsourcing to be expensive in terms of both cost and quality, but government dogma dictates that the process must continue, beginning in the planning field with what the technical consultation, to which the noble Lord has just referred, published last month, describes as:
“Testing competition in the processing of planning applications”.
But this is more than just a matter of councils being at first able—and, no doubt, eventually required—to outsource the work. It allows the applicant to choose who will do the work. The notion of a potential conflict of interest does not seem to have entered ministerial heads—or, if it did, it has been ignored.
As the Town and Country Planning Association has pointed out, this is not necessarily to be confined to a limited number of pilot projects or developments. Once again, secondary legislation may be employed, this time to extend the process to any form of development. The TCPA found no evidence of any prior consultation on these proposals. Can the Minister say whence this policy was derived, who was consulted before it was enshrined in the Bill and, in particular, whether any potential external providers were consulted or offered views before these clauses were drafted?
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, so often during our deliberations on the Bill we have been hampered by a lack of information. We have not seen the draft regulations—we have discussed that many times. We have not even seen the result of the consultation that is currently taking place. Of course, we should remember that that consultation is not due to finish until 15 April and the responses are going to be analysed over the summer, so we will have finished all our deliberations on the Bill long before those responses have even been analysed.
Furthermore, we have not seen the Government’s response to the excellent report by the DPRRC. I remind noble Lords that last night the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said:
“I also confirm to noble Lords that I will be responding to the DPRRC report tomorrow, as well as giving my intentions for Report”.—[Official Report, 22/3/16; col. 2276.]
I have been checking on an hourly basis, with all relevant bodies, including the Committee Office, whether they have received that response. I say to the Minister that I am certain that even though that has not yet been made public she will have a copy of it, and I hope that when she replies to this debate she will furnish the House with details of the Government’s intentions in relation to this part of the Bill and their responses to the committee’s recommendations and concerns, of which there are a large number.
Those concerns are in addition to those raised by my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—concerns that I share. They add to what the committee says. It talks about the Bill being drafted very widely, in terms of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State, and goes on, in paragraph 38, to say:
“These are important provisions which, in effect, empower the Secretary of State to require local authorities chosen by him to privatise the processing of planning applications for a trial period. The impact on local authorities and their staff, and on those submitting planning applications, could be considerable”.
Yet we have no details to enable us to work out in detail what that impact would be.
The committee goes on to say:
“It is striking that the clauses contain no requirement on the Secretary of State either to consult before making pilot regulations, or to publish a report on the outcome of pilot schemes”.
This is a point raised, quite rightly, by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and is covered by an amendment from my noble friend, which comes later.
Most damningly of all, the committee then goes on to describe the powers given to the Secretary of State as “almost unfettered discretion”, on an issue about which we have no details with which we can work out what should be done. Not surprisingly, therefore, the committee goes through a long series of recommendations —changes to the legislation that it would like. There is a requirement to set out the intended purpose of the pilot regulations on the face of the Bill; to specify that the affirmative procedure should apply to every exercise of the powers conferred by the clauses; to require the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and other interested parties before making regulations; and to provide on the face of the Bill for the maximum duration of pilot regulations. The committee’s report goes on to say:
“We also consider it inappropriate for the Bill to confer these highly significant powers on the Secretary of State without also requiring him to prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the outcome and effectiveness of each pilot scheme”.
My point, in going into some detail about that, is that we know that the Minister will have with her now a response to each of those points. It is incumbent on her to share those responses with the House before we finish our deliberations on these clauses in Committee. However, we also need from the Minister some clarity on other issues—for example, the pilots themselves—because we have at last been furnished with a timetable for the various bits of secondary legislation that will come before us. I am grateful to the ministerial team and their staff for providing us with that, but it is not a great deal of help when every single page that we have been given has a heading that helpfully says:
“Timings are indicative and may change as policy develops”.
I remind the House what it says in the limited information with which we have been provided in relation to the section headed “Processing of planning applications by alternative providers”:
“How many SIs are currently planned? One. What procedure? Negative”,
which I hope will change to affirmative. It then asks:
“What will they deal with?”,
and says that:
“The regulations will cover … the scope of the pilots”.
Later on, it talks about “pilot areas” and so it goes on, with reference to pilots in the plural. Indeed, we know that in the memo to the DPRRC the memorandum said:
“It is likely that different procedures may be trialled in different pilots, to see what works best”.
It is quite clear that the intention is to have a number of pilots, yet when I look at the question:
“What are the key timings?”,
it tells me that is not going to be a long time. It says that the consultation,
“closes on 15 April and the responses will be analysed over the summer, and the pilot scheme designed as a result”.
Here the word is singular: there will be one type of pilot rather than multiple pilots, so confusion begins to set in as well.
There are then confusions in relation to other aspects of the legislation. We had a discussion at a late hour last night, instituted by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, with her excellent amendment at midnight on the issue of planning fees. What we learned during that deliberation was that the vast majority of councils lose a great deal of money from the planning process. The average recovery is about 50%. We know that London boroughs, for instance, are losing somewhere in the region of £40 million each year on the operation of their planning departments. We also discovered that the increase which the Government are considering is to be no more than inflation since 2012 and that some councils deemed to be underperforming will get less than that. From the current plans, we therefore know that local authority planning bodies will continue to lose a great deal of money from this process.
The question then has to be asked: if in some places we are going to privatise the process and bring other bodies in, how are those bodies going to come in knowing that if they have the government-prescribed fee scheme they will lose a great deal of money? It is simply not going to happen, so what is in the Government’s mind in relation to the setting of fees? I have done a detailed analysis of all the documents to try to help me work out what the fees should be. I looked, for example, at the technical consultation document with this very intriguing headline, which suggests that we will get a good detailed answer:
“Question 8.2: How should fee setting in competition test areas operate?”.
But it reads:
“In competition test areas, applicants would select who they want to process their planning application and pass it direct to the provider with the appropriate fee”.
That is all it says about the fee structure within the technical consultation document. The Explanatory Notes are equally helpful, telling us that:
“Clause 147 provides that regulations may set out how fees will be set, published and charged”.
But since we do not have any of the details because we do not even have draft regulations, we are in a great deal of difficulty.
The Government are going to find themselves in real difficulty if they allow full cost recovery and a profit for some people who come in, compared to local councils, which will charge only 50% of that price. That is hardly a good way of testing the so-called competitive market. It fails to take account of the many difficulties that different local authorities will face. We will have an opportunity to discuss this in a bit more detail in deliberations on some of the other elements of this legislation.
I want to end with one other area of confusion. It is pretty clear from all the documentation I read that the Secretary of State is going to decide which local authorities’ planning departments will have competition forced on them. I have looked very closely at the Government’s consultation document and I wish to read to the Minister what it says in chapter 8, paragraph 8.1:
“Nor is this about preventing local authorities from processing planning applications or”—
and these are the words from the Government’s own document—
“forcing them to outsource their processing function”.
Can the Minister tell us whether this is about forcing some councils to do this, or not? You cannot have a situation where the Government go out to consult on something and tell the people whom they are consulting one thing, when the reality of what they are planning is totally different.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to repeat the concerns I have had for some time over the amount of information that is available about this Bill, the regulations and the like. We are debating the Bill in these circumstances and therefore I remind the House what the planning system is for. It is a disagreeable necessity. We have to have it because you cannot have a circumstance in which the unlimited, private ownership of land has an effect on neighbours and communities. It is not about land owned by the local authority. The owner owns the land. Whenever I hear planning discussed by the parties opposite, I am fascinated because you might think it was owned by the local authority and that it should come back to the fact that this is a local authority matter.
The House has to recognise that there is an international agreement on human rights in which property is a basic human right—not only under the United Nations, but under the European Union of which I am sure we shall remain a full and active member, even though there is such nonsense spoken about it by the Brexit people. I am not getting on to that, of course. Even if they do not like the European Union, they are stuck with the United Nations human rights declaration, which we signed.
I happen to care about the right to property. It is basic in a community. It is basic for democracy. If you want to destroy democracy, the first thing you destroy is the right to property because it gives people independence. It enables them to stand up against government; it enables them to put two fingers up to a local authority if that is what it thinks. Yet, when I hear a debate like this, I understand precisely why I am on these Benches. Very often I find myself arguing not entirely on the side of the Government. However, I have been very much reassured, by the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and I understand why I am not a Liberal Democrat. It is because they are neither liberal nor democratic. That is the reality.
All the Government are suggesting is that it would do local authorities a lot of good to recognise that this is not a little bit of business which they do themselves in the way they want to do it. It is something which should be open to public concern and public alternatives. Of course, we can produce all sorts of scare tactics about what might happen and what people could do and all the things that might arise. What we are really arguing in the amendment is that we should not try anything else—there should be no opportunity for alternatives and no one ought to deal with this. Why? Because local authorities do not like it and because that well-known organ of democracy, in which I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president, the TCPA, does not hold with it.
The TCPA does not hold with a lot of things, mainly because it is still burdened by the memory of that dreadful old man, Ebenezer Howard—still thinking in the past, not understanding that we are in a world in which people do not expect there to be one provider or just one lot of people to go to. Today people expect that we test it all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, went through a whole list of things, but in every one of those cases the nationalised provider is a lot better because there is an alternative. There are better prisons because they do not all have to be done in one way. Even when you have failures, the fact that there is an alternative is crucial in a democracy and crucial for the efficiency of the national system.
I come to the nature of planning. I cannot believe that there is anyone in this House who thinks that the planning system works well. That does not mean to say that an alternative would be better; sometimes planning may be thought of as Churchill thought of democracy—that it is a thoroughly bad system, but there is not a better one. Sometimes I think that that is the best definition of planning that we have. I have declared my interest and my pastimes; although I shall certainly not be involved in anything that may come out of this, I try to help people to produce sustainable buildings. One business with which I have an association tries to make buildings better, more sustainable and energy efficient. But in the course of that, I have to deal with planners, and we have very great difficulties sometimes. There was the lady who said to one of my constituents who wanted to have the next-door very small, knobbly and unimportant field as part of his garden, “You don’t need a bigger garden—therefore you won’t get the right to use it as a garden”. That is ludicrous, to have to ask planning permission to turn a field into a garden. I can think of nothing more ridiculous than telling people that they have to get planning permission to do with their own land what most of us would like them to do, which is to turn it into a garden. But no—that is one of the things, because at some stage some local authority thought that it would be better telling people what to do with their land than people can do themselves.
Lord Greaves
The noble Lord is very entertaining although I am not sure what his speech has to do with this Bill. But if a local authority requires planning permission for the conversion of a piece of a field into a garden, that is precisely because government regulations in the general development order, or whatever it is now called, require that to happen. If the planning system is not working well—and every time I get a chance to debate planning anywhere, including in your Lordships’ House, I announce it to be bust, because I believe that it is bust—it is almost entirely the fault of the national Government and detailed national rules and regulations, which tie the whole thing down.
Lord Deben
I am so pleased that I tempted the noble Lord to intervene at that stage, because I can now tell him that I tried to change the law on that when I was the Minister, and who opposed me? Every blooming local authority—they were the ones who demanded to keep this power and said that it was so important. So I want us to come back to what the Government are asking. This is entirely relevant. I am glad that it is amusing to the noble Lord, but I believe it to be central to the amendment. The Government propose that we give the Secretary of State the power to see whether there are alternative ways in which to handle something that, in the noble Lord’s words, is in many ways bust. That is what he says, but if it is bust, would not it be a good idea to see whether there are ways of unbusting it? This is one of the suggestions.
What do we get? Not a series of suggestions about how we might refine it, improve it, make the tests rather better or come forward with various suggestions about how the various pilots might be carried through. Instead, we get an onslaught on the basis that the only people who can do this are local authorities or public bodies. The Government have produced something which is worth trying. If it does not work, we have not done anything bad. If it does work, we have learned something. The worst thing in politics is to say that we cannot do something because we have not done it before, that we cannot do something because it will not work or that we cannot do something because we do not want to try. This is the moment when we ought to say that we may be a very old House and many of us in it may be very old, but at least we are young enough to recognise that it would be a good thing to have a go at something different.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Deben. He seems to think that the problems that might arise—I think he used the words “might arise”—should not really concern us at this stage. That is what Parliament is about. It is about identifying issues, legislating and, in the event that we foresee problems arising, amending our position to ensure that those problems are avoided.
I want to target a very narrow area. It is the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the relationship between the planners in the planning authority and the planning contractor in the meeting with councillors. We are told that the proposal is that the contractor will be making the recommendation, but it is unlikely that the planner from the planning authority, who has a relationship with the councillors that probably goes back many years, may not wish to influence events. Whether it is done formally or informally, the planner in the residual planning department might come up with a very different conclusion or recommendation and indicate to the councillors exactly what he or she thinks. That is why I am a little worried about this reference cited by my noble friend on the Front Bench, who said:
“The regulations may make provision about … the investigation of complaints or concerns about designated persons”,
and
“the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, any advice provided by a designated person to a person making a planning application is binding … on the responsible planning authority”.
In other words, can the Secretary of State say, “I require you”—the local authority—“to dismiss any comments, recommendations or views of your own planning department and to accept the views being expressed by the independent contractor”.? I would worry about that because it would completely overturn the principle on which I understand planning operates within local authorities. As I understand it—but it is 40 years since I was on a council—it is normal for the Secretary of State to interfere only on appeal. That provision suggests to me that the Secretary of State can intervene in circumstances which would not be particularly helpful.
I go back to what I said at the beginning of my comments. I am concerned about what happens in the meeting and in the documents that flow between the contractor, the planning officials and the councillors, and about the conflict that might arise. I suggest that that is where the problem will arise and what will sink the whole project.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 102D. I declare many different property interests, both directly and through companies in which I have registered an interest. They comprise land directly held by me and by companies, and also land held under options in Sussex, London, Oxfordshire and Scotland. Many of these companies are in the process of developing land and some have planning applications outstanding. I am also a trustee of many charities with property interests.
I support Clause 145. It will do an enormous amount of good, even as drafted, but I am aware that some objectors have concerns with it. It seems they are worried that a “designated person'” will not only be able to process the application, but will have the delegated authority to actually make the planning decision. That would be concerning. So it may be worthwhile to explicitly state that it is not the Government’s intention to allow a designated person to decide the outcome of an application. The actual decision should be reserved for the democratically elected councillors, all as part of greater localism.
The Minister may say that this is clear enough from the existing drafting of Clause 145, but if so I would ask why so many different people have misunderstood it. My amendment, which is supported by noble Lords from three different parties, would save time in the long term. If there is confusion among objectors and developers now, they will simply waste time by misunderstanding the existing clause.
I respect the opinions of many noble Lords who would prefer that this whole Bill does not pass, but if it is to pass, they want it to be as clear as possible. I want it to pass, but I also want it to be as clear as possible. I therefore want to amend Clause 145 to make it explicitly clear that a designated person shall not have any power to determine a planning application.
Lord True
This is a useful amendment. Perhaps I am tempted to intervene by the rodomontade of my noble friend Lord Deben, who certainly seemed to me an admirable candidate to be a designated person advising on green applications. He would do it better than most, and I look forward to the opportunity that he was extolling.
I also speak as a leader of a blooming local authority which has tried to be creative. I remind my noble friend that my education department is now a social enterprise. I have no problem with privatisation. I do not follow that route at all—my problem with this is that I do not like law made in a hurry. The process here is bad; there is not enough opportunity for consideration.
Lord True
No—if the noble Lord had been here earlier, he would have heard that this came in at a very late stage in the Commons and was dealt with quickly, and this was the first opportunity your Lordships have had to discuss it. All I am saying is that that is inappropriate at this time and place.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is on to a very pertinent point. I am not going to go into all the issues; we have not had long enough to discuss planning fees. Local authorities should be properly funded for performing this important function. Funding other bits of sticking plaster—effectively, in some ways, that is what it is—to do that is not going to answer that core problem of under-resourced statutory function.
My problem with this comes down to the point of decision. At the end of the day, that decision must be independent. We have a court system in this country which is full of privatisation. People are advised by private solicitors. Their cases are pleaded by self-employed barristers. There is nothing wrong with private operators. When we get to the point of decision and recommendation, the planning committee, as noble Lords who have attended or been members of planning committees will know, is like a jury in effect, although it has a quasi-judicial effect. Under this provision, one of the parties—the applicant—will very often be a powerful figure who will, in effect, be summing up for the jury. That is what is in the documents here: it is solely for the designated person to make a recommendation to the local planning authority how, in their professional opinion, the application might be termed. So a piece of paper goes to the planning committee with the word “recommended” on it in bold. Under this provision, the private operator, who has a link with one party, is the person who does that summing up to the jury. To my mind, that is the difficulty. I have no problem with private operators being involved, as long as the poor bloomin’ local authority is allowed to properly function in doing what it seeks to do.
I am sorry if I am now in the third minute of my speech. I know that brevity is the soul of wit although sometimes, as shown in parts of the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, within longiloquence there can also be pearls of wisdom.
I am concerned about this provision. It allows another local authority to be designated to do the job for local authority No. 2. We are told that that is because one of those authorities may be inefficient. Now, any Government can do this, not only my noble friend’s Government but perhaps Mr Jeremy Corbyn’s Government or that of—I cannot remember; was it Mr Farron? The point is that any Government with a policy preference could say to a local authority that was compliant or friendly, or perhaps did not worry too much about the green side or the affordable side, “We will have an experiment. We will give the work of the authority that is being too green or too difficult with developers to another authority that does not worry too much about green issues, and let them do it”. So there is a risk of moral hazard there—political moral hazard, if you like—from the involvement of any Government. If this measure goes forward, that part needs to be thought about.
My next point comes from long experience of trying sometimes to get things done on a bloomin’ local authority in the public interest. Getting development done is difficult, and one of the reasons why is the suspicion among the public of the planning system. We are an incredibly uncorrupt country, with many high-quality public servants in many local authorities and central government. Still, how many times do people come up to me and say, “Oh, there’s something going on in your planning department. The thing is rigged”? They feel that the system is unfair and rigged against them. If we had a system where the powerful, as conceived, were trying to get something done and were advantaged by having someone working for them who could get to the point of giving the summing-up to the jury, that would increase suspicion of the planning system and would not improve it.
I say to my noble friend: I wish this had been thought out a little more. Perhaps this is too swift a timescale to do it on. However, if we are to go forward with involving much more private activity and competition—I am not against the principle of that, unlike those opposite—can we please think about those very vulnerable points in the process? I would not be quite as dramatic as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours; I think, rather, that it might sink or swim. Still, the points that I have tried in my rather halting way to put forward are extremely important.
We also have to be careful about the scope of the secondary legislation. When I look at Clause 145(4), I am surprised that the Delegated Powers Committee did not take issue with the wording:
“The regulations may … apply or disapply … any enactment about planning”.
That seems to be the ultimate Henry VIII power, even in respect of an experiment.
I say to my Front Bench: please be cautious. Do not be put off entirely from looking for experiment, as noble Lords opposite were saying. But please think about that process at the point of decision, the nature of engagement of the Government and of powerful parties and how that might be perceived, and the moral hazard and indeed the actual hazard that might arise.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I rise primarily to speak to Amendment 102D, to which my name is attached, but I cannot resist commenting on the paean of praise from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for landowners. I could not help thinking that he might have a desire to involve the local planning authority if a large basement were being dug underneath his property or someone was proposing a building that did away with most of the light that fell on his property. I think then he might develop a bit of enthusiasm for planning, as opposed to the rights of landowners.
I accept the right to experiment, but to say that, because we, on this side of the Committee, suggest that there could be some problems with the idea and that we would like to subject it to scrutiny, it somehow means that we are totally Luddite or that we are opposed to any experimentation whatever, is a trifle over the top. I do not know whether my name says that I am young enough to meet that compliance, but I hope that my attitude is, anyway; so on the assumption that this might go through, the purpose of the amendment is to raise a perfectly legitimate and necessary concern. Whoever it is contracted to, the final decision—and legislation should be very explicit on this—must come back to the local authority. It must come back to the elected people to make that decision. That might be infuriating—on many occasions it is. There is a development going on in my area that has taken three years up till now. I would not blame the planners; a group of nimbys are doing their best to ensure that this development does not take place, but that is what you get with local democracy.
It is right to be sure. I looked at the phrase in the Bill that I assume the Government put in as a safeguard. It says:
“The regulations must provide that the option to have a planning application processed by a designated person … does not affect a local planning authority’s responsibility for determining planning applications”.
I can see that that is what this is about. The phrase, “does not affect” ought to be stronger than that; that is why I am supporting this amendment.
Finally, I hope that the Government will ensure—after all the consultation and the pilots—that there is clear government guidance for whoever is to carry out this work. There should be declarations of interest and an ethical responsibility in the way the work is carried out. Those are legitimate concerns, some of which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and my noble friend Lord Beecham.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships’ House for very long on this; everything that needs to be said probably has been said. However, I want to add my voice in support of my noble friend Lord Borwick on Amendment 102D. This is not because I think that this amendment is probably necessary; I am sure the Government have no intention of ensuring that developers can prejudice the decision that is taken by the local authority by choosing a contractor to undertake the work who will produce a report—which the developer has paid for—that is in the developer’s favour. Although I am sure that that is not the intention, it is a clear misconception that is accepted by a great many people outside this House. We need to make it perfectly clear that the designated people who are producing the planning report are doing it on a highly professional basis and that all they are doing is undertaking the mechanical work of processing a planning application. What they are not doing is prejudicing the decision that will be taken by the local authority. If they are prejudicing or influencing that decision, we are going slightly too far in the Bill. The decision on planning has to be a democratic decision that is taken by the councillors in the local authority. It could be argued that too often in local authorities those decisions are delegated to officers, and ought to be retained by the planning committee and the councillors themselves.
I am looking forward to receiving the reassurance that I think many people in this Committee are looking for. All we are proposing is to provide additional resources to the council, however they are paid for, for the mechanical process of taking a planning application from its initial lodging with the council through to the point at which it is capable of being assessed by the planning committee. I agree totally with my noble friend Lord True that privatisation in that regard is fine, but privatisation which privatises the democratic decision is, in my view, unacceptable.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support everything that has been said on this side so far and, in particular, Amendment 102D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. I suspect that I will be supporting every amendment that comes forward on Report but this particular amendment adds value. Personally, I would like to scrap the whole Bill—it can be consigned to my wood burner any time. However, if that is not an option, at least we should clarify things as much as possible. As a former councillor, I understand that this tiny amendment is crucial in order to save an awful lot of stress, argument and anxiety down the line. Therefore, I urge the Government to accept it.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Committee to my pre-declared bunch of interests. I do not know whether I have to declare them again—someone will have to explain the rules to me.
I am sure that noble Lords will be surprised to hear that I am not that bothered whether local government has to face competition in dealing with planning decisions. On the basis that they already cost local government a fortune, I would be very surprised if, under the current fee structure, anybody from the private sector came anywhere near them. So I see this part of the Bill as a chance to get value for money for councils and, if the private sector does get anywhere near it, we will be able to get an increase in planning fees. Therefore, from a councillor’s point of view, I welcome the competition because it can only drive prices up, not down, and in this case I am happy with that.
I should point out that the comments of my noble friend Lord Carrington about those producing the planning report being involved only in the mechanics of the process does not give the whole picture. There is a presumption in favour of development, so somebody will have to recommend to the committee either that the application complies with a presumption in favour and therefore it must be granted, leaving the matter to be democratically argued, or that it should be rejected because it is not sustainable development. Whoever prepares the report, whether they are independent or council-based, must come forward with a recommendation to either grant or refuse, but the final decision must be made by politicians who are accountable to the affected community, and something needs to be put in the Bill to make sure that that is explicit. I am not sure whether these amendments do that but the Government will need to ensure that it is done somewhere.
I am making a brave step out, as I am going to try to take on one of the big beasts for a bit of sport. My noble friend Lord Deben talked about attaching farm fields to gardens not being a problem and being fairly straightforward. It would be fairly straightforward if gardens did not then become previously developed land and thus brownfield, leaving them more susceptible to development in areas where that might not necessarily be sustainable. Before anyone on the other side laughs, they need to remember that under the brownfield policy vaunted by the previous Labour Government, 60% of the brownfield land that they managed to develop during their time in office was reclaimed garden land. So there is a good reason why councils are very cautious about changing use from farm fields to garden land.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise that it is late in the day to be contributing to this amendment but I have put my name to an amendment in the very last group, so I am simply delaying myself getting home. I want to remind the Committee about the findings of the Select Committee on the Built Environment, on which I have the privilege to sit, and the very worrying evidence that we heard from planning departments across the country about their ability to recruit experienced professional planning staff and about their viability for the future.
I absolutely support the concerns about this proposal, and I think that Amendment 102D is well worth supporting as a safeguard in terms of the moral hazard issue, but I think that we also need to take account of the fact that at the moment there is a real shortage of suitably skilled and experienced planning staff. If we set up alternative economies in a commercial planning capability, we will find that local authorities are rapidly hollowed out in terms of their planning capacity. It is very close to that at the moment. They have next to no specialist planning skills in heritage, environment and other areas. They are finding it difficult to afford planning staff of their own. So in this proposition we need to take account of the viability of planning departments for the future if skilled and experienced staff are likely to be attracted towards a commercial planning capacity in a competitive sense.
We also need to think about whether we are trying to solve the right problem. There is a real issue about the quality and capacity of planning departments across the country. We saw in our work with the Select Committee impressive alternative models. Local authorities gathered together to create more critical mass and to allow themselves to maintain a range of specialist planning officers. These authorities had voluntarily contracted out their planning support to commercial organisations.
Importantly—and here I disagree violently with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, a rare event in my experience—the planning authority was very much in the driving seat. The worry I have about these proposals is that if you are paying a fee to a commercial provider of planning-support services you will expect them to be on your side. They will be professional and I hope that a quality-assurance process will be put in place to ensure that professional standards are maintained.
As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, the reality is that when you are in front of the jury you will have your man arguing your case, not the local authority’s man helping the local authority’s elected officers take a dispassionate look at what the decision in the public interest should be. As I say, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I am a great fan of the planning system, which is one of the last genuinely democratic processes in this country. It is the responsibility of the local authority and the officers who support it to take a decision in the interests of the local community, balancing all the economic, social, environmental and other issues. I fear that if we do not handle this set of changes carefully we will find that we have tipped the balance too far in the direction of the developer.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I have two amendments in about half an hour from now and I am conscious that we have reached a point where virtually all the issues around Clause 145 are being discussed. The noble Baroness has rightly identified that the balance is about to be tipped. I hope that the Minister, in replying to this debate, will answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham: what exactly is the problem that the Government are seeking to solve? Unless the problem is properly defined, the solution can ultimately give rise to a whole set of new problems that have not been forecast.
There is a real issue about being able to dissociate the democratic decision from the designated person who is writing the recommendation. This was put so well by the noble Lord, Lord True, who rightly defined that the process of making a decision is dependent on what the person who writes the recommendation actually says. It is a whole and a continuum. It is not a function separate from making the decision.
A further issue of major concern to me relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was talking about earlier. It is wrong in principle to privatise public regulatory services. That is now happening. There are issues around cost, as to whether it would be more expensive to go down that route, but the principle of a planning decision in practice being privatised is a major issue about which we must be very careful. A designated person who is writing a recommendation has to be independent and to be seen to be independent.
I have concluded that Clause 145 is now not fit for purpose and should be withdrawn in its entirety. If the Government can explain how they can bring it back at Report better than it now is, meeting the public interest test of independence, we might be willing to look at it—but at the moment I see no evidence base that convinces me that Clause 145 should remain part of the Bill.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to an extremely interesting debate. Before I respond to the specific amendments, perhaps I can make some broad comments, although I will try to keep them brief.
We all want a planning system that is fit for the 21st century: one that can effectively support the delivery of homes that people need, and one that is efficient, responsive and resilient. To ensure this, there have been calls for greater flexibility in the way that fees are set, provided that any changes are linked directly to the quality of service.
We want to address resourcing concerns, but the answer is not simply to ask developers to pay for all local authority costs that go unchecked. The level of planning fees is one side of the resourcing equation. How planning applications are processed is just as important: continually transforming processes to drive down costs and deliver the most effective service possible.
Currently, local planning authorities have a monopoly on processing applications for planning permission which denies the user choice and does not incentivise service improvement and cost reduction. My noble friend Lord Deben made a strong case for why we need to look at this area. Local authorities can do more to transform their planning departments. Many have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, identified. Some have introduced new ways of operating through outsourced and shared service approaches and shown that performance can be improved and costs reduced—but more should be following their lead. We believe that it is incumbent on us to test new ways to improve the planning system. Therefore, we want to use the pilots to test the benefits of introducing competition to processing planning applications.
Clause 145 will give the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to introduce pilot schemes for competition in the processing of applications for planning permission. Regulations will set out the legal framework and the detailed rules for how the pilot schemes will operate. Clauses 145 to 148 set out the scope of what can and cannot be included in the regulations.
Let me now try to be clear on a number of points. This is about competition for the processing of applications, not the determination of applications. I can assure noble Lords that the democratic determination of planning applications will remain with local planning authorities during the pilots, and that they will not be able to delegate this function to private sector providers. We do not intend to make a report or recommendation from a designated provider to a local planning authority about whether or not the authority should approve the planning application in any way binding, and the authority will be able to reject the recommendation and set out its reasons for doing so. Local authorities will continue to determine planning applications, as they currently do.
Reports from the authority’s officers to a planning committee are not currently binding on the committee. Similarly, reports from a designated provider making a recommendation about how an application should be determined will not be binding. Planning committees or officers taking decisions under delegated authority will be able to reject the recommendation—although, of course, they will need to set out the reason for doing so. The public will be able to comment on planning applications in pilot areas, just as they do now, irrespective of who is processing the application.
We are not forcing local authorities to privatise or outsource their processing service. In pilot areas, the authority will keep its service, but with other providers able to compete with it to process applications in the area. If the authority’s service is the best, why would applicants not still choose it? We are not about to let just anyone become a designated provider. We expect that regulations will require those selected to meet high professional standards and not process applications in which they have an interest.
Lord Campbell-Savours
What is to stop an applicant going to the contractor and saying, “Look, I won’t give the local authority the business, I’ll give you the business, but you’ve got to recommend yes on my application”? What is to stop that happening?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The final decision on the application will be up to the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned conflicts of interest and the noble Baroness mentioned quality assurance. We will be returning to those matters in the next group, so I will not dwell on them now.
Lord Shipley
Can the Minister confirm whether an independent council planning officer who is employed by that council will be able to write a critique of the recommendation that has been written by the designated person? This takes up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. If it is simply a report written by the designated person, how will it be known that it is accurate—and will an independent council planning officer be able to challenge it?
Lord True
The problem that my noble friend might reflect on is that paragraph 463 of the Explanatory Notes states that,
“it will be solely for them”—
that is, the designated person—
“to process the application and make a recommendation to the local planning authority on how, in their professional opinion, the application might be determined”.
In my world of reading planning reports every week, that is what is in the planning recommendation: there is a point of recommendation. That is the difficulty which I would like us to look at between now and Report: whether building on the excellent amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Borwick one could put in further defences. The other difficulty is in Clause 146(2)(g), where, as has been pointed out, circumstances are envisaged in which the designated person’s advice might be binding.
Finally and briefly, once the thing goes before a committee with a recommendation, the planning committee, if it does not agree, has to overturn that advice, which needs to be dispassionate. The suspicion is that it might not be dispassionate in certain circumstances. When the inspector looks at that, he is looking at a planning committee which has overturned professional advice. The dice are therefore rather loaded when this goes to the inspector. I am not opposed to this in principle, but the point about the element of decision needs to be considered further between now and Report.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Minister did not exactly reply to my question before. The applicant could go to the contractor and say, “You get the business if you recommend yes”. What is to stop that happening?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I will respond to my noble friend first. It would be inappropriate to tell the planning inspector what weight they must place on the paperwork provided by the appellant and by the local planning authority making the decision. It is right that the inspector judges each piece of paperwork on its merits. But we will reflect further on the issues that he has raised.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, we will use regulations to prevent conflicts of interests and maintain ethical and professional standards. Local planning authorities will retain responsibility for deciding the planning application, having received a report with a recommendation from the provider to whom the planning applicant chose to submit their application for processing. We will set out regulations, actions and procedures that approved providers will have to follow to ensure unbiased reports.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry, the Minister has not answered my question. I would like to see it answered before Report in writing.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I will take that back and write to the noble Lord. I will respond on one other general point before moving on to the amendments. My noble friend Lord True asked about the moral hazard involved in selecting who processes planning applications. We are not selecting who processes a particular application: it is the applicant who chooses. There will be an approved list of providers that the applicant can go to, but they will choose their provider.
We welcome the scrutiny that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has brought to these clauses, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. A response will be published by the end of today, but as noble Lords know, we are not quite sure when that will be.
Lord Foster of Bath
I am sorry but the Minister specifically said yesterday that it would be before the House rises. That is for the Minister to sort out, but can she give us an assurance on this? The assurance that her colleague gave us was that, before we leave this Chamber, we would have a copy of it in our hands so that, should we wish to, we can refer to it in any subsequent amendment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I will come back to that in a second but, as I say, we will be publishing the response by the end of today. We therefore believe that Amendment 102CLA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is premature.
I thank the noble Lord for Amendments 102CL and 102DB about consent. An effective test of competition is likely to be achieved with a set of pilots which reflect the different types, sizes and geographic locations of local authorities. To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, there will be a number of pilots, not just one. Local authorities have consistently told us that a fair test of competition must include weaker authorities at the lower end of the performance spectrum—pilots cannot just include top-performing, progressive authorities. However, they are concerned that weaker authorities are unlikely to volunteer to be in pilot areas. Therefore, we need powers which give us the necessary flexibility to select an appropriate mix of pilot areas and to be able to respond to the sector’s concern if necessary.
I do not see how compelling a local authority to be a designated provider would work in practice. How would we actually force a local authority, against its will, to compete for work in another patch and to do that work to a high standard? We do not therefore intend to compel any local planning authority to be a designated provider.
I turn now to Amendment 102D. We have been very clear that during any competition pilots we bring forward under Clause 145, the responsibility to determine planning applications will remain with the local planning authority in the pilot area. I will put this as clearly as I can: only the local authority can decide on an application. Clause 145 will give the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to introduce pilot schemes for competition in the processing of applications for planning permission. Subsection (1) allows the regulations to make provision for a planning application to be “processed” by a “designated person”, and subsection (6) says that “processing” the application means any action “other than determining it”.
Amendments 102CM, 102DA, 102FA and 102FB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would remove intended safeguards. For example, Clause 145(3), which would be removed by Amendment 102CM, leaves room for the Government to exclude from the pilots certain types of application where local government and others can make a compelling case that they are so significant or sensitive that they should continue to be handled by the relevant local planning authority. Clause 146(1)(a), which would be removed by Amendment 102FA, enables us to specify circumstances where it is inappropriate for a designated person to process an application, for instance because of a conflict of interest. The removal of text that would result from Amendment 102FB would leave us unable to specify the circumstances in which a planning authority should take over an application from a designated person. They could either potentially take them all over without limit, or none, and we believe removing the safeguard is impractical and unworkable.
Amendment 102DAA was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham. Enabling the private sector to compete with local planning authorities is likely to drive greater reform than if we leave things solely to authorities, as the noble Lords would wish. We are proposing pilots to test the benefits of introducing competition in planning application processing.
Lord Beecham
I think the Minister has overlooked the fact that the amendment also refers to “public bodies” being able to take over the role, not just local authorities.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My apologies. However, my argument stands. We want to encourage the private sector to be involved as well, but I apologise for that misreading of the noble Lord’s amendment.
Amendment 102EA would extend the definition of “planning application” to include permission in principle and technical details consent. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendment. We intend to give it some further thought.
We intend to design the pilot schemes collaboratively with local government, professional bodies and the private sector. We are already consulting on how they might operate. Furthermore, an extensive dialogue with key partners is under way and in the last six weeks we have met with more than 80 local authorities through a range of events. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised a number of technical points. Obviously, these are issues that will be addressed through the pilot schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about the draft regulations. As I hope I made clear, we are engaging extensively with the sector and consultations are currently out for consideration. As I said, we have already spoken to more than 80 local authorities. I would be happy to write to him to provide an initial summary of the issues raised so far during our engagement with the sector.
Lord Foster of Bath
I apologise, but will the Minister answer my other question about the technical consultation? It may have been a drafting error by the Government, but paragraph 8.1 specifically says:
“Nor is this about preventing local authorities from processing planning applications or forcing them to outsource their processing function”.
If that is correct, the first amendment in the group, which would mean that local authorities would have choice in the matter, is presumably accepted by the Government. Alternatively, this is an error and the Government have gone out to consult on a document that contains a fundamental error about the purpose of this section of the Bill.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I said earlier that we do not intend to force local authorities to outsource their functions. I will have to read further what the noble Lord said and respond in writing.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I have given the noble Lord the answer that I can. I am sorry that he is unhappy with it. I will go back and have a look to see whether I can provide him with any other information.
The noble Lord will also not be happy with my response to his question on the DPRRC report. I am afraid that it depends on what time the House rises as to whether noble Lords get it before we rise, but they will get it today. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, there is a lot there to look at, read and think about. In the last argument there was some confusion between compulsory outsourcing and being forced to be subject to competition. Those are different things. I think the Government are saying that some authorities may have a designated person or persons forced on them in their area, but some clarification would be very helpful. The Bill certainly says that that is possible.
I thank everybody who took part in the discussion. Some were more entertaining than others. The noble Lord, Lord True, took us into the details of planning committees, which some of us have spent far too much time in our lives chairing, being members of or whatever. On the point about the relationship between the committee and its planning officer regarding applications where the committee may overturn the recommendation of the officer, there are applications where it is obvious which way they will go: that they will be rejected, or passed. While people may argue one way or the other, there are no sensible reasons and it is a fairly cut-and-dried case. But in most cases where recommendations are overturned, they are arguable both ways. If the planning committee overturns cases where it is not arguable both ways, it is not a very good committee. It is behaving pretty irresponsibly, really.
Under those circumstances, the reports written by planning officers are balanced. They will put forward the reasons an application has been made and the arguments for it; they will put forward the objections to it and the reasons it might be turned down; then they will come down on one side or the other. If the committee takes a different view and it then goes to appeal, a sensible inspector will look at all the original reports and everything else and he will come to the view that it was a perfectly reasonable decision by the committee.
Lord Greaves
I had to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I have one further point.
Lord Greaves
It is a very constructive point. There is time to discuss this part of the Bill further before Report. We are coming back straight to Report, but I do not imagine we will get to Part 6 for quite a while; for several days, anyway. I ask the Government to convene meetings of people around the House to look at the practicalities. If the Government can persuade us that in a practical sense, this will work, or that it might work—that it is worth trying—we can think about practical, working amendments to it. If they cannot persuade us, some of us will want to remove it all. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
“( ) The Secretary of State may not designate a person who—(a) provides services in a professional capacity to persons in connection with development proposals or applications for planning permission or is employed by or associated with a company which provides such services,(b) is employed or remunerated, whether on a full-time or part-time basis, by persons or companies which undertake development, or(c) has within the past five years been employed by a local planning authority in any capacity that involved dealing with planning applications.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I put this in a separate amendment because I wanted it set out and because it is the fundamental thing that people outside the system are going to complain about with regard to private provision of the processing of planning applications. The potential for conflicts of interest is high. The Government say they will produce regulations to stop that and make sure it does not happen. We will see how they do that.
There is a perception of conflicts of interest in a system that, as was said earlier, is already believed by many people to be utterly biased towards large developers and against ordinary people—rightly or wrongly, there is a widespread belief that that is the case. If, instead of being processed by local government officials, planning applications are processed by private companies, people will look for the links between those private companies and developers putting in applications and, whatever safeguards the Government put in, they will find them. They will find family relationships, school relationships, board memberships and so on—all manner of relationships. It is a huge can of worms.
If the Government are going ahead with these pilots, this is a fundamental issue that they have to tackle and do their very best to get right. I doubt they can get it right but it is at the heart of this proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for putting this unexpected discussion before the Committee. I am conscious that there are 11 more groups, which, in the course of a normal Thursday, would need to be discussed in the next hour and seven minutes. Perhaps I can abuse the fact that I am now standing up to say that it would be very helpful if we could have a statement from the Government Chief Whip in, say, 15 minutes, explaining his intentions for the remainder of Committee. It is clearly unreasonable—to the Minister and the shadow Ministers—to be continuing in this way, making such slow albeit quite proper progress, because these are important issues. It would be extremely helpful if we had a statement from the Government Chief Whip about the Government’s intentions for dealing with the Bill because, frankly, this is not a sensible way for legislation to be properly scrutinised by your Lordships’ House.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, why can we not simply convert the first day of Report into a Committee day and have a proper debate on the day we come back?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I hate to intervene because the hour is getting late. These matters are generally decided through the usual channels. I guess that they are having discussions at the moment and, if the Chief Whip comes in, I am sure he will make a statement to the Committee. For now, can we get on with the Bill?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord’s Amendment 102DC is excessive, not least because local authorities tell us that it cannot be beyond us to work together to design a robust system of checks and balances to maintain professional standards. As I have said, we believe that the private sector could bring valuable innovation and efficient techniques to processing and managing planning applications. That said, it is entirely reasonable and understandable to ask how we will maintain accountability, integrity and professional standards with private sector involvement. Key to this is who makes the decision—who can be a designated person, what applications designated persons are allowed to process, and legal safeguards in the planning system.
I have been crystal clear that responsibility for deciding planning applications will remain with local planning authorities, and they cannot delegate that to a designated person. A designated person will not be able to decide on a planning application. Notwithstanding a separate amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, Clause 146(1)(b) already allows us to specify circumstances where a local authority could take over a planning application from a designated person, including where it has demonstrable concerns about the designated person’s work. Persons designated by the Secretary of State will be expected to meet high professional standards and have expert planning knowledge that would enable them to operate in pilot areas with unique characteristics. We will expect them to demonstrate the ability to engage with local communities and councillors so that they can operate successfully in these pilot areas. We expect to put in place mechanisms to address any failure in standards and integrity, such as removing a provider’s designation, or, as I said a moment ago, enabling poor work to be redone.
Our engagement work with local authorities and the private sector has also highlighted the obligations of Royal Town Planning Institute membership, which was mentioned by noble Lords during discussion of the previous group of amendments. All members of the RTPI are bound by a code of professional conduct, underpinned by a complaints process, setting out required standards of practice and ethics for chartered and non-chartered members. RTPI members are required to adhere to five core principles: competence; honesty and integrity; independent professional judgment; due care and diligence; and professional behaviour. We will look to build these and similar standards into the selection and performance monitoring of designated persons. Crucially, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that a designated person must not be allowed to process a planning application in which they have an interest. Furthermore, after extensive dialogue with local authorities, professional bodies and the private sector, we will set out in regulations the actions and procedures that a designated person must follow in processing a planning application.
I also draw the noble Lord’s attention to Section 327A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, concerning requirements for processing planning applications. A local planning authority must not entertain a planning application where the formal manner in which the application is made, or, crucially, the formal content of any document or other matter which accompanies the application is not compliant with the requirements for processing a planning application. Therefore, an application which has not been appropriately processed by a designated person, or has involved a conflict of interest, could be considered null and void.
I can assure noble Lords that, given the importance of this issue, we will continue this dialogue to ensure that we get the design of the pilots right. I hope that, with this brief overview, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I will. That was extremely helpful and I will read it carefully. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I too want to get home tonight, and if helps the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, I shall not move the next group of amendments, because I think that we have more or less finished the debate on this for tonight.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, given that the Government Chief Whip has not yet arrived in the Chamber to explain what the intention is—although we may be about to get a message from him—to expedite matters, in order to see exactly what the Government’s intentions are, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I argue that the House should not resume. Discussions are ongoing with the Chief Whip as we speak. I suggest to the House that we continue. The Chief Whip will come into the Chamber as soon as he is able to update us on progress on the Bill.
Lord Harris of Haringey
On the basis of that assurance that the Government Chief Whip will be joining us in about 10 minutes, I will not press my Motion to a vote at this stage.
Lord Greaves
“Review of the plan-making process
(1) Not less than six months after the coming into force of this section the Secretary of State must establish a comprehensive review of the procedures, costs, time-scales and efficiency of the plan-making processes under planning legislation (“the plan-making review”).(2) The plan-making review must invite evidence from planning authorities, users of the planning system, and any other persons.(3) The report of the plan-making review must be sent to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State must arrange for it to be laid before each House of Parliament.”
Lord Greaves
Briefly, my Lords, there were suggestions earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who is no longer in his place, that the planning system needed an improvement. I apologise for tabling this amendment in a rather strange location in the Bill; that was by accident. I tabled it to suggest that it was time for the Government to pursue an inquiry and reforms to the plan-making system, as opposed to the development control system.
Since then, I have discovered that such an investigation has been taking place. I have a copy of a report which came out a few days ago—I think it was on 16 March—called Local Plans: Report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning from the Local Plans Expert Group. I confess that I have not yet had time to read it, owing to the requirements of research on the Bill, but it is an excellent step forward. I hope that its contents are as good as I am billing them and that we will be able to have a slightly more relaxed debate in your Lordships’ House on this matter, by some mechanism or other, before the end of the Session.
There are defects in the development control system. While nobody is perfect, everybody who gets involved in that system is frustrated by some of the things that have to happen. Nevertheless, it has been my view for a number of years—I have expressed this in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions—that the main inefficiencies and problems in the planning system are with plan making rather than development control. Plan making is cumbersome, bureaucratic, top-down, top-heavy and not very democratic. Reform is needed, particularly if local plans are to be the basis for planning in principle, so I am delighted by the document that I have received. In order to give the Minister a chance to reply, I beg to move this amendment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Lord and I will respond very briefly. We recognise that the process of getting local plans in place can sometimes seem lengthy and complicated, which is why we gave a commitment in the productivity plan to bring forward proposals to streamline them. In September last year, Ministers invited an eight-strong group of experts to examine what measures or reforms might be helpful in ensuring the efficient and effective production of local plans. As the noble Lord rightly said, that group published its report on 16 March. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, the Government Chief Whip briefly appeared in the Chamber. I now see that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House are here. I am minded to move that the House do now resume, unless we are about to get a Statement.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Harris, continues, for the benefit of the House I should like to inform your Lordships that the Chief Whip will be making a brief Statement at 7 pm on the subject of the progress of the Bill.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am sure that this will be helpful. It is clearly progress and we all want to get on with this. But it would be useful for the House to know what the intention of the Government is as far as the progress of this Bill is concerned. So, unless we are going to be given more information, I will again put a Motion that the House do now resume.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It may be helpful for the noble Lord to know that is has been agreed with the usual channels to have the Statement at 7 pm.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am sure that that is the case, but I am not a member of the usual channels. There are Members sitting in this Committee who are interested in this Bill or in particular clauses or aspects of it. We have a right to know the intention in terms of the remaining groups on this Bill. That is why I therefore move that the House do now resume.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, perhaps I might speak as the Minister who is on the Bill. We have spent many weeks on it. The one thing that we do not do is the job of the usual channels. With respect to the noble Lord, I ask him to respect this convention and allow the Chief Whip to make a Statement at 7 pm. In the mean time, could we please get on with this Bill because we all want to go home?
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, we now have nine groups which has normally been a day’s work. Are the Government expecting us to finish nine groups within the next hour or so? We need to know where we are going. Within the matter of the last few minutes we have already dropped one string of amendments to suit the House. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was prepared to concede one group to help expedite proceedings but we still have all these other groups left. We need a Statement before 7 pm.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has been very clear. Following discussions with the usual channels, my noble friend the Chief Whip will provide an update at 7 pm. Meanwhile, we have time before us where we can make progress and continue the very good work of this House. As to the noble Lord’s assessment of what progress can be made on groups in time, I remember being advised that, when his party were in government, it was quite regular for them to be making much speedier progress on groups than we have been doing lately. I would urge noble Lords to continue their very important work and see how far we can get, rather than spend any more time now talking about what may or may not happen once we get to 7 pm.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to persist, but these are very important matters. Why does not the Leader of the House try again to get an earlier statement than one at 7 pm, because we want to know what is going to happen over the next hour?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I say to the noble Lord that the best thing for us to do now is just to continue with the work of the House. My noble friend the Chief Whip has been in the Chamber very recently; he is talking to his counterparts in the usual channels. What we can most usefully do in the Chamber is to do our very important work of scrutinising this legislation, debating it and making the great progress that has been made this week, to which the noble Lord has contributed, alongside many other noble Lords in this Chamber, all of whom want to continue with that work. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is what we do right now.
Lord Campbell-Savours
That might be the view of the Leader of the House, but it is not my view. The House is being unfairly treated. For those watching our proceedings from outside, we should explain that this Bill is being opposed by a large number of Members of this House on the basis that it is a skeleton Bill, which is being driven through Parliament without all the controversial areas being debated. That is why it is important that we have enough time to debate the nine or 10 remaining groups of amendments. What is happening now in this Chamber is that the Government are trying to find a way in which to secure the passage of the Bill this evening. That is what is going on. The public outside should know that it is a scandal.
Lord True
I absolve the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, because he has been present for most of the Bill, which is not true of all noble Lords who are seeking to intervene on this question. We normally do not finish until 7 pm on a Thursday. As a courtesy to all of us who have spent a long time here, can we proceed to do the business of this House, which is dealing with legislation, instead of faffing about procedure, delaying and trying to force the Bill timetable on? People who were here after midnight last night and people who have worked hard deserve the courtesy of being allowed to complete the job that we started. Let us hear the Chief Whip at 7 pm and get on with it. That is my view.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall now seek, representing the opposition Chief Whip, discussions with the government Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, as soon as I have left the Chamber. I hope that my noble friends will allow us to continue business until that is concluded.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, if it helps the House, given the assurance from my noble friend that these discussions will take place and that we will get a report, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion that the House will be now resumed—but I may come back to it if there is no sign of progress.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“Development corporations: objects and general powers
(1) Section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (objects and general powers) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Corporations under this Act must contribute to 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.(2C) 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.”(3) Section 4 of the New Towns Act 1981 (the objects and general powers of development corporations) is amended as follows.(4) 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.(1B) 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.””
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly—that was the plan—to Amendment 103, tabled by my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham. In many ways, it picks up on a debate that we had yesterday. The amendment inserts place-making objectives for both urban development corporations in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and for new town development corporations in the New Towns Act. It was prompted by the situation in which we find ourselves—a country with a major housing crisis—looking back to those times when it was recognised that we needed to build on a large scale if we were going to make inroads into the housing crisis. That took us back to the era of new towns. The realisation that this needs to be done is encouraging many to look back at that programme, through which Britain built 32 new towns and today provides homes for more than 2.5 million people. The creation of those new towns was made possible because of legislation that is still on the statute book today, but that does not mean it does not need to be updated. The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that the objectives of this are firmly linked to the long-term sustainability, development and place-making of the new communities. Under these amendments,
“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”.
The amendment addresses both the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the New Towns Act 1981. I shall not spend time going further into the detail of that as it is set down clearly in the amendment.
I note that there are two further amendments in this group, which have not yet been spoken to, about the need for proper consultation. That is also a reflection of the more modern era, and we support them. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 103A and 103B and in support of Amendment 103. Given the hour and the timing, I will say much less than I would have liked to on this issue, about which I feel quite passionate. I will restrain myself despite the fact that, as a Cornishman, I have already missed my last train home. A little bit of me feels that I could speak for a few hours and bring noble Lords the same pain that I already feel. I am quite grateful that the Motion to adjourn was withdrawn; at least I get the chance to speak to these amendments, having missed my train.
For some years, I have been arguing that it is extraordinarily important that we find ways to deliver the amount of housing needed and that we give local authorities new options for doing that. The principles of the new towns were abandoned in the early 1980s because housing need was basically being met by housing supply at that point and there were projections of big falls in population so there was an assumption that we did not need large new settlements to come forward. We are now in period where the number of over-65s will go from 10 million today to 19 million by 2050, while more babies were born last year than in any year since 1971. We are seeing big increases in population but we are no longer delivering the houses to meet them.
We should offer local authorities and local communities the option of creating new garden villages—settlements to meet local need—that can capture the value of land, rather than making multimillionaires of lucky landowners or lucky speculative developers, and can create fantastic places that have doctors’ surgeries, schools, parks, shops and all the facilities to create a genuine community and restore our faith in ourselves that, just as our predecessors built wonderful villages and towns, we can do the same. At the moment, that is near impossible because so much value is captured in the process, so what we get are bland estates without facilities. If anyone is going to pay for those facilities, it is the taxpayer, while a few people make themselves very rich indeed.
That is why I have argued that the powers in the New Towns Act should be extended to communities, and I was delighted last week to see the Government making commitments to do that. However, if we are to do that, we need to be clear about the role of the development bodies that will do that place-making, create those fantastic places and ensure that the houses and communities are built in a timely way and at prices people can afford. If the land value has been captured, they can be affordable homes. The remit of that place-making body is critical. Amendment 103 goes to the heart of that because the existing duties are long outdated and will need bringing up to speed. We will need to be clear about that remit. Amendment 103 is a very good first amendment on that. There are other elements that can be brought to it. I hope the Minister will be able to come back with some proposals on that, given the commitments that the Government made last week.
My own amendments are about modernising the process. Let me be absolutely clear what I believe that process must be for these local scale communities. That process must be one that is locally led. This is not something forced on communities. It is a new opportunity for communities to deal with their needs in a different way, and then protect themselves much more effectively from unwelcome development that otherwise might take place on appeal—or perforce around existing historic market towns and villages, many of which, frankly, are at bursting point and congestion point and cannot go on developing in that way.
The starting point will be the local plan process—or amendment to the local plan—and it would then go through all the normal community consultation and examination. The question is then: what is the next stage? At the moment, to bring forward a new town involves a public inquiry process, as if that local plan-making had not taken place at all, but no proper parliamentary scrutiny process, let alone any up-to-date parliamentary scrutiny. The old system quite simply is not fit for purpose.
I was going to run the Committee through what happens under the old New Towns Act and what can happen under a modern urban development corporation-type approach. I will not do that because people can do without the lecture. I was recently appointed a professor of planning and I guess the temptation is now always to lecture. I definitely will not do that. I understand that I have missed my train, but other noble Lords have not missed theirs. All I would say is that it is incredibly important to have a system that is modern and fit for purpose. The Government have made a commitment to go down this route. The Bill provides an opportunity to provide a modern, accountable, fit-for-purpose way of delivering these development bodies.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I intend to make myself extremely popular by not speaking to this amendment, other than to say that I am extremely supportive of the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor—and to say that my speech is available by email if anyone would like to read it later.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I want to speak to this group of amendments because I think they are very important. Earlier on in the Committee today, I specifically raised the importance, in terms of planning, of looking at the concept of what is the community that you are trying to create—and making sure that the community is sustainable and has all the benefits you would hope for.
Over the past 20 or 30 years there has been enormous progress in understanding what makes a community work. It is not simply the number of homes. It is not simply the mix of homes. It is also what else is there. That is the place-making function. This is the content of Amendment 103, moved by my noble friend: it has focused on the series of expectations about the role that the new town development corporation—or whatever else—might use in trying to create a community.
The issue is not simply identifying the possibilities for development and putting up more new homes. That would be the route to some of the urban disasters that we have seen over the past 30 or 40 years. It is about creating a place. It is about creating an environment in which people can live and have a sense of community. The content contained in the amendment refers specifically to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community. It talks about protecting the natural and historic environment and the importance of high quality and inclusive design. This is about creating places in which people actually want to live. That should be fundamental to the whole planning process, and writing those into the legislation—the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, and the New Towns Act 1981 —is exactly the right way forward for the Bill. However, my concern is that they have not been included in the Bill up to now. I hope that the Minister—she is now nodding, so perhaps that is a good sign—will be able to tell us that the Government accept the principles behind my noble friend’s amendment.
On the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about the importance of consulting and involving communities, communities live and thrive only if they have the support of the people who are going to live there. That is why consultation and involvement in that process are such a critical part of making sure that those communities and places are indeed viable. That is my understanding of the intention of these amendments, and I hope that the Minister is going to tell us that the Government wholeheartedly embrace that and are going to accept them.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, the amendments are indeed very timely. On Amendment 103, I say at the outset that I wholeheartedly endorse the importance of creating sustainable, well-designed places and I agree that, as the Budget announcement makes clear, statutory delivery vehicles can have an important role to play in achieving that. However, I echo what my honourable friend from the other place said: I am wary of creating new definitions and prescribing a long list of objectives for new town development corporations and urban development corporations, however worthy those objectives are in principle.
The NPPF already provides a clear view of what sustainable development means in practice, and to a very large extent it incorporates the objectives set out in the amendment. However, I accept that there is a case for change, and I am happy to look further at the objectives of the new town development corporations and how they could be extended, with a view to introducing an amendment that reflects this debate on Report. I hope that in light of this undertaking the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on behalf of his colleagues, will withdraw his amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Taylor, for Amendments 103A and 103B. The Government are committed to updating the New Towns Act 1981 so that we can better support local areas that want to bring forward new garden towns and villages. I emphasise that our focus is on locally led new garden towns and villages, and we will back proposals that have been developed locally with local support. We will absolutely not impose new towns and villages on communities.
The amendments set out one of the key changes that need to be made to the New Towns Act 1981, which is sound in its fundamentals but is showing its age. I am supportive of a modernised process that is consistent across both types of delivery vehicle, and therefore ask noble Lords not to move these amendments with a view to the Government producing similar amendments, which we will table on Report. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord Harris for their support for these amendments. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the commitment that even though she is not able to accept the amendments in the terms in which they appear on the Marshalled List, there will be consideration and some government amendments moved on Report. Between now and the time when those amendments are to be tabled, we would welcome an opportunity for discussion about the content, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would like to be involved in that as well.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
Obviously I will not seek to press these amendments but I very much welcome what the Minister said. I would have liked to have spoken at great length about how much I welcome what is clearly a cross-party consensus on moving forward on this basis. It has the potential to provide a huge and new opportunity for local communities to deliver fantastic places, not just fantastic homes that people can afford.
Baroness Parminter
“( ) a right, easement, restrictive covenant, covenant, liberty or privilege in respect of land belonging to the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty (“the Trust”) which is held inalienably, within the meaning of section 18(3) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (National Trust land held inalienably), or( ) a restrictive covenant held by the Trust, within the meaning of section 8 of the National Trust Act 1937 (power to enter into agreements restricting use of land).”
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who has a long-standing engagement in Cardiff, I rise briefly to move this amendment. The Government have said that the clauses are intended to aid regeneration projects on brownfield sites through allowing covenants, easements and other rights to be overridden more easily by public bodies. However, the clause would also affect covenants and rights held by the National Trust to conserve some of our most special and valued places for everyone to enjoy. I declare an interest as a member of that august organisation, as I am sure are many Members around this House.
Typically, these covenants and rights apply to land surrounding National Trust-owned land, to buildings or land not owned by the trust but which have historical significance, or to beautiful or wildlife-rich landscape worthy of protection. Crucially, the rights held by statutory undertakers such as utility companies and Network Rail are already sensibly protected from the scope of the clause, because of the important public benefit that these rights give. I contend that National Trust covenants and other rights give comparable public benefits, and this should be recognised in a similar way. I hope this is an unintentional oversight by the Government and that they will see it as a helpful amendment and will accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for raising this very important issue in the context of Clause 179. As the noble Baroness set out, Amendment 103C would reflect the special protection accorded to land held inalienably by the National Trust in compulsory purchase legislation. The Government are sympathetic to the thrust of the argument that the power in Clause 179 to override easements and restrictive covenants when carrying out works on, or using land acquired by, a body with compulsory purchase powers could have an adverse effect on rights benefiting the trust’s inalienable land. The Government have also noted the concern that it may impact on other land over which the trust has covenants under Section 8 of the National Trust Act 1937. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, to avoid such a possibility, consideration should be given to the trust being accorded a similar exemption to that in Clause 179(8) for the rights of statutory undertakers. Doing so would safeguard the trust’s covenants, easements and other ancillary rights so that the trust’s management and our enjoyment of the trust’s land and properties were not compromised. The Government will therefore consider this matter very carefully. With that in mind, perhaps the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Parminter
I thank the Minister most warmly for those very encouraging words. I shall obviously discuss the matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, over the recess, but, being mindful of the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale
“Presumed diversion or extinguishment of footpaths or bridleways which pass through the curtilage of residential dwellings
(1) Where a footpath, bridleway or byway passes through the curtilage of a residential dwelling, including the gardens and driveways of the premises, the council shall make, and the Secretary of State shall confirm, either—(a) a public path diversion order, or(b) a public path extinguishment order,unless— (a) the Secretary of State or the Council are satisfied that the privacy, safety and security of the premises are not adversely affected by the existence or use of the footpath, bridleway or byway,(b) the premises have been unlawfully extended to encompass the footpath, bridleway or byway,(c) where a public path extinguishment order is considered, it would be possible instead to divert the footpath or bridleway or restricted byway such that the privacy, safety and security of the premises are not adversely affected by its use, or(d) where a public path extinguishment order is considered, the footpath or bridleway or restricted byway provides access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise reasonably accessible.(2) In this section—“public path diversion order”,“public path extinguishment order”,“footpath”,“bridleway”, and“restricted byway”have the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980.”
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
My Lords, after the last half hour, it goes without saying that we have had a long and exhaustive debate on the Bill, so I shall keep my remarks to an absolute minimum, especially as we now turn from the purely built environment, with which the Bill is chiefly concerned, to a few of the people who live in that environment and the problems that footpaths can cause them.
A tiny fraction of a percentage of the 140,000 miles of public rights of way go through the gardens of private family homes. Unfortunately, once they are recorded on the designated footpath map, it is as though they are set in concrete, and they will of course be at the cut-off point in 2026. Even where councils make a mistake, it seems impossible to change their mind. I know of one case where the council confirmed a footpath going straight through a home owner’s sitting room, subsequently saying that it could not correct its admitted error. That is a clear nonsense.
When a footpath goes through a garden, however—which is my reason for putting down this amendment—it does not take much imagination to appreciate that this can cause immense hardship for the owners of the property, effectively causing the loss of the normal use of the garden. I know of at least 25 such cases. Would any of your Lordships be comfortable if your children or grandchildren, or indeed pets, were to be left alone in such a garden? Nor is it beyond the wit of a nefarious character to peer into windows to see whether a house is worth burgling. So there are obvious security, safety and privacy issues. Homes whose owners have spent a lifetime paying off the mortgage can become unsaleable and the owner trapped.
Many of these paths are little used and most of the general public have no wish to go through a family garden. However, local government is required by statute to keep these paths open, in some cases even requiring home owners to remove the gates to their gardens. There are examples of bankruptcy, breakdowns and even suicide, and these will become more frequent as the population grows. This cannot be in the public interest and, to my mind anyway, is against the spirit of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
The last Government, in last year’s Deregulation Act, pledged to create a presumption in favour of diverting or extinguishing such paths. That is a principle established in, for example, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, but this goes way over the top. In agreement with the stakeholder working group, Defra is to produce guidance to local authorities on the subject. A small group of affected people belonging to the Intrusive Footpaths campaign has had meetings with Defra and much time has been invested by all parties in trying to improve this guidance. It strikes me as odd, to say the least, that the stakeholder group the Government consulted apparently also has to approve the guidance, and rumour has it that this guidance is to be less forceful than the original working group agreement. I ask the Minister whether that is true. Whether it is or not, it is the opinion of at least three independent specialist rights of way lawyers that it is a matter of legal fact that, no matter what is in the guidance, it will in most cases be rendered ineffective by existing statutory tests, which are to be found in the Highways Act 1980. Guidance cannot override statute and as such cannot on its own deliver the Government’s declared policy objective. To make matters worse, this guidance is not even statutory, which it certainly should be, overriding such existing law that gets in the way of reducing this undoubted problem.
My amendment, however, goes much further than this. It calls for local councils, backed up by the Secretary of State, automatically to extinguish footpaths or divert them to the curtilage of domestic properties, unless they are satisfied that privacy, safety and security, which are the important points, are not affected by the existence of a footpath, bridleway or byway. Whether this amendment is acceptable or not—and I strongly suspect that it is not—a statutory footing for the Government’s policy is essential. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I declare my interest as the vice-president of the Open Spaces Society, as well as my other outdoor activity interests, which are in the register.
This amendment is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The noble Lord makes it sound as though the countryside of England is a nightmare. This is absolutely not true. There are perfectly workable procedures for dealing with the kinds of circumstance described by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. In particular, Defra has found a mechanism through the stakeholder working group, which represents people from all parts of the countryside, from recreation to landowners and other users. This is a mechanism by which changes in the law take place by agreement and consensus. It has been extremely successful, has worked very well and continues to do so. To drive a coach and horses through that at this or at any stage would be very unwise. I hope that the Minister will explain that, apart from anything else, the amendment really does not belong in this Bill.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, this amendment has my name attached to it. My noble friend has gone into the detail of it, so I will not repeat that. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, knows that we had quite a long discussion on this issue in considering the Deregulation Act. While he said that on the whole people do not abuse it, trouble is still being caused. He may say that this is not applicable in this Bill, but I think that it is. I shall be referring later to towns and cities as well, so I hope that he will stay with me and forbear my support of this.
It was said at that time by the Open Spaces Society:
“We consider that the discretionary power of moving paths should have low priority and we advocate that councils refuse to consider a path change unless there is a clear public benefit. Otherwise they are using their slim resources on a mere power, to the advantage of owners and occupiers rather than the public, instead of on the duty which benefits everyone”.
This is a very difficult situation. I do not think that the amendment is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Clearly there are families who are finding this extremely difficult. It was suggested that the working group would get together and that that difficulty would be resolved, and clearly that has not happened. I support my noble friend in raising the issue today.
I move on to a concern—I have given the Minister notice of it—that has been raised with me on existing public paths, as they are, in cities and towns. Public paths that were incorporated into building developments in the 20th century were often acknowledged and placed on a definitive map as part of the planning process. In towns and cities, however, the Edwardian and Victorian developments often included paths to enable easy foot passages from one place to another. The land over which they pass may still belong to the estate upon which the development was constructed, or may have been sold to individual householders, or acquired by the local authority.
The reason that I raise this today is to make sure that, in the enormously important work that we are doing with the Bill, there will not be reflection later on something that we should have spotted at the time. As I said, I have given the Minister notice and it was obvious to me that the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has not been resolved. I want to ensure that we do not walk into another difficult situation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, we have concerns with the amendment. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was one of the most successful and supported pieces of legislation in this area of policy—although not always in your Lordships’ House. It strengthened and consolidated the aims of Labour’s original National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Since then, the most recent Labour Government introduced the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, extending the right further.
We on these Benches are concerned that the amendment would unpick the agreement of the Natural England stakeholder working group which, as we have heard, brings together users, landowners, local authorities, ramblers and the Country Land and Business Association. I urge the noble Lord, if he wants further proposals to be brought forward, to work with the stakeholder working group to deliver a consensus on them.
I might also ask why the noble Lord feels the measure necessary when, as I understand it, there are already powers that permit landowners to apply to a local authority to make changes to such footpaths. A presumption in favour of a diversion would take power away from local authorities and reduce the ability of communities to have a say. I am not sure that that is in accordance with the Government’s localism agenda, although that is a bit thin these days. Local communities, through their local councils, should be able to shape their local area. We should support the rights of all to access the countryside and maintain existing rights of way, especially as the local countryside offers our citizens benefits in terms of health, exercise and mental well-being.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I applaud my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale’s efforts to help those who face problems with a public right of way that passes through their farm or garden. He will know through his contact with Ministers in Defra that the Government have considerable sympathy for those people who face these issues and who may feel that the system has let them down. Where these cases occur, people may experience acute problems: my noble friend has cited some examples, and I can think of others. Although the numbers are comparatively few, and we should ensure that any changes we make to legislation are proportionate to the extent of the problem, nevertheless, the Government are determined to help by putting in place a remedy.
Noble Lords may recall the passage of a suite of measures in the Deregulation Act 2015 which aimed to reform the system of recording and diverting public rights of way, to which my noble friend referred. The Government are now in the process of implementing these measures, which will come into effect later this year. We believe that the combined effect of these measures, which received cross-party support in both Houses, will make a significant difference, and that we should not legislate further before seeing how they work out in practice. A package of measures such as that, which is being implemented through agreement among stakeholders, is far more likely to prove successful in practice.
There is clear agreement among the stakeholders on the working group that developed the package of reform that the major difficulty for landowners is in getting local authorities to make a diversion or extinguishment order in the first place. Our plans to implement the right to apply for such orders will overcome this. The right to apply will enable a landowner to make a formal application for the diversion or extinguishment of a public right of way. With that will come the right to appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority rejects the application or fails to act on it. Therefore, local authorities will no longer be able to ignore requests or dismiss them out of hand. They will be obliged either to make an order or to be prepared to justify their reasons for not doing so on appeal to the Secretary of State.
The provisions in the Deregulation Act allow the right to apply to be extended to land-use types other than agriculture, forestry and the keeping of horses— for example, private residential gardens. The right to apply will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem.
The noble Lord references guidance and I will come back to that in a moment. A further hurdle is to get an order confirmed. However, according to the Ramblers, which keeps accurate records of these matters, of the 1,257 diversion orders which have reached a conclusion in the past three years, 94% did not attract any objections. Of the 6% that did, less than 1% were not confirmed following submission to the Secretary of State. The guidance will give authorities more scope to confirm orders made in the interests of the landowner in circumstances where a right of way may cause hardship because it goes through the garden of a family home, a working farmyard or other commercial premises.
There is no intention to water down the guidance, which was deposited in the House Library during the passage of the Deregulation Act. Defra officials continue to work with the stakeholder working group and the Intrusive Footpaths Campaign to finalise the drafting. We believe that the combined effect of the right to apply and the guidance will have the desired effect and we should not rush to legislate further before seeing how these measures work in practice. Moreover, under the right-to-apply provisions, the Defra Secretary of State will be the confirming authority for all disputed orders.
I am happy to reaffirm the commitment made by the previous Government that we will review, within two years of implementation of the reforms package, how effective the right-to-apply provisions and the accompanying guidance have proved to be. The review will send a message to authorities that the Government are determined that the new policy should work and that if guidance does not bring about sufficient changes, we will consider the introduction of further measures.
The amendment, which was also spoken to by my noble friend Lady Byford, is also concerned with public rights of way. However, she refers to urban routes in current use which are not recorded on the legal record of public rights of way, the definitive map and statement. The amendment would reduce the work of local authorities by removing a whole class of routes from the work to update the record.
I referred earlier to the package of measures in the Deregulation Act 2015 concerned with improving the processes for diverting, extinguishing and recording public rights of way. I also mentioned that the Government are working closely with the stakeholder working group which developed the original package of measures.
The secondary legislation will include regulations made under Section 54(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—which allows the Secretary of State to specify descriptions of unrecorded routes which will not be extinguished in 2026. The working group and the Government are mindful of the need to consider urban as well as rural. We think that no further primary provisions are required to achieve the outcome sought by my noble friend. With these assurances, I hope that my noble friend will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Byford for staying so late, I believe at the expense of her dog. Be that as it may, I was surprised to be maligned by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who called my amendment a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I was surprised because I admitted that I know of very few people who are affected by this problem. However, I remind the noble Lord of a dictum of my late noble friend Margaret Thatcher, who said:
“We are not in politics to ignore people’s worries. We are in politics to deal with them”.
I fully accept that the Minister believes that the problem has been dealt with and the solution in the Deregulation Act will solve it. I am absolutely convinced it will not, so I was delighted to hear that the Government are prepared to give it a chance of two years and then decide whether I am right or the Minister is right. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I see the Chief Whip hovering and unless he is coming to the Dispatch Box now, I will beg to move that the House do now resume.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I have had discussions in the usual channels, and we are going to be able to make quite a considerable amount of headway very quickly indeed. If noble Lords will bear with me, I said I would make a statement at 7 pm or thereabouts. I am willing to do so, but I know that the next group of amendments to be debated will be brief. I am also assured that the subsequent group will not be moved. There are then two groups of government amendments. I have agreed with those who have tabled the last group of amendments—which we will not reach—that they can be brought back on Report and debated under Committee rules. That is a practical solution, and I hope that noble Lords will agree it is a sensible way forward.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does bringing the amendments back on Report and debating them under Committee rules mean we will have the opportunity to debate those particular amendments on two separate occasions prior to Third Reading? Is that what it means or are we simply absorbing the amendments that are due to be moved into Report? That is not what I understand has been agreed.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry, but I do not think that the noble Lord understands exactly what I am saying. I would be grateful if we would allow business to continue. We do not normally close until 7 pm, and it is not 7 pm.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I have my name on one of the last two amendments and seek clarification from the Government Chief Whip. If it is being proposed that our amendment will take place on a Committee basis on the first day the Bill is dealt with when we return, and that we will then move to Report stage and have a chance at the end of it to re-debate that amendment if we choose to bring it forward at that point, having had the benefit of the Minister’s response, fair enough. But if we are simply saying that when we get to the relevant point in the Bill on Report, Committee rules will apply, I am afraid I cannot personally undertake not to put forward the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I will be very happy if we resolve all these amendments this evening, but it has been suggested that we will not do so because of the pressure on time. It is up to the House to decide how it deals with this matter, but I hope that noble Lords will take my advice. There is very little left to do on this Bill in Committee—please let us continue.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry, but it has now been explained that we will have only one opportunity prior to Third Reading to discuss these particular amendments under the proposal made by the Chief Whip.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, that was my first option because I understood that noble Lords were very keen to go away and not debate the issue. I would be very happy if noble Lords wanted to debate this. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Young, are here, and I am very happy that we should do that. The House has to sit until Royal Assent is given to two Bills that have arrived from the Commons, so there is no question about time—we will be here. It is a question of whether noble Lords wish to deal with the business that is before us.
Lord Campbell-Savours
We sat here until after midnight on Monday. The public outside should know that we sat here until after midnight on Monday and after midnight last night. The Chief Whip now proposes that we should sit here longer than we should sit here. It is all right dealing with this other business, but the fact is that there is not enough time to complete the Bill under normal Committee arrangements. The Government are ramming the Bill through. It is wrong and we object.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I have been a cause of trouble on the Bill, in that I was very keen that we finished exactly at 7 pm. That seems to me now to be ridiculous. Everybody wants to finish at 7 pm. In the last hour we have wasted a quarter of an hour arguing about whether we finish at 7 pm or 7.15 pm. My very strong view is that we should now continue to the end of the Bill, which we will do very shortly.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I think I have moved that the House do now resume. Can I just clarify before I decide whether to press that to a vote whether we have now heard the Chief Whip’s Statement or whether he intends to make his Statement at the conclusion of the next group? Have we now got a procedure for going forward or has he now amended it?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I urge the noble Lord not to press his proposal that the House do now resume so that the Committee can continue with the business on which it has embarked and on which it is determined. I am very pleased to have the support of my noble friend Lord Newby. I believe that I have the support of the majority of the Members of the Committee. Therefore, my view is that we should do our business.
Clause 183: Engagement with public authorities in relation to proposals to dispose of land
Amendment 105
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 105 I will speak very briefly to Amendments 106 to 118. I am very grateful that so many Conservative Peers have come in to hear what I have to say. I am afraid that I will disappoint them because I will be extremely brief. I have had what I hope was a very helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, from the Cabinet Office, who is making his first attendance at this Committee. Why he has waited for nine Committee days to come to experience it, he must now be wondering.
I was going to explain all these amendments rather more fully. Clearly, that is neither necessary nor desired at this moment. Very briefly, the amendments would, in summary, give the Mayor of London and the mayors of combined authorities—that is very important—the right of first refusal on surplus public sector land that comes up for sale in their area. They would give the Mayor of London and the combined authorities further power to direct public bodies in their area on the disposal of surplus public sector land. They would include the Greater London Authority as a public authority in Clause 183, ensuring that Ministers must engage with the Mayor of London on the disposal of their interest in any land in the capital. They would allow for regulations to be issued to ensure that other public bodies looking to dispose of their interest in land in London must engage with the mayor and allow the mayor to issue guidance around the engagement. Finally, they would allow for regulations to ensure that reports on surplus land holdings by public bodies can be provided to the Mayor of London and mayors of combined authorities with land commissions.
As I said just now, I had a very helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I am delighted to see that he is here and has sat patiently through the last hour of our proceedings. I now wait to hear, briefly, that he accepts my amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Valentine (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Making better use of surplus public land represents one of the best and quickest ways of getting homes built and thus meeting the Government’s targets.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will be surprised at this, but I support his amendment. If you believe in the concept of a strong mayor—whether a strong Mayor of London or a strong mayor in combined authorities—what is proposed in these amendments is absolutely right. If you believe in a localist agenda, which I understand that the Government purport to do, this is the right approach. This should be how decisions about surplus land should be made.
On the basis of the comments I have made during the course of today’s Committee, it is important that there is the opportunity for people to make places. The people best placed to do that in this instance will be the mayors; the Mayor of London and the mayors of combined authorities. This is an opportunity. If it is the case—and I believe that my interventions in the last hour perhaps helped facilitate the discussions that may have led to an agreement—that the Government are going to accept the principles behind this, then I, for one, will be delighted.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, I, too, will try to be relatively brief. It is very good to be here at last; good things come to those who wait. The noble Lord has just raised some important points about these amendments. Let me turn directly to Clause 183, which requires Ministers of the Crown, in developing proposals for the disposal of their interests in land, to engage on an ongoing basis with each local authority in whose area the land is situated and other public authorities specified in regulations.
Clause 183 was inspired by local authorities which have experienced varying levels of engagement from central government, ranging from excellent to none at all. The aim is to ensure consistency in the way the Government engage with them. Amendments 105 to 109 would undo that common approach by making separate provision for the way authorities in London engage with each other. Amendment 108 could create particular confusion by requiring authorities in London to have regard to two sets of guidance, one published by the Secretary of State and the other by the mayor.
Turning briefly to Amendment 106, Clause 183 provides for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to issue statutory guidance on how the duty to engage is to be complied with. The clause is framed in this way to allow for flexibility. The duty to engage is new and we want to be able to monitor how it works in practice so that the detailed requirements can be fine-tuned if necessary. However, I agree that the regulations and guidance will need to take account of the role of the mayor in London. The mayor has a fundamental role in housing, planning and regeneration in London and has wide powers to acquire land, including by compulsion, and to develop or dispose of land as appropriate to a given scheme. Noble Lords will know much about that.
In view of that important role, I can reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we will specify the Mayor of London in regulations made under this clause, so that Ministers and public bodies, when developing proposals for the disposal of land in London, will need to engage with the Mayor of London.
Clause 184 is a transparency measure. It aims to incentivise bodies to release land in a timely manner, and where they have good reasons for not doing so, ensures that these are made transparent. Reports are not intended to be provided to a particular body, but made available publicly so that bodies can be held to account in respect of their use of surplus land. Reports will be readily accessible by the Mayor of London and there is no need for the express provision sought by Amendment 110. However, it will be important to ensure that the mayor is made aware of any reports under Clause 184 which include land in London. We will therefore undertake to consult the mayor when drawing up regulations under subsection (9) to ensure that the mayor’s views on how they should be published are taken into account.
Turning to mayoral combined authorities, I am unconvinced that the amendment would be helpful, as it would add to bureaucracy and reduce efficiency by requiring authorities to provide information to the mayoral combined authority or requiring the mayoral combined authority to request information from local authorities in its area. Individual local authorities will take decisions as to which land is surplus and will have this information readily to hand. Requiring individual authorities to report is the simplest and most straightforward approach.
Amendments 112 and 113 would insert two new, almost identical clauses which would prevent a relevant public body from disposing of any surplus land without first giving a mayoral combined authority, or the Mayor of London respectively, the right of first refusal to acquire that property, either at best consideration or at a sum that is less than best consideration by consent of the Secretary of State. Here, I point out that the mayor already has significant powers in relation to land. The mayor can acquire land, including compulsorily with the consent of the Secretary of State, and can develop and dispose of land and property. Where large, strategic opportunities arise, the mayor is empowered to designate a mayoral development area, which then triggers the establishment of a mayoral development corporation. For smaller opportunities, the London Land Commission has been established to play a strategic role in brokering agreements between land-owning bodies and government departments to facilitate development.
I am concerned that the amendments would add time and complexity to the disposal process without guaranteeing the best disposal routes. While there will be instances in which the mayoral combined authority or Mayor of London will be an appropriate disposal route for sites, they will not always be so. Schemes such as large urban extensions or garden cities require authorities to work with a number of developers and other partners, often over a number of years. In such instances it would not be appropriate for authorities to offer land to a mayoral combined authority or the Mayor of London, or for the mayoral combined authority or Mayor of London to dictate what the disposal route should be. Moreover, the proposed process would add considerable time and complexity to the disposal process.
Amendments 114 and 115 would amend Clause 185 to devolve the power to order disposal to the Mayor of London for relevant public authorities in Greater London. The bodies to which the power applies are not limited to local authorities but include a range of authorities with public functions, which span the whole country. How authorities with a national focus use their land must be judged in the wider context, taking account of their strategic need for land now and in the future. It would be inappropriate for the Mayor of London, with functions concentrated within the boundaries of Greater London, to make a judgment on whether a given piece of land within London is surplus to requirements. Devolving the power could risk undermining the ability of such bodies to carry out their functions properly. Government Ministers have the strategic overview necessary to identify where local directions to dispose of land may have a broader impact nationally.
Finally, Clause 183 already provides for regulations to be made setting out how relevant public authorities should engage with other relevant public authorities when taking forward plans to dispose of land. Clause 184 would require authorities to publish details of land that has been declared surplus for two years or more, or six months in the case of residential land. The Government are also consulting on updating the transparency code to require local authorities to record details of their land and property assets on the Government’s electronic property information management system. Given these new measures, which will improve engagement and increase transparency, it is unclear what Amendments 117 and 118 would add.
I hope I have dealt in some detail with some of the points raised by the noble Lord and noble Baroness, that I have been able to give some reassurance in the area in which it was sought, and that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, decides whether or not to withdraw his amendment, can we have a little more clarity as to why the Government believe that Amendments 112 and 113 would add significantly to the time taken to dispose of assets? This is simply giving the Mayor of London or the mayor of a combined authority an opportunity to consider whether to acquire or to refuse to acquire, whereas the route that the Minister described required the creation of a mayoral development corporation. That seems to be a much longer, more drawn-out process than the one in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I would be happy to discuss this with the noble Lord privately to explain our views. We believe it would add unnecessary bureaucracy, time and complexity, but I am happy to discuss this further with him.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, for coming in to demonstrate her support and having to do that so very briefly under these circumstances. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for his support. It is not quite as unusual as he seemed to think. There have been many occasions over the years when that has happened. I also thank him for raising the point he did just now. Finally, my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord True, sent me the message very clearly although very briefly, and I take his point.
This is clearly not the time to pursue this further. It is clearly not the time to test the opinion of the House. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. In doing so, I ask the Minister, if he is to have a further meeting, to include those who spoke to this amendment.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
My Lords, before we proceed, I have a question on Amendment 183. I do not intend to delay the House very long. The Corporation of London has a specific problem with Clauses 183 and 184. The Corporation is very much a hybrid body, in that it is both a local authority and a corporation under the corporation Acts. It is unclear, in these clauses, whether it is covered in its private capacity as well as in its public capacity. I would like reassurance that that will be covered in the regulations.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I sense that an answer is winging its way to me. I am aware of these concerns, and we will specify its functions as a local authority. I will meet the noble Lord to discuss this issue, but we are very alert to it and will address it.
Lord Bridges of Headley
( ) a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975), or”
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I beg to move this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Williams. This is a minor technical government amendment. It corrects the drafting of Clause 184 to give proper effect to the intention that the duty on a Minister of the Crown to report on his or her surplus land holdings should apply to all their surplus land, regardless of whether it lies in England, Wales or Scotland.
The current drafting of Clause 184 does not achieve this in respect of Scotland, as a result of the interaction of this clause and paragraph 3 of Part III of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act. An example of the sort of land that should be covered by the duty to engage is the former Army headquarters site at Craigiehall near Edinburgh, which the Ministry of Defence announced in January was being released for new homes. The intention was, and is, to cover all reserved matters that are the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown. This amendment achieves that aim. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I propose to make a minor change to Clause 192, through Amendments 118A and 118B, to enable the power to make regulations in Clause 137 on registers of land to come into force on Royal Assent, rather than two months after Royal Assent. This is a technical amendment that does not alter Clause 137 itself. It means that the power to make implementing regulations could be used sooner after Royal Assent, but the regulations themselves will not come into force until at least two months after Royal Assent. There is no question of local authorities being taken by surprise or being rushed as a consequence of these amendments.
The requirement to hold a register of brownfield sites suitable for housing is linked to our commitment to require local authorities to have registers of what is available, and to ensure that 90% of brownfield sites suitable for housing have planning permission in place by 2020. It makes sense for local authorities to have the tools in place to help them meet this deadline as soon as practicable, and to help them get their registers in place. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
I think that 70 local authorities are taking part in the pilot scheme. I should declare that one of them is my local authority. Will these regulations apply to that pilot scheme, once they come in, or is that separate?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the regulations will apply to the pilot schemes.
Baroness Parminter
(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations appointing the days on which any provision of Part 1 or Part 6 of this Act comes into force unless he or she has first made provision bringing into force section 32 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (sustainable drainage).”
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful that we have the opportunity to discuss these amendments this evening. While my name is to both of them, I shall speak only to Amendment 119.
The Government have rightly launched a national flood resilience review, which is due to report in the summer, but that review will come too late if the Bill paves the way for 1 million new homes without due regard for their flood resilience. New homes increase flood risks for developments and for surrounding communities. Concreting over a catchment speeds up run-off, increasing the likelihood of flooding. After the 2007 floods, the flooding review by Sir Michael Pitt recommended sustainable drainage as a way forward, which moved the Government to bring forward the Flood and Water Management Act. It was suggested in the Act that there should be further use of SuDS, with soakaways such as swales, ponds and other natural means to ensure that sewer networks were not overwhelmed during periods of heavy rainfall. We all know that well-designed SuDS can contribute to water quality, to coping with overheating and to biodiversity. But this Government delayed implementation and then abandoned that approach altogether, in favour of an “expectation” that major planning applications would include SuDS.
This was not because of the costs. Defra recognised, in its own consultation document, that,
“sustainable drainage systems are generally cheaper to build; and maintaining them will be cheaper (or need be no more expensive), than the … cost … required”,
in conventional drainage. The result of this expectation that the SuDS approach would work is that last year Barratt Homes, the UK’s leading housebuilder, included no provision whatever for sustainable drainage in a third of its developments. The Committee on Climate Change has analysed 100 planning applications in areas of flood risks and found that fewer than 15% proposed SuDS. If the Government wish to challenge that evidence, what monitoring are they doing at a national level of the uptake of SuDS?
The National Policy for the Built Environment Committee of the House of Lords, on which I and other noble Lords sat, has looked at this issue. In its report last month, it argued that the Government should take a more proactive approach to the provision of SuDS. In legislating to provide for new homes, we must seek to contain the time to plan for them—absolutely. But we need a process ensuring that new homes are built to a standard that will protect them from flood risks and not exacerbate risks for established communities. I shall not list the many organisations which have written to the Minister in support of this amendment, because we do not have time. I will merely beg to move and hope that other Members might pick up some of the points that I know need to be raised.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this because the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has made most of the points that I would want to make. My name is also on Amendment 119 and I would like to go on to refer to Amendment 120, on which my name comes first. But to add briefly to what the noble Baroness has said, the real problem is that developers still have the automatic right to connect to the existing sewerage system. We know from estimates that more than half the existing sewers are already overloaded. While developers have the automatic right to connect, they are not incentivised to look at other ways of managing surface water flooding. Furthermore, when SuDS are installed, there is no clarity in the current regime about who should pay for the maintenance once they have been built. In any case, the current guidance applies only to developments of 10 homes or more, so small urban infill developments which could be creating some of the biggest long-term problems are not covered. Around 100,000 minor planning applications are approved each year which are not subject to the new safeguards.
So the aim of this amendment is to ensure that SuDS are the default option in new developments and to help achieve this by removing the automatic right to connect to existing sewerage systems. Connecting new developments to existing sewers should be the absolute exception, once other options have been exhausted.
I turn to Amendment 120 on developer liability. This amendment focuses on the long-term costs for society arising from continuing development in the flood plain and presents a simple, workable proposal to address the current lack of incentive for developers to make new properties safe and resilient to flooding. We know that, at the moment, more than 100,000 homes have been built in the flood plain since 2008—28,000 of these in areas at a greater than one-in-100 annual chance of flooding, taking into account the protection provided by any flood defences. The consequences are that, in the long run, owners of new homes are being exposed to unnecessary flooding risk.
A one-in-100-year chance sounds very small. We have to remember that this is the chance of flooding in a particular place. If there are 100 such places, then there is the likelihood that someone will get flooded every single year. In fact, in this century, we have already had 12 significant flood events in 15 years. If we carry on as at present, we can more or less guarantee that someone, somewhere, is going to suffer the trauma of flood damage each year.
Data are not collected on whether or not new homes that are built in flood plains are made resilient. I declare an interest as the chairman of the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change As has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, our data suggest that fewer than 15% of new homes have been built with sustainable urban drainage systems.
Are we putting too much faith in flood defences to protect new developments, when they are typically built to a one-in-100-year standard? There is evidence that developers and planners are taking what might be called a compliance approach to flood risk— following the process but putting too much faith in limited protection from flood defences and not taking into account the uncertainty in even the best flood models.
A recent example, of which I am sure noble Lords are well aware, is Bridge End Court, a residential care home and sheltered development in Cockermouth. It was built in the meander of the River Derwent, on land that had flooded badly in 2009, on the very edge of a flood zone 3, where it would not have been deemed appropriate development. After the 2009 flood, the local authority had the chance to require the development to go elsewhere but it allowed it to go ahead in the same place. In spite of the ground floor supposedly being set above the height of even a one-in-1,000-year flood, the care home was flooded in December and the residents had to be rescued.
What constitutes a one-in-1,000 standard is highly uncertain. This is where developers come in. Developers are required to produce a flood risk assessment for a site, but they bear no liability if they take risks or simply get it wrong. The assumptions in the flood models that underpin a flood risk assessment can be selected either to increase the assessment of flood risk or to make it appear lower than reality. I should emphasise that I have seen no evidence that developers are manipulating flood risk assessments but, in principle, they could.
It is worth noting some Environment Agency figures. The Environment Agency has to be consulted on developments and it objects to about 3,000 applications per year on grounds of flood risk. In a sample of nearly 1,700 objections between 2009 and 2013, 20% of those objections were because the developer had produced no flood risk assessment whatever and 54% of them were objected to because the flood risk assessment was unsatisfactory. Among the reasons they were unsatisfactory were that they did not take into account future sea level rise, future increases in river flows or future increases in surface water flooding.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that noble Lords are dying for me to shut up, because I am probably all that is between them and going home. But I think that this is an important issue—and it is important for two reasons. I rise to promote Amendment 119 in my name and support Amendment 120, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. There are 4 million people at risk of surface water flooding and climate change, and increasing urbanisation will make that worse, so it is a really important issue. More important is the fact that this Parliament agreed the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which included provisions for sustainable drainage—but the relevant sections have not been commenced. I am very ambiguous about the Government’s habit of not bringing into being the will of Parliament. Instead, they have decided to rely on planning measures through the NPPF and have provided two pages of non-technical standards to guide developers.
The presumption in planning that sustainable urban drainage should be included in new developments is not working. It has created uncertainty for developers and created a diversity of interpretation of what is acceptable. Planning authorities—poor souls—are leaned on to ignore it if developers suggest that the costs of providing sustainable urban drainage affect the viability of the development. Local planners at the moment have neither the expertise nor the time, and cave in under these viability challenges.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, the planning rules include no structure for formal adoption or long-term maintenance of sustainable urban drainage schemes, which has been a problem for years, with schemes being created and then left orphaned with nobody to look after them and make sure that they continue to be safe and effective. Of course, it is not just about sustainable drainage and flood protection. There are also potential additional benefits of amenity, water quality and biodiversity that have not been garnered.
I had the privilege of talking briefly to the Minister about this and she indicated that the Government’s intention was at least to run the scheme on the planning presumption basis for two years while it was monitored. My further inquiries since meeting her have revealed that no body has been charged with keeping these records—so I am not clear that the Government will be able to say at the end of the two-year period that the scheme is or is not working.
So far, the evidence we have been able to glean from people such as members of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management—of which I should declare that I am an honorary fellow—is that the situation is now worse since local flood authorities took over responsibility for surface water drainage. Noble Lords have heard the figures from the adaptation sub-committee and the quotation from Barratt Developments that about one-third of its developments do not include sustainable drainage.
We appear to be fiddling while Rome burns in anticipation that at the end of two years, we will be better informed, when in fact the figures will not be available to demonstrate whether it is working. We should press for the implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act. That would fulfil Parliament’s will, cost no more than conventionally engineered drainage systems, help reduce flood risks and the costs of flooding, provide improvements in water quality, biodiversity and amenity and give developers a degree of certainty.
In the interest of brevity the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said she would not list the diverse range of expert bodies. I will list but a few of them: the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, the Construction Industry Council and a few others—I have forgotten what the acronyms stand for, so I shall not bore noble Lords with them. We should re-enact your Lordships’ previous support for this provision, which is enshrined in legislation.
I support the interesting Amendment 120, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. When I first read it and was asked to support it, I was slightly wary because it seemed to be a bit bonkers. But, having thought about it and having read it in detail, I think it is one of the more cunning pieces of win-win, incentive-based legislation I have seen for many a long year, in that it would mean that developers would have to think harder about developing more flood-resistant properties and about developing on less flood-prone sites in a way that would not require any cost from them provided they did it well. That is what a good amendment looks like, and I commend it to the Government.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, and I rise to support these two amendments. They are both based upon advice given to the Government by the Committee on Climate Change. We are talking about a very serious issue. Tens of thousands of houses have been built on flood plains and in circumstances which are more vulnerable than Cockermouth. This is serious. If we go on like this, we will be creating problems which we will have to meet. We cannot avoid it. This is going to happen. Not to do in this Bill what we can do is to avoid an opportunity, to the detriment of very large numbers of people.
The Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change told the Government that there are a number of simple things that should be done that could help protect us in future. For example, water companies are not at the moment compulsory consultees to planning decisions, which means that they are in the very peculiar position of neither being able to comment under the statute on a planning decision, nor being able to refuse to connect the houses then built to an inadequate sewer. We have to put this right. When the committee suggested this to the Government, their official reply was that it would be inappropriate to do this. The word “inappropriate” may have been the right word before the floods in Cumbria, but to suggest that it is inappropriate to do this is stretching the English language beyond any possible appropriate use.
My noble friend may be unable to accept these two amendments at the moment, but it seems to me that it would be pretty impossible to explain to the public that we are prepared to continue with a position in which houses are being built without proper and adequate means of getting rid of the surplus water that they create, and without proper protection of the surplus water that is created outside. These amendments make sure that we have modern, sustainable drainage in a form which this House and the other House have already agreed, and which the Government support. Secondly, they ensure that developers have a duty to develop in a way that makes houses resilient to the normal circumstances of life.
I can think of no more moderate or reasonable amendments to put down, and I remind the Minister that they are based upon the advice of the body that spent a great deal of time researching independently what should be done. Therefore, if she is not able to accept them now, I hope she can give us some hope that between now and Report, the Government will take this opportunity to do two very simple things which will save maybe the lives—and certainly the property and the future—of a large number of people.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I support strongly Amendments 119 and 120, which are important. Before turning to them, I point out that today, we have truncated the last nine groups of amendments to suit the Government’s timetable agenda. Some of us had to concede that because we wanted to ensure that we had two opportunities to debate these amendments, in Committee and on Report; under the proposal made by the Patronage Secretary, that was not precisely the case.
For those Members of the House who have not been following our proceedings and have wondered what was happening this evening—and there will be those who have not—the central issue in this whole Bill has been the fact that it is a skeleton Bill. We have not been able to discuss all the controversial provisions because they are to be introduced later, after Royal Assent, in the form of statutory instruments which we cannot amend. That is the fundamental objection here. That is why all these arguments have taken place.
Amendment 120 would offer at least some security for prospective purchasers of housing. In the event of flooding, at least on the first occasion, the cost of dealing with a property that had been flooded would fall on the developer, not the insurer. Of course, the amendment does not deal with what subsequently happens, when the insurer would carry the liability; but under it, a developer would have to have in mind the potential cost to themselves of failing to design the property they were constructing to deal with the potential for flooding.
I hope this amendment will be enshrined in law, because it seems to me eminently sensible. It contains the phrase:
“the housing developer to be liable for the full cost of flood damage to a new dwelling if such damage occurs within ten years of the property being first sold”.
Of course, the developer can go bankrupt—and then where is the liability? Who then is responsible for paying the bill? In the event that this were enshrined in law, provision would surely have to be made for the developer to buy insurance to cover the possibility of flooding happening at some stage. I presume that the credit rating of the developer would influence the amount of premium payable on the insurance policy.
The Earl of Liverpool (Con)
My Lords, I will speak—with the greatest brevity—in support of these amendments. My only reason for doing so is that I raised this matter at Second Reading. For those who are prepared to read my views—although I do not expect that many of your Lordships will—they are at cols. 1222-23. I very much hope that the Government will look with sympathy on this amendment because it is of great importance to ongoing developments that we address this very serious problem, which causes a lot of suffering to millions of people. Sorting out the flooding that took place last year cost between £1.2 billion and £2.2 billion. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to endorse the comments made by noble Lords from around the Committee on these amendments. The recent floods brought into sharp focus that the damaging effects of climate change are not being matched by our skills in managing increased water flows. Both the Government, through their establishment of the national flood resilience review, and the Environment Agency are being forced to reconsider their flood management strategies.
In the mean time, there are steps that we can take that will make a difference, and we have heard examples this evening. It is now commonly accepted that the removal of trees and hedges has reduced the absorbency of our land. In urban areas, the paving over of gardens and green spaces has left nowhere for excess water to drain. The building of new dwellings connected to the existing sewerage system takes no account of the need for increased capacity. At the same time, it remains literally incredible that housing developers apply to build new homes in areas designated as a flood risk by the Environment Agency, and even more incredible that some local authorities continue to grant planning permission in these circumstances.
So we very much support the concept of sustainable housing development, and these amendments are important in bringing some sanity back into the planning process in this regard. Sustainable drainage systems need to be a core feature of future planning, using green space and natural water features that can mimic the known advantages of natural land drainage and help return water flows to a natural equilibrium.
Whether these principles should be applied cannot be left to local interpretation. Sadly, what we have learned over the past few winters is that inaction in one place can often have a catastrophic effect further downstream, so localised decision-making is not the answer. The rules have to be applied consistently, and this, of course, is what Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act attempted to achieve. It remains inexplicable that the schedule was not enforced in the first place; I hope that the Minister will be able to explain the reasoning behind that. Now is the time to put that matter right.
Amendment 120 is an excellent attempt, once again, to try to rein in the perverse activity of developers building homes on designated flood areas. When this happens and properties subsequently flood, we are all drawn into the net of supporting those communities and helping them turn their lives around, whereas the developers can simply walk away, having pocketed their profit. They do not even have a responsibility to warn potential purchasers of the risk inherent in the purchase of those properties.
This amendment, therefore, puts the responsibility and the financial risk firmly back in the hands of the developers, which is where it belongs. It will hopefully be a tool to encourage more responsible and appropriate housing development in the future. A number of comments have been made this evening on the technicalities of that amendment, and I know that some more work will need to be done on it, but we very much support the thinking behind it.
Lord Porter of Spalding
My Lords, I do not know how to add this new interest into the debate, but at some point, I will have another company set up that will put me back into doing small-scale development with my son-in-law. The accountants are working on it now, and I am going to put this in the register as soon as it is done, but noble Lords need to know it now, because I am going to speak specifically from a developer’s point of view—even though, technically, I am not yet a developer. I am also going to speak as the leader of South Holland District Council, which covers an area that, if we were not allowed to build on flood plains, would become a ghost town, because we are on a flood plain. We would build nothing anywhere in my patch if we followed the idea that, notionally, the designation of a flood plain by the Environment Agency was true and accurate.
We have not flooded since 1947; adequate flood management schemes can deal with it. Amendment 120 would create companies set up to build one development that would then go bankrupt—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, on that basis we would have to insure against that, so that would add more expense in some areas disproportionately to others.
If I remember rightly, where we are sitting now is also on a flood plain, so all of the people around this area would also be moved out of town if we applied that. We cannot be frightened by water; we have to manage it properly. We cannot retreat from it. We are people and we can deal with it, and we cannot deal with it just by saying, “You can’t build anything anywhere”, which Amendment 120 would have us do; or create perverse incentives to get people to set up businesses that are going to go out of business every time they earn some money.
Lord Krebs
My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly to that last comment. I do not think that Amendment 120 in any sense precludes building on a flood plain. It simply asks—and provides a possible answer—to the question of who should bear the liability if somebody buys a house that has just been built in a flood-risk area and that house floods. While it might be true that, in the noble Lord’s particular area, there has not been a flood since 1947, that does not mean to say that there will not be a flood next year. The people who bought homes that were built recently in those areas should have some form of protection. That is what the amendment is trying to provide.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I shall deal first with some of the latter remarks. Following December’s floods, it was clear that the rules that we thought applied did not apply, and that what we thought were blip events were becoming trend events. Therefore, there were lessons to be learned from both last year’s floods and the previous one-off-event floods. Following the December events, we established the National Flood Resilience Review, led by Oliver Letwin, to assess how the country could be better protected from future flooding and increasingly extreme weather events. This review will identify any gaps in our approach and pinpoint where our defences and modelling need strengthening, allowing us to take prompt action.
I understand the intention behind Amendments 119 and 120, but Amendment 119 seeks to place unnecessary provisions into the Bill, as national planning policy has already been strengthened to deliver sustainable drainage systems, and there would be problems with implementing the second proposal.
On Amendment 119, following enactment of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, proposals to implement the provisions under Section 32 and Schedule 3 were put out to public consultation. The response to that consultation gave rise to a number of issues. These included the potential impact on the delivery of new development under a system that required the approval of sustainable drainage systems under a consenting regime separate from that for approving planning applications. There were concerns that this could add undue delay to the consenting process and impact on the speed of planning decisions.
The coalition Government listened to that response and in the autumn of 2014 put forward for consultation a new proposal to make better use of the existing planning system to deliver sustainable drainage systems, otherwise known as SuDS. In the light of the response to that consultation and a subsequent government announcement in December 2014, national planning policy was strengthened with effect from April 2015. The strengthened policy makes clear the expectation that SuDS will be provided in all major new developments, such as developments of 10 dwellings or more, unless demonstrated to be inappropriate, and it ensures that clear arrangements are in place for ongoing maintenance over the lifetime of the development.
This strengthened policy applies alongside the existing policy expectation that SuDS will be given priority in new developments in flood-risk areas, as well as the drainage requirements of building regulations. Despite the strengthened planning policy, the amendment would require provisions for a new consenting regime for sustainable drainage systems to be brought into effect before important provisions in the Bill could come into force.
We need to give these new arrangements time to show that they can work effectively. We are meeting key stakeholders to gauge their views on how the changes are bedding in, and we will undertake similar reviews at intervals in the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked where the reviewing process had got to. As I said, we have taken the views of key stakeholders and we intend to have a more in-depth review in a year’s time, which will be two years post change.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
Can I prevail upon the noble Baroness to write to us indicating which stakeholders she has taken views from? The evidence that we appear to be getting from stakeholders is that it is not working.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will certainly do that. We would also welcome suggestions from the Adaptation Sub-Committee based on its ongoing evidence gathering, as that would obviously help to build up a fuller picture.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am not being unreasonable in asking this but have Ministers fully considered the effect that the cuts in local authorities’ budgets are having on their ability to clear culverts? As they cut back on that clearing programme, they aggravate the problem. Particularly in terms of starter homes, we are now dealing with the more vulnerable buyers—the people who are buying discounted properties and cannot afford to take that risk. I wonder whether Ministers have thought through the consequences of local authorities being starved of cash.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it depends where the culverts are. Clearly some are on private land and some are on public land. Local authorities will expect private developers to clear areas, particularly when assessing flood risk. So, depending on the circumstances, there are various obligations on various stakeholders to undertake some of these matters. However, the noble Lord raises an important point.
Amendment 120 covers any development located anywhere—even in areas where, for example, flood risk had not been identified. The housebuilder would be liable even where floods could not be foreseen. The amendment does not differentiate between causes of floods, so if flood defences were overwhelmed, the housebuilder would be liable. It requires the full costs to be covered, even for those for which the householder’s domestic insurance would provide cover, which I am afraid is a fertile area for dispute between developer, insurer and the housebuilder. It would also cause potential confusion with existing warranty schemes for new homes. However, I take the noble Baroness’s point that development should not add to flood risk and I would like to describe the Government’s approach to that important matter.
Flood risk is an important consideration in the planning system and there are already strong policy safeguards in place. The national planning policy is designed to ensure that if there are better sites in terms of avoiding flood risk or if a proposed development cannot be made safe from flooding, it should not be permitted. Local planning authorities are expected to steer new development to areas at least risk of flooding wherever possible. They should apply this approach through their local plan and in planning decisions take advice from people such as the Environment Agency and other flood risk management authorities, which might include the water authorities.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
I am sorry to prolong the sitting but I should declare an interest as a former chief executive of the Environment Agency. The point of sustainable drainage systems is not necessarily about the location of development, which the sequential test that the Minister has just described attempts to deal with, but about the fact that increasingly with climate change we are seeing much heavier downpours of rain in rather random places that fill the drains up and flood no matter where you are. I have a house on top of a hill. Two Wednesdays ago a lake that had not been there for 50 years appeared as a result of torrential downpours of rain in Northamptonshire. It is that sort of situation we are looking for protection against in sustainable drainage systems. That can happen virtually anywhere. Were the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, in his place, he would testify to the fact that in the big flood of 2007, Sheffield did not flood as a result of the river but as a result of the drainage system. Protection against that is what we are looking for in the sustainable urban drainage package.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I completely take the noble Baroness’s point, but I reiterate our point that local planning authorities are expected to steer new development to areas at least risk of flooding. That is not to say that we will not have one-off events. Nowhere is safe from that sort of one-off event.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord, Lord Porter, sitting immediately behind the Minister, brought us into the world of reality. He told us that they will carry on building. That is what he said. So how does the Minister deal with that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
If I have interpreted my noble friend’s words correctly, he tells us that he lives in an area that is quite low lying. We are sitting in an area that is in a flood plain, so it is not at all unusual for areas of high flood risk to be built upon, albeit that London has been built upon for the past 200 or 300 years. Going back to my original statement, the review by Oliver Letwin going forward and the total way in which we approach water management must take on a new meaning. That is not to take away from the noble Lord’s point. I think that my noble friend was making an entirely different point, which is that in some places we build on flood plains.
Where development is necessary in a flood risk area, it must be made safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and be appropriately flood resilient and resistant. We have recently seen examples of where building in one place has increased flood risk elsewhere. Where appropriate, developers need to identify through a site-specific flood risk assessment all the flood risks to and from the development. This should accompany the planning application to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. Our planning guidance, which supports the NPPF, is very clear that all local planning authorities are expected to follow the strict tests set in the framework to protect people and property from flooding.
Lord Deben
Can my noble friend explain why the Government are not willing at this stage at least to say they will look into the unanimous advice that the Minister has had to insist that it is no longer compulsory that the water authority should link up to the local sewerage system just because a development has been put up? The developer should be responsible for making a connection that is not damaging. Why can we not make such a simple and necessary change to the law?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, my noble friend brings up a really important point, but some of these things will be discussed in the round as we consider how we manage flooding in future. I am sorry—I have lost my train of thought. I wonder whether it is the lateness of the hour. The work of my noble friend’s committee will be invaluable to that thinking.
I come back to the issue of flood resilient construction. Currently, building regulations do not require building work to incorporate any flood-resilience or flood-resistance measures. This is because local authorities can already ensure through plans that measures to address flood risk are incorporated into new development where appropriate. Nevertheless, approved document C of the statutory guidance which supports the buildings regulations promotes the use of flood-resilient and resistant construction.
We recognise the importance of the issue and have asked the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, the statutory committee which advises Ministers on building regulations matters, for its advice on this. I know that the committee has been considering the issues, and we expect to receive its advice shortly.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Baroness said “shortly”. Is there any chance of it before Report?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not think I can give that assurance, but I shall certainly try to put a timescale on it before Report, if that suits the noble Lord.
I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment, but I also hope that the Committee will indulge me; I know everyone is anxious to get away. We have spoken about how planning applications for housing can often take an extraordinary time to complete. After some very long nights in this Chamber, I believe people are beginning to say the same thing about planning Bills. I pay tribute to everyone who has spoken in debates today and through the whole course of the Bill so far. The expertise which noble Lords have displayed has greatly enhanced consideration of the Bill, as well as my thinking about how we can improve its implementation.
I know that many noble Lords will not believe me when I say this, but I look forward to continuing the debate on Report. Although we will continue to disagree on some issues, we will, I hope, move closer to agreement on others. Over the Recess, therefore, I shall be tabling a number of government amendments which will take into account some of the points that noble Lords have raised. Given the hour, I will write to noble Lords with further details shortly—and I mean shortly.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is not here—oh no, there he is in the corner. I have also written to the DPRRC, responding to its 20th and 21st reports and have placed a copy of that letter in the Printed Paper Office, as noble Lords requested. I am happy to be making a number of positive changes. I will not detail every point here now, because I fear that noble Lords have heard enough from me, but I hope that my response will be helpful.
One final Easter present to you, my Lords, before we rise: within the past couple of hours, we have launched our consultation on starter homes. During Committee, noble Lords from across the House raised a number of questions about the implementation of the starter homes programme. I heard their concerns, and in response we have decided to consult on a number of proposals. We will spend the next eight weeks actively engaging with the housing industry and local government, and I am happy to ask my officials to brief any noble Lord who wants to know more. I have written to noble Lords with further detail and, again, asked my officials to place the consultation in the Printed Paper Office and the House of Lords Library.
That is it for now. I thank your Lordships again for the depth in which we have scrutinised the Bill and wish you a very happy Easter.
Baroness Parminter
Briefly, I thank the Minister for her recognition that the issue of sustainable homes is serious. I have two quick points. The Government’s defence for not accepting the amendments seems to be that they want to ensure that the new arrangements have time to bed in. I am grateful that they are offering us more information about the stakeholder meetings. I am sure the Committee will agree that stakeholder meetings bear no comparison to national monitoring of the situation, both of the number and quality of SuDS. The evidence we have seen from major housebuilders and the adaptation sub-committee shows that this is not working.
Secondly, I am grateful to the Government for confirming that costs are not stopping them moving on this issue, it is the issue, as they put it, of undue delay. My argument would be that one extra stage in the process of planning is worth the price that will be accruing to the benefit of home owners, the wider community and the environment from the introduction of SuDS. On that basis, I will go away with colleagues and consider the response. I thank colleagues around the Committee who have joined in promoting this cause. We may well wish to return to it on Report.
High Speed Rail (London—West Midlands) Bill
Scotland Bill
UK Convergence Programme
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House approves, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.
Motion agreed.